HomeMy WebLinkAboutLetter from Darrin Rokovitz~^ i~'';. 2 ^i?n
' , Li;E3~t
ir._u. ~.: _.. ~ t_.._..
Respectfully submitted to Meridian City Counsel:
Please consider the whole document as it addresses the Rezone but also the
Conditional permit and are tied together based upon the evidence and proof of
noncomplience.
I want to start off with emphasizing that the neighborhood is predominantly
residencial despite the attempts to make it appear as being full of business's.
Pine street is HEAVILY walked by young children every day, summer or winter.
Putting in any business other than a 1 to 2 person run business that does NOT
require any other traffic or clients showing up (as previous recommended by the
P&Z as suggestions of a conditional use) in this location puts additional traffic
directly in the childrens path and increases the danger to an accident occuring,
especially where it is only 3 blocks from the main entrance to the school among
other issues stated below.
To address some issues:
I want to emphasize the owner of the property is as much responsible for the
usage of his rental property as those he rents to and you have the proof before
you of noncomplience and a total disregard for the ruling of the P&Z, City
Counsel, Codes and Laws. The owner is aware of the need for a rezone,
especially after the last rezone hearing in 2003 but rented to a business
anyways, knowing that it was illegal requiring a rezone. He rented the property to
the business and even after being told by P&Z numerous times to stop all
operations the business continue for many months after, even after Code
Enforcement advised them they were illegal. The statement on their part that
they slow stopped and then notified Joe Venneman they would be done by a
particular date several weeks later does not alter the past history, nor show good
intentions. With the many pickups the business owns it would take only a day to
remove the items from the garage but they even drew that out and still put items
back in as well as took items out (personally observed). The rezone should be
denied based upon the noncomplience of not only the business but the owner. It
is neither a penalty nor a reward but based upon facts. The facts are
noncomplience and the proof that the landlord and business will do whatever
they choose, irregardless of laws that they are as much accountable to as any
other citizen.
4/27/2U04
Page 2 of 4
With the future plans of Old Town t believe the intent is not to totally disrupt the
current residences, the environment nor to hinder or cause a negative effect for
the area and the evidence is before you that since the business pursuit of the
Schmeckpeppers, there has been disruption, disregard for the rights of the
people who actually live in the neighborhood, disregard for the laws, the
ordinances, the decisions passed by the P&Z committee and the City Counsel
(the business was put in approx last October and has run there up till thie past
week). Among other things.
Last year it was noted on several particular days that over well over 100 children
walk home, the majority of those coming directly down pine heading north. My
own son walks this route and my daughter will be walked to school within the
next year. The safety of my children along with all the other families and children
should always take a highest priority in these decisions as it certainly is mine and
all the other families who live here locally and whos children attend Pine Street
Elementary.
My sleep has continuously been disrupted by the activities of the business and
even. by the disregard of the oweners of the dog they bring to the property,
allowing it to bark constantly, typically starting around 8a for a couple hours (I still
work late nights and to try and get an average of 7 hours sleep have to sleep
until around 10am. This issue has been brought up in the past and known by the
property owner who has himself brought large equipment in early morning and
ran it back and forth doing his projects.
Additional points to consider:
It is stated the property is not desireable for residential use however the land
owner to the NE is putting in an additional residential building plus Mr
Schmeckpepper's rental has always had his house rented prior tol wantint to put
in a business. Also the house next to his on Pine street just recently put up a for
rent sign in very shortly after was rented out again. The fact that this is a
residential area and continues to be improved to be a place for people to live
verifies that this area is in a good area for people to live, including renters,
contrary to the above statement.
Also stated was undesirable noise and traffic currently and claims the business
will reduce this. -how does going from a 2 car rental to 13+vehicle business
reduce noise and traffic? (Proof of the amount and activity of vehicles have been
previously provided) It was implied by Ms Rice in the bookkeeping meeting that
perhaps some of the documented vehicles were from the construction going on
in the NE for the duplex's. These vehicles were all coming and going prior to the
start of construction and the parties involved were accessing the house and
garage. All the vehicles listed are applicable to the SEAL Co and the operation
4/27/2004
Page 3 of 4
that was witnessed. It does increase-the danger to the children walking to school
with the increase of traffic (throughout the day) coming and going, even more so
with two entrances/exits -alley and 3rd. This is verged with the documentation
Ive provided. This is only a small sampling as I would come and go from work
and the few trips I would make on my days off. I do want to stress that Ms Rice
does not nor ever has lived in the property at 230 W Pine which negates the
conditions even of her book-keeping business. You have the logs of the vehicle
activity and you will see that her vehicle (BMW) has never been there over night.
Only the silver car with a different lady shows up most nights. This further shows
the deception that are presented but are being allowed.
Point of fact: Last year the applicants were singing the praises what a quiet nice
neighborhood 3rd and pine is located in - in order to try and convince the
committee to approve a daycare and one year later they are saying the exact
opposite. This implies they will state whatever is neceesary to make their
submittal seem like it will be a positive thing.
The facts are the traffic has not noticably increased over the past year.
Being someone who actually lives in the neighborhood, it has been a quiet nice
place to raise my children. The exceptions being of the disruptions, noise created
by the illegally operated business next door and even the rude behavior from the
office tenants directed towards my kids and my baby sitter.
To address other statements submitted in writing about the property line dispute,
III simply say this. The house was built approx 30 years ago, having had the
proper surveys, inspections and building codes done and after all this time
mudslinging and false statesments and incorrect timelines submitted by the
opposition. The fact the house was built to code and the property lines were
correct when built and there is even laws and precidences -Idaho Code 5-210A
Property by Agreement, the land is, as always has been part of this property and
has been used as leverage to try and prevent us from our constitutional rights to
attend and speak at these meetings. Per the P&Z, repairing a damaged fence
does not require a permit nor inspection and it should be noted that I repaired the
damage to the section of fence, that was tore down illegally, and closed off my
yard again, as its been for approx 30 years, for my childrens safety. Mr
Schmeckpepper also did not dispute the property line for over 5 years from the
date he purchased the property which. even further confirms the agreement (or
lack of dispute) according to the same Idaho Code mentioned above.
I did not know that by standing up for the neighborhood one lives in we would be
accused of being spiteful. This has always been a nice quiet neighborhood, ideal
for families (obviously it is predominantly still residential) and only the attempts
4/27/2004
Page 4 of 4
for this business, the unprofessional practices and the treatment of the neighbors
and neighborhood from the. one property is what has efFected the residences and
caused the disruption.
I ask for denial of both the rezone and the conditional permit based upon facts
and evidence that is before you, noncomplience, disregard of City rulings, codes
and laws and of the people who live in this nice neigborltood and want to keep it
that way. Should an appropriate usage, suggestions presented by Mr Zaremba,
be submitted we the neighbors do not have a problem with that but to date that
has not been the case.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
Darrin Rokovitz
918 West 3~ Street
Meridian, Id 83642
4/27/2004