Editor’s note: The following letter was also submitted to members of the Carmel City Council.
Editor,
My name is Alan Cohen, and I am the owner of the home located at 248 2nd St. SW adjacent to The GOAT. I was unaware of (a rezone request for the site of The GOAT) coming before the Carmel City Council on Feb. 7 and therefore was not able to present in person my strong objections to this rezone request. For that reason, I am offering my concerns, thoughts and requests in this letter and appreciate your taking the time to read and consider what I am presenting.
I have for the last two years done my best at trying to correct a horrible decision made by the city and its leaders in allowing The GOAT to knowingly open in clear violation of existing zoning laws and to remain open for six months in spite of all the information and evidence presented to them of all the atrocities being committed throughout the neighborhood and on neighbors’ properties. This is a mess that should never have been allowed to happen, and it now seems the city is searching for a way out of its own malfeasance and is willing to again sacrifice the homeowners and residents in the neighborhood.
A tavern, with this operating history, would not protect, but denigrate the character and safety of the Monon Greenway. It would not promote the health, safety, comfort, convenience and general welfare of our adjacent neighborhood, and decrease, not increase, our property values, our real estate investments and general neighborhood vitality. It would be a harsh contrast in land use and density to our properties and would not protect them through appropriate buffering. All these standards and requirements are set forth in the existing Carmel Clay Comprehensive Plan and stated City-wide Policies and Objectives, North Central Policies and Objectives and the Old Town Overlay.
I was amazed as I read the Dept. of Community Services staff report, how frustrated they were with the lack of cooperation received from the petitioner. A minimal amount of information was provided (along with) a refusal to their strong recommendation to seek a B7 rather than a B2 rezone. The staff report lists many reasons why a B2 doesn’t fit for this property but then seems to defy their own best judgment and instincts to satisfy the petitioner’s request. As (City of Carmel Director of Community Services Mike) Hollibaugh said to me at the time of the last plan commission hearing, DOCS agreed to a B2 rezone because the property is too small to do what the petitioner wants to do on it and still meet all the requirements of a B7 rezone. The petitioner would need up to 10 variances to properly qualify. B2 is not the proper rezone by DOCS’s own admission. Common sense and following existing rules, regulations and the law would clearly indicate that if the petitioner can’t use this property as he wants and operate under the most accurate and appropriate zoning classification, which is B7, then clearly this proposed use is not suited for this property. Therefore, the neighbors and residents adjacent and near to the property will be forced to suffer and are denied all the necessary protection the zoning laws and all other rules and regulations are supposed to provide.
For these and all the other reasons I have presented to the city over the last couple of years, I would remain against the zoning change and reopening of The GOAT and ask that The GOAT’s petition for a rezone to B2 be denied.
If the council sees fit to grant this rezone and reopen, I would respectfully submit that the proffered list of the petitioner’s commitments is inadequate and ambiguous. At the last plan commission hearing the commitments were discussed and agreed to by the commission and petitioner without allowing any other public discourse, suggestions or input. I attended this hearing and tried to be heard, as this highly unusual process for a supposed quasi judicial body was proceeding. I was not allowed to speak or offer suggestions but was forced to sit back, as were others there, and listen to incomplete and misleading information presented by the petitioner and apparently accepted without question by the plan commission. As a lawyer, I would submit there was nothing judicial or quasi judicial about this process and it should be reviewed and corrected by the city.
During this plan commission hearing, the petitioner orally committed to “close” at midnight on weeknights and 1 a.m. on weekends (verified in the hearing recording). The petitioner’s counsel, whose handwritten notes were used as the only record of the commitments, apparently chose to change the oral commitment to “end alcohol service” rather than “close” at these times. Some might argue there is no difference between the two, but I and many others see a big difference. I would ask that the petitioner’s actual words of commitment be used.
An important missing piece of these commitments is enforcement and the consequences for violations. It appears the plan commission felt that a “neighbor hotline” established and maintained by The GOAT would suffice. This is clearly insufficient, if the only enforcement is the responsibility of the neighbors or citizens, and then they are required to call The GOAT and tell them they are violating their own commitments. This, on its face, is ridiculous, and seems to imply The GOAT may violate their own commitments until a neighbor calls and asks them to stop. Also concerning is the fact that there are no apparent consequences for violations. How many times can the petitioner violate the commitments before there are real consequences beyond a phone call? Who is going to track these violations? Is that also the responsibility of the neighbors? What are the consequences? I would think The GOAT would also want this information. If there is no enforcement responsibility by the city to monitor and make sure these commitments are not violated and no real designated and known consequences for violations, then this all becomes meaningless and will make all of us look foolish.
Again, I would respectfully request the city council deny the petitioner’s request for a zoning change from R2 to B2. If the council is inclined to grant this change, I would request they seriously address the issues I have raised regarding the existing proposed commitments and any others that they or other individuals may feel are important and appropriate to properly protect our neighborhood and residents.
Alan Cohen, Carmel
