Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutLetter #14 David & Marcella AbelAdditional Comments in Opposition to City of Carmel Planning & Zoning Application Docket No. PZ-2022-00243 From: David and Marcella Abel 13779 Hickory Ridge Ct Springmill Crossing Carmel, Indiana We live immediately next door to the south, maybe 45 or 50 feet from the training facility. That's an estimate. We didn't cross over on to Petitioner's lot to actually measure. Again, we weren't sure how much time we would have to present, so we said as much as we could in our written comments submitted earlier. We won't repeat all that now. These additional comments here only address issues raised in the staff report. The staff report is troubling. We don't know the process. Does staff review submissions in opposition to a petition for a variance before submitting a report? Have our comments already been taken into consideration? We can't tell whether staff considered comments made by anyone in opposition to the petition or not. While there are references to the Petition and Petitioner's packet, there are no references in report to the consideration of any comments in opposition. Specific issues from the staff report- The staff report says it was told the HOA approved this. Contrary to the HOA rules, we received no written notice of any request to the HOA. We have no idea what was presented to the HOA or when; we have no idea what may have been approved. Apparently some neighbors who also didn't get any notice of the HOA action have requested a copy of what was submitted and what was approved - without success. No one has been provided with any submission or approval. According to HOA guidelines, our HOA won't even approve a permanent clothes line. But, did they approve netting strung up from the house to the trees? Did they approve an outdoor back yard soccer training and agility business? But that's an HOA issue. We are here about operating an outdoor business in the backyard next door which is not permitted by existing zoning ordinances. Nuisance - The staff report says it is concerned that this "will become a nuisance." During warm weather, we spend lots of hours on our back porch. For us, this outdoor backyard business is already a nuisance. Under the ordinance, it is a nuisance if there is outside noise from the home occupation. Section 5.18 A.3. says 5.18 HO-01: Home Occupation Standards A. General: 3. Nuisance: The Home Occupation shall be conducted wholly within the Dwelling, such that there is no outside noise, vibration, odor, smoke, dust, glare or electrical disturbance. And a dictionary definition of a nuisance is "an obnoxious or annoying thing, or something that is annoying to individuals." By definition under the ordinance, it is already a nuisance. The ordinance says wholly within the dwelling such that there is no outside noise from the home occupation. The business is conducted outside the building. There is considerable noise outside the dwelling. More noise than a "single family home" - The staff report says this "it is anticipated ... that this proposed Home Occupation will produce no more noise than regular single family home uses." We respectfully disagree. We have lived on our court for 30 years, and we are well aware of what constitutes noise that a regular single family home produces. This outdoor business has already produced way more noise than the usual single family home. Constant, during the day and evening, repetitive kicking and ricocheting off sideboards is outside noise. When you live right next door, it is loud. It finally just causes us to go back inside our house. We can't enjoy reading, watching tv, and it's no fun having dinner outside during lessons. It interferes with our use and enjoyment of our back porch and back yard. And now proposed lighting just allows extension of the time for the business to operate with more outside noise. Staff says the police can enforce the noise ordinance. Who expects to call the Carmel police to come to listen to this all day and all evening. Page 2 Hours of operation "might be excessive" - The staff report says the hours of operation "might be excessive." This is a full time outdoor business, Sam to 9pm, seven (7) days a week including holidays. Up to 91 hours a week is excessive. Staff says 5 trainees at a time "might be excessive." While the noise of one trainee is a nuisance, think about that noise with 5 trainees kicking a soccer ball against the sideboards. That is way more noise than a regular single family home. "Intensity is a concern" - The staff report says the intensity of the business is a concern. We do agree with that. This is a full time business. Doing the math based on Petitioner's proposed concessions, this could go on maybe more than 60 or 70 hours a week. Add in the potential number of trainees passing through (up to 5 trainees times 10 hours a day times 7 days a week equals 350 trainees plus spectators passing through) is pretty intense. That intensity also changes the character of the lot and affects surrounding neighbors. Petitioner gave up a teaching job to run the business. It is clearly a full time business. Petitioner makes a living running this business. Parents of trainees comment that Petitioner is an excellent coach. One only expects the outdoor business to grow even more. Character of the lot - We don't understand staff s comment about the character of the lot. The outdoor business changes the character of the lot and the neighborhood. The ordinance says the home occupation "shall not change the character of the ... lot ..." Staff seems to say because the ordinance refers to character of "the lot," an outdoor business is somehow contemplated under the ordinance, that an outdoor business is somehow allowed. We don't read the ordinance to say that conducting the business outside the house on the lot is contemplated. Especially when read with standard 5.18 subsection A. 3. which says the home occupation shall be conducted wholly within the dwelling. The lot has netting strung from trees to the house. The lot has an elevated artificial grass turf taking up a big chunk of the backyard. Those alone change the character of the lot from a backyard with normal residential activity to a outdoor business soccer practice facility. Then, add in the total number of trainees that could be passing through. This is not the character of a normal residential back yard. Page 3 Use variance - The staff report says Petitioner needs more of a use variance. Is that because this is a full time outdoor business in a residential setting? Are we fussing about the wrong thing? Standards under UDO section 9.15 subsection C. In our asking staff for help in determining what standards the Board applies in reviewing these petitions, BZA staff advised us that UDO section 9.15 and in particular subsection C provided the standards. We don't see any comments or application of those standards in the staff report. We don't see how the standards under 9.15 subsection C for ranting a variance are met here Staff recommendations- but what about us as neighbors? And finally - what about us? What about the neighbors? Among other things, staff recommends fewer day/hours of operation and fewer trainees. This does not eliminate the nuisance described above. It just means the nuisance exists for fewer hours/days and the character of the lot is still changed. Suggesting customers park in Petitioner's driveway may clear the street, but does nothing to eliminate the nuisance in the back yard. The staff recommendation seems to be designed to compromise the existing ordinance to allow Petitioner to do what he wants to enjoy his backyard. What about how neighbors want to use their back yards, patios and back porches? We want to be able to enjoy our back porch and back yard as it is has been and as it is currently zoned. We all rely on the stability of the zoning ordinances. Petitioner wants to change the rules in order to enjoy his property. We just want to enjoy use of our property under the current rules. We ask that the Board uphold the spirit and integrity of the zoning code and not allow an outdoor business in the middle of a residential subdivision. And again, thank you for taking time to read, listen and consider our comments. Page 4