Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout0003.99• Department of Community Services Complaiq Form Full Address of Property: 12549 SPRING VIOLET PL Date Filled : 02/O8/1999 Type Of Complaint Name Of Violator: Address of Violation Mailing Address Phone; Continents Name Of Filer: Address Phone Comments Illegal Home Occupation Torturing business. MRS. WALLACH 112549 SPRING VIOLET PL Record Number: 1999.0003 New home owner; lived there only past 9 months. Running a classroom style tutoring business. 10+ students at a time. MR. MIKE REED 112542 SPRING VIOLET PLACE I He has also been in -contact with Darly with Bayhill Department of Origin: DOCS Letter 1 Sent Letter 2 Sent Letter 3 Sent Comments : Same As Owner : Received picture from filer. This particular picture shows 8 cars in front of home(s). This appears to be in violation of the included occupations, but limited to one student. (Last section of ordinance article 5). FEB 22 '99 09:57AM WALLACK & WALLACK P..1i5 CK One 30 5iplafe 22 Stile 2Z3W-4 Indanapdis, Indiana 46204 SOMERS & (317) 231-9000 • WALLACK iT T,s CK Pc Fax: 231-9900 11 11 u From: Michael S. Wallack Vn.hwr of Pnanv linrhariino r,.n, Sh..•tb c7 ' Hatter ConaAeanalisy Notice no information containe0 in this natsmiasion is P&aio, contidendal, may be anomey-client privileged, is the property of the sender, and is intended solely far the" use oFthe adEresaee(i). Ummdho ized use, disclosure, or c"yft is sWcdy, pmhibieed. If you have received this Vo smission in error,pleaseoelepimne usimmedinsely at(317)231A0gg so that ae can arrange for the teirkvafar desnuctioh of1M deennanM m no coat to yau. If die aninsonssion is incomplete or ilkpblo, pewee Cali es at die above number. _ .2�. L. Facsimile Number Wallack Somers At Wallack. Offeriing comprehensive services in the areas ofbusiness, commercial real estate, corporate transactions, leasing, intellectual property, and colnviercisl litigation. The firm prides itself on providing innovative and effic(ent services to clients from across the country with a constant emphasis on the clients' bottom line. FEB 22 '99 09:57AM WALLRCK & WRLLRCK P.2/5 • WALLACK& WALLACKa ATTORNEYS AT LAW February22, 1999 ViA FAC61MILE-431715712439 Mr. Jeff Kendall Department of Community Services City of Cannel One Civic Square Cannel, Indiana 46032 Dear Mr. Kendall: Barry Z Wallack Hiehael S. Wallack T am writing to you at the request of my wife following your discussion on Friday, February 19, 1999. First let me note that she appreciated your friendly demeanor and desire to understand all aspects of the situation. She felt reassured after speaking with you that this issue can be resolved in an amicable manner by the concerned parties. Pursuant to her request, enclosed herewith please find a copy of a letter that 1 sent to Darla Jackson of Revel & Underwood, the property manager for Bayhill. As you will see from this letter, the concern that my wife and I have with the enforcement of the restrictive covenants --and zoning regulations --is the essentially discriminatory effect that such application would have when applied to my wife given her ongoing chronic illness. To prevent her from being able to tutor from our home would serve to discriminate against her on the basis of her disability and render her unable to earn a living in her chosen profession. I believe that this is prohibited by federal and/or state laws. Should you wish to discuss this matter in more detail, we would be happy to do so. Moreover, we are always willing to try to reach reasonable accommodations that will leave everybody happy. Finally, please let us know who has raised these complaints against us because, as 1 mentioned in my initial letter, it may be easier to resolve these concerns through face-to-faee discussions with the parties concerned rather than through third parties like the property manager or the Department of Community Services. Thank you for your understanding and cooperation. MS W/W Enclosure o-ma* wallaokm@iquestnet One.lndlana Square Suite 2230 indlanapolis, Indiana 46204 317231.9000 ':fax 231.9900 Very truly yours, WALLACK FEB 22 '99 09:57AM WALLACK & WALLACK P'.3/5 ' WAUACK& WALLACKK • ATTORNEYS AT LAW February 16, 1999 Ms. Darla Jackson Property Manager REVEL & UNDERWOOD, LLC 135 North Pennsylvania Street Suite 1700 Indianapolis, Indiana 46204 Re: Bayhill Lot #193 Dear Ms. Jaeksom Barry Z. Wanatk Michael S. Wallark I am writing to you with regard to your letters of January 22, 1999, and February 11, 1999, The purpose of this letter is to both discuss the allegations set forth in your letters as well as to bring to your attention certain additional concerns that my wife and I believe must be addressed ifRevel 6t Underwood — as the Property Manager for the Homeowners' Association --intends to actively enforce the restrictive covenants applicable to Bayhill. Let me first thank you for bringing,to.Our attention the fact that my wife's conduct in tutoring children in our home might violate the restrictive covenants. We were apparently under the mistaken understanding that tutoring out ofahome was apermissibleactivity. In any otbersituation, we might attempt • to relocate my wife's tutoring activities to another location; however, due to the fact that my wife suffers from an ongoing, chronic medical condition that, is, 3n effect, a disability, operating out of an office setting is a practical impossibility. By tutoring from our home, mywife maintains the flexibility to completelyoease all or any part of the tutoring services upon very brief notice. Were she -to be tutoring from an office environment, she would no longer be able to make appropriate modifications mid accommodations for her health. Thus, while we appreciate the goal of the restriction, I believe that enforcing it against my wife would, in essence, serve to discriminate against her on the basis of her disability and render her unable to earn a living in her chosen profession. This is prohibited by federal and/or state laws. Mother difficulty that I have,with your initial letter is that it arrived in our mailbox shortly altar the Winter 1998 edition of the Waterston News which included the following advertisement: "Child Care Services —Child care inmy Bayhillhome. Fulltime, parttime, before school, after school and drop in. Diana Magolski 818-1940. We have no desire to see Ms. Magolski's child care services put out of business. Nevertheless, we cannot help but to feel more than a bit disconcerted at the notion that the property Manager desires to prohibit my wife's activities while, at the same time, advertising similar activities by another homeowner in the neighborhood. We are aware of several other people —including at least two (2) on our street alone hat also operate businesses from their homes. is the Property Manager sending similar letters to all of these people? • One Indiana Square Suhe 2230 Indianapolis, Indiana 46204 317231.9000 _ to i 23.1.9.900, FEB 22 199 09:513AM WALLACK & WALLACK P.4/5 Ms. Darla Jackson February 16, 1999 I am also concerned with the phrase "generating an increase in traffic flow and a potential traffic hazard with parking on the street-" Has the Property Manager conducted a traffic flow survey to determine the extent to which my wife's activities increase traffic flow in the neighborhood? My wife makes a concerted effort to limit parking on the street, Moreover, if parking on the street and increased traffic flow are actual problems to be addressed, why did we not receive a similar letter complaining about our Super Bowl party which had upwards ofthirty (30) guests, most of whom parked on the street? I would note further than there are many homeowners in the neighborhood who routinely park on the street and/or who drive through the neighborhood at an excessive rate of speed_ More importantly, we have discussed the situation with several of our neighbors and, not only did they not oliject.to my wife's activities, they were amazed to find that the Property Manager was trying to intervene, The homeowner directly across the street from me did not feel that we were either creating a hazard by parking on the street or increasing traffic flow in a problematic fashion. Were a neighbor to complain directly to us, we would.be more than happy to discuss the situation and endeavor to adopt a reasonable remedy. However, given my wife's disability, I do not believe that the cessation of business activities conducted in our home is either necessary or appropriate. I would like to know the source thatbrought my wife's tutoring activities to your attention. As 1 am sure you are aware, in America we have a right to confront our accusers. Perhaps if I knew the identity of the person that is concerned with my wilds activities we could discuss the matter with them and find reasonable accommodations to address their concerns. • Finally, in the event that you intend to continue in your efforts to enforce the restrictions, please be advised that we intend to make absolutely sure that all of the restrictions are strictly enforced. For example, we recently noticed that several homes in $ayhill (including at least one on out street) has a Century 21 "for sale" sign posted. Each Century 21 sign is made up of a primary advertising panel which measures TxT plus smaller panels above and/or below the main panel listing the broker's name and other information. These panels hang from (or sit above) alarge yellow wooden post which stands approximately 6' high. In addition to the primary sign, many of these house also have small signs with an information box in the front lawn. Rule 5(b) of the Supplemental Aeclarationof Covenants and Restrictions of Waterstono—Bayhill (found at page 6 of said document) states that "no sign of any kind shall be displayed to the public view on any Lot except that ane sign of not more than four (4) square feet may be displayed at any time for purpose of advertising the property for sale". The Century 21 signs violate this rule in'three (3) respects: First, the sign is larger than that allowable by the restrictions. Has the Property Manager notified Century 21 and the respective homeowners that all of these "for sale" signs must be removed because they are too large? Second, the.use.of a secondary sign exceeds the limit of one (1) sign allowed. Again, has the Property Manager advised all of the Realtors listing homes in$ayhill that they are not allowed to use an information sign ifthey have it "for sale" sign on the property? Finally, many of these signs make use of a "Sold" panel above the primary sign_ However, given that the restrictions limit use of such signs to the "purpose of advertising the proportyfor sale", once the sale has.been made, and the property is no longer "for sale", the,sign must be removed_ The restrictions do not permit Century 21 (or any other realtor, for that matter) to use signs in our neighborhood to advertise•its successes in selling properties. Has the Property Manager taken appropriate steps to be sure that upon the selling of homes in Bayhill, the for sale" signs are promptly removed? I will give you the benefit ofthe doubt and assume that the Property Managerhas not been remiss in its duties and obligations to enforce these violations because one ofthe members oftheBayhillAdvisory committee is also a broker for Century 21. is FEB 22 '99 09:59AM WALLACK & WRLLACK P.5i5 Ms.,Darla Jackson February 16, 1999 Similarly, I do not recall seeing or reading about the Property Manager taking any action against John Price last spring when, in the midst of hisunsuccessful bid to became -a candidate for the United States Senate, he routinely parked his "campaign bus'°inhis driveway. T believe thai this activity violated two rules ofthe Supplemental Declaration ofCovenants and Restrictions of Waterston-T ayhill. The activity violated Rule S(a) which prohibits parking a "camper, motor home, truck, trailer„boat or -disabled vehicle" on a lot overnight or longer. The activity also violated Rule S(b) because the vehicle was painted bright red with signs advertising Mr. Price's candidacy. Recall from the discussion above,thatsigns are only permitted to advertise a lot forsale. Perhaps the Property Manager did not attemptto prohibit Mr. Price's conduct because he is a public figure. However, I do not believe that it is appropriate for the Property Manager to choose which rules to enforce and against which homeowners to enforce them. If rules are to be enforced, they must be enforced consistently and against all homeowners. I hope that this letter has addressed the questions and concerns raised in your letters of January 22, 1999, and February 11, 1999.1 further hope that these concerns can now be "put to rest" so that my wife and I may try to return to the idyllic life that Bayhill offers without the fear of further complaints. Unfortunately, my wife's disability causes us a great deal of difficulty and emotional heartache. t can only hope that our Homeowners' Association, acting througltits Property Manager, does notdeem it necessary to add to these problems or further disturb my wife's mental and physical well-being. Should you wish to discuss these matters further, please do not hesitate to call. cc: lames Revel 0 Very truly yours, Michael S. Wallack