Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutLetter #02 Stacie Shapiro Butler, Bric From:Stacie Shapiro <shapiro_stacie@hotmail.com> Sent:Friday, October 18, 2024 4:42 PM To:Butler, Bric; Shestak, Joe; Conn, Angelina V Cc:Stacie Shapiro Subject:Jarrett Variances Attachments:Exhibit 1 the weight of the pud.pdf; BZA overview 10.18.2024.docx Follow Up Flag:Follow up Flag Status:Flagged Bric, Please see the attached information that would like to have added to the public documents for the hearing for 3721 Aldrew Place. Unfortunately given the amount of documentation I am providing I will be sending two different emails. Please let me know if you do not receive both. I have to say, I find it quite disturbing that the new variances continue to speak ONLY to the UDO. If you reference the UDO, it says the PUD is the overriding document. Therefore, my documentation speaks to the PUD. Continuing discrepancies in documents: 1. Location of sign- surely not visible in its REAL location. What kind of game is this? 2. The HOA address is wrong . HOA companies changed in February of 2024. 3. Affadavit signed by Julie Jarrett on October 16, 2024 that rules of notification would be followed. See below for the photo that was sent to the BZA as proof of sign location. 1 See below photo of photo taken as to visibility of the sign Per rules: Sign must be placed in a highly visible and legible location from the road. 2 Thank you 3 REQUEST FOR BZA TO DENY ALL “AFTER THE FACT” VARIANCES AND RETURN LOT TO STATE OF PUD COMPLIANCE Above -View from my dining area – note property line flag and steep elevation change. Below- Size of structures compared to 6’1” man. Disregard of the PUD led to loss of peaceful enjoyment of my home. This document will provide support to the assertions that I am about to make as to why the current and after the fact variances should be denied and the yard returned to a state where it is compliant with all zoning and PUD regulations. • The weight of the PUD and Carmel Rules o Carmel UDO specifically states that structures within a PUD need to follow the requirements of the PUD ordinance. o Carmel states that they will not approve of any structure which was not approved by the HOA but structures such as the hot tub were built without HOA prior approval. • Carmel is suing Julie Jarrett for multiple infractions of the UDO & PUD • Irregularities in the documents o Note of fact: Julie Jarrett was the VP of the HOA during the year that the pool was approved and entrusted to not only understand the governing documents but to ensure these documents were fairly and equally applied to all members of the HOA. o Julie Jarrett submitted plans to the HOA which didn’t match the ones sent to the city. o There are a minimum of 8 approved plot plans and 50% of these appeared AFTER construction of the structures were completed. o Signed affidavits:  Acknowledge the PUD as section 4.2F was quoted.  Stated that privacy would be installed for all neighboring properties, yet this was never done.  Stated that the structures will not affect adjacent properties adversely, yet it took months for me to try to sell my home due to the negative feedback provided by prospective buyers. The construction of the pool and other structures had a serious and ongoing costly effect on the entire community. In addition to negatively impacting the neighbors on both sides of the homeowner, the HOA has paid thousands of dollars to attorneys to figure out how to deal with ongoing issues. In addition, allowing these new variances will continue to cause ongoing harm to the neighborhood due to the issues of precedence. If one neighbor has a completely non-PUD compliant yard, then all neighbors should have the same right. The purpose of a PUD and zoning laws for everyone to follow for the betterment of the community. I personally lost my right of peaceful enjoyment of my home after spending almost 2 years trying to convince the city and HOA to uphold the PUD which should have protected my rights. All of the encroachments on the yard led to noise issues along with the total loss of my view and our privacy. In addition, the sale of my home became dependent on what prospective buyers thought about the abutting structures. In the fairness to all homeowners in the neighborhood and throughout Carmel, zoning rules need to be followed for the welfare of all. The new “after the fact” variances need to be denied, and the yard needs to be returned to a state in which it would be PUD compliant. THE WEIGHT OF THE PUD AND CARMEL RULES SEE EXHIBIT 1 FOR DOCUMENTATION Section 1.07 of the Carmel UDO (EXHIBIT 1-A) spells out that structures within a PUD shall follow the requirements of the PUD. Pages of the Grannan Grove PUD (Exhibit 1-B) are attached as is the email from Joe Shestak laying out the setbacks that applied. • The rear yard setback is 20 feet • The side yard setback is 10 feet • Detached structures are NOT allowed per the PUD • The PUD was signed by the city council including Mayor Finkham THE NEW VARIANCES SPEAK TO CARMEL’S UDO BUT THEY DO NOT INCORPORATE WHAT NEEDS TO BE DONE TO BE PUD COMPLIANT. • The drainage wall should be 20 feet from the property line which abuts 14022 Grannan Lane. • Rather than discussing the location of the structure called a “pergola” it should be removed as the PUD PROHIBITS DETACHED STRUCTURES. This would also help the lot coverage decrease. ( the tax assessor calls this structure an open framed porch (Ex -1 B1)). • Both side yard and rear yard setbacks should be honored as that was the original plan submitted back in August 2022. There are structures on the lot that NEVER were approved by the HOA. Per an email from Christina Jessee (Exhibit 1-C), Carmel requires proof of HOA approval as part of the permit application submission. • The spa was NOT applied for with the HOA prior to the build (Exhibit 1-C1). Julie submitted a pool only project to the HOA and submitted a plan for a pool, hot tub and patio to the city. The HOA approval reads, you have been approved for a pool. The second approval for new location does NOT add the spa or the patio. • Wording on application on 3/15/2023 was for landscape and patio around pool/pergola for privacy outdoor kitchen with pergola. (Exhibit 1-C2). o See email from John O’ Donnell president of HOA about drainage wall • Julie never submitted an application to the HOA to move the pool equipment from the west side of the home to the east side. CARMEL LAWSUIT AGAINST JULIE JARRETT SUMMARY MULTIPLE STOP WORK ORDERS AND VIOLATION NOTICES Aug 20, 2022 Variance - for 45% lot coverage for a pool Sept 16, 2022 Stop work order #1- pool was dug in different location than approved Aug 20, 2022 Stop work order #2 – pool deck encroached into City’s easement – against what was approved May 2, 2023 Stop work order #3 – Julie went over Lot Coverage and Setback requirements Nov 6, 2023 Violation Notice – City Required Julie to apply for another variance because what she built Was NOT what City approved. LAWSUIT CITY vs JULIE JARRETT 8 COUNTS AGAINST JULIE JARRETT May 3, 2024 City SUES Julie Jarrett Count 1 – Lot Coverage Violation Count 2 – Insufficient Setback , supposed to be 20ft per PUD Count 3 – Project NOT built pursuant to Plan Count 4 – Swimming Pool used without Cert of Occupancy Count 5 – Petition for Permanent Injunction Count 6 – Petition Order for defendant to Abate Violations Count 7 – Petition Order City Enforcement and Continuous Enforcement Count 8 – Petition for Attorney’s Fees IRREGULARITIES/DISCREPANCIES IN THE DOCUMENTS See Exhibit 2 for Back-up Per the affidavit signed on August 2022 (Exhibit 2- A1) • See Project introduction (Exhibit 2 -Attachment A-2). o Julie quotes the PUD section 4.2-F o Julie said she would ensure privacy to all neighbors, but this was NEVER done.  She told the HOA she ran out of funds to put in privacy landscaping, but she did plant around the pool where the family would benefit. • Finding of fact (Exhibit 2 – Attachment A-3) o The proposed project will not affect adjacent properties adversely but will enhance visual aspects. When I was forced to sell my home due to the ongoing issues, at least 50% of the prospective buyers of my home reported having issues with the abutting structures. (data provided to Mayor Finkham). Here are just two examples. • o I had to stare at a cinder block wall covered with gravel which in my opinion was low quality construction which deterred from my view. VARIANCES FOR 2024: o Hamilton county required Julie to install an “embankment wall” (see Exhibit 2 A-4) due to the way the pool was constructed, location and elevation. Her lot was also creating a drainage issue on my lot. o Julie Jarrett argues “Due to many unforeseen circumstances of the construction process, changes were required on the project, and we entrusted our contractors to represent us and build the project according to all codes.” • A minimum of 8 plans exist and half of them were updated after structures were complete. • Different plans went to city versus the HOA • Each day when Julie and/or her partner came home from work, they were out in the yard inspecting the work of the day. • There are still vast differences in the construction compared to any of the plans. One example is “Pergola” as shown below. There are multiple others differences. Example of difference between submitted plan and structure built. Above is the plan that was submitted for the “Pergola” and then photo below was what was built . There are a multitude of differences from size of support structures (6”x6” was the plan), open back versus close back, etc.… The county tax assessor calls this an open framed porch as the structure built in no way resembles a pergola. DETACHED STRUCTURES ARE NOT ALLOWED PER THE PUD Affadavit signed by Julie Jarrett on October 16, 2024 that rules of notification would be followed. See below for the photo that was sent to the BZA as proof of sign location. See below photo of photo taken as to visibility of the sign Per rules: Sign must be placed in a highly visible and legible location from the road.