HomeMy WebLinkAboutCorrespondenceTo: Carmel Board of Zoning Appeals
Date: February 20, 2013
From: Randy and Amy Woock
Subject: Telesco Opposition to Schneider Variance Request
Dear Board Members,
Attached please find:
49ECEIVEO
F.9 20 2013
.DOGS
1. An email from Tom and Lara Telesco, 658 Nottingham Court, to Randy and Amy Woock, dated
Friday, February 15, 2013, stating the Telesco's opposition to the Schneider's variance request;
and
2. A copy of the January 5, 2013, letter from the Schneider's distributed to the Woock's, Miller's
and Telesco's outlining the building plans. To our knowledge, this letter was not filed with the
Schneider's variance request.
The January 5 letter was distributed personally to each of the three mentioned families as the north
borders of their properties are adjacent to the south border of the Schneider property and are directly
affected by the proposed construction. It provides a brief description of the layout of the new house
and garage and motivations for the variance request. It also includes a request for support of the
variance, via email, by January 11, 2013. Based only on the January 5 letter and a brief conversation with
the Schneider's, the Telesco's responded affirmatively on that same day, January 5. Because the
January 5 letter provided scant detail, the Woock's and Miller's did not respond, preferring to wait until
further details could be gleaned from material provided in the Schneider's formal variance application.
The Telesco's February 15 email rescinds the email of January 5 (attached to the application) and
definitively states opposition to the variance request. All three neighbors to the south are firmly
opposed to the request. Per the statement, the Telesco's reversed their position once they were made
aware, through facts gathered from the application materials, of the full details of the proposed
construction not provided in the January 5 letter, and of misinformation and, in our opinion, misleading
information in the January 5 letter. Among the information clarified and corrected for the Telesco's are:
1. The January 5 letter states the variance is needed because the "garage will not be 20 ft" but
does not specify how close to the property line it is intended. From the site plan it can be seen
that the garage is intended to be just 1 foot from the property line.
2. The January 5 letter implies only the garage requires the variance. In fact, it states "The house
will be 23 ft from the property line ". However, from the site plan it can be seen that the house,
specifically the master bedroom addition, is just 14 ft. from the property line, also in violation of
the setback ordinance. The January 5 letter also mentions "a stone courtyard behind" the house
but does not specify either its size or distance from the property line. From the site map it can
be seen that the courtyard runs a full 20 ft., east to west, within just 1 foot of the property line.
3. The January 5 letter states the Schneider's intention to "put our new house in the existing
footprint; we are just upgrading the structure" and references "prior building footprint ".
However, from the site plan it can be seen that the new garage is well more than twice the size
of the old one, with a full 38 ft., east to west, within just 1 foot of the property line. In addition,
the first floor surface area of the new house is over twice the size of the old one and includes the
master bedroom addition that is within 14 ft. of the property line.
4. The January 5 letter states a desire to "conserve as many of the mature trees as we can" and
cites two "large pines to the North" that limit construction to the north. However, the Woock's
believe that a spruce (taller than the two to the north and 18 ft. in diameter) will need to be
removed to allow construction to the south, specifically the master bedroom addition.
5. The January 5 letter includes an attached aerial photo of the area that specifically highlights a
"Ditch" and "Mature Tree Line" as providing (the sole) privacy to the southern neighbors. We
surmise that the Schneider's are unaware that that "ditch" (actually, a swale) and tree line are
the property of those same southern neighbors.
In summary, the Telesco's rescinded their January 5 support of the variance request, and expressed firm
opposition, via their February 15 email and based on additional information not expressed in the
Schneider's January 5 letter. All three neighbors to the south, each with property adjacent to the
Schneider's south property line and therefore directly affected by the 58 ft. of proposed new
construction within 1 foot of the property line (not including 24 ft. of the original 1,000 sq. ft.
outbuilding /garage that sits on the property line in the southwest corner of the lot) and 19 ft. of
proposed house within 14 ft., are firmly opposed to the variance request.
Sincerely,
Ms-ruv, ()e_ra
Amy and Randy Woock
686 Nottingham Court
Carmel, IN 46032
525 -4979 (Amy's cell)
525 -4926 (Randy's cell)
846 -5902 (H)
Subject: RE: Schneider Variance Request — Woock Submission
From: Larah Telesco (tltelesco@msn.com)
To awoock@yahoo.com;
Gc randy.woock @cnoinc.com;
Date: Friday, February 15, 2013 1:56 PM
The Telesco family of 658 Nottingham Court backs the position of our neighbors in regards to the Schneider variance. While we previously
supported the Schneider's building plans, after further review we have reconsidered this position We believe it is not unreasonable to ask that
the new house and other structures be moved to comply with the current zoning guidelines.
Larah and Tom Telesco
Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2013 10:30:57 -0800
From: awoock@yahoo.com
Subject: Schneider Variance Request - Woock Submission
To: tltelesco@msn.com
CC: Awoock@yahoo.com; randy.woock@cnoinc.com
Tom and Larah,
We know you are busy with your own moving situation but we're hoping you could take a few minutes to take another look at
the Schneider setback request. We believe that with more complete information as to the building plans than what the
Schneider's provided in their January packet you will agree that the request is excessive, unreasonable and will have a direct and
detrimental impact on the privacy and quality of life of both the Woock's and the Miller's and, with that, devalue our properties
and to a lesser extent the properties of others on our street. This is our only opportunity to maintain that privacy and quality of
life that drew us here in the first place. If the request is granted we, and subsequent owners of our homes, will have to live with
this for at least the next 100 years.
Attached is the response we submitted to the City this morning. The Department of Community Services (DCS) reviews the
Schneider request and any supporting and dissenting positions. The DCS makes a recommendation by next Wednesday,
publicizes it, then sends the recommendation and all documents to the Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA). The BZA reviews the
documents and recommendation, and a public discussion takes place in front of the BZA on Monday, February 25, where all
sides state their position. The BZA then makes a decision.
Mike Muller presented the situation to the Springmill Streams HOA Board on Tuesday night. The Board expressed support for
our position, considering both the immediate and long -term impact on property values of our properties as well as those of our
neighbors. The Board realizes that the affected residents will not always be the residents of their homes, but the homes will
always be part of the subdivision, and thus value needs to be protected beyond our own years in our homes. Mike is drafting a
letter to the BZA from the Board, and plans to attend the meeting and speak for the Board (and thus, our subdivision) in
opposition to the variance request.
The Miller's, after learning the scope and specifics of the Schneider's plans, also staunchly oppose the request. They submitted a
letter of opposition this morning and will speak at the meeting.
We ask that you read our response carefully. You will see that there are many alternatives on the 3 acres to build the house
without violating the variance. Below is additional information you will find helpful:
• Though the Schneider's did not mention in their January packet how far the new garage will sit from the property line, the
plan calls for it to sit a mere 12 inches from the property line of a 440 ft. deep, 3 acre lot. Additionally, it is not a rebuild of the
old 20x20 garage, but is 38x24 (2.25 times the size of the old). The additional 18 feet extends west along the property line,
directly impacting the Miller's and Woock's
4
® Though both what we were told as well as the variance application request mentions only the garage as in need of a
variance, 19 ft. of the new house (specifically the master bedroom addition) is in violation of the setback ordinance, too, sitting
just 14 feet from the property line.
® In addition to 38 ft. of new garage 1 foot from line and 19 ft. of new house within 14 ft., plans call for 20 ft. of brick
courtyard 1 foot from the line. This is in addition to the 24 ft. of the old garage/outbuilding in the southwest corner of the lot
that sits directly on the Woock's northern property line. In total, the plans call for a full 82 ft. of construction within 1 foot of the
line and another 19 ft. within 14 ft. of the line — a total of 101 ft. in violation and an increase of at least 37 ft from the old
layout. This is not the "existing footprint" the Schneider's have maintained they wish to preserve. And it is totally unreasonable.
• The first floor surface space of the new house is over twice that of the old house. Now, that matters to us only in the sense
that, again, the "existing footprint" is not maintained, and that some of that extra space is to the south to in violation of the
ordinance and to our detriment.
• Should the variance be granted, 100% of the burden to provide privacy through trees, etc., falls to the neighbors to the
south (Miller's and Woock's). Indeed, since they would be building on the property line, the Schneider's simply could not provide
any privacy necessitated from their own construction.
We are absolutely not against the Schneider's building their new house, even as laid out size -wise. It is simply that they have
chosen, amongst myriad alternatives on their 3 acre, 440 ft. deep lot, to build that much larger house and garage on the back 12
inches along our property line, diminishing both our privacy and property value. In fact, with the removal of just two trees on a
heavily wooded lot (in excess of 45 mature trees), the Schneider's can have 100% of their house, garage and courtyard (laid
out exactly as they have planned), moved north 19 ft. so it doesn't violate the setback. In addition, in order to build out to the
south and east, we believe the large spruce that sat next to the old house will need to be removed. If the Schneider's would
remove the two trees to the north and move their entire layout north 19 feet, the spruce to the south can be saved. So we're
really talking about a single additional tree removed (of nearly 50) beyond the Schneider's plans. That's all it would take to
resolve this issue.
Again, we urge you to read our letter carefully. We would be happy to answer any questions. Ultimately, we sincerely hope you
will reconsider your earlier position and join us, the Miller's and the subdivision in opposing the variance request. We can carry
the ball but it would be extremely beneficial to have unanimity amongst the three directly affected property owners. We ask just
a short email, or response to this one, expressing opposition. We would not ask you to do anything more. This is very important
to us. Please remember that, if granted we must live with it forever.
Thanks,
Amy and Randy
525 -4979 (Amy's cell)
525 -4926 (Randy's cell)
846 -5902 (H)
January 5, 2013
Dear Neighbor,
We wanted to introduce ourselves as your neighbors to the North. We purchased the
property nearly a year ago and are getting ready to build. As we start this process, we
wanted to keep you, our neighbors, informed of our plans and progress. We've also
included our contact information below - feel free to call us with questions.
We've put together the attached document as a quick overview. Some key highlights:
House: We purchased the house because we loved the land, the neighborhood and
also the house itself. It needed a lot of work but we had hoped we could remodel
it back into shape. After meeting with multiple experts, the structure was deemed
not usable for rehab and needed to be torn down. We are planning to build a home
that looks very similar in style to the prior house and use as much of the original
footprint and existing driveway as possible. In addition, we're trying to conserve as
many of the mature trees as we can.
You'll see a render of the house in the first section of the document. The house will
be 3885 square feet and fitting with the value of homes in the area.
Placement: The new home will be moving a few feet north on the property. The
new garage and patio will move North a foot. The front porch will move North
by 10ft. Due to the large pines to the North (that we'd like to keep), this is as far
north as the house can go. We are also building out to the east by a few feet to
accommodate a main -level master bedroom. The house will be 23 ft from the
property line with a stone courtyard behind (similar to the original brick courtyard).
We've included an aerial view of the house to give you a sense for footprint
Variance: Carmel building ordinances require properties to be 20ft away from
property lines. We've requested a variance from the city of Carmel as our garage will
not be 20ft due to existing driveways, prior building footprint and trees.
We wanted you to be aware of the variance request as you'll be receiving a notice
in the mail that we have applied. Law requires that neighbors be notified of any
building variances requested and we didn't want it to catch you buy surprise. We
also would like to ask for your support in this variance. Again, our goal is to put
our new house in the existing footprint; we are just upgrading the structure. We
would appreciate an email of support by Wednesday January 11th when our
variance application is due. Our contact information is below.
- Timing: Our variance goes to vote on February 26th by the City of Carmel. Assuming
its approval, we begin building in March with anticipated finish in September.
Continued >
We're so excited to be in this area and surrounded by wonderful neighbors like you. We fell
in love with the area and were so lucky to find this property and the land. We couldn't ask
for a better location to build a house as we build our family.
We look forward to being your neighbors and please feel free to contact us with any
questions..Thank you for your support.
Andrew and Laurie Schneider
Andrew Schneider
C: 317 - 938 -8718
E: Andrew.Schneidsftmail.com
Laurie Schneider
C: 317 - 371 -9205
E: LaurelElizabeth0209Pgmail.coni
To: Carmel Board of Zoning Appeals
Date: February 19, 2013
From: Springmill Streams Homeowners Association, Inc. ( "SMSHA ")
Re: Application for Development Standards Variance dated January 7, 2013
Carmel Clay Advisory Board of Zoning Appeals Docket No 13010008V
1631 W Main Street Carmel IN 4603217-09 -27 -00-00- 028.000
Petitioners: Andrew and Laurel Schneider ("Variance Application ")
Requested Action —The SMSHA respectfully requests that the Board of Zoning Appeals reject this
Variance Application.
Background:
The Springmill Streams Homeowners Association ( "SMSHA ") is the organization that represents the
homeowners of the Springmill Streams neighborhood which lies between 1315` street on the north,
116th street on the south, Springmill Road on the east, and Clay Center Road on the west. The SMSHA
was established to provide preservation, care and architectural control of the residential lots and
common areas of Springmill Streams.
The south border of Schneider's property on 1631 W Main Street directly adjoins the northern boundary
of the Springmill Streams neighborhood and runs adjacent to at least three separate properties within
the neighborhood. These affected homeowners have brought this issue to the attention of the SMSHA
Board of Directors.
Based on a review of the Schneider's Variance Application and the concerns raised by the relevant
homeowners, the SMHSA Board, on behalf of the neighborhood, would like to express its grave concern
about the impact that approval of the Schneider's Variance Request will have on the integrity of the
neighborhood property boundary, and the values of the properties in the neighborhood, especially
those properties that directly adjoin the Schneider's parcel.
Specific Concerns:
The SMSHO Board has the following concerns:
1. Location of the New Home and Garage: In information shared with the relevant neighbors in
early January (January Letter), the Schneiders stated that the new home will be "23ft from the
property line with a stone courtyard behind ". The plot map provided with the Variance Request
shows that the southeast corner of the house (new construction) will be only 13 feet from the
property line (not 23 feet). The proposed Stone Court yard will be 1 foot from the property line.
Letter to Carmel Board of Zoning Appeals from SMSHA dated February 19, 2013
1
In addition to the location of the new home being closer to the property line than previously
anticipated, the Board notes the discrepancy between the information shared with the
impacted neighborhood homeowners in January and the information contained in the Variance
Application.
2. Size of the Home and Garage. The Garage itself is directly in violation of the setback
requirement. It is proposed to sit one (1) foot from the property line and would run 40 feet
across the property line. The January Letter states that the new home will "use as much of the
original footprint ... as possible." However, in the plot map attached to the variance request,
the Garage is approximately twice as large as the previous garage structure, and the home is
also significantly larger than the previous home. While the size of the garage and home itself is
not a violation of the zoning ordinances, the increased size should be taken into account in
determining the added impact that any variance from the zoning requirements might have. The
Board notes that the Schneider's lot is approximately 3 acres large, with plenty of additional
space to locate the new construction within the zoning requirements.
3. Expectations of Privacy. The zoning ordinances for this type of residential housing set a
reasonably expected level of privacy between homes and property in this area. With more than
80 feet of new proposed construction less than 13 feet from the adjacent properties (more than
50 feet of which is less than 1 foot from the property line), without any plan for fencing, borders
or tree lines to enhance privacy, this proposal establishes an unwarranted precedent that would
undermine the reasonable expectations of homeowners in this residential area. In addition, the
adjacent homeowners in the Springmill Streams neighborhood would be required unfairly to
shoulder the burden of adding fencing, tree lines or borders (in their own property) to maintain
a reasonable level of privacy.
4. No Hardship Demonstrated. The Schneider's parcel is at least 3 acres in size. Upon evaluating
the Variance Request, there is no apparent hardship disdosed in the application for which the
variance is requested, other than the reference to mature trees and the existing fountain. There
is no permanent driveway, there is no existing house or garage foundation, and the overall
number of mature trees on the property is significant. With only a modest number of
adjustments, the proposed new construction can be modified to meet the existing zoning
requirements. It is reasonable to believe that appropriate changes can be made to the plan to
(i) satisfy both the Schneider's desire as to how they would like to use the property, the existing
outbuilding, the fountain and the mature trees, and (ii) ensure that the legitimate concerns of
the neighbors are addressed.
Letter to Carmel Board of Zoning Appeals from SMSHA dated February 19, 2013
2
Requested Action and Rationale:
The SMSHA Board respectfully requests that the Board of Zoning Appeals reject this Variance Request.
The SMSHA Board is very much in favor of ensuring that properties within, and bordering, the Springmill
Streams neighborhood are properly maintained, meet code and architectural requirements, and follow
local applicable zoning requirements. This applies to all new construction, development and
improvements. The Board always welcomes new neighbors and any improvements to their properties.
However, the Board believes that it would not be fair for certain homeowners within the neighborhood
to be disadvantaged by zoning variances that would set a new precedent for properties adjoining the
neighborhood boundary.
In this instance, while the improvements to the Schneider's property are indeed welcome, and the
Board understands the time and effort put into the design of the new construction and the request for
the variance, the location of the new Home and Garage are in direct violation of the zoning
requirements. With only modest changes, the plan could easily be improved to meet existing
requirements. Allowing the requested variance in this case would be unfair to the neighboring
properties and will likely result in negative economic impact.
Since the SMSHA Board was made aware of this issue, the SMSHA Board has encouraged ongoing
dialogue between the Schneiders and the affected neighbors. As of the date of this letter, however, the
Board understands that the Schneiders have not proposed an acceptable alternative plan.
If the Board of Zoning Appeals has any question or concerns, it may contact the SMSHA Board through
its designated contact for this matter: Michael Muller, Board Member, at 317 -997 -0752.
Sincerely,
Springmill Stream H • meowners Association, Inc.
Michael J. uller, on behalf of the SMSHA Board of Directors
Attachment: January 5, 2013 Letter to Neighbors from the Schneiders ( "January Letter")
Letter to Carmel Board of Zoning Appeals from SMSHA dated February 19, 2013
3
ATkckMAfl t-o 5MS -Nib
January 5, 2013
Dear Neighbor,
We wanted to introduce ourselves as your neighbors to the North. We purchased the
property ;neatly a year ago and are getting ready to build. As we start this process, we
wanted to keep you, our neighbors, informed of our plans and progress. We've also
included our contact information below - feel free to call us with questions.
We've put together the attached document as a quick overview. Some key highlights:
House: We purchased the house because we loved the land, the neighborhood and
also the house itself. It needed a lot of work but we had hoped we could remodel
it back into shape. After meeting with multiple experts, the structure was deemed
not usable for rehab and needed to be torn down. We are planning to build a home
that looks very similar in style to the prior house and use as much of the original
footprint and existing; driveway as possible. In addition, we're trying to conserve as
many of the mature trees as we can.
You'll see a render of the house in the first section of the document. The house will
be 3885 square feet and fitting with the value of homes in the area.
Placement: The new home will be moving a few feet north on the property. The
new garage and patio will move North a foot. The front porch will move North
by 10ft. Due to the large pines to the North (that we'd like to keep), this is as far
north as the house can go. We are also building out to the east by a few feet to
accommodate a main -level master bedroom. The house will be 23 ft from the
property line with a stone courtyard behind (similar to the original brick courtyard)
We've included an aerial view of the house to give you a sense for footprint
- Variance: Carmel building ordinances require properties to be 20ft away from
property lines. We've requested a variance from the city of Carmel as our garage will
not be 20ft due to existing driveways, prior building footprint and trees.
We wanted you to be aware of the variance request as you'll be receiving a notice
in the mail that we have applied. Law requires that neighbors be notified of any
building variances requested and we didn't want it to catch you buy surprise. We
also would like to ask for your support in this variance. Again, our goal is to put
our new house in the existing footprint; we are just upgrading the structure. We
would appreciate an email of support by Wednesday January 11th when our
variance application is due. Our contact information is below.
Timing: Our variance goes to vote on February 26th by the City of Carmel. Assuming
its approval, we begin building in March with anticipated finish in September.. nued >
laF
We're so excited to be in this area and surrounded by wonderful neighbors like you We fell
in love with the area and were so lucky to find this property and the land. We couldn't ask
for a better location to build a house as we build our family.
We look forward to being your neighbors and please feel free to contact us with any
questions Thank you for your support.
Andrew and Laurie Schneider
Andrew Schneider
C: 317 - 938 -8718
E: Andre�va rhnei g_gmaiLm
Laurie Schneider
C: 317 -371 -9205
E: Laure}1~.lizabeth0209(gmail.com
February 15, 2013
Dear Members of the Board of Zoning Appeals,
This note is in regards to the requested variance of the 20 ft. setback requirement by the Schneider's at 1631 W.
Main St. We oppose this requested variance in its entirety and ask that the Board deny it.
We are the Millers: Eric and Deb, with two young daughters Olivia and Nora residing at 672 Nottingham Ct. Our
property is directly south of the planned construction of the Schneider's home. We moved up to Carmel from Nora
in June of 2011. We chose this house and this neighborhood in large part due to the beautiful lot and the privacy it
afforded, particularly in the back yard. It is thus very important to us to maintain this privacy and reasonable to
expect future neighbors to respect this.
In first learning the property to our north was sold, we were excited at the prospect of new neighbors and a new
house off the property Tine, assuming and expecting it would move forward 50 -100 ft. at minimum. Although
stunned by the Schneider's plans to build over the prior home's location, initially we were somewhat indifferent with
an understanding it would only be a garage in violation of the setback. When we consider the greatly expanded
footprint of the garage and the courtyard (all within 20 feet of our property line) and the larger home (which may
also be within 20 feet of our property line), we cannot accept it. We appreciate the Schneider's position, but on
nearly 3 acres of land we cannot see any compelling reason that the house and garage cannot be built in
compliance with the required 20 ft. setback. An underlying desire of theirs may be to gain as much distance from
the oft traveled 131st St. Wouldn't the introduction of a back yard, allowing the new house to serve as a barrier,
provide this ultimate "distance" from the busy road?
The current "barrier" between the two properties is a wooded swale at the northern end of our property. The trees
provide decent coverage in the summer months with the bloom and ground coverage, but serve as a very porous
"barrier" at best for the other 6 months of the year. The variance requested requires that we not only maintain this
"barrier," but limits our ability and freedom to do anything with this section of our property.
When we lived in Nora, we lived on a comer lot and shared our back yard with 3 neighbors in close proximity.
Moving to Carmel, we not only enjoy a newer home, the best schools and an ideal community, but have the serenity
of our own land. We greatly value the privacy our back yard affords in this neighborhood, and we truly believe, over
time, this same value could be realized by the Schneider's by adhering to the setback requirement.
Since,
Eric and Debra Miller
672 Nottingham Ct.
Carmel, IN 46032
514 -1881 (Eric Cell)
402 -8633 (Deb Cell)
Dear Members of the Board of Zoning Appeals,
itCEIVED
FEB 15 2013
February 15, 2013
We are Amy and Randy Woock. With our children — Ryan; Rachel -and Mackenzie — we live at 686
Nottingham Court. The northern boundary of our property is adjacentto the southern boundary of the
Schneider's property. The variance to the City's twenty foot setback ordinance the Schneider's seek on their
southern boundary is in relation to 58 ft of planned construction within 1 foot of their southern property line
and another 19 ft. within 14 feet of the line. This is totally unreasonable and will devalue our property,
diminish our privacy and quality of life and, via ripple effect, devalue the properties of our neighbors to
the east, west and south. There is no hardship or constraint to adhering to the ordinance and myriad
alternatives exist such that just modest flexibility from the Schneider's would enable them to build their new
house and garage while maintaining compliance. We therefore respectfully request that you reject the
Schneider's request in its entirety.
In addition to simply relocating the proposed house and garage to another portion of their 3 acre lot, there are
numerous, modest modifications the Schneider's could make that would allow compliance. However, as you
review this document we ask that you keep one thought in mind: If the Schneider's would remove just two
trees to the north of their proposed house, their entire proposed layout of house, garage and courtyard
could be moved forward the necessary 19 ft. - 100% intact - and satisfy the setback ordinance. Further, since
we believe the Schneider's will need to remove a large tree to allow for planned construction to the south,
moving the layout 19 ft. north will save that tree. In total, then, removing just two of the more than 45 mature
trees on the lot (Attachment A) — net one more than in the Schneider's request - will allow for compliance
and resolve this issue.
We will provide key facts and considerations that we believe are, by themselves, sufficient for you to reject
the variance request. We will then clarify certain information, as well as correct misinformation and
misleading information, used as support for the variance request which, with a more complete picture of the
situation, will confirm your decision to reject the request.
Below are several key considerations:
1. But for an old outbuilding /garage and small fountain in disrepair, the lot is nearly 3 acres of vacant
land (Attachment B), allowing myriad alternative locations for the new house.
2. The lot is a full 440 ft., north to south. There is no material hardship or constraint that necessitates
building on the southern-most 20 ft. in violation of the setback ordinance.
3. The very large outbuilding /garage already sits in the southwest corner (Attachment C). It is 44 ft.
(north to south) by 24 ft. (east to west). It sits directly on the southern property line in violation of the
current setback ordinance but grandfathered in. Thus, we currently have to live with 24 ft. of
construction directly on the property line. The variance request seeks to add an additional 58 ft. of
construction within 1 foot of the property line and 19 more within 14 ft.
4. That the previous owner's (smaller) garage sat near the property line and out of compliance with the
current setback ordinance is irrelevant. But for the fountain and outbuilding /garage, the land is a vacant
lot — a clean sheet of paper — and the former grandfathering no longer applies. Construction on any
other vacant lot requires adherence to numerous City ordinances and building codes, including the
setback ordinance.
Woock 1
5. Build the new structures as proposed, in violation of the setback ordinance, and there may not be
another opportunity to rectify it for a hundred years or longer. This is the time to rectify it. The
properties on the southern edge of the Schneider property were made to adhere to the setback
ordinance at original construction to the deserved benefit of the previous owner of the Schneider
property; we request that be reciprocated at this time.
Below are several items that clarify and respond to assertions in the variance request:
1. The request references only the garage when in fact the house, in particular the new master bedroom
to the east, will be out of compliance by 6 ft. Also, the new courtyard, which runs east -west about 20
ft., sits within 1 foot of the property line. The existing outbuilding /garage, new garage and courtyard
form afull 82 ft. of construction sitting one foot or less from the property line, and another 19 ft.
sitting 14 ft. from the property line, all in violation.
2. The application states a desire to maintain the "existing footprint" of the property (Findings of Fact,
Items 1 and 2; Application for Variance, Item 8). But the plans illustrate something far different with a
footprint several sizes larger:
• First floor surface space (not irrelevant second story space), of the proposed house (w /o the north
porch) is over 100% larger (2 times the size) than the old house (Attachment D). More importantly, the
proposed house is nearly 22.5 ft. longer (w /o the porch), north to south, than the old house. The
variance request seeks relief of 19 ft. - less than the additional length of the new house.
• The proposed garage is approximately 125% larger than the old one (2.25 times the size); (Attachment
D). The proposed garage is over 18 ft. wider (east to west), than the old one. The full 38 ft. of proposed
garage sits directly along the east -west properly line, over 18 ft. more than the old one and extending
to the west, directly affecting the Miller and Woock properties. Also, the very large outbuilding/garage -
44'x24'; 15% larger than the proposed one and nearly 3 times that of the old one - already exists for use.
Total garage space under the proposal is nearly 2,000 sq. ft. We fail to see the need for a new garage
2.25 times the size of the old garage when a larger one already exists.
It is clear that the proposed construction far exceeds the "existing footprint" the Schneider's state they
wish to maintain. A footprint of approximately the size of the old footprint would easily allow for
compliance.
3. The primary reason expressed for the need to build (the much larger house) south in violation of the
ordinance rather than a few more ft. north is the desire to maintain two "150+ Yr Old Pine (spruce,
actually) Trees" (Finding of Facts, Items 1 and 3; Application for Variance, Item 8; aerial pictures).
However, below is what is not mentioned:
• To build out their larger house to the east and south, the Schneider's must take down a much larger
(spruce) tree than either of the two they maintain limits their ability to build north. The tree can be seen
sitting directly adjacent to the east face of the old house, southeast corner (Attachments E and F), and in
several aerial photos the Schneider's filed. Its trunk sits approximately 115 ft. west of the east property
line and 18 ft. north of the south property line with a diameter of 18 ft. That puts it squarely in the
proposed master bedroom (Attachment D), which has an east face 103 ft. west of the east property line
and a south face 13 ft. from the property line. The Schneider's are perfectly willing to take down the
largest and oldest tree but promote the need to violate the setback ordinance by saving two trees to the
north. If removing a tree is not an impediment to building to the south and east, it should not be an
impediment to building to the north.
Woock 2
• Attempting to save two trees does not warrant violating the ordinance. Construction almost always
require decisions and tradeoffs as to existing trees; the Schneider's are choosing to avoid the tradeoff
decision between the larger house and the two trees, opting instead to build to the south to their
neighbors' detriment. The two trees are not historic, and if they are indeed over 150 years old, are well
past their prime. Like all trees, they could just as easily blow over in the next spring storm. The lot is
heavily treed (over 45 mature trees), and trees can be planted anew. The trees simply do not justify
violation of the setback ordinance, to the detriment of the southern edge properties, for the next 100
years or more.
4. The Schneider's repeatedly mention "a ditch and mature trees to the south providing privacy to
neighbors" (Findings of Fact, Item 1; Application for Variance, Item 8; aerial photos provided by the
Schneider's). The "ditch" is actually a maintained swale. To be clear, though, that "ditch and mature
trees" belong to the southern edge property owners! While creating /exacerbating the privacy issue
with their new construction, the Schneider's make absolutely no effort themselves to provide for any
privacy. It is rather bold and disingenuous to use the neighbors' land and trees to support violating the
setback ordinance to the detriment of those very same neighbors. More importantly, if the variance is
granted, the burden of providing privacy (and it is currently insufficient) falls completely on the
southern neighbors, as building so near the property line precludes the Schneider's from providing
trees, shrubs, etc. for privacy.
5. The application states a desire to maintain a small fountain (Attachment G) in its current location as a
reason for seeking the variance. Relocating the fountain a few feet to the north, if necessary, is a very
immaterial issue in the grand scheme of building a new 3,885 square foot house and 900 foot square
garage. Also, since the demolition of the old house /garage, the driveway the Schneider's cite as
wanting to maintain does not exist, except for the dirt/gravel track extending from 131st Street about
300 ft. up the property.
Finally, we ask that you consider your own properties if faced with a situation such as ours — one that would
devalue your property and diminish privacy and quality of life, but one that is solvable with just modest
flexibility from your neighbor. Please fully consider our situation as we must live with your decision forever.
Again, the City has adopted a setback ordinance for good reasons; we simply ask that the City enforce the
ordinance in this case for those same good reasons. Build the new structures as proposed and there may not be
another opportunity to rectify it for a hundred years or longer.
Regards,
6,-,L
Amy and Randy Woock
686 Nottingham Court
Carmel, IN 46032
846 -5902 (Home)
525 -4979 (Amy's cell)
525 -4926 (Randy's cell)
Woock 3
Donahue -Wold, Alexia K
From: Joe Garcia [joe @ggcustomhomes.com]
Sent: Wednesday, January 30, 2013 7:25 AM
To: Donahue -Wold, Alexia K
Subject: Re: Docket No. Assignment: (V) 1631 W Main St, Rear yard setback (13010008 V)
Hi Alexia,
I am responding to the questions below.
On #7 my clients are not wanting to change the size of their house. Its funny but the great room we actually made 5' bigger
because it was too small for what they need. Also we will not be disturbing any of the trees or vegetation by the garage or
existing garage.
Thanks,
Joe Garcia CGB, CGP, MCGP, GMB
G &G Custom Homes, Inc
317 - 418 -7665
www.ggcustomhomes.com
3CUST M
H " MES
.
..
Quality & Trust with a Green Touch
From: "Donahue -Wold, Alexia K" <awoldCa@carmel.in.gov>
Date: Friday, January 18, 2013 4:36 PM
To: "Barnes, David R" <dbarnes @carmel.in.gov >, "Blanchard, Jim E" <JBlanchard @carmel.in.gov >, "Boone, Rachel M."
<rboone @carmel.in.gov >, "Conn, Angelina V" <Aconn @carmel.in.gov >, "Donahue -Wold, Alexia K"
<awold @carmel.in.gov >, "Duncan, Gary R" <gduncan @carmel.in.gov >, "Foley, Amanda J" <afoley @carmel.in.gov >,
"Hancock, Ramona B" <RHancock @carmel.in.gov >, "Hollibaugh, Mike P" <MHollibaugh @carmel.in.gov >, John Molitor
<jmolitor @prodigy.net >, "Keeling, Adrienne M" <AKeeling @carmel.in.gov >, "Littlejohn, David W"
<dlittleiohn @carmel.in.gov >, "Lux, Pamela K" <plux@carmel.in.gov >, "Maki, Sue" <smaki @carmel.in.gov >, "Martin,
Candy" <cmartin @carmel.in.gov >, "Mindham, Daren" <dmindham @carmel.in.gov >, "Mishler, Nicholas F"
<nmishler @carmel.in.gov >, "Redden, Nick" <nredden @carmel.in.gov >, "Stewart, Lisa M" <Istewart @carmel.in.gov >,
"Thomas, John G" <ithomas @carmel.in.gov >, "Tingley, Connie S" <CTingley@carmel.in.gov >, "Worthley, Matthew D"
<mworthley @carmel.in.gov>
Cc: Joe Garcia <ioe @ggcustomhomes.com>
Subject: Docket No. Assignment: (V) 1631 W Main St, Rear yard setback (13010008 V)
I have issued the necessary Docket Numbers for (V) 1631 W Main St, Rear yard setback. They are the following:
(V) 1631 W Main St, Rear yard setback
The applicant seeks the following development standards variance for a new home.
Docket No. 13010008 V ZO Ch. 5.04.03 Rear yard setback
The site is located at 1631 W Main Street. It is zoned S -1 /Residence. Filed by Joe Garcia on behalf of the owners,
Andrew and Laurel Schneider.
1
Donahue -Wold, Alexia K
From: Joe Garcia [joe @ggcustomhomes.com]
Sent: Tuesday, January 15, 2013 8:12 AM
To: Donahue -Wold, Alexia K
Subject: Re: 1631 W Main St
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Completed
The closest point on the house would be 12' off the property line.
Thanks,
Joe Garcia CGB, CGP, MCGP, GMB
G &G Custom Homes, Inc
317 - 418 -7665
www.ggcustom homes.com
CUSTOM
H
MES
Quality & Trust with a Green Touch
From: "Donahue -Wold, Alexia K" <awold @carmel.in.gov>
Date: Monday, January 14, 2013 4:54 PM
To: Joe Garcia <joe @ggcustomhomes.com>
Subject: RE: 1631 W Main St
Hi Joe,
I saw the 1' mark on the plans, but I was curious as to how far the actual house will be from the rear property line. From
what I understood, I though only the attached garage would 1' from the property line.
Alexia
From: Joe Garcia [mailto:joe@ggcustomhomes.com]
Sent: Wednesday, January 09, 2013 7:17 AM
To: Donahue -Wold, Alexia K
Subject: Re: 1631 W Main St
HI Alexia,
Its is on there. Its the 1' mark. I will be dropping off the hard copies this morning.
Thanks,
Joe Garcia CGB, CGP, MCGP, GMB
1
G &G Custom Homes, Inc
317 - 418 -7665
www.ggcustomhomes.com
3 CUST::M
6 H :: M ES
Quality er Trust with a Green Touch
From: "Donahue -Wold, Alexia K" <awold@carmel.in.gov>
Date: Tuesday, January 8, 2013 4:18 PM
To: Joe Garcia <ioe(Wggcustomhomes.com>
Subject: RE: 1631 W Main St
Hi Joe,
Thanks for sending those electronic copies to me. It looks like you have all of the necessary information. If you don't
have the adjacent property owner list until Monday, that should be fine.
One thing I would like to see on the site plan is the distance the house will be from the rear property line. Also, are you
proposing another garage in the southwest corner? Or is that existing, or has that been demolished also?
Thanks,
Alexia
From: Joe Garcia [ mailto:joe(aggcustomhomes.com]
Sent: Tuesday, January 08, 2013 3:28 PM
To: Donahue -Wold, Alexia K
Subject: 1631 W Main St
Hi Alexia,
I have attached all the electronic copies of the variance we are looking for at 1631 W Main St. Tomorrow I will be dropping off
all the hard copies to you.
The auditor is swamped right now but they told me they would have the adjacent property owners list to me by Monday. As
soon as I get that I will drop it off to you. The homeowners did talk to the 3 neighbors directly behind them and they don't
seem to have an issues with it. They have one email from one of them and are waiting to get the other two. As soon as we
have those we will get those to you. I think this is all that we need by the 11th?
Let me know if I am missing anything.
Thanks for your help in this.
Thanks,
Joe Garcia CGB, CGP, MCGP, GMB
G &G Custom Homes, Inc
317 - 418 -7665
www.ggcustomhomes.com
2
• •
Gmail - Variance
116/13 1 :23 PM
Variance
Larah Telesco <tltelesco @msn.com> Sat, Jan 5, 2013 at 3:07 PM
To: andrew.schneids @gmail.com, Iaurelelizabeth0209 @gmail.com
Andrew & Laurie —
Thank you for informing us of your plans for building your new home. We fully support your variance and have no
issues with any of the plans currently in the works.
Best of luck to you —
Larah & Tom Telesco
https: / /mail.google.com/ mail /?ui= 2 &ik= ce75e07037 &view =pt& search= inbox &th= 13cOc53f75fd85f8 Page 1 of 1