HomeMy WebLinkAboutDept Report 11-20-01
u
o
t'
CARMEL/CLAY PLAN COMMISSION
DEPARTMENT REPORT
November 20, 2001
2i. Docket No. 52-01 PP; 1422 Hazel Dell Pond
Petitioner seeks approval to plat a thirty-six lot subdivision on 23.95::1: acres. The site is
located northwest of East 116th Street and Hazel Dell Parkway. The site is zoned R-2
Residential.
The petitioner also seeks approval of the following Subdivision Waiver:
52-01 SW seo 6.3.7 >600' cul-de-sac
Filed by William E. Wendling, Jr. for Mark Stout Development, Inc
The applicant is proposing to plat a 36-10t subdivision on approximately 24 acres in an R-2 zone.
The subdivision lies along the west side of Hazel Dell Parkway and within an area between the
Lake Forrest and the Brookfield Subdivisions (see attached aerial print).
The Subdivision Committee forwards this item back to the Full Commission with no
recommendation by a vote of 6-0. There was a motion made to forward the plat with a favorable
recommendation which failed by a vote of3-3.
,
Mr. Donald Foley, attorney for several surrounding neighbors for the subject property (proposed
Hazel Dell Pond) submitted a letter dated October 30,2001 for distribution to the Subdivision
Committee members as requested (please see the attached copy). In addition he and others under
his direction spoke at the Subdivision Committee meeting.
It was the opinion of Mr. Foley that the proposed subdivision would create double frontage lots
(through lots) and thus requires approval of a Subdivision Waiver to allow the approval of the
primary plat.
This is not the case based on the application of the Subdivision Control Ordinance by the
Department and also the position of the Commission's attorney supporting the determination of
the Department. The proposed primary plat complies with Section 6.5.3 of the Subdivision
Control Ordinance. The Department will ask Mr. Molitor to address this section of the ordinance
and the letter from Mr. Foley at the meeting.
The Department recommends that the Plan Commission approve the Subdivision Waiver
request relating to SCD 6.3.7 and the Primary Plat application.
____ _I
u'
o
FOLEY & POOL, LLP'
I'
Attorneys and CoUnselors of Law
DONAlD F. FOLEY"
DOUGLAS VI. POOL .
]OHN L sn.w AllT'"
JPNNIFER S. MILLlGAN
GARY]. MEYER,.
GOVEBNMENTAL AFFAIRS LIAISON
OF COUNSEL:
TONYH. ABBOlT
MARY S. tJHLI!R
MARYa. SCHROEDER
PAR.ALIlGAL
, :
. . "Regimred CIvil Med/.ator
October 30, 2001
. VIA HAND DELIVERY
Ron Houc~ Chairman.
. Kent BroachjMadelin,e Fitzgerald,
WayneH~ey, 'Dianna Knoll; .
NotmaMe~ghen,John Sharpe'
Subdivision. ConUnittee . . .
'Carmel/ClaY:Plan COmmiSSiOli. '
.' Cannel Clty.~all '
. . '.one Civic Square . ..,.
CarInel, Indiana 460~2
R~::Do~ket#5~~01~P' ..... .,' .
". Hazel I>.eU Pond Subdivision .
Mark Stout De"'elopm~nt, Inc~'~nd:take Fores.t.and
. Brookfield Subdivisions . '
.De~ Chafrman Houckand Ladies and Gentlemen: .
. Per the.request ~ade at.$e' Octobet 16th 'Plan Conttni~sion in.e~ting',. IPY clients' will'
.' present evid~nce and legal.alitborfties in the @l'~as set fo~ below:." .. , ..
1. Mark Stout Developmep.t is required by law.fo iIle for a waiver or variance
fro~l'Carmel Double Frontage Lot'Ordinance 6.5.3..' . .
. "Double frontage lo~ (~ough: lots) shall not b~ platted, except that
. '. where required along an arterial street, parkway,' or c'ollector;: th~ :
.' principal structure shall' face such thoroughfares. In that eyent it non- .
access easement, at least twenty (20). feet in width, shall be .provided
. along'the front of the. lot." . Emphasis added. '. ,.' .
. .T,he SubdiVision Committee cannot legally ,approve the Hazel Dell Pond' Plat, as
pre~ented, beCause it' places. a roadway parallel' to the. back. yards .of homes in 'ttie '
Brookfield Subdivision; which residences front Springerbrooke'. Run. Neither'
300 MARon CENTE.R.. 342 MASSACHUSETrS AVENUE .IND~APOUS.INDIANA 46204-2132. TEL: (317) 261:0900 : FAX: (317) 261-02bO
Q' 0
,FOLEY & POOL, LLP
Subdivision Committee
CarmeVClay Plan Commission
October 30,2001
;page' 2 'of 5
Springerbrooke Run, nor the proposed Canyon, Creek Run are ,arterial~, parkway or
collector' streets" as required by the Ordinance in order to qualify' for approval of the ,
proposed'Subdivision. .' , ,
, ,
Mark Stout Development Inc. has not made a request for:'such a waiver. Indeed;
if Petitioner should, petition for a waiver from 6.5.3, Iri.diana law does- not support
approval of thepropos~d development. , ' '
,Remonstra.tors will present the' testhbony' of Bradley William Yarger, P.E., a. '
Traffic Engineer; -It is Mr. Yarger's opinion that the proposed SubdiVision development"
violates the Double Frontage Lo.t Ordinance 65.3. ,Additionally such"an approval would
:he in' conflict with Carmel's, policy for R-2 ~ubdivision developniimt, as, set, forth in '
OrdinaIice6.1.3: ' " ' " ' ,
, ' ,
,~'T1ie supdivision 'laYQ~~,shall :be' ~esigned ,in accordance, \Vith, the
'principles and~dards contained ,in this Ordinance with the objective of
-- achieving the most l:ldvantageous development of the subdivision and the'
. adjo'inhtg areas." Emphasis added. " , , , ,
J'he Thoroughfare Plan does', not show Spring~rbrooke Run as ~ ai1:eri~, par~ayor
collector street.
, . ,
2. ',The subdiviSion 'plat sho'(lldbe deiued because there, are several lots included
:witWn the plat which contain l~s$ than the minimum require~ lot width.
Mr. Yarger wiil prisemt' evidence that several lots c(,lntaiIi'le~s',th~ miirim~
widths. " , " '
3. . Petitioner Mark Stout Development has the burden to prove thre.e st~tutory .
prerequisites. ' '
Indiana code 3 6..;1 ~4-91 8.5 'provides the statutory prerequisites for' approval bi a'
waiver' or variance. Petitioner must present evidence. supporting each requirement for a . , '
waiver "such that no'reasollable man could fail to acc~pt thatprerequi~ite as proved." See
Metropolitan Board o/Zoning Appeals v. McDonal~ Corporation, 481 N.E.2d 141, 145
(1985)~ Mark StoUt D~v~lopment has not and cannot meet its ,burden ofpr?of. ' .
However, given the directives of the Commission, Remonstrators will move
forward with evidence affirmatiyely showing that' the' proposed development is contrary
'. ;
00
FOLEY & POOL, LLP
Su~division Com~ittee
CarmeUClay Plan Commission
Octob.er 30, 2001
Page 3 of5,
to law. Th~ statutory prerequisites and Remonstrators' a,dditiorial evidence and authorities
are sUnu:nanzed below; , '
It is incumbent upon'the Commissiolito,make the following findings'iil order for
this Petitio:p. to be 'approved; provided Petitioner has petitioned fqr a waiver from the
Double FrontageLo~ Ordinance.
,(1), ',the approval will not 'be injurious ,to the health, safety,' morals, and
'g~neral welfare ofthe community~ ' ' "
, Double Frontage Lots are ,ag~t the, policy of the City of Carmel. As
noted on October' 16th, Carmel has the policy that "a11~ys sha1I,1;>e discouraged in
',re$idential diStric~',,; ."(63.8) The, impact .of double frontage lots 'is far more
,iDtru~iveand obs1:rq~'tive than'the impact ,Of ~e~s 'in ',a subdivisioR. ' . '
'. Do~ble'F~ontage Lots viohit~ two specific or~ances (6.53 .ahd ,6.3.8) as
well as' the .'general'policY. ordinance (6:13).' The prohibition agairist Double
'Frontage LotS W8$ c.odified' by,the CIty of Carmel di.1.e to the fact, we submit, that "
" .:suchd~velopm~ts'''are "inj~ous~o the public health safety ~,.alid generlil, .welfare '
, of the CommunitY." ". ,.' ' ....' . " .'. " ' " ,',.
,(2)
, '
, '
the use and val~ of th~ area adjacent ~o the property fucluded .in the
. variance will not be affected in a substantially a~verse manner.
. ,
Stephen L. 'Cobb,. ~ M.A.!. appraiser, \vill present evidenceth~(the:'
proposed Double Frontage H~l Dell Pond, Subdivision will resUlt- ~ redUced
market values for the, properties in the area adjacent to the double' frontage
development. .
(3)
the strict application of the tehris or the zoning ordhiance will result
in practicaldifficuInes,in ~he use of the property,. .
Petitioner must present evidence that each statutory prerequisi!e is pr<;>ved '
as a matter of law. Petitioner cannot meet ~s requirement ~-that the strict
"application of the ordinance Will result in practical difficulties -- because
Petitioner had full knowledge of the. local topography and the 'zoning
requirements of the' subject property when it was purchased. Petitioner has been in
the deve~opment business for several years. If the "injuries" or "practical
difficulties" are self-created or self-imposed, the third requirement is not met. See
I ;
\.........
p
o 0
FOLEY & POOL,LLP'
Subdivision Committee
Carmel/Clay Plan Commission '
, ,October 30, 2001
Page 4 of5
, '
, McDonalds, supra. and Reinkirzg v. Metropolztian Board of Zoning Appeals of
Marion.. County, 671 N.E.2d 137 (1996). hi Reinking the MEZA de~ed the
vari~ce because' Petitioner's hardship was a self-imposed bUrden. '. , '
"
, .
A' person vvho agreed to purchase land' with knowledge of the zoning
reqUirements cannot claim und':1e hardship from a ,c6:p.dition he created. The (;ourt,
of ,Appeals in Reinking found that the ,denial. 9f. the variance' yvas ord~r1y, " .
judiCious~ andfundarrienuilly fair. The Appeals Court a:f:(nmed MBZA :on 'the'
gr~UndS that the Petition~r had not met its 'burden to prove the :fu;st statutory.
req~ement." ,
4~
. . .'
..' The' SubdjviSionComnlittee is ,ch,arged'.by'Iaw With interpreting ,the e:dstb,ig
C~rmeI Ordinances in' the', SlJ.llemanner -:~~ana, 'Coul1s" interpret' State
. Statutes.' ' .
. ,,'
.. I . .
., .' The case of Boyle v. 'K~sciUsko,County, 565 N.E~2d 1157 (1991)'provides ~ci'
, : goveIl)lll~nta1 entitles such 'as 'this Subdivision Committee' legal guidance for the
in~erPretation of ordinances at page 1159:' . , "
. '. .
"When interpreting an o:rdin~ce, this court will apply. ~e 'same rules as'
those ,employed for'the 'construction of state:statutes; [citation oOiitted] , '
, . . '". ..' . .
, , " Foremost among those rules is, the directive to' ascel'tilin alid give effect to '
" the intent of the legislatur.e. [citation' omitted} Indispensable to this effort '
is a consideration ofth~ goals sought to be achieved and the, reasons and
. policies underlying the. statute, iecl'iuring a view of the, s~tUte within. ~e "
'context of the entire l:!.ct, rather than in isolation. A legislative ~nac1Inent .
cannot. be' presumed to' be ~ppli~d m '~i11ogicaI or . absurd manner,'
. inconsistent Viith it und~r1ying goals.", ' .
,The, court in Boyle was reviewing the denial of a variance involVing the
co~truction of adec;k, retaining, wall, storage facility and stairs on a lake lot, put jn place
. before a variance waS requested~ The Court ',of Appeals affirme4 the BZA' s denial ofa .
variance and in doing so noted at page 1159:'
" . "Furthermore,. given the p~licy. underlying the Ordinance, whlch' is to
, preserve the qual,ity of residing in a serene lakeside environment, .;the,
intent of the drafters was toenstJre that large, iri~legant objects such as,
. satellite dishes do not spoil the landscape.;' .
'-
o 0
FOLEY & POOL, LLP
Subdivision Committee
Carmel/Clay Plan Commission
October 30, 2001
Page 5 of 5.
. .
.' .
The position of the Petitioner, and apparently the City, is that what a smgle developer
'could. not d91egally, ~o separate developers can legally accomplish. Remonstrators respectfully
subinit that this development Will create double frontage . lots for hom.es in', the -Brookfield
. Subdivision,. which is not supported by the law or the eVidence. The Double' Frontage Lot
Ordinance (6.5.3) . does . not inake the approval of this typ~ of. subdivision'. 'development
discretionary; the ~anguage is m.andatory: "s~l riot". .. .
. The Remonstrators 'respectfully . subiriit: that.this subdivision. .plat. and the. iequested
. v~ance must be ~~ed.. Thank y~u for your cOnSi~era:tio~.. of this matter. .. .
I ~ .' .
; ;
. Very" 41ily 1<?urs; ":..
FOLEY & POOL, LLP
. ~.~...~/Cf1....
Donald F. Fo~ey .. ......
.' .
.DFF~pp .
cc: Williain.E. Wenclli.ng, jr.
Jon Dobbsiewicz' .
ReIilon.strators
h:\4S$9\Comntittee2 Ltr
.W
Q
~).I
CITY OF CARMEL
Department of Community Services
One CMc Square
Carmel, IN 40032
(317) 571-2417
Fax: (317) 571.2426
Fax
TOI Q'-L- W~.~~
Fax: ~t\: ~ ~~ q 'I
Phone:
Re, ~.0..~~ ~~t>P;\
From:
~~
Pages:
Date:
11- I S -~ ,
cel
":0" '.
o Urgent 0 For Review 0 PJease Comment 0 Please Reply
o Please Recycle
o
-\ 1....... ~ ~IE.
~c:zr I.
~ -rt>\.-C...b~'~ I S J).,IE- ~~P\. R.~o~ ~n..
\l\~ ""~~?~ 'P~I ~b~4='rS""l..-O'''p. iT'
w~ t>\1\" ~OIL \D ~ Cl E ",....6' vo va.. &..- Ii rr&:L. I \100""'-
~ A ~ t""\~~ ,~ ~~ OF ThE ~ c.....
M EWW'~ ~ 1Z4rL ""'E::~ I~C;- Tve:~y ?t..U s
~~ s ~ The: '-' ~ I~ ---"" '- E:-X"E.. C- V T\ vE:..
c::..o ~"" \ l'T ~ ~ p., 'D1l17> ~ "" Sii"i=. T/wE). I WI ~ '- ~L-
\(ou ~~.... -rz:> ~I-J~'~?~ &.6;t.s
/71 fr1.IK.~
-~~