Case 3:20-cv-00466-RGJ Document 1 Filed 06/30/20 Page 1 of 18 PageID #: 1
`.... ·.-...,
`
`•.' , .. · ... ~
`
`···•,: .. _..
`tr · F!LeD -
`•·
`.:. OiSTP/C""
`wr.~ 1u.-,.. cJ,ic;,o.urn CLE.Jh
`20 -· :_ __ ._., _., /UCT OF ,s; Y
`JUN 3o PH '= ~e·
`3 2Zer .-c V' .. z-1, ,-12...~ J
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`WESTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY
`
`PAMELA D. BLAIR,
`
`PLAINTIFF
`
`vs.
`
`SANCTUARY BLUFF HOMEOWNERS
`ASSOCIATION, ET AL
`
`DEFENDANTS
`
`) Case No. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`
`NOTICE OF REMOVAL OF ACTION
`
`COMES NOW the Petitioner, Pamela D. Blair (hereinafter "Plaintiff' or "BLAIR"), pro
`
`se, and hereby removes consolidated Cases No. 19-CI-05335 and 19-CI-05241 from the Circuit
`
`Court of Jefferson County, Kentucky, to the United States District Court for the Western District
`
`of Kentucky, pursuant to 28 USC §§ 1331, 1367, 1443 and 42 USC § 1983 and as grounds for its
`
`removal states s follows:
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`This case as raised federal question jurisdiction which began as a land use dispute,
`
`which now issues of a constitutional magnitude has arisen. Questions relating to
`
`abridgment of BLAIR'S right to due process under the 14th Amendment, her protecte
`
`rights speech under the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and constitutionally
`
`secured right to be free from gender discrimination, are proper issues for a Federal
`
`Court to decide.
`
`Statement of the Case
`
`1.
`
`In 2018, Defendants Sham Kakar, together with his construction company Sunrise
`
`Custom Homes,LLC, a minority owned company, purchased a lot in the Sanctuary
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-00466-RGJ Document 1 Filed 06/30/20 Page 2 of 18 PageID #: 2
`
`Bluff subdivision (Subdivision).
`
`2.
`
`In January, 2019, Mr. Kakar presented his building plans to the local building officials
`
`and obtained a building permit and began building a house.
`
`3. After four ( 4) months of construction residents noticed that the house at 4119 was being
`
`built approximately fifteen (15) feet out of compliance with the setback building line.
`
`4. Defendant Kakar was forced to file an Application for a Variance before the Louisville
`
`Metro Board of Zoning Adjustment (BOZA).
`
`5. On June 03rd• BOZA heard Kakar's application and meticulously reviewed and
`
`investigated Defendant Kakar's building plan and its compliance with the requirement
`
`under the law. BOZA paid special attention to Kakar's adherence to approved building
`
`plans and the building permit.
`
`6. After careful review, BOZA determined that Defendant Kakar did not build a structure
`
`to the plans approved by the building permit and unanimously denied his variance
`
`application. A Copy ofBOZA's finding is attached hereto as Exhibit A.
`
`7.
`
`The reason for BOZA's denial of Defendant Kakar's variance was not appealed.
`
`Kentucky law makes it mandatory the pre-approval of building plans KRS 198B.060(8)
`
`and strict adherence to those plans, KRS 198B.062. Kentucky law does provide for
`
`changes to unapproved building plans, KRS 198B.062.
`
`8. Also, the Kentucky Residential Code requires file site plan or lot before it was built, as
`
`required per the Kentucky Residential Code Rl 06.2. These plans are required to be
`
`submitted for a Building Application, per R105.3 Application for permit.
`
`9. An Applicant is also required to provide all the documents required by building
`
`officials, Rl 06.2 requires a Site plan or plot plan showing the location requires a
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-00466-RGJ Document 1 Filed 06/30/20 Page 3 of 18 PageID #: 3
`
`builder to first obtain a permit the application for permit shall be accompanied by a
`
`"site plan showing the size and location of new construction".
`
`10. On June 03 rd
`
`, BLAIR opposed the variance along with the majority of Subdivision
`
`residents for being a substantial annoyance and interfering with her use and enjoyment
`
`of her property.
`
`11. On June 03, 2019, Defendant Biddle, representing the Sanctuary Bluff, informed
`
`BOZA several times to tear the building down built at 4119 and that it was the only
`
`"fair thing to do" and that no one resident of Sanctuary Bluff subdivision was being
`
`damaged more by the continuing existence of the subject structure than BLAIR.
`
`12. However, shortly after the June 3rd hearing, Defendant Biddle "persuaded" Defendant
`
`Kakar to sell him the property at 4119 .
`
`13.
`
`Instead of doing the "fair thing" Defendant Biddle secretly did the most profitable
`
`thing; he bought the subject property for himself, obtains building permits which can
`
`only be issued under color oflaw, completes it and allegedly sold it.
`
`14. The structure at 4119 had just been declared hopelessly illegal when owned by
`
`Defendant Kakar, but now that Defendant Ronald Biddle owns the property, it's not.
`
`15. On or about July 08, 2019, Biddle is given a building permit to continue building the
`
`structure already determined by BOZA to be illegal and he is given approval by local
`
`building authorities, despite having being declared illegal by BOZA.
`
`16. BLAIR objected to the continued construction to which was causing damage to her
`
`property and was subjected to harassment by Defendant BIDDLE for opposing his
`
`continued construction.
`
`17. BLAIR contacted building officials and directed to call Louisville Metro Call, which
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-00466-RGJ Document 1 Filed 06/30/20 Page 4 of 18 PageID #: 4
`
`she did. But, her complaint was ignored.
`
`18. On or about July, 2019, BLAIR contacted other residents by email and notified them
`
`that Defendant Biddle and his builder Gary Shearer were continuing to build illegally,
`
`without a valid building permit.
`
`19. On August 23, 2019, the Defendants GDS Builders, Gary Shearer and Ronald Biddle
`
`(hereinafter "GDS") filed a Complaint against the Plaintiff BLAIR for defamation and
`
`intentional and negligent interference with commercial relations.
`
`20. On September 13, 2009, BLAIR was served with the GDS summons and complaint. A
`
`copy is in the record filed along with this Notice of Removal.
`
`21. On or about August 30, 2019, BLAIR filed her Complaint, In the Jefferson Circuit
`
`Court, seeking, inter alia, an injunction to restrain Biddle :from construction without a
`
`valid building permit. Biddle was building on a permit issued under color of law,
`
`contrary to KRS 100.267.
`
`22. The trial court refused to enjoin the Defendants from building. BLAIR was advised by
`
`the trial court to exhaust her administrative remedy to compel the local building and
`
`planning commission to enforce the law,
`
`23. A copy of the Complaint has been filed with this Notice of Removal.
`
`24. On September 05, 2019, BLAIR filed her first amended complaint. A copy is in the
`
`record filed along with this Notice of Removal.
`
`25. On or about September 12, 2019, BLAIR Answered GDS' Complaint. A copy is in the
`
`record filed along with this Notice of Removal.
`
`26. On September 16, 2019,GDS Builder, Gary Shearer, Jamie Shearer, Sham Kakar, Renu
`
`Kakar and Sunrise Custom Homes filed their Answers; on September 18, 2019, GDS
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-00466-RGJ Document 1 Filed 06/30/20 Page 5 of 18 PageID #: 5
`
`Builders, (consolidated case, 19 CI-05241) Gary Shearer and Ronald Biddle filed their
`
`Answers; on September 20, 2019, Ronald Biddle filed his Answer; on September 23,
`
`2019, the defendants Stephanie Gilezan, President of the Sanctuary Bluff HOA and the
`
`Sanctuary Bluff HOA, Gilezan Realty/EXP, all filed their Answers all filed their
`
`Answers to BLAIR'S Amended Complaint; on October 07, 2019 Defendants RAP
`
`Properties, Mohana and Rama Arla, filed their Answers.
`
`27. BLAIR'S complaint is based on the contention Defendants Kakar, Biddle and Shearer
`
`built and are continued to build and intend sell the house at 4119 Sanctuary Bluff, next
`
`to BLAIR'S home. The local government refused to restrain Biddle from the illegal
`
`construction of the house.
`
`28. BLAIR argued Biddle's construction is in violation of Kentucky law, the Kentucky
`
`Residential Building Code, the approval and conditions precedent required for
`
`construction established by the Sanctuary Bluffs Architectural Review Committee, and
`
`it is contrary to the Declarations, Covenants Conditions and Restriction for Sanctuary
`
`Bluff (CC&Rs ), which prohibits poorly designed and built structures in the subdivision.
`
`29. As a result, BLAIR'S Complaint initially sought a declaration of rights and permanent
`
`injunction against the Developer RAP, the owners Mohan and Rama Arla and the HOA
`
`Board of Directors for violating the Declarations, Covenants, Condition and Covenants
`
`for Sanctuary Bluff (CC&Rs) and tortious interference with the Developers
`
`performance under the CC&Rs by Stephanie Gilezan, Gilezan Realty and EXP Realty;
`
`the breach ofstatutory duties of the HOA Board of Directors under KRS 273.215;
`
`involuntary dissolution of the HOA; an injunction to secure access to records of the
`
`HOA, per KRS 273.233; a finding that the house at 4119 Sanctuary BluffLn is a
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-00466-RGJ Document 1 Filed 06/30/20 Page 6 of 18 PageID #: 6
`
`private and permanent nuisance under KRS 411.540 and 411.530 respectively, the
`
`negligent infliction of emotional distress and common law breach of fiduciary duty.
`
`30. After several months of proceedings, in November, 27, 2019, the HOA Defendants
`
`moved for a judgment on the pleadings and BLAIR retained private counsel and a
`
`hearing was scheduled.
`
`31. On or about January 10, 2020, a hearing on the above motion for judgment on the
`
`pleading the trial court inexplicably dismissed BLAIR'S claims against the HOA
`
`Defendants and Board of Directors and ordered BLAIR to file a second amended
`
`Complaint.
`
`32. On or about March 04, 2020, BLAIR filed her Second Amended Complaint, by and
`
`through counsel.
`
`33. Defendant Biddle's continued construction caused further damage and was also over
`
`the building line setback.
`
`34. BLAIR's continued complaints to local building officials forced Ronald Biddle to also
`
`file an application for a variance Case No. 20 VARIANCE 0046 for being over the
`
`setback building line.
`
`35. On June 08, 2020, after lengthy delays due to court closings over recent health
`
`concerns, Plaintiff's counsel withdrew from the case and.Judge Cunningham stated
`
`nothing shall be filed in the matter for thirty (30) days, while BLAIR secures counsel.
`
`Denial of Fair Hearing, Freedom of Expression and Equal Protection
`
`36. On June 15, 2020, unlike the hearing in June, 2019, Biddle's variance hearing was
`
`afforded a special privilege. BOZA provided BIDDLE with a private, closed circuit
`
`Internet hearing. Variance hearings are required by Kentucky law, to be a public
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-00466-RGJ Document 1 Filed 06/30/20 Page 7 of 18 PageID #: 7
`
`hearing, KRS 100.221(4) . Sham Kakar had a public hearing.
`
`37. When BLAIR attempted speak in opposition to Defendant Biddle's Application for a
`
`Variance hearing, BOZA moderator announced they would restrict what BLAIR could
`
`speak about.
`
`38. BLAIR was warned she would not be able to speak any objections based on Kentucky
`
`law, as contained in written comments submitted in advance to be made part of the
`
`record. BOZA chose to disregard the applicable law and granted Biddle a variance on a
`
`building condemned by BOZA the previous year.
`
`Gender Discrimination
`
`39. BLAIR, as a single woman, reasoned this behavior by BOZA to be discriminatory, a
`
`denial of her right to be heard and be afforded a fair hearing. BOZA disregarded the
`
`law and granted a variance in an open display of white male privilege and bias .
`
`40. BLAIR and Defendant Kakar are both minorities. Sham Kakar is an Indian and BLAIR
`
`is a woman. Defendant Ronald Biddle is a white male and is being afforded special
`
`privilege of different standard of review than minorities. Minorities are subject to strict
`
`enforcement of the law and certain white males are not.
`
`41. On June 15, 2020, BLAIR, desiring to exercise her right of free speech secured by the
`
`First Amendment of the United States Constitution, elected to demonstrate her protest
`
`over the local government's systemic racism and gender bias by hanging a Confederate
`
`Battle Flag with a raised middle-finger over her balcony. Displaying what BLAIR
`
`thinks of the white male privilege and systemic government racism, bias and
`
`corruption.
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-00466-RGJ Document 1 Filed 06/30/20 Page 8 of 18 PageID #: 8
`
`First Amendment and BLAIR'S Right to Freedom of Expression
`
`42. On June 17, 2020, the Defendant Biddle filed a frivolous motion attacking BLAIR'S
`
`First Amendment Right, seeking to restrain or enjoin her from displaying her protest
`
`flag with a raised finger from her balcony.
`
`43. On June 22, 2020 the Jefferson Circuit Court indicated it would indeed entertain the
`
`Defendant's motion attacking a federally secured right and rule an issue to which only
`
`the Federal Courts have exclusive jurisdiction. The trial court asked BLAIR take her
`
`flag down because it could hurt her case case.
`
`44. When BLAIR refused, the trial court retaliated by ordering BLAIR to respond to an
`
`attack on her First Amendment rights within seven (7) days, knowing she did not have
`
`an attorney.
`
`45. Under the First Amendment BLAIR has a right to freedom of assembly, the right to
`
`freedom of association, and the right to freedom of speech. Additionally, this includes
`
`the right to protest, which has been extant as long as governments have existed.
`
`46. The 1966 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, of which the United
`
`States is a signatory, makes clear BLAIR'S right to protest, especially Articles 18 to 22.
`
`Article 9 enunciates the "right to freedom of thought, conscience, and religion." [3]
`
`Article 10 enunciates the "right to freedom of expression.
`
`Federal Question Jurisdiction
`
`4 7. Based on all the above, as if incorporated herein this paragraph, this Court has
`
`jurisdiction over this matter under 28 USC 1331, Federal Question which gives this
`
`Court jurisdiction over all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties
`
`of the United States.
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-00466-RGJ Document 1 Filed 06/30/20 Page 9 of 18 PageID #: 9
`
`48. BLAIR has a right to a fair hearing, free from bias and gender discrimination and equal
`
`protection of the law. BLAIR has no confidence she will get a fair hearing or justice in
`
`the legal system of the State. Black lives matter, as do women lives matter and all are
`
`entitled to the equal protection of the law .
`
`49. The conduct of the Defendants the trial court and the administrative agencies are
`
`working in concert to violate BLAIR'S rights secured under the 1st , 5th and 14th
`
`Amendments to the United States Constitution , made applicable to the States through
`
`the 14th Amendment.
`
`50. According to the facts and issues that have arisen in this case, this Court has
`
`jurisdiction under 28 USC 1331, to enforce the rights under the law treaties and
`
`Constitution of the United States, which includes BLAIR'S rights secured under the 1st,
`
`5th and 14th Amendments to the United States Constitution, this includes the 1966
`
`International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
`
`51. Under Article III of the Constitution, federal courts can hear "all cases, in law and
`
`equity, arising under this Constitution, [and] the laws of the United States ... " US Const,
`
`Art III, Sec 2. The Supreme Court has interpreted this clause broadly, finding that it
`
`allows federal courts to hear any case in which there is a federal ingredient. Osborn v.
`
`Bank ofthe United States, 9 Wheat. (22 U.S.) 738 (1824).
`
`52. The Supreme Court has found that a "suit arises under the law that creates the cause of
`
`action," American Well Works v. Layne, 241 US 257 (1916), and therefore, only suits
`
`based on federal law, not state law suits, are most likely to create federal question
`
`jurisdiction, Louisville & Nashville R. Co. v. Mottley. 211 U.S. 149 (1908).
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-00466-RGJ Document 1 Filed 06/30/20 Page 10 of 18 PageID #: 10
`
`Civil Rights Jurisdiction
`
`53. Based on the above, as if full incorporated herein this paragraph, this Court has
`
`jurisdiction under 28 USC§§ 1443 (1) and (2), Civil rights Cases, where a person
`
`cannot enforce in the courts of such State a right under any law providing for the equal
`
`civil rights of citizens of the United States and;
`
`a. 42 USC § 1983, deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by
`
`the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law.
`
`BLAIR will reserves the right to join additional parties.
`
`54. According to the facts and issues that have arisen in this case, this Court has
`
`jurisdiction under 42 USC § 1983 to enforce the rights under the Constitution of the
`
`United States, which includes BLAIR'S rights secured under the 1st, 5th and 14th
`
`Amendments to the United States Constitution.
`
`Supplemental Jurisdiction
`
`55. BLAIR also invokes this Court's supplemental jurisdiction under 28 USC §1367, over
`
`all other claims that are so related to claims in the action within such original
`
`jurisdiction that they form part of the same case or controversy under Article III of the
`
`United States Constitution. Such supplemental jurisdiction shall include claims that
`
`involve the joinder or intervention of additional parties.
`
`All Procedural Requirements for Removal Have Been Satisfied
`
`56. Pursuant to 28 USC § 1446 (a), a true and correct copy of all the process, pleadings,
`
`orders and documents from the State Court action which have been served upon all of
`
`the Defendants has been filed with this removal. BLAIR will file true and correct
`
`document copies of all other documents other documents on file in the State Court
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-00466-RGJ Document 1 Filed 06/30/20 Page 11 of 18 PageID #: 11
`
`action, along with documents from the local administrative agency proceedings, within
`
`thirty (30) days of the filing of this Notice of Removal.
`
`57. This Notice of Removal has been served on all the Defendants in accordance with 28
`
`USC 1446 (d), as certified below. Removal requirements are therefore satisfied.
`
`58. Venue is proper in this Court pursuant to 28 USC§ 1441 (a) because the U.S. District
`
`Court for the Western District of Kentucky is the federal judicial district embracing the
`
`Jefferson County Circuit Court in Louisville, Kentucky, where the action was originally
`
`filed.
`
`Reservation of Rights
`
`59. BLAIR denies all allegations contained in the Defendants' consolidated complaint and
`
`files this Notice of Removal without waiving any defenses, objections, exceptions, or
`
`obligations which may exist in its favor in either state or federal court.
`
`60. Additionally, in making the allegations in this Notice of Removal, BLAIR does not
`
`concede in any way that the allegations in the Defendants', consolidated Complaint are
`
`accurate that Defendants', that the claims asserted therein are claims upon which relief
`
`can be granted, or that recovery in any amounts sought are authorized or appropriate.
`
`61.
`
`BLAIR also reserved the right to amend or supplement this Notice of Removal. If any
`
`question arises as to the propriety of this removal action, BLAIR expressly requests the
`
`opportunity to present such further evidence as necessary to support her position that
`
`this above referenced State action is removable.
`
`62. For the reasons stated above, BLAIR removes this Action, Civil Case No. Cases No.
`
`19-CI-05335 and 19-CI-05241 from the Circuit Court of Jefferson County, Kentucky,
`
`to the United States District Court for the Western District of Kentucky. BLAIR
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-00466-RGJ Document 1 Filed 06/30/20 Page 12 of 18 PageID #: 12
`
`respectfully requests this Court assume jurisdiction over this matter and grant BLAIR
`
`such other and further relief as this Court may deem just and proper.
`
`~ 2 )~
`Pamela D. Blair
`4117 Sanctuary Bluff Lane
`Louisville, KY 40241
`502-693-9696
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-00466-RGJ Document 1 Filed 06/30/20 Page 13 of 18 PageID #: 13
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`This foregoing NOTICE OF REMOVAL OF ACTION was mailed on the 30th day of June 2020,
`to the following:
`
`Mitchell Denham, Esq.
`Dressman Benzinger La Yelle PSC
`321 W. Main St. Ste 2100
`Louisville, KY. 40202
`Email: mdenham@dbllaw.com
`
`Robert Dewees
`McClain De Wees
`6008 Brownsboro Park Blvd., Suite H
`Louisville, KY 40207
`Email: rdewees@mcclaindewees.com
`
`David K. Barnes
`Schiller Barnes and Maloney
`401 W. Main Street, Ste 1600
`Louisville, KY 40202
`dbarnes@sbmkylaw.com
`
`Lisa Payne
`6605 Eagles Bluff Lane
`Louisville, KY 40241
`Email: lapayky@gmail.com
`
`R.Scott Jones
`Reminger Co, LP A
`730 west Main Street
`Louisville, KY 40202
`Email: sjones@reminger.com
`
`Clifford Ashburner
`Dinsmore & Shohl, LLP
`101 S 5th Street, Suite 2500
`Louisvillle, KY 40202
`Email: clifford.ashburner@dinsmore.com
`
`John E. Spainhour
`Givhan & Spainhour
`Professional Building Ste One
`200 S. Buckman Street
`Shpherdsville, KY 40165
`Email: john@gsatty.net
`
`€.~~
`
`4117 Sanctuary Bluff Lane
`Louisville, KY 40241
`502-693-9696
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-00466-RGJ Document 1 Filed 06/30/20 Page 14 of 18 PageID #: 14
`
`·.· .. _:\
`
`BOA~D OF ZONING ADJUSTMENT MINUTES
`Jun_e3~2019 · · · ·
`
`.
`
`.
`
`PUBLIC HEARING
`
`CASE NUMBER 19VARIANCE1039
`
`Request:
`
`Project Name: -
`Location:
`. Owner/Applicant:
`. Jurisdiction:
`Gquncil District:
`· Case Manager:
`
`Variance-of a frorit yard setback for a single4amily
`residence .
`\ ·
`· - -_
`· -
`Sanctuary Bluff L~ne Variance
`4119 SEJnctuary s;uff Lane ··.
`Sham S. Kakar- Sunrise Custom Homes
`i
`.
`.
`. .
`.
`.- Louisville Metro
`l
`16 :,_ Scott Reed
`Zach Schwager, #Janner I
`!
`the staff report :prepared for this case. was inqorporated into the record •. The ·
`Board members received this report in advan¢e of the hearing, and this report .
`was availal:>le ·to any ir1terested party prior to t~e .public hearing. (The staff report
`· is part-of the case file maintained at Planning ~hd Design Sei:vices· offices, 444 . : ·
`South 5th Street.)
`\ ·
`·. · · _
`· · .
`. ..
`
`( .
`
`__ .·_
`
`An audio/vi$uaf recording of the Board of Z~ning Adj.Listment hearing ._
`_ .·
`.
`related-to.this c,_se is available on the Plant-Ing & \Design· Services websit~, . . . · ..
`-or:•you may contact the Customer Service s,aff to view_ the recording or to· ·
`. obtain a copy.
`; ·
`·
`··
`i
`
`-Agency testimony:
`
`'
`· 01 :34:_16
`Zach Schwager presented the ca~~ and showed a Po~~rpoint : ·
`· presentation. Mr. Schwager stated the staff report indicat~s there wEis a letter in
`favor of the variance and that has been withdrawn at .the request of the person _ · ·
`who submitted it. Mr~ Schwager stated he has received. two :em~ilsJn:oppositiori .. ·.
`Mr. Schwager responded t6 questionsfrom theIBoa~d Members (see staff repoftt : ..
`and :recording for detailed presentation).
`- .
`.
`
`.·.
`
`The following spoke in favor-of the request::!
`Cohin Kakar, ,13050 Mooriand Ln., Ca~el, IN ~6074
`. _ Sham Kakar, 7404 Wicldiffe,or.,_p_rospeQt,:KY 4~059 . · · .
`. Colette Koetsler, 11212.0akhyf$tRd., Louisvm .. ~·KY 4024.5··
`. Ma~ Zanni, 4204 Sanctu~ry $luff Ln., LouisviU~, _KY 40241
`.
`·•:
`i
`_ summary_ ot-t,stimony of tboseJn favor: ·
`· Cohin · Kakar"spok.:. :n favor ofthe '.request and _responded t?. ·_
`01 :36:.39
`questions from the_ Board M~)~i,~rs (see -record\ng fpr detailed presentatt~n ).
`
`~
`
`·.·=",: ..
`
`,.<_r,.=:::: ir- ''···.;·. ·.·
`·
`
`~--
`
`25
`
`EXHIBIT
`
`-
`
`-- -
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-00466-RGJ Document 1 Filed 06/30/20 Page 15 of 18 PageID #: 15
`
`BOARD OF, ZONING ADJUSTMENT MINUTES ·
`. Jun,e ~; 2Q19
`
`PUBLIC HEARING
`
`.CASE.NUMBER 19VARIANCE1039
`
`01 :38:00
`..
`Sham Kakar spoke in favor oft~e request ~nd responded to.·
`questions from the Board Members. (see reCO:rding for detailed pre.sentation). ·
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`i
`
`. .
`
`.
`
`01 :41 :07
`Colette Koetsler spoke in favort\>f tl')e request (see recording for ·
`. detailed presentation).
`!
`.
`· ·
`.
`·.
`.
`.
`
`01 :42:23 Mark Zanni spoke in favor e>fth~ request (see re.cording for detailed •·
`presentation).
`·
`·
`·
`
`The following .$poke neither for ne>ragainst the req~est:
`Gary Shearer, 6620.NightingaleBluff Ln., Loui.sville; KY40241 ·
`Charles Podgursky, 7321 New LaGrange Rd_.,;Louisville, l(Y 40222
`
`Summary of testimony ofthose neither for '.nQr against: .
`Gary Shearer spoke neither for rior: againstthe request. Mr..
`01.:43:57
`.
`. ._
`Shearer stated the plof plan is correct, but the problem ifj th.at the house was nof ·
`· -built according to the plan. Mr. Shearer stated\ he would like ·to· reach- some
`.
`common gro~nd rather than having .to tear the [house down> Mr. Shearer
`·
`responded to questions from.the Board Memb~rs (see recording.fordetailed
`presentation). ·
`\
`· · · ·
`
`j
`
`01 :54:22
`Charl,es Podgursky spoke .neithet for noragainstthe request ... Mr. ·
`Podgursky stated his site plan was on the scre~n. so he is heret(:rexplain,what ·
`happened. Mr. PocJgursky stated he was hired)to do a site plar'i"and _stake off the
`house, so they did and sent him the site plan. · Mr. Podgursky state.d he received
`niany phone aillsfrom the applicant stating he !:didn'flike· theway:he staked· it,
`the excavator didn't understand what he was dQing. Mr~ Podgursky .stated he.• i. · ··
`sent him that copy and told him this: was the fi~t phase lhatthey usually def and
`his stakes are still then~ and this way.they .can.$quare off the foundation. · Mr~ ..
`Podgursky stated the back two stakes were sorttethirig·likefifteen feefdown. Mr. · ·
`· Podgursky stated he .wanted him to come out and put-every.corner in. ·Mr. · · .. . .
`Podgursky stated when he got in on Monday. he saw th~ a·pplic1:1nt's check, ~nci
`there was anpther builder: there. Mr. Podg4rsky stated h~was nofhappy with
`thi~f situation and he didn't want to. have anythin'g to do with ·if so he sent;his · :. · ..
`check- back and ·the next day he came .out and took. all tlis ,S.takes;ouf ofthe ·.·.. :
`ground. Mr. Pod9ursky stat~d· two montt,s .later[ hereceived a telephone (;:8H .··
`· , ·. f(om a· gentleman who told him his survey was· wrorig~·;-\Mr~;- Podgursky state,d. he:
`<·:·advised him that he didn't do a survey because ;there was·)nothing to, survey; Mr.· ·
`
`26
`
`. : :·
`· :, .
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-00466-RGJ Document 1 Filed 06/30/20 Page 16 of 18 PageID #: 16
`
`BOARD OF ZONING ADJ.LtSTMENT ·MINUTES .
`June-3~ 2019
`.. ·
`·
`·
`
`.PUBLIC HEARING
`
`CASE NUMBER 19VARIANCE1039
`
`Podgursky stated the caller said well you shovved it thirty-one feet from the curbs · ·
`• -·
`and he said no, that's not how I usually show;it; f"show iffrorn ,thedght-of~way.
`Mr. P~gursky stated he i$ .not in favor or ag~i~st What the aoard is· .going to vote.
`on, he Just wants them to kn<>w he is clearing:his name -in that he basically . . --- -·_.-. _
`walked away from this job. Mr~ Podgursky stated somebody else took over, · , .. ·•• -
`.
`~oine~ody else must hav~ staked it, and his ~ssuniption is that thaffan..;avvay: lot, . __
`,twas Just very hard to build that house the w~y it's supposed to :be.done so
`_
`therefore it was closer to the street Mr. P~dg'ursky responded to questions from
`theBoardMembers (see recording for detaile~ presentation). · ---
`.·
`__ · · ·_
`·.
`
`The following spoke in ~pposition of _the re,quest:-
`Lenny Chopov~ky, 4212 Sanctuary Bluff Ln., llouisville, KY 40241
`Pamela Blair; 4117 Sanctuary Bluff Ln.; Louis-ville, KY. 40241 · .
`Ron Biddle, 6630 Nightingale Bluff Ln., Louisvilfe, KY 402-41 _ .-·
`· James Kessinger, 4308 Sanctuary.Bluff Ln., L9uisville,· KY40241-
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`Summary oftestimony of those· in opposition:
`
`01 :59:20 _ Lenny Chopovsky spoke in .oppo~ition of the request.• Mr.
`Chopovs!<y stated this house blocks the view s~verely. Mr~ Chopovsky statE!.d -·
`this could be fixed and the owner initially stateq he would :and now he says he. -_
`will not. Mr. Chopovsky responded to question$ from the Board Membe.rs (see
`recording for detailed presentation).
`\ ·
`PEJmela Blair spoke iil ·opposition bt the request. .. Ms.· e1air stated.··
`· 02:05:52
`the-reason the owner did not want to move theihouse backis because if was
`goingto be too deep. Ms. Blair stated that lot i$ av~ry difficult lotto build on; · -·
`there have been several builders that have loo~ed afthelot andhave:decided ·
`· that it's too costly to build on because the footers wouid hav~ to be.too-deep~ _, · · _. -
`. Ms: Blair stated she thinks this was willful and intentionai on his part to do th~t ··
`; there was a· text sent .(cid:173)
`Ms. -Blair stated· they'd id not· get their notice unt,1 May 29th
`that evening at 9:09 saying there was something in th_eir mailbox, ·so·that was _- -·
`-. Thursday.which-gave everybody juston.e qay te> plan on attending-this-hearing·
`today.• Ms. Blair read·trom Sanctuary Bluffs Ctjvenants, Deedand,Restrictions_ ·
`Declaration regarding setbacks. · Ms. Blair state~ beGSuse he h~s brought the .. .
`house up so hi~l-flDd ha$ sHghtly tilted it, he ha~ severely alteredtthe io~grity -
`and the look of1ii,ai '3$ighborhood -as it was intefided. per their de~bt-tiJG;lS; · :Ms. -· · ·
`Blair referred ·i:-cr.,t-os1of the:view from her property. ·Ms>Blair erat,;}tshe-tiad=- ·
`. sent a letter of t,J.1ipositiOOiTMr; Schwager stated1 that letter was re~rved otr : __ : :: . _ _.
`
`27
`
`· ·.,. ·
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-00466-RGJ Document 1 Filed 06/30/20 Page 17 of 18 PageID #: 17
`
`'· -
`
`BOARD OF ZONING ADJUST(IIIENT MINUTES
`June 3, 2019 ·
`· · ·
`··
`·
`·
`
`PUBLIC HEARING
`
`CASENUMBER 19VARIANCE1039
`
`Thursday, after the deadline. Chair Young d~lined:toaccepttheJetter, but·
`advised Ms. Blair the Board would accept her testimony'today regarding
`· information contained in the letter. Ms. Blair read' the letter ·into the record; Ms. . . -
`Blair responded to question$ from the Board Members (see recording for detailed· .
`presentation).
`·
`· ·
`'
`·
`·
`·
`
`)
`
`.
`
`.
`
`Ron Bid~le spoke in opposition :of the reques.t. Mr.· Biddle -stated he . · .. ·
`02:37:40
`is ·in charge of the Architectural Review Comi(nitteef6rthis subdivision. Mr~
`Biddle.stated it wa$ assumed Mr. Kakar wasOgoingtoJay the housedµtaccording ·-·
`> to what the rules are, 30 foot setback, and it ~asn't until the hou~e was up .out of
`the ground that it became0apparent-thatitJao~ed-~awfuJly,c<~lose~ . Mr. B.iddle stated-· . . .
`he ~nd others· measured and found that it didrj'-tappear to be in complian,ce .. Mr.•: · · ·
`Biddle stated the HOA hired a certified surveyor, Cardinal Surveying, and that ··-. ·
`survey shows that he is approximatelyc t5.feet out of compliance with, the :trotit .
`setback. Mr. Biddle state~ at that point he an~ others notified Shanlof :the •: _ -• · _ ..
`situation and they discussed as a possible s.o!Lition remoyirig the frontten foot ·
`bay of his garage and he initially agreed. Mr~\Biddle stated after aboutt~n days
`he changed his mind and didn't agree. Mr .. 8._i{ldler-state-cfffieifipesition.trtQW~i~- _,
`thaJ~tbed'!'lous~o:n'eedsi<tortb'es·ttfrttrfdown,~,, Mr. Biddle stated in -opp:osition to:what the ·. _
`builder's son said, there are no other homes in the s·ubdivisicm thafexceed the 30 · ..
`footsetback;.every·on·e of them has been checked. Mr;;8idcHe:ststJcFffits,:is'''SUch
`an:egregious::vi01ati0A~efcthe;setbas.~1th'atEbe.~t~im~s;;.thevonly~fa:irEsortiti0m13isrtn'e"'- ·
`removalief.•1he.fi1obse. Mr~ Biddle responded to questions froin the Board
`.
`Members (see recording for detailed presentation).
`.
`..
`.
`
`· ·
`
`Ja,nes Kessinger spoke in oppo~ition of the requ$st. Mr .. Ke,ssirger .
`02:43:56
`stated he.is the fired Architectural Review Committee Chairm.an·~-- Mr .. Kessinger .
`statecthe put together a year and a halfago a;letter thatthe broker should be·_ ·
`handing to the buyers of their lots. IVir~ Kessinger read from·the letter (see ·_.
`recording-for detailed presentation).
`;
`·
`·
`·
`Lenny Chopovsky spoke again io opposition. · Mr.· Chqpovsky ..
`02:47:35.
`-. stated he didn't reaHze· hovi''rhticlftrouble this,,,t.tou~wa;,f,eau$iAg,-,0to-,.the,;next
`do·ofneighbor, and that is Why he wantedto.·rev<>ke·his previous_suggestionto
`. move the_g~r~g~~ Mr. Chopcivsky stated'ffEftf(ifll<~flf<tlifterenfffouiftfshould~be:
`built0on:thafrot (see recording for detailed pre~entation ). ·
`. . . ·.~'. .-r
`•.
`. :~ .. :
`
`REBUTTAL:
`
`:-=-.;···:: ; ..
`••.· ..
`
`28
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-00466-RGJ Document 1 Filed 06/30/20 Page 18 of 18 PageID #: 18
`
`. BOARD OF ZONING ADJUSTMENT MiNUTES ·.
`. June 3, 2019
`
`·.
`
`·pueuc HEARING
`
`.· CASENUIVIBER.19VARIANCE