HomeMy WebLinkAboutLetter #07 Randy Woock
Butler, Bric
From:Grechukhin, Sergey
Sent:Wednesday, December 18, 2024 3:17 PM
To:Randy Woock
Cc:Butler, Bric; Amy
Subject:RE: Docket Nos. PZ-2024-00212 V and PZ-2024-0013 V: Request for Clarification
Mr. Woock,
Yes that is correct- the commitments given to the BZA are enforceable by that body.
Thank you,
Sergey
City of Carmel
Department of Law
One Civic Square
Carmel, IN 46032
Phone: 317-571-2473
Fax: 317-571-2776
E-mail: sgrechukhin@carmel.in.gov
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This transmission (including any a?achments) may contain informa?on which is
confiden?al, a?orney work-product and/or subject to the a?orney-client privilege, and is intended solely for the
recipient(s) named above. If you are not a named recipient, any intercep?on, copying, distribu?on, disclosure or use
of this transmission or any informa?on contained in it is strictly prohibited, and may be subject to criminal and civil
penal?es. If you have received this transmission in error, please immediately call us at (317) 571-2472, delete the
transmission from all forms of electronic or other storage, and destroy all hard copies. DO NOT forward this
transmission. Thank You.
From: Randy Woock <rwoock@yahoo.com>
Sent: Wednesday, December 18, 2024 2:03 PM
To: Grechukhin, Sergey <sgrechukhin@carmel.in.gov>
Cc: Butler, Bric <bbutler@carmel.in.gov>; Amy <awoock@yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: Docket Nos. PZ-2024-00212 V and PZ-2024-0013 V: Request for Clarification
Thank you for your response, Mr. Grechkukhin. I guess what I am hearing is that it’s not really the meeting minutes
that dictate but rather the Letter of Grant. Anything in the Letter of Grant is enforceable by the City, correct? Still
1
seems odd and sort of a loophole but I appreciate the response.
And we could always go to court for injunctive relief if we desired; that’s what the attorney who drafted the 2013
commitment (and counsel for the four Springmill Streams stakeholders at the time) is now suggesting.
Mr. Butler: Is the Letter of Grant for the two titled docket numbers available? We are most concerned about the
barn height. The notice of public hearing we received stated 27 feet; that’s what we used in the calculations in our
pre hearing submission and thus what we were prepared to use in our hearing remarks. However, immediately
preceding our remarks, Mrs. Schneider used 22 feet in her hearing remarks. My wife, Amy, attempted to
immediately bring that to the hearing officer’s attention during our hearing remarks in order to let everyone know
our calculations could be flawed. The hearing officer shut down that discussion. As we showed in our pre hearing
submission, the supporting documents for the variance requests (prepared by the builder and the city) contain
numerous errors and misinformation such that we’ve felt like we are trying to hit a moving target. We just just need
to be certain that the 22 feet height is indeed the variance granted and not the 27 feet in the notice of public
hearing we received. Thanks.
Sent from my iPad
> On Dec 18, 2024, at 11:30 AM, Grechukhin, Sergey <sgrechukhin@carmel.in.gov> wrote:
> Mr. Woock,
>
> I apologize for a delayed response. Please see attached the Letter of Grant from the 2013 BZA hearing that
outlines the only commitments that were relevant to the variance petitions PZ-2024-00212 V and PZ-2024-0013 V.
As you can see neither of the four commitments relate to the building height or building dimensions. The
commitments outlined in the Letter of Grant are the types of commitments referenced in Ind. Code 36-7-4-1015 as
they were made in front of the BZA in 2013. Conversely, the commitment agreement that you are referring to was
made between private parties and neither the City nor BZA are subject to or bound by it.
>
> Unfortunately, I cannot provide you legal advice as I'm prohibited to do so by law. You will need to consult with
the attorney of your choosing if you would like legal interpretation of the statute you reference or legal advice as to
any potential options you may have in relation to the agreement.
>
> Thank you,
>
> Sergey Grechukhin
>
> City of Carmel
> Department of Law
> One Civic Square
> Carmel, IN 46032
>
>
>
> Phone: 317-571-2473
> Fax: 317-571-2776
> E-mail: sgrechukhin@carmel.in.gov
>
> CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This transmission (including any attachments) may contain information which is
confidential, attorney work-product and/or subject to the attorney-client privilege, and is intended solely for the
recipient(s) named above. If you are not a named recipient, any interception, copying, distribution, disclosure or
use of this transmission or any information contained in it is strictly prohibited, and may be subject to criminal and
2
civil penalties. If you have received this transmission in error, please immediately call us at (317) 571-2472, delete
the transmission from all forms of electronic or other storage, and destroy all hard copies. DO NOT forward this
transmission. Thank You.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Randy Woock <rwoock@yahoo.com>
> Sent: Wednesday, December 18, 2024 10:21 AM
> To: Grechukhin, Sergey <sgrechukhin@carmel.in.gov>
> Cc: Butler, Bric <bbutler@carmel.in.gov>; Amy <awoock@yahoo.com>
> Subject: Re: Docket Nos. PZ-2024-00212 V and PZ-2024-0013 V: Request for Clarification
>
> Hi Mr. Grechukhin.
>
> I’m a little surprised I haven’t heard back from you. When should I expect a response to my questions?
>
> Thanks.
>
> Sent from my iPad
>
>> On Dec 13, 2024, at 3:14 PM, Randy Woock <rwoock@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> Dear Mr. Grechukhin,
>>
>> First, my sincere apologies if I’m addressing the wrong person. I did not catch the name of the gentleman asked
by hearing officer Mr. Kevin Rider to render a legal opinion at the November 25, 2024, public hearing, and since the
minutes for that meeting are not yet available on the City’s website, I took a shot. If you are not the correct person,
I ask that you forward this to the correct person. Thank you.
>>
>> For transparency, I am requesting Mr. Butler to forward this communication to BZA members Kevin Rider, Brad
Grabow, Dennis Lockwood, Salim Najjar and Leah York.
>>
>> I spoke at the November 25, 2024, public hearing in opposition to a series of variance requests under Dockets
Nos. PZ-2024-00212 V and PZ-2024-0013 V. During my remarks (and included in my pre hearing document
submission) I mentioned a 2013 commitment agreement entered into by current petitioners along with three
Springmill Streams individual property owners and the Springmill Streams HOA. I also stated that I had recently
communicated with the primary author of that agreement, who was legal counsel for the four Springmill Streams
stakeholders at the time, who assured me that the commitment agreement was still binding under Indiana Code
36-7-4-1015.
>>
>> After public remarks, hearing officer Mr. Kevin Rider requested your opinion regarding that 2013 commitment
agreement. You clearly stated that the BZA was obligated to acknowledge the commitment as valid as well as
enforceable in court, but could limit its own enforcement to only those commitment items specifically mentioned
in the minutes of the 2013 public hearing. That effectively vacated all parts of the commitment sans those few
mentioned in the minutes. I admit I am not a lawyer but that immediately struck me as at odds with Indiana Code
36-7-4-1015 in several ways. I am respectfully requesting that you clarify how your opinion is in accordance with
Code 36-7-4-1015.
>>
>> As I read it, Indiana Code 36-7-4-1015, in the absence of limited situations of a change in property ownership,
can only be terminated or modified by a BZA - in whole or part - via a public hearing established to specifically do
so. I also see nothing in the zoning code where minutes of a meeting to document the existence of a commitment
agreement can supersede the agreement itself, or that a BZA can selectively consider only portions of an
agreement based on meeting minutes.
3
>>
>> If you would be so kind:
>>
>> 1. Please direct me to the part of Indiana Code 36-7-4-1015, or any other relevant statute that would supersede
Code 36-7-4-1015, that permits a BZA to vacate any or all of a valid commitment agreement without a public
hearing and prior notice of such hearing;
>>
>> 2. Please direct me to the part of Code 36-7-4-1015, or any other statute that would supersede Code 36-7-4-
1015, that states BZA meeting minutes can be used in lieu of, or supersede, a valid commitment agreement; and
>>
>> 3. Please direct me to the part of Code 36-7-4-1015, or any other statute that would supersede Code 36-7-4-
1015, that permits a BZA to selectively enforce only portions of a valid commitment agreement.
>>
>> Again, I am not a lawyer so any assistance you can provide to help me understand the basis for your conclusion
is greatly appreciated.
>>
>> I read in the Current about the proposed Ardalan project. The property is zoned C2 (as in our situation) with
three prior commitment agreements - at odds with the new proposal - made with individual property owners. I
noticed the Carmel Planning Commission and BZA appear to be following Indiana code in that a public hearing is
set for December 16 to first consider vacating the commitment agreements followed by a second public hearing
on December 19 to consider the new, proposed variance requests. That two step process, at a minimum, was not
followed in our case. Why not?
>>
>> I genuinely appreciate your time and attention and, again, I apologize if I am addressing this to the wrong
person.
>>
>> Sincerely,
>>
>> Randall S. Woock
>> 686 Nottingham Court
>> Carmel, IN 46032
>> (317) 525-4926
>>
>> Sent from my iPad
4