HomeMy WebLinkAboutTAC SubmittalConn, An • elina V
From: Mary Wade [maryfwade @msn.com]
Sent: Monday, November 28, 2011 9.07 PM
To: Conn, Angelina V, Donahue -Wold, Alexia K, Mindham, Daren, Littlejohn, David W, Akers,
William P; Huffman, David, Thomas, John G, greg.hoyes @hamiltoncounty.in gov;
gilko @crossroadengineers.com, Duncan, Gary R; Redden, Nick,
david.lucas @hamiltoncounty in gov; Hohlt, William G, Blanchard, Jim E; Duffy, John M,
Green, Timothy J, Ellison, Christopher M, Krueskamp, Theresa A, Forward for Westermeier,
Mark; jason lemaster @hamiltoncounty.in gov; brooke gajownik @hamiltoncounty in gov;
jason kirkman @mybrighthouse.com, shirley.hunter @duke- energy com,
gary mcnamee @duke - energy.com, jlclark @vectren.com; dan.davenport @aes com;
dwhiting @citizensenergygroup.com; rfarrand @ccs.kl2.in.us; ryan hartman @ctrwd org,
troy.yackle @ sug.com; doland.w.wise @ usps.gov; sk4986@att.com
Subject: FW. Lot 12 Taylor Trace Subdivision Exhibits - Mary's TAC email
Attachments: W110453EXHIBIT.PDF, Legal Description.pdf; TAYLOR TRACE PLAT.PDF,
W 1104531ega1 doc, image001 png
Dear Member of the Carmel TAC committee,
I am attaching documents for a proposal to remove my property from its current subdivision: Taylor Trace.
Our home is situated on a 1/2 acre parcel on the south side of 146th street, just east of Carey Road. Our property
contains the original farmhouse (built in 1900), and the subdivision was created from the remaining acreage in 2003.
Taylor Trace consists of 12 lots, 11 of which are located on the small cul -de -sac Taylor Trace Drive.
It has been discussed at various home owners association meetings to remove my property from the subdivision. The
rationale is that we do not benefit from any improvements made to the common areas, and therefore creates a conflict of
interest to the other home owners. The overall consensus is a preference to have our parcel removed from Taylor Trace
and replatted as such.
All homeowners are in favor of this request and I appreciate any feedback you have on our proposal.
Best Regards,
Mary Marcotte
Property Address: 3309 E 146th St Carmel IN 46033
1
iWI: f A J
ENGINEERS
., ..,.- ,;:site,.:
l ,ri(d with cunfiJencef
LAND DESCRIPTION
Lot Numbered 12 in Taylor Trace Subdivision, a subdivision in Hamilton County, Indiana as per
plat thereof, recorded January 15, 2003 as Instrument Number 200300006061and filed in Plat
Cabinet No. 3, Slide 131 in the Office of the Recorder of Hamilton County, Indiana.
The above described real estate is also more particularly described as follows:
A part of the Northwest Quarter of Section 20, Township 18 North, Range 4 East of the Second
Principal Meridian in Clay Township, Hamilton County, Indiana:
Commencing at the Northwest corner of the Northwest Quarter of Section 20, Township 18
North, Range 4 East; thence North 90 degrees 00 minutes 00 seconds East (basis of bearings) on
the North line of said Northwest Quarter 200.00 feet to the Northerly prolongation of the West
line of Taylor Trace Subdivision, a subdivision in Hamilton County, Indiana as per plat thereof,
recorded January 15, 2003 as Instrument Number 200300006061and filed in Plat Cabinet No. 3,
Slide 131 in the Office of the Recorder of Hamilton County, Indiana; thence South 00 degrees 47
minutes 19 seconds East along said West line and Northerly prolongation thereof 85.01 feet to
the Northwest corner of Lot 12 in said Taylor Trace Subdivision and the POINT OF
BEGINNING of this description (the following eight (8) courses are described along the
perimeter of said Lot 12 in said Taylor Trace Subdivision); 1.) thence continuing South 00
degrees 47 minutes 19 seconds East 140.38 feet; 2.) thence North 89 degrees 15 minutes 05
seconds East 137.78 feet; 3.) thence North 00 degrees 44 minutes 55 seconds West 138.58 feet;
4.) thence North 90 degrees 00 minutes 00 seconds West 17.80 feet; 5.) thence North 00 degrees
00 minutes 00 seconds West 22 17 feet; 6) thence North 90 degrees 00 minutes 00 seconds
West 45.70 feet; 7.) thence South 00 degrees 00 minutes 00 seconds East 22.17 feet; 8.) thence
North 90 degrees 00 minutes 00 seconds West 74.36 feet to the Point of Beginning, containing
0.465 acres (20,234 square feet), more or less.
Subject to all legal easements and rights -of -way.
The above described legal description was performed under the direction of the undersigned.
Dated November 3, 2011
Brady (uhn, Registered Land Surveyor No. 20500007
State of Indiana
10505 N College Ave I Indianapolis. IN 46280 j www.weihe.net
IN.
20500007 c
< STATE OF
7 ".� NDIA N P _4O�-,\\;
(311) 846 -6611 //(800)//4 Rb } ,ax`\(317) 843 -0546
Allan 1-1. Weihe- P.E. L.S - Founder
Conn, An • eiina V
From: Hunter, Shirley A [Shirley Hunter @duke- energy com]
Sent: Tuesday, November 29, 2011 12:47 PM
To: Mary Wade; Conn, Angelina V; Donahue -Wold, Alexia K, Mindham, Daren, Littlejohn, David
W, Akers, William P; Huffman, David; Thomas, John G; greg.hoyes @hamiltoncounty.in gov;
gilko @crossroadengineers com; Duncan, Gary R; Redden, Nick;
david lucas @hamiltoncounty.in gov; Hohlt, William G; Blanchard, Jim E, Duffy, John M,
Green, Timothy J, Ellison, Christopher M; Krueskamp, Theresa A; Forward for Westermeier,
Mark, jason lemaster @hamiltoncounty.in gov; brooke gajownik @hamiltoncounty in.gov;
jason.kirkman @mybrighthouse.com; McNamee, Gary S; jlclark @vectren com,
dan.davenport @aes com; dwhiting @citizensenergygroup.com, rfarrand @ccs.k12 in us;
ryan hartman @ctrwd.org; troy yackle @sug com; doland w.wise @usps gov; sk4986 @att.com
Subject: RE: Lot 12 Taylor Trace Subdivision Exhibits - Duke energy email
Duke Energy has no issue with splitting this lot from the Taylor Trace Subdivision.
Shirley Hunter
Sr. Distribution Eng Specialist
Duke Energy
16475 Southpark Dr
Westfield, IN 46074
317.896.6711
From: Mary Wade [mailto:maryfwade @msn.coml
Sent: Monday, November 28, 2011 9:07 PM
To: Conn, Angelina V; awold @carmel.in.gov; dmindham @carmel.in.gov; dlittlejohn@carmel.in.gov;
wakers @carmel.in.gov; dhuffman @carmel.in.gov; jthomas @carmel.in.gov; greg .hoves @hamiltoncounty.in.gov;
ailko @crossroadenaineers.com; gduncan @carmel.in.gov; nredden @carmel.in.gov; david.lucas@hamiltoncounty.in.gov;
whohlt @carmel.in.gov; jblanchard @carmel.in.gov; jduffv @carmel.in.gov; tgreen @carmel.in.gov; cellison @carmel.in.gov;
tkrueskamp @carmel.in.gov; mwestermeier @carmelclayaarks.com; iason. lemaster @hamiltoncounty.in.gov;
brooke .gajownik @hamiltoncounty.in.gov; jason.kirkman@mvbrighthouse.com; Hunter, Shirley A; McNamee, Gary S;
ilclark @vectren.com; dan.davenport @aes.com; dwhiting @citizenseneraygroup.com; rfarrand@ccs.k12.in.us;
ryan.hartman @ctrwd.orq; troy.yackle @sug.com; doland.w.wise @usps.gov; sk4986 @att.com
Subject: FW: Lot 12 Taylor Trace Subdivision Exhibits
Dear Member of the Carmel TAC committee,
I am attaching documents for a proposal to remove my property from its current subdivision: Taylor Trace.
Our home is situated on a 1/2 acre parcel on the south side of 146th street, just east of Carey Road. Our property
contains the original farmhouse (built in 1900), and the subdivision was created from the remaining acreage in 2003.
Taylor Trace consists of 12 lots, 11 of which are located on the small cul -de -sac Taylor Trace Drive.
It has been discussed at various home owners association meetings to remove my property from the subdivision. The
rationale is that we do not benefit from any improvements made to the common areas, and therefore creates a conflict of
interest to the other home owners. The overall consensus is a preference to have our parcel removed from Taylor Trace
and replatted as such.
All homeowners are in favor of this request and I appreciate any feedback you have on our proposal.
Best Regards,
Mary Marcotte
Property Address: 3309 E 146th St Carmel IN 46033
1
Conn, An •.elina V
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Greg Ilko [gilko @crossroadengineers.com]
Tuesday, November 29, 2011 8.52 AM
'Mary Wade'
Conn, Angelina V; Greg Hoyes, Duncan, Gary R
RE: Lot 12 Taylor Trace Subdivision Exhibits - Greg Ilko email
I have no comment with regards to this request.
Thank you,
Gregory J. Ilko, P.E.
CrossRoad Engineers, PC
3417 Sherman Drive
Beech Grove, IN 46107
Office: 317 - 780 -1555 ext. 112
Mobile: 317 - 408 -3609
Fax: 317 - 780 -6525
From: Mary Wade [mailto:maryfwade @msn.com]
Sent: Monday, November 28, 2011 9:07 PM
To: Conn, Angelina V; awold @carmel.in.gov; dmindham @carmel.in.aov; dlittlejohn @carmel.in.gov;
wakers@carmel.in.gov; dhuffman @carmel.in.gov; jthomas@carmel.in.aov; greg .hoyes @hamiltoncounty.in.gov;
gilko @crossroadengineers.com; gduncan @carmel.in.gov; nredden @carmel.in.gov; david .lucas @hamiltoncountv.in.gov;
whohlt @carmel.in.gov; jblanchard @carmel.in.gov; jduffy @carmel.in.gov; tgreen @carmel.in.gov; cellison @carmel.in.gov;
tkrueskamp @carmel.in.gov; mwestermeier @carmelclavparks.com; jason .lemaster @hamiltoncounty.in.gov;
brooke. gajownik @hamiltoncountv.in.gov; jason .kirkman @mybrighthouse.com; shirley.hunter @duke- energy.com;
aarv.mcnamee @duke- energv.com; jlclark @vectren.com; dan.davenport @aes.com; dwhiting @citizensenergygroup.com;
rfarrand@ccs.k12.in.us; rvan.hartman @ctrwd.orq; troy.yackle @sug.com; doland.w.wise @usps.gov; sk4986 @att.com
Subject: FW: Lot 12 Taylor Trace Subdivision Exhibits
Dear Member of the Carmel TAC committee,
I am attaching documents for a proposal to remove my property from its current subdivision: Taylor Trace.
Our home is situated on a 1/2 acre parcel on the south side of 146th street, just east of Carey Road. Our property
contains the original farmhouse (built in 1900), and the subdivision was created from the remaining acreage in 2003.
Taylor Trace consists of 12 lots, 11 of which are located on the small cul -de -sac Taylor Trace Drive.
It has been discussed at various home owners association meetings to remove my property from the subdivision. The
rationale is that we do not benefit from any improvements made to the common areas, and therefore creates a conflict of
interest to the other home owners. The overall consensus is a preference to have our parcel removed from Taylor Trace
and replatted as such.
All homeowners are in favor of this request and I appreciate any feedback you have on our proposal.
Best Regards,
Mary Marcotte
Property Address: 3309 E 146th St Carmel IN 46033
1
�j jj;l�1Q jT of L &SdYiEl
C&rmell 1C'o Ac(!✓ DejparimentE
CarrcL,.' sa¢�a 3n� 4 602 •
November 30, 2011
Mary Marcotte
3309 E. 146th Street
Carmel, IN 46033
RE: Lot 12 Taylor Trace Subdivision Exhibits
Dear Ms. Marcotte:
The above mentioned information has been received and reviewed.
At the present time, I see nothing in the plans that would hamper
law enforcement efforts.
If we can be of any further assistance to you, please contact us.
Respectfully,
Timothy J. Green
Chief of Police
TJG:vb
cc: Dept. of Community Services
,I317) 57:1-2500
A Nationally Accredited :LaW,EnforcementAgency Fax )517) 571 -2512
Conn, Angelina V
From: Mary Wade [maryfwade@msn corn]
Sent: Saturday, November 05, 2011 4:22 PM
To: Conn, Angelina V
Subject: FW: Lot 12 Taylor Trace Subdivision Exhibits
Attachments: W110453EXHIBIT PDF, Legal Description pdf; TAYLOR TRACE PLAT PDF,
W 1104531ega1 doc
Hi Angie,
I just received this email with attachments from the engineer who is working with me to remove my lot from the
subdivision. Could you let me know if what he has drawn up is sufficient for submission? Thanks so much and best
regards,
Mary Marcotte
From: furryfamilyvet @hotmail.com
To: maryfwade @msn.com
Subject: FW: Lot 12 Taylor Trace Subdivision Exhibits
Date: Sat, 5 Nov 2011 15:46:54 -0400
Furry Family Veterinary Clinic
317 - 818 -8554
From: evansi @weihe.net
To: furrvfamilvvet @hotmail.com
Date: Fri, 4 Nov 2011 12:40:31 -0700
Subject: Lot 12 Taylor Trace Subdivision Exhibits
Hello Mary,
Attached for your convenience are pdf's of the Exhibits and legal descriptions of Lot 12 in Taylor Trace Subdivision. I will
mail 5 paper copies of each to you on Monday.
Thanks again for your patience and have a great weekend.
Regards,
Jay Evans
Q
Jay Evans
Survey Project Manager
Weihe Engineers, Inc
10505 N College Avenue
Indianapolis, Indiana 46280
317846 -6611
800 1 452 - 6408
317 1 843 - 0546 fax
weihe.net
This message and any files transmitted with it are confidential, may contain privileged information which is intended solely for the receipt, use and benefit of the intended recipient
of this email. If you are not the intended recipient, be advised that dissemination, distribution, printing or copying of this message is strictly prohibited and may result in legal
1
liability on your behalf. If you receive this message in error or are not the named recipient, please notify the sender at either the email address or telephone number above and
delete this email from your computer. Thank you.
2
Daniels v. Area Plan Comm'n of Alle County
306 F.3d 445 (7th Ci r. 2002)
306 F.3d 445
Daniels v. Area Plan Comm'n of Allen County
William DANIELS and Judy Daniels, Plaintiffs- Appellees,
v.
THE AREA PLAN COMMISSION OF ALLEN COUNTY, Defendant - Appellant.
No. 01 -1158.
United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit
September 11, 2002
Argued Nov. 1, 2001.
446
447
448
449
John C. Theisen, Matthew M. Hohman (argued), Barnes & Thornburg, Fort Wayne, IN, for Plaintiffs -
Appellees.
Matthew J. Elliott (argued), Beckman Lawson, Fort Wayne, IN, for Defendant - Appellant.
Before FLAUM, Chief Judge, MANION and KANNE, Circuit Judges
MANION, Circuit Judge.
L
On April 13, 2000, William and Judy Daniels filed a complaint, under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of Indiana, seeking a declaratory judgment that the Area Plan
Commission of Allen County violated the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution, as well
the Indiana Constitution, when it vacated a restrictive covenant attached to their property that was designed
to preserve the residential character of the surrounding neighborhood. On cross - motions for summary
judgment, the district court concluded that the Plan Commission violated the Daniels' Fifth Amendment right
by vacating the restrictive covenant without a public purpose. The court entered a permanent injunction
ordering the Plan Commission to reverse its removal of the covenant and prohibiting the Plan Commission
from further removal of the covenants for any private purpose. The court also found that Indiana Code § 36-
7-3-11, under which the Plan Commission had vacated the covenant, was unconstitutional because it does
not require the Commission to follow the procedures set forth in the state's eminent domain statute for
determining public use. We affirm in part and reverse in part.
II.
William and Judy Daniels ( "the Daniels ") are the current owners and residents of the property located at
1735 Broadmoor Avenue in Fort Wayne, Indiana. The Daniels' property is in a subdivision commonly known
as the Broadmoor Addition ( "Broadmoor "). Broadmoor was surveyed and platted for 80 lots in 1940 and the
Daniels own lot 10. The plat of the Broadmoor Addition has had a restrictive covenant limiting lots to
residential use since the subdivision was platted. Specifically, the plat's restrictive covenant states: "No
building other than a single family dwelling and a private garage shall be built on any one lot."
The Broadmoor lots numbered three through five (collectively referred to as "Lots "), located in the 8800
block on the west side of Lima Road, are the subject of the current litigation. Along with lots one and two,
these properties form the eastern perimeter of Broadmoor along Lima Road. Lima Road is a north -south
corridor into Fort Wayne, Indiana, where each day over thirty thousand cars travel. In October 1999, HNS
Enterprises, LLC and LST, LLC (collectively "HNS "), as the owners of the Lots, submitted a rezoning petition
and application for primary development to the Area Plan Commission of Allen County ( "Plan Commission ").
As part of the application, HNS requested that the Plan Commission vacate. their Lots and the associated
restrictive covenants from the Broadmoor plat pursuant to Indiana Code §.36-7-a-11.[1] HNS also petitioned
the
450
Commission to rezone the Lots to C- 2A/Neighborhood Shopping Center and approve a primary development
plan for the Lots consisting of a 12,000 square foot shopping center which contained five stores within a
single story building (the "Broadmoor Shops "). At the time, each of the Lots contained an uninhabited
residence.
On December 9, 1999, the Plan Commission held a public hearing on the petitions and numerous residents
of Broadmoor objected to the granting of any of HNS' petitions. Also at the hearing, the Daniels' counsel
appeared and argued that the Pla'n,Comrnission did not have the authority-to remove the restrictive
covenants - requiring that all structures built within'Broadmoor be single - family residential homes. The
Daniels' counsel further argued that the vacation and rezoning of lots three through five of Broadmoor would
constitute an unconstitutional taking of private property for a private use. HNS filed a statement of reasons
for the proposed vacation along with its petition to the Plan Commission•. In their staternent of reasons, HNS
claimed that the conditions relating to the Lots had changed so as to defeat the purpose of the plat. HNS
also contended that vacating the covenant would be in the public interest because without the residential
restriction, HNS could develop the property with commercial uses which would serve as a buffer between
Lima Road and the remaining residences. Finally, HNS claimed that the covenant vacation would not diminish
the value of the remaining single - family homes in the plat and could in fact increase their value due to the
rundown nature of the uninhabited houses currently on the Lots.
At a semirid .meeting held i r _itanu i`y 20,_ 000 the P#ao Con1missk +? adopted a "do pass" .recommeridattgo
approving HNS' rezoning petition. The Pian CGnlnlf55ion aim: granted conditional approval to the vacation of
the Lots from the plat of the Broadmoor Addition and for the primary development plan for the Broadmoor
Shops. The Plan Commission specifically found that it was in the public interest to vacate the Lots and
covenants from the Broadmoor plat because: it would allow the site to be redeveloped with commercial uses
which could be a more appropriate use for the property and could be a benefit to the immediate
neighborhood. The uninhabited and deteriorating residential structures would be removed from the site. In
addition the Plan Commission found that the value of the other lots in Broadmoor would not be diminished
by the vacation because:
it would allow the site to be redeveloped with commercial uses which could be a more appropriate use for
the property and could be a benefit to the immediate neighborhood The uninhabited and deteriorating
residential structures would be removed from the site.
In addition the Plan Commission found that the value of the other lots in Broadmoor would not be diminished
as
may also use the property for most C -1A and C -1 uses such as "a service station, a tire store, a car wash, a
laundromat, a tavern, a package liquor store, a massage salon, a bowling alley, a pool hall, billboards, and
manufactured or mobile homes." See Daniels, 125 F.Supp.2d at 351. As the Daniels point out, the impact on
the community depends on the use to which the property is put, and without knowing the use, the Plan
Commission could not reasonably find that the vacation of the covenant could benefit the community.[20]
The only common feature to all of the potential future commercial uses of the Lots would be to confer a
private benefit on HNS either through their own development of the Lots
466
or the sale of the property to a developer. The underlying purpose of a government taking that transfers a
property interest to a private entity must be for a public benefit, and in this case any speculative public
benefit would be incidental at best.
Secondly, the Plan Commission did not find that any eventual commercial development would be an asset to
the community, merely that it could be an asset to the community. This type of possible public use does not
satisfy the Fifth Amendment requirements. The Supreme Court has held that when there is a delegation of
power to a local government to determine a public use, it is not enough that property may be devoted
hereafter to a public use for which there may be an appropriate condemnation." Vester, 281 U.S. at 448, 50
S.Ct. 360 (holding that a public use declaration that an excess condemnation was in "furtherance of the
public use" was not suitably defined enough to justify the taking under a state law requiring that
condemnations be supported by a public use) (emphasis added).[21] The Plan Commission argues in
response that we should not just consider the actual purposes that were considered, but also any
"conceivable public purpose." See Gamble, 5 F.3d at 287 (emphasis in original). However, that standard, as
enunciated in Midkiff, has traditionally applied to state legislatively or congressionally designated public
purposes employed to justify the use of eminent domain and so does not apply to independent findings by
the Plan Commission that are unsupported by state code. See Midkiff, 467 U.S. at 244, 104 S.Ct. 2321
("Thus, if a legislature, state or federal, determines there are substantial reasons for an exercise of the
taking power, courts must defer to its determination that the taking will serve a public use." (emphasis
added)). See also Armendanz, 75 F.3d at 1321. Even so, while in this case there may be some conceivable
public benefit of some possible future use of the property, that benefit will always be subservient to the
future private uses of the Lots, and therefore private benefits, by HNS. Much like the value of the property
taken, "public use is to be determined at the time of the taking, and at the time of the taking of the
restrictive covenant, the possible future commercial development could not be rationally described as for a
public purpose. Cf. Coniston Corp., 844 F.2d at 463 ( "The taking is complete when it occurs .... ") (citing
First English Evangelical Lutheran Church v. County of Los Angeles, 482 U.S. 304, 320, 107 S.Ct. 2378, 96
L.Ed.2d 250 (1987)). The public use requirement would be rendered meaningless if it encompassed
speculative future public benefits that could accrue only if a landowner chooses to use his property in a
beneficial, but not mandated, manner.
In. sum, because,the Plan Commission has not followed legislative determinations of what constituigs a valid
pui?ti use, ,nor;provided..aw.' fa cts:tha monstrate..tftat..rhe. ovenant ma c #:loo is 5,1.
I� 4' 4k iaterest y r 7< a ae. t 3n. th,-, , Rya: cz,...rore4s-sptrrhaslAciateA c the pcbi
v
467
use requirement of the Takings Clause by vacating the restrictive covenant for a private purpose.
C. Facial Challenge
In addition to holding that the Plan Commission violated the Daniels' Fifth Amendment rights by vacating the
restrictive covenant, the district court also held that Indiana Code 36- 7 -3 -11 was facially invalid under the
Takings Clause. Subsection (e) of Indiana Code 36- 7 -3 -11 provides, in pertinent part:
Indiana Code — plat vacation provisions, effective July I, 2011
IC 36 -7 -340
Sec. 10. (a) The owners of land in a plat may vacate all or part of that plat under:
(1) this section; or
(2) IC 36 -7 -4 -711.
(b) In a case in which all the owners of land in a plat are in agreement regarding a proposed
vacation, the owners may file a written instrument to vacate all or part of that plat. All the owners
of land in the plat must declare the plat or part of the plat to be vacated m a the written
instrument. The instrument must he executed, acknowledged, and recorded in the same manner
as a deed to land.
(c) Before offering the instrument for recording under this section, an owner must file a copy
of the instrument in the county auditor's office and must submit the instrument vacating all or
part of the plat for the approval of the plan commission that has jurisdiction over the platted area
under IC 36 -7 -4 or the plat committee acting on behalf of the plan commission. If no plan
commission has jurisdiction over the platted area under IC 36 -7 -4, the instrument must be
submitted for the approval of:
(1) the county executive, in the case of land located in an unincorporated area; or
(2) the municipal works board, in the case of land located inside the corporate boundaries of
a municipality.
The instrument may be approved under this section without notice or a hearing. The provisions
of IC 36 -7 -4 concerning notice and hearing do not apply to the approval of an instrument under
this section.
(d) The county recorder may record the instrument only if a certificate showing the approval
of the vacation by the plan commission, county executive, or municipal works board is attached
to it. If the instrument is not executed and approved as required by this section, it is void.
(e)The. ..0 land _� _ _ cal T.... .,d out side . <i, �. . _ i T ...C,
.f S. x�t. e..f vv9f Vf v'J -of L�.f.�.Gl fAf a t.ft (Ct that is �. {l'��CEZ \. 4.f G. C. C.S (.ut tl:ffL+ :•�f4 �.f'� %F i�{� btTZdJ:54E C /1.t.it.:7 «I
municipality may vacate all of the plat without the approval required by subsections (c) and (d) if
no lots have been sold and no roads constnicted in the plat, and all of the owners of land in the
plat declare the plat to be vacated in a written instrument. The instrument must be executed,
acknowledged, and recorded in the same manner as a deed to land.
(f) An instrument recorded under this section terminates the effect of the plat or part of the plat
declared to be vacated, and it also terminates all public rights in the public ways and public
places described in the plat or part of the plat. However, a public way that has been improved, or
that is part of an improved plat, may be vacated only in accordance with section 12 of this
chapter or with IC 36 -7 -4 -712, whichever is applicable.
IC 36 -7 -4 -711
Sec 711. (a) The plan commission (or plat committee acting on its behalf), proceeding in
accordance with IC 36- 7 -3 -10 or with this section, has exclusive control over the vacation of
plats or parts of plats.
(b) In a case in which not all the owners of land in a plat are in agreement regarding a
proposed vacation, this section provides an alternate procedure under which one (1) or more
owners of land in the plat may file with the plan commission a petition to vacate all the plat or
only that part of the plat that pertains to land owned by the petitioner or petitioners. A petition
under this section must:
(1) state the reasons for and the circumstances prompting the request;
(2) specifically describe the property in the plat proposed to be vacated; and
(3) give the naive and address of every other owner of land in the plat.
(c) Subject to section 714 of this chapter, a petition under this section may also include a
request to vacate any recorded covenants filed as a part of the plat.
(d) Not more than thirty (30) days after receipt of a petition under this section, the plan
commission staff shall announce the date for the hearing before the plan commission (or plat
committee acting on the plan commission's behalf). The plan commission shall adopt rules
prescribing procedures for setting hearing dates and for providing other notice as may be
required in accordance with this chapter. The petitioner shall pay all expenses of providing the
notice required by this subsection.
(e) The plan commission shall adopt rules prescribing procedures for the conduct of the
hearing, which must include a provision giving every other owner of land in the plat an
opportunity to comment on the petition.
(f) After hearing the petition, the plan commission or plat committee shall approve or
disapprove the request. The commission or committee may approve the vacation of all or part of
a plat only upon a determination that:
(1) conditions in the platted area have changed so as to defeat the original purpose of the
plat;
(2) it is in the public interest to vacate all or part of the plat; and
i.3) the .valoe of that part of the ?brat in the plat not orvneci by the petitioner ill not be
ti ii' inishext by iii • vacation.
(g) The commission or committee may impose reasonable conditions as part of any approval.
The commission or committee shall furnish a copy of the commission's or committee's decision
to the county recorder for recording.
(h) An applicant or other interested party may appeal the approval or disapproval of a
vacation by the plat committee in the manner prescribed by section 402(d) of this chapter.
¥C 36 -7 -4 -714
Sec. 714. The vacation of all or part of a plat may include the vacation of any recorded
covenants filed with the plat, but only upon a determination that:
(1) the platted area is within an area needing redevelopment and the covenant vacation
would promote a recovery of property values in the area needing redevelopment by allowing or
encouraging normal development and occupancy of the platted area;
(2) the covenant vacation is needed to secure for the public adequate light, air, convenience
of access, or safety from fire, flood, or other danger; or
(3) the covenant vacation is needed to lessen or avoid congestion in the public ways.
IC 36 -7 -4 -715
Sec. 715. (a) The following are final decisions of the plan commission that may be reviewed
as provided by section 1016 of this chapter:
(1) Primary approval or disapproval of a plat.
(2) Imposition of a condition on primary approval of a plat.
(3) Approval or disapproval of the vacation of all or part of a plat.
(4) Approval or disapproval of the vacation of any recorded covenants filed with the plat.
(5) Imposition of a condition on approval of the vacation of all or part of a plat (which may
include the vacation of any recorded covenants filed with the plat).
(b) The plan commission may adopt a rule to limit further consideration for up to one (1) year
after its disapproval, of a plat or vacation request that is disapproved under section 707, 708, 711,
712, or 714 of this chapter.
Conn, An
elina V
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Attachments:
Conn, Angelina V
Tuesday, September 27, 2011 2.09 PM
'jdougiass @ insightengineering.com'
Keeling, Adrienne M; Donahue -Wold, Alexia K
Taylor Trace - ROSO III
ROSO III Subd Control, Chapter 7 (Z- 346- 00).pdf; Secondary Plat - Replat 2011 pdf; Primary
Plat 2011.pdf
Hi, Jeff —
Taylor Trace was platted under the residential open space ordinance, / think. Attached is a version of the open space
ordinance that was in place at the time of primary plat approval. A certain acreage of open space /common area had to
be platted, in order to get the density incentive and reductions in setbacks & lot widths, etc. If you can keep with that
required amount of open space, then I think you would just need to do an administrative secondary plat /replat
review /approval in order to extend lots 9 & 10 westward into the common area, and shrink the acreage of that common
area. That application is also attached.
There might be issues with the common area being a current platted drainage and utility easement. Also, the landscape
plan for the neighborhood will have to be revised. Review by the Technical Advisory Committee will also be required.
The TAC members list is online at: http: / /www.carmel.in.gov/ Modules /ShowDocument.aspx ?documentlD =708
If you cannot meet the ROSO III regulations, then you will have to appear before the plan commission for approval of a
primary plat amendment, I think. That involves a public hearing process. That application is also attached. The process
flow chart and PC calendar is online at: http: / /www.carmel.in.gov/ modules /showdocument.aspx ?documentid =29 and
http: / /www.carmel.in.gov/ modules /showdocument.aspx ?documentid =1262
Angie Conn, Planning Administrator
City of Carmel Planning & Zoning Division
Dept. of Community Services
1 Civic Square, 3rd Fir
Carmel, IN 46032
0 317 - 571 -2417 1 F 317- 571 -2426 1 E. aconn @carmel.in.gov
W: www.carmeldocs.com
Please consider the environment before printing this e -mail
1
Conn, An elg ina V
From: Greg R. Hoyes [Greg.Hoyes @hamiltoncounty.in govt
Sent: Thursday, December 01, 2011 2.15 PM
To: 'Mary Wade'
Cc: Conn, Angelina V; Donahue -Wold, Alexia K, Huffman, David, Thomas, John G,
gilko @crossroadengineers com, Duncan, Gary R, Redden, Nick; David E Lucas
Subject: RE. Lot 12 Taylor Trace Subdivision Exhibits - greg hoyes email
Ms Wade
The Hamilton County Surveyor's Office has no objections to the proposal to remove your property from the Taylor Trace
subdivision, but please note that removal of the property will not result in removal of the Taylor Trace Regulated Drain
Maintenance Assessment. Your property will continue to benefit from the Taylor Trace Regulated Drain and therefore will
continue to be assessed under Indiana Drainage Code (IC 36 -9 -27) If you have any questions, please let me know
leyeJ, ae, eriJQ/8., e £se
Plan Reviewer
Hamilton County Surveyor's Office
One Hamilton County Square
Suite 188
Noblesville, IN. 46060
Phone. (317) 776 -8495
Fax (317) 776 -9628
Greq .Hoses@ hamiltoncounty.in.gov
Website www.hamiltoncounty.in.qov
From: Mary Wade Finailto:maryfwade @msn.coml
Sent: Monday, November 28, 2011 9:07 PM
To: Conn, Angelina V; awold @carmel.in.gov; dmindham @carmel.in.gov; dlittlejohn @carmel.in.aov;
wakers @carmel.in.aov; dhuffman @carmel.in.aov; ithomas @carmel.in.aov; Greg R. Hoyes;
gilko @crossroadengineers.com; aduncan @carmel.in.gov; nredden @carmel.in.gov; David E. Lucas; whohlt @carmel.in.gov;
iblanchard @carmel.in.gov; iduffy @carmel.in.gov; tareen @carmel.in.gov; cellison @carmel.in.gov;
tkrueskamp @carmel.in.aov; mwestermeier @carmelclayparks .com; Jason T. LeMaster; Brooke M. Gajownik;
iason.kirkman@mybrighthouse.com; shirlev.hunter @duke- energy.com; aarv.mcnamee @duke - eneray.com;
ilclark @vectren.com; dan.davenport @aes.com; dwhiting @citizenseneravaroup.com; rfarrand @ccs.k12.in.us;
rvan.hartman @ctrwd.ora; trov.vackle @sua.com; doland.w.wise@usos.aov; sk4986 @att.com
Subject: FW: Lot 12 Taylor Trace Subdivision Exhibits
Dear Member of the Carmel TAC committee,
I am attaching documents for a proposal to remove my property from its current subdivision: Taylor Trace.
Our home is situated on a 1/2 acre parcel on the south side of 146th street, just east of Carey Road. Our property
contains the original farmhouse (built in 1900), and the subdivision was created from the remaining acreage in 2003.
Taylor Trace consists of 12 lots, 11 of which are located on the small cul -de -sac Taylor Trace Drive.
It has been discussed at various home owners association meetings to remove my property from the subdivision. The
rationale is that we do not benefit from any improvements made to the common areas, and therefore creates a conflict of
interest to the other home owners. The overall consensus is a preference to have our parcel removed from Taylor Trace
and replatted as such.
All homeowners are in favor of this request and I appreciate any feedback you have on our proposal.
Best Regards,
Mary Marcotte
1