HomeMy WebLinkAboutPrevious Land Owner_Schwartz-AffidavitAFFIDAVIT
The purpose of this document is to state our past intentions for Parcel No. 16-09-25-08-
01-010.000 ("Parcel") in the Five Ten Subdivision at 510 1st Ave NW in the City of Carmel
("City"), Hamilton County, Indiana.
In 2000, we purchased the Parcel. At that time, the Five Ten Subdivision did not exist,
and the Parcel was part of a larger property that consisted of Parcel No. 16-09-25-08-05-001.000
and Parcel No. 16-09-25-08-05-002.000. As part of the purchase, we inherited a lawsuit from the
City, who had filed suit against the former owner under Eminent Domain for not selling a strip of
land needed to create the Monon Trail. However, we were in favor of the trail. On completing
the purchase, we met with the City attorney to declare our willingness to sell and to request that
the suit be dropped.
During activities related to the sale, a representative from the Planning and Zoning
Commission advised us to subdivide the property because the property's "T" shape could make
certain future approvals difficult. The representative cited getting approval to add on to the
carriage barn as an example. Following the representative's advice, we hired Weihe Engineers
("Weihe") to manage the subdivision process.
At the zoning hearing, neighbors showed up to object to the subdivision with fear of a
full neighborhood or apartments going in. When our turn to speak came, we explained that
although we were required to follow the same subdivision process that developers follow, we
had no plans to develop the back of our property. We said that the subdivision was simply a
formality that we were following on the City's advice. Secondly, we knew that development of
the Parcel would be unlikely because the J. W. Marrow Drain ran through the Parcel and had a
75-foot easement on either side of the drain's centerline. We had no desire to incur the large
Page 1 of 2
expenses that would be associated with moving the drain as would be required for development.
Nevertheless, we wanted to give our neighbors some assurances that the Parcel would not be
developed while we owned it. As Weihe explained to us, the Parcel would be classified as a
"block" and not a "lot." That is, a "lot" could be developed but a "block" could not. The
neighbors withdrew their objections and the subdivision continued through the approval process.
This week, we were informed that, when the Five Ten Subdivision was created in 2001,
there was a stipulation on the Primary Plat that we filed that stated "Improvement Location
Permits are not eligible on these parcels." Our understanding was that this ineligibility was a
convenient side effect of the parcel being established as a "block." We were not aware that the
subdivisions had explicitly made the parcel ineligible for Improvement Location Permits.
Moreover, this week we were informed that "this stipulation was supposed to be put in a
Deed Restriction on the lots; however, that appears to not have been recorded on said Deed."
Weihe never mentioned a Deed Restriction. Again, our intent was (a) not to alter the Deed
beyond what was necessary for the subdivision, (b) not to restrict development of the Parcel and
(c) not to do anything that would be permanent. We had no interest in trying to control what
happened to the property after it was sold in the future.
Further we at all times fully supported the development of the Motion Trail and at no
time did we want to preclude and or prevent others from using the trail. Additionally, we feel
that allowing the property to now be developed with two (2) single-family homes would be a
positive event consistent with the current surrounding areas.
Russell M. Schwartz 4Date Ruth Marie SLhwartz ate
Page 2 of 2