Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes PC Executive Committee 03-17-09of CA G`PCA T N T A m City of arme /ND I AN P CARMEL PLAN COMMISSION EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE TUESDAY, MARCH 17, 2009 Council Chambers Carmel City Hall Carmel IN 46032 Minutes Members Present: Leo Dierckman, Jay Dorman, Brad Grabow Carol Schleif, Steve Stromquist Members Absent: Dan Dutcher, Rick Ripma DOCS Staff Present: Michael Hollibaugh, Director; Angie Conn; John Molitor, Legal Counsel Also Present: Ramona Hancock, Plan Commission Secretary PUBLIC HEARING: Docket No. 09020009 SP, Hayden Run Section 1, lots 1 -3 and CA 1,3 The applicant seeks plat committee approval for a replat to correct an error on the plat. The site is west of Towne Road on 131 Street and is zoned S -1 /Residence -ROSO. Filed by Dennis Olmstead of Stoeppelwerth Associates, Inc. Present for Petitioner: Curt Huff, Stoeppelwerth Associates, Inc. Overview: Error discovered in the western boundary line of Hayden Run Error resulted in a 10 %2 inch overlap on the property to the west DOCS directed Stoeppelwerth to obtain a replat which necessitated signatures of all property owners along the property line To date, signatures of all property owners obtained except for Mr. Wang (Lot 3) Wrought -iron Fence, landscaping, irrigation heads moved to ensure location Replats for two of the sections have been recorded Outstanding Lot 3 needs to be recorded to resolve the issue and also remove clouds from future sales transactions S:/P1anCommission /Minutes /CommitteeMinutes /Executive Committee /2009 /mar17 1 ONE CIVIC SQUARE CARMEL, INDIANA 46032 317/571 -2417 Letters were sent out last year to all home owners; second letter sent to Mr. Wang in July, 2008 with no response Certified Mail letter sent to Mr. Wang in October, 2008 which was not picked up Four Voice Mails left for Mr. Wang—no response Sign Posted, Notice Procedure adhered to—finally had a response from Mr. Wang Attempts to explain situation and procedure to Mr. Wang were not met with satisfaction At this time, Jay Dorman presided over the meeting due to Leo Dierckman's temporary absence. Legal Counsel, John Molitor: This Docket is unusual under the Rules of Procedure; it is a Secondary Plat item that DOCS Staff was unable to resolve with the petitioner. Recommendation from Legal Counsel was for petitioner to give Public Notice with the Executive Committee serving as the Plat Committee. This item is being treated as a Public Hearing Item. Public Remonstrance /Unfavorable: Exing Wang and wife, owners of lot 3, 3229 Tantara Bend, Carmel. Wangs have owned the house since 2003. No one explained how the error occurred. Adjacent land was undeveloped, owned by Centex and sold to Silverstone (Wang's builder.) When Centex sold property to Silverstone, they sold part of Wang's property—the overlap area. Mr. Wang's position is that he owned the property first —two years before Silverstone, and it is unfair to ask the Wangs to give up the overlap area—it should be a problem between the two builders. Mr. Wang felt that it was obvious —this is not an issue that needs to be discussed. The only thing Stoeppelwerth asked was for the Wangs to sign the Agreement—no one came forward to explain the reason, the cause. Lots 1 and 2 were sold to the current residents AFTER Centex sold the property to Silverstone. If understood correctly, Silverstone owned the overlap area before it was sold to the current residents; Mr. Wang is the first/original owner of the overlap area. Rebuttal, Curt Huff: Centex had an option on property to the west Centex never owned it —the option ran out Explanation as to how the error occurred: From the starting point/section point, the surveyor made an error by 10 %2 inches that resulted in an overlap Error was brought to Stoeppelwerth's attention by a lot in Silverstone at the time of staking Department Report, deferred to Legal Counsel, John Molitor: From the facts as presented, it appears that the Builder sold a lot with an incorrect legal description Legal Description included the 10 %2 inch strip to the west As a legal matter, it appears that the builder did not own the property—the 10 %2 foot strip —at the time of sale Currently, the developer is asking that the plat be corrected to show that the Subdivision does not include the 10 %2 inch strip Not within the Plat Committee's jurisdiction (Executive Committee) to determine ownership of the 10 %2 inch strip It IS within the jurisdiction of the Plat Committee to determine whether or not the replat shows the correct survey of the property Under State Law, the Executive Committee is serving as the Plat Committee with jurisdiction to determine what is the correct replat of this Subdivision —under State Law, someone who is aggrieved by the decision would have the right to appeal the decision to the full Plan Commission S:/P1anCommission /Minutes /CommitteeMinutes /Executive Committee /2009 /marl7 2 ONE CIVIC SQUARE CARMEL, INDIANA 46032 317/571 -2417 Committee Comments /Questions: County records show the lot is actually wider than is shown on the drawings Anyone check the actual Deed to the property—it should show dimensions Was title insurance part of what was done when Mr. Wang purchased his property? All properties along the boundary affected by the 10 %2 inches? (Yes) Did anyone provide compensation in any way to the homeowners, other than moving fences or sprinkler heads It sounds as if the replat holds, but if aggrieved, a property owner could make a case against Centex or potentially the titled party who recorded the title work and verified dimensions of the lot Probably a private, legal matter that the Committee is not a party to—it is between the land owner and the developer Petitioner's Response, Curt Huff: Carmel has accepted and signed off on two recorded sections —there is no doubt that between the two surveys, the line should move 10 %2 inches to the east to eliminate the overlap. One property owner was provided compensation based on computation by Centex of square footage lost versus what was paid for the lot John Molitor said it is not known whether or not title insurance was involved as a part of Mr. Wang's purchase, but it would certainly be conventional in a transaction of this nature to include title insurance; however, the Plat Committee cannot rule on issues of title insurance —the Plat Committee can only rule on whether or not the plat is correct under the Subdivision Control Ordinance. John Molitor further commented that this is an issue between two private parties; the Committee should not feel that it resolving the issue between two parties by determining that the survey included with the replat is correct. If the Committee is not certain that the survey is correct, this item may be Tabled and more proof could be requested. If there is no question as to what the correct survey is, then it is within the Committee's authority to approve the replat as a Secondary Plat; the development of this subdivision has already been approved by going through the approval process. Legally, the 10 %2 inches is in the Hayden Run Plat, but the developer never owned it. The question is whether or not the developer ever had the right to include the 10 %2 inches in the plat. This is a platted subdivision that requires amendment. The petitioner is attempting to get the plat corrected. The petitioner has acknowledged that an error was made in the legal description and survey when it was first reviewed by the Plan Commission. Department Comments, Angie Conn: The Department is comfortable that the plat now accurately reflects the current situation. Jay Dorman addressed the following comments to Mr. Wang: The Executive Committee can only validate that the new plat is acceptable according to City Standards If Mr. Wang feels that he has been wronged by this piece of land, and thought that he did, in fact, own it, it would be up to Mr. Wang personally to seek redress from the surveyor, or his title company, or potentially other people, either through a lawyer or through errors and omissions from Stoeppelwerth and perhaps some compensation, or some other persons /company that a lawyer might suggest. The Plan Commission and Executive Committee cannot do that for Mr. Wang. In reality, Mr. Wang's claim is being validated, that there was an error in the size of the lot because the Committee is replatting based upon a smaller square footage. Motion: Leo Dierckman "to approve Docket No. 09020009 SP- replat, Hayden Run, Section 1, Lots 1 -3 and CA 1, 3," seconded by Carol Schleif, approved 5 -0, Motion Carried. Item: Extensions, Michael Hollibaugh, Director, DOCS S:/P1anCommission /Minutes /CommitteeMinutes /Executive Committee /2009 /mar17 3 ONE CIVIC SQUARE CARMEL, INDIANA 46032 317/571 -2417 Old Meridian Plaza Time Limit Overview: 2 -year extension for signage Extension for signage tied to other, multiple extensions Conflicting provisions in the Ordinance Some conflicts will be corrected with a Patch Ordinance currently in the works Note: The Executive Committee unanimously agreed to allow the extensions. The meeting adjourned at 7:35 PM. Jay Dorman, Presiding Chairperson Ramona Hancock, Secretary S:/P1anCommission /Minutes /CommitteeMinutes /Executive Committee /2009 /mar17 El ONE CIVIC SQUARE CARMEL, INDIANA 46032 317/571 -2417