Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutRemonstrance: Woock-Miller letterTo: Carmel Board of Zoning Appeals Date: March 15, 2013 From: Randy and Amy Woock and Eric and Deb Miller Subject: Corrections to Record of February 25, 2013 Meeting Dear Board Members, Woock 1 Given we were not permitted to correct several of the misstatements made by Mr. Schneider during the rebuttal portion of the February 25th meeting, we wish to do so here. At the February 25th meeting, we demonstrated that: 1. there is inadequate privacy for the neighbors that will be exacerbated by the scope of the proposed construction (Attachment A) and that 100% of the burden of providing privacy falls to the neighbors forever if the variance is granted; 2. there is no existing infrastructure other than an old storage building and a small fountain in disrepair - no basement, no house foundation, no garage foundation (Attachment B); 3. there is no existing driveway other than a dirt path extending from 131st St. to the north end of the building site — no cement, no asphalt, no cobblestone, no brick (Attachment C); 4. there are no utility constraints (as conceded by Mr. Garcia at 1:03:14 of the February 25th Meeting Video ( "Video ")); and 5. Petitioners will not be able to construct and maintain the garage 1 ft. from the property line without trespassing on the Millers' property to do so (Mr. Garcia admitted the proposed garage could not be built in accordance with the requested variance without encroaching on the Millers' property (1:16:00 of Video)). With the'correction and /or clarification of the rebuttal statements made by Mr. Schneider, we will further demonstrate that: 1. the old house was not in violation of the setback; 2. unless it is moved to the north, the old circular drive cannot be reconstructed as a functioning circular drive due to the proposed garage; and 3. that the two trees to the north are not old or unique but are typical of hundreds of 20 -30 year old trees in the immediate area and thus are not a constraint to building several feet north. Woock 2 When all facts are considered, the sole consideration to building several feet north on the 2.7 acre lot is a small fountain that requires rebuilding regardless of its location. Since there is no undue hardship or practical difficulty, the Schneider's are not able to meet the standard for the Board to grant their request for a variance. As such, we again respectfully request that you reject the variance request in its entirety. Below are the facts: The Old House Was Not in Violation of the Setback Ordinance; The Proposed House Is in Violation The Board asked Mr. Schneider and Mr. Garcia during the rebuttal whether the old house violated the setback ordinance (see 59:17 — 59:34 of Video). We understood Mr. Schneider to eventually state that the old house indeed sat closer than 20 ft. from the property line. That is false. Although Mr. Schneider struggled to recall the size of the old garage, eventually settling on the description that the old garage "could barely fit a car" (1:00:40 and 1:19:10 of Video), the old garage was 20.1' x 20.2' (per Mr. Schneider's own plot map — Attachment D) and sat on the property line. The entirety of the old house sat north of the old garage by several feet - thus north of the 20 foot requirement and therefore not in violation. This can easily be seen via the attached aerial photo of the old house and garage (Attachment E, from the Hamilton County website) and the plot map (Attachment D). The proposed house, however, does indeed violate the ordinance by about 7 ft. (see, again, Mr. Schneider's plot map — Attachment F). This is in addition to the proposed garage violating the ordinance by 19 ft. Due to the Expanded Proposed Garage the Old Circular Path /Drive Cannot be Reconstructed in its Old Location The rebuttal included discussion regarding the Schneider's desire to preserve the old circular dirt path /drive (Mr. Schneider at 17:13 and Mr. Garcia at 1:03:05 of Video). To be clear, the old circular path does not exist — since the old buildings were demolished there is simply dirt at the building site. What does exist is a dirt path leading from 131st St. about 300 ft. to the north end of the building site. More importantly, though, the old circular drive cannot be reconstructed as it was or serve as a functioning circle drive at all. This is because the proposed garage, which will be built an additional 18 ft. to the west and 5 ft. to the north of the old garage, will sit directly on top of the old path /drive. This is easily seen by referencing the Schneider's plot map (Attachment G) which clearly shows the proposed "circular" drive running directly into the west side of the new garage. With the expanded garage, it is impossible to construct a functioning circular drive unless it is moved north. The Two Trees Allegedly Constraining Construction to the North are NOT 150 Years Old During the February 25th meeting (11:59 of Video ), as well as in the variance application and Petitioner's Findings of Facts, Mr. Schneider stated a desire to save two "150+ Year Old" pines /spruces as a major constraint to building to the north. Those two trees, Norway Spruces, are nowhere near 150 years old. With near certainty, they are less than 30 years old and planted in the 1980s. The Woock's have a dozen Norway Spruces that were planted after their home was built in 1987 that are of near identical height, spread and trunk circumference as the two Schneider trees. Per tree experts, including a Certified Arborist, from two local nurseries, trees of the same species planted at similar times in the Woock 3 same general area (e.g., urban vs. forest) would be expected to be of approximately similar height and trunk circumference. Further: 1. The typical life span of the fast - growing Norway Spruce in North America is about 75 years (per the Canadian Forest Service). The local tree experts believe that 75 years would actually be optimistic in our area, with one stating the local life span to more reasonably be 40 -60 years. 2. Short of taking bore samples or cutting down a tree and counting rings, the internationally - accepted standard for estimating tree age is to measure the circumference of the trunk 4 -5 ft above the ground, convert the circumference to a diameter, and multiply the diameter by a growth rate appropriate for the species. This method ( "dbh" method) is endorsed by the International Society of Arboriculture and is deemed by the local tree experts as providing a reasonably accurate method for determining age. Using that method at a trunk height of 59 ", the estimated ages of the two Schneider trees are 26.8 years and 25.0 years. For perspective, a Woock Norway Spruce measured at the same 59" height was estimated at 28.1 years; very reasonable given the house was built in 1987 and the tree was likely at least a couple years old when planted, and a good estimate according to the Certified Arborist. The trees are neither unique nor 150 years old and, in fact, likely will survive just another 20 -30 years — far less than the impact of the variance decision. They are nearly identical to hundreds planted in the immediate area of the Schneider property when that area was developed in the 1980s. They are two of over 45 mature trees on the property and two of an allee of 18 - an allee which can be expanded by at least 4 at the north end - such that their absence will not diminish the character of the property. The two trees simply are not a material constraint to building several feet to the north. Regarding the Tree to the South to be Removed to Allow for the Proposed Master Bedroom Addition Mr. Schneider stated that the tree to the south to be removed for construction of the proposed master bedroom addition is "not the healthiest ", "an unfortunate casualty" (50:00 of Video), and that its lack of health would be evident from a different angle than that shown by the Woock's (Attachment H). To be clear, the angle shown (from the northwest) is in fact that which Mr. Schneider has previously indicated shows the lack of health. The tree sat very near the southeast corner of the old house (Attachment B) and is therefore somewhat sparse in foliage about 15 feet up from the ground. In our opinion, Mr. Schneider is mistaking the sparseness for lack of health. Recall, too, that if the two trees to the north were removed and the proposed house moved north several feet, this tree could be saved. Regarding the Color Layout /Chart Referenced by Mr. Muller and Mr. Woock Finally, since it was the subject of much rebuttal discussion, we want to clarify Mrs. Woock's color layout /chart comparing the old and proposed house and garage (Attachment I). The original intent was to graphically illustrate the greatly expanded size of the proposed house and garage relative to the old. 1. All measurements are to scale and taken from the Schneider's plot map (Attachments D and F). 2. Two simplifications were made: The detail along the north -to -south faces of both the old and proposed homes were omitted as unnecessary to show the expanded north -to -south size of the Woock 4 proposed house relative to the old, and; since it was not clear from the plot map exactly where the old house and garage sat relative to the property lines (except that the old garage sat on the south property line and the old house sat north of the old garage by several feet), the western face of the old house was aligned with the western face of the proposed house, and the eastern face of the old garage was aligned with the eastern face of the proposed garage. It was an oversight that the old garage was positioned in the chart 1 foot off the property line rather than directly on it. The setback requirement protects the privacy and property of all Carmel residents. There is no undue hardship or practical difficulty to support a variance in this case. Now is the opportunity to bring this property into compliance with the city zoning ordinance. We ask that the Board deny this variance request. Sincerely, Z14144, PUctrE,k_. Amy and Randy Woock 686 Nottingham Court Carmel, IN 46032 525 -4979 (Amy cell) 525 -4926 (Randy cell) 846 -5902 (Home) aoyu,Airvua,„ Eric and Deb Miller 672 Nottingham Ct Carmel, IN 46032 402 -8633 (Deb cell) 514 -1881 (Eric cell)