Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutLetter #4 Dee FoxFrom:Dee Fox To:Crediford, Maggie Subject:GetGo Use Variance, 146th/Gray Rd. Date:Tuesday, July 21, 2015 4:52:39 PM Hi Maggie, Please distribute copies of my email to the BZA members prior to the July 27th meeting, and please verify that you received this. Thank you! Dee Fox To members of the BZA, Please deny a Use Variance for a GetGo gas station/convenience store at 146th/Gray Rd. Though I am not a direct neighbor, the following are community-related concerns. Unnecessary Risk of Locating in Community Water Supply Wellhead Protection Area (WHPA): ** Given the nature of 146th St. and that trees and floodplain limit development area on the site, a rezone from S-1 to a business use makes sense. However, a gas station is not just any business. It has predictable and entirely avoidable risks to a WHPA. There is no necessity for a gas station to go on this particular site, and virtually any other type of business would not pose a threat to the WHPA. ** This powerful developer will aggressively fight for this lucrative use in the WHPA, and insist it is safe. Any gas station is expected to comply with state/federal regulations, and should be required to use every extra known precaution if unwisely located where it's a risk to the underground water supply. Even the systems that experts deem as safe as possible are not foolproof, due to material failure, unforeseen circumstances, and human error. Therefore, it makes no sense to voluntarily locate a risky use, that needs layers of safeguards, in a place where a vital community water source could be contaminated & difficult to clean up. WHY TAKE THAT CHANCE? ** Even if the risk is small, we all remember oil spill disasters. Interestingly, the previously proposed gas station for this site built in another WHPA at 146th/River Rd., where it couldn't be denied in the Legacy PUD. Opposition letters from many agencies included the Hamilton Co. Surveyor (6-13-13) who mentioned a failure at Guilford Road & Main St. (8-23-08) which released about 8000 gallons of gasoline (Docket No. 13050012 DP/ADLS) It happens. ** Why have WHPA's if we're not willing to protect them from a risk like a gas station? This proposal on this site would benefit the developer, at potentially great consequence to the community. ** The Comp Plan stresses protecting WHPA's. Page 20, Inspire Environmental Awareness, Objective 7.7: "Continue to protect regional surface and ground water sources to ensure safe drinking water for Carmel and adjacent municipalities. Institute regulations that further protect the delineated wellhead protection areas from contaminants and land uses that have a higher risk of contaminating water resources." [See also Page 12, Community Profile--Groundwater, and Page 7, Preface, which includes, "Public and private decision making must give due consideration to this important resource."] Damaging Precedent of Using BZA to Avoid the Normal Approval Process: This is the second proposal in 2 months that could set a precedent by attempting a faster, easier, cheaper, less scrutinized approval through the BZA process instead of the normal Plan Commission/Council process. (Thank you so much for denying the Woodhall Lane attempt.) In this case, the developer is willing to gamble on one last try for a gas station on this S-1 property, without a rezone, because the normal rezone approval process wasn't successful for a previous similar gas station proposed on the same site. I believe a BZA denial would end any further pursuit of gas stations on this very inappropriate site. Damaging Precedent of Using BZA Variances to Essentially Drastically Rezone S-1 Residential to a Commercial Use, Especially Gas Stations: Drastic use changes in S- 1areas (or anywhere) should be extremely rare. It's one thing for the commercial use to go in first or where zoned for it, allowing potential homeowners the choice to live near it. It's quite another to force it on residents who chose, invested, and are settled in areas that never wanted or expected that and are not zoned for it. FINDINGS OF FACT: I believe the petitioner's responses are insufficient, repetitive, and never even mention the risk to the WHPA. (Only in Giant Eagle's Wellhead Protection Plan is it admitted that this use could "impact nearby groundwater quality and potentially adversely impact the municipal water supply." The goal is "safeguards to minimize impacts… .") 1. The water supply risk is contrary to the public interest. The petitioner is cherry-picking the Comp Plan. (See Comp Plan water protection statements above & examples to follow.) Most would agree that residential development would be difficult, and the site needs a rezone for low intensity business that's not a risk to the WHPA. However, the petitioner's hardship comes from insisting on an inappropriate site, and attempting to justify a Variance since a previous gas station wasn't successful through the normal approval route. 2. Potential for contaminating the water supply could be injurious to the public health, safety, morals, & general welfare of the community. For 4 of the 5 answers, the petitioner keeps repeating, relevant or not, "appropriate transition to residential areas through significant buffering, open space, landscaping, and tree preservation." Those have no bearing on the risk of polluting groundwater, any development has required buffering/landscaping, the floodplain open space would be similar for any development there, and the tree preservation is only partial. On page 4 of the Development Plan, view the huge forested areas of existing trees that will be "removed" to make room for a gas station. With so few forested areas of trees left in Carmel, that's a terrible loss due to this particular development plan, and totally contrary to the Comp Plan, page 21, Objective 7.13. Sacrificing so many mature trees does affect general health, welfare, and morals. 3. A gas station affects the use/value of adjacent areas. Few people desire to build or buy a home near one, and the closest existing neighbors have been in lengthy negotiations with the developer to try to protect their homes and property values. "Certainty" does not mean appropriate or desirable, any development can only use a portion of that site, and commercial development begets more of the same. 4. Proximity to 146th St. & businesses is not peculiar to this property, and the nature of the site limits the scope of any development. Neither necessitates a gas station. The need for the Variance arises from a desire to avoid the rezone process. 5. A sampling of instances where the proposal doesn't fit the Comp Plan: ** The previously cited Comp Plan emphasis on protecting WHPA's. ** I don't believe the City-Wide objective of attracting additional businesses would support risking water contamination to get a handful of low wage jobs. However, City-Wide Policies & Objectives, page 17 says: Objective 1.4----"Discourage unplanned or harsh contrasts in … character, land use, and density." Objective 1.5----"… protect residential areas from unsuitable commercial development." ** This single gas station does not fit a Neighborhood Support Center (NSC) or a Neighborhood Service Node (NSN). Both say to protect existing (pre-development) environmental features. (Like trees & WHPA's.) 1) NSC, (page 35): Purpose is to "provide a notable benefit without negative impact to nearby residential properties." Uses allow small convenience store, but "no gasoline sales." Must be at least a mile from another NSC or NSN , with no parking in front, no drive- throughs, & "great sensitivity to … hours of operation." 2) NSN, (page 36): East Carmel Policies & Objectives, page 22, Objective 1.2 allows NSN's "in context appropriate areas." A "Conditional Fit" to Suburban Residential, I submit that a gas station in a WHPA is not context appropriate. A NSN is "to establish areas for mixed- use…", show "Great sensitivity to … hours of operation", and have "Parking to the side or rear of buildings." Single tenant space is limited to 5000 sq. ft. (Gas station is 6,125 sq. ft.) Conclusion: Please deny a Use Variance for a gas station in this very inappropriate location. This proposal could potentially have serious consequences for the community water supply and could set undesirable precedents, so please enable it to go through the the normal rezone/approval process and scrutiny of the Plan Commission/Council. A gas station in this location is not a necessity, it is a choice. There are other gas stations, and safer locations. The site's natural features limit the scope of any development, but a less intense business use would not be a risk to the WHPA, and would still be compatible with 146th St., and would be more compatible with residential developments. Maybe it could preserve more trees. The current proposal benefits the developer, not the community. Given there have been several other previous proposals for this site, including a gas station, it needs a thoughtful and creative development. Not a gas station. The neighbors seem weary of the fight and the pressure, so are negotiating to try to protect their homes and property values in case it's approved. Therefore, they probably will no longer be in a position to object to the use. Even if they acquiesce, I hope you will deny this so that they will have an opportunity to participate in finding an appropriate development plan for the site that both protects them and the WHPA for the community. Thank you, Dee Fox.