HomeMy WebLinkAboutOpposition Packet from Glen Oaks POA via Michael Andreoli MICHAEL I ANDREOLI
ATTORNEY AT LAW
1393 West Oak Street
Zionsville, Indiana 46077-1839
(317) 873-6266
Fax (317) 873-6384
mandreoli(c�datlaw.com
November 15, 2019
Carmel Board of Zoning Appeals
One Civic Square
Carmel, IN 46032
Attn: Angie Conn
Planning Administrator
Attn: Joe Shestak
Administrative Assistant
Re: Willow Haven Senior Home
Docket No. 19090019 UV, 19090020 V
19090021 V, 19090022 V
Dear Board Members:
Please be advised that I have been retained and am representing the Glen Oaks
Property Owners Association, individual residents and others in remonstrance to the
above docket items.
As such, I am delivering my Response in Opposition to Willow Haven Senior Home with
exhibits, including Petitions in Opposition from area residents.
As best we can, we are going to try to filter all letters or other submissions, including
additional petitions, through my office so that I can forward them over nd make your
respective jobs a little easier in terms of paper management. Th ou for your
cooperation.
Very t y yo ,
/ Mi el J. Andreoli
MJA/ba
Enclosure
M1
BEFORE THE CARMEL BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS
DOCKET NO. 19090019 UV, 19090020 V
19090021 V, 19090022 V
IN RE: THE MATTER OF
WILLOW HAVEN SENIOR HOME, LLC
RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION
TO WILLOW HAVEN SENIOR HOME
The goal of this submission is to provide a coordinated, detailed, factual and thoughtful
remonstrance to the Use Variances proposed by the Application. In particular, in order to find and
determine that the Applicant's Petition for Use Variance exists, the Board is required to make
affirmative findings of the following:
1. The approval will not be injurious to the public health, safety, morals,
and general welfare of the community;
2. The use and value of the adjacent areas to the subject property are not
adversely affected;
3. The need for a variance stems from a condition unusual or peculiar to
the subject property itself;
4. The strict application of the terms of this Ordinance will result in an
unnecessary hardship if they were applied to the subject property; and
5. The approval of the variance does not contradict the goals and objectives
of the Comprehensive Plan. (Ind. Code 36-7-4-918.4) (i) See footnote
(i) The statutory finding number four (4) has apparently been substituted by
the Board's required finding number one (1) which reads "The Grant of the
Variance will not be contrary to the public interest, due to the existence of
special condition such that enforcement of the zoning ordinance will result
in unnecessary hardship". To the extent that this finding is read or
interpreted to be less restrictive than the State Statute, the State
Statutory finding must prevail.
Further, in order to grant a Variance from Development Standards,the Board is required to
make affirmative findings of the following:
1. The approval will not be injurious to the public health, safety, morals,
and general welfare of the community;
2. The use and value of the area adjacent to the property included in the
variance will not be affected in a substantially adverse manner;
3. The strict application of the terms of this Ordinance will result in a
Practical Difficulty in the use of the property. (Ind.Code 36-7-4-918.5)
In order to formulate and help the Board gauge the level of opposition to the location of this
memory care facility in a low density residential district, (S-1/Residential) a Petition from
surrounding and proximate property owners has been attached to this Response in Opposition to be
made part of the record. (See Exhibit 1)
Further,area maps of subdivision locations and zoning in the area are attached and made part
of the record. (See Exhibits 2 and 3)
Use Variance
The current proposed site is zoned S-1/Residential which promotes single family
subdivisions, introduction of open space and conservation of lands and offers protection for the
remaining significant natural features by placing an emphasis on less intensive urban land uses. This
proposed use is the antithesis of what one would expect to be placed within the confines of a low
density/high end single family residential district. Moreover,the Comprehensive Plan classifies the
area as "Estate Residential,"meaning "the existing proposed public infrastructure is designed for
residential housing opportunities for people who desire large residential lots,enjoy secluded living,
or prefer living integrally with nature and who require minimum city conveniences." The proposed
use,or anything similarly situated,such as hospital;nursing,retirement or convalescent facility;
continuing care retirement community (CCRC); clinic or medical health center; are not
Page 2
permitted as a matter of right or condition in the S-1/Residential Zoning District. Nursing,
retirement or convalescent facilities or CCRC's are permitted conditionally in some Residential
Districts by way of Ordinance. However,the residential district is R-4,a high density residential and
multi-family district suitable to uses with smaller lots and multiple beds and/or living units under
one roof. Given this scenario,it is not out of the question to ask rhetorically whether an application
in front of the Cannel Board of Zoning Appeals is the correct venue. To the extent that an
appropriate vehicle or model for the use being proposed by the Applicant should legitimately be
considered in the S-1/Residential District, isn't this more properly taken up by the Applicant in
working with the Cannel Plan Commission and city fathers to make Ordinance changes that might
accommodate these businesses so that those who govern the city can have substantial input on how,
where, and what requirements may be placed on the use being proposed by the Applicant? The
Remonstrators believe that this is simply an end run to try to convince the Board of Zoning Appeals
to, in an ad hoc fashion, change the Cannel Zoning Ordinance and emasculate the Master Plan by
locating a commercial multi-bed facility in an area not otherwise contemplated or zoned for such a
use. Such a drastic change of use is best approved with a petition to rezone or seek a proposed text
change to the UDO to consider the specific use as a matter of right or condition.
1. Finding 1. This proposed use will, in fact, be injurious to the public health, safety and
morals and general welfare of the community. This amounts to an end-run to allow the
administrative body to spot zone this particular site by allowing a Use Variance. Spot
Zoning is in opposition to the orderly and planned decision making that goes into a resident's
informed decision about how,when and where to select and purchase a home. It subverts the
orderly zoning process and creates confusion and uncertainty in the vast majority of the
general public's ability to freely and respectfully determine where they want to locate and
Page 3
maintain their residence. If this ad hoc spot zoning approval is permitted by the Board of
Zoning Appeals,it will most assuredly be followed by a number of other attempts to locate
similar uses in low density residential districts.
2. Finding 2. In the current instance, the use and value of the adjacent areas to the subject
property will adversely be affected because the residents of adjacent land have chosen to
invest with the firm realization that the proposed memory care facility could not be located
in the S-1/Residential district as a right or condition. Many of the residents believe that this
will substantially alter the value of their property and will certainly devalue the use of their
property in terms of the quality of life and the ability to see single family neighbors versus a
commercial multi-bed facility. As far as the proposed use itself,it takes only but a modicum
of common sense to realize that this facility will have more parking; fire and ambulance
runs;commercial food and delivery;and visitors on a daily basis over and above what those
would normally expect in the adjacent subdivisions and properties.
3. Finding 3. The need for the proposed variance does not stem from a condition unusual or
peculiar to the subject property itself. The current existing lot of 1.28 acres has no
topographical;dimension;access or other features of any unusual or peculiar nature. Quite
to the contrary, there is nothing that suggests that this property should transition from a
single family residential lot to a commercial/multi-bed facility. While the house on the
property is older and less substantial than others in the area, it can remain as a residential
home,may be changed and remodeled to a more substantial single family home or,as been
done in many other homes in the area,sold for a building lot with the house torn down and a
new structure built thereon. In other words,there is nothing inherent in the actual lot itself
that now makes it unsuitable for a single family residential home with substantial accessory
Page 4
structures if one chooses. Given the size and standard lot dimension, a single family
residence with suitable accessory uses and structures can exist without the need for any lot
coverage or setback variances as now requested.
4. Finding 4. The strict application of the terms of this ordinance will most certainly not
result in an unnecessary hardship if they were applied to the subject property. As stated
clearly in the immediately preceding argument,the nature of the lot itself lends it particularly
well to its current and future use as a single family residential lot. The only hardship
potentially by applying this strict application of the terms of the ordinance would be to the
property owner who may believe that she could get more money for her residential lot by
selling it to a firm for use as a memory care facility. The ability of the lot owner to reap a
financial windfall cannot be considered a hardship, either legally or factually. Moreover,
there appears to be no facts in evidence to suggest that the lot cannot be sold as a conforming
single family lot of record with a fair and reasonable return for the owner.
5. Finding 5. Clearly, the approval of this Use Variance does, in fact, contradict the clear
goals and objective of not only the Zoning Ordinance,but also the Comprehensive Plan. The
Master Plan, Part 3, Land Classification Plan, describes this property and its surrounding
environs as Estate Residential. The designated purpose is "to establish and protect
residential housing opportunities for people who desire a large residential lot,enjoy secluded
living,or prefer living integrally with nature,and who require minimum city conveniences".
Further, the land use designation for this Estate Residential is single family detached
residential only. Moreover, the Regulation Implementation as set out in the Land
Classification Plan seeks to "utilize tradition zoning to regulate this land classification."
This requirement allows the city legislative body to look at land use changes in direct
Page 5
consultation with the Master Plan to determine whether land changes are necessary or
warranted. There is absolutely no facts or wording contained within the Master Plan that
supports varying the use to accommodate a commercial multi-bed facility in this low
density/residential area.
Generally,the Applicant,in attempting to argue the facts in support of the Petition as to why
a hardship exists and/or why a variance arises from an unusual condition or a peculiar nature of the
property,talks specifically about the fact that a need exists and this property is zoned a classification
that will not permit this need. Respectfully to members of the Board of Zoning Appeals,need has
nothing to do with this application as there are a number of facilities located in appropriate zoning
classification within a relatively short distance from West Street and 131 Pt Street that provide, in
whole or in part,memory care facilities. The most recent project was completed along U.S.421 in
Zionsville. Grand Brook Memory Care is a 36 bed exclusive memory care facility that is located in
Eagle Village north of 116th Street and U.S. 421 that carried a Commercial Zoning Classification.
This new facility is located by road 2.6 miles away and by drive,approximately 7 minutes from the
site being proposed. This is relatively adjacent to The Hearth at Tudor Garden in Zionsville,which
also has a separate memory care facility. An existing CCRC with memory care, The Stratford, is
close to West Main and Township Line Roads. Specifically,need in relation to the UDO is a direct
function of text and/or map changes in front of the Carmel Plan Commission and the Carmel City
Counsel. Need cannot be a criteria to support a hardship or a condition unusual or peculiar to the
subject property itself.
Moreover,the Master Plan further weighs in on how the areas in and around West Street and
131s` Street should be treated in that the Master Plan's Transportation Plan designates this area of
West Street as a"conservation corridor"so to protect"private property,privacy,and environmental
Page 6
features and unique aesthetic qualities of the corridor". In short, even the designation under the
Thoroughfare Plan recognizes the unique residential character of the area and the need to take
necessary precautions to preserve the privacy and aesthetics.
Variance from Development Standards
It is safe to say that the specific variance standards being requested by the applicant including
setbacks and lot coverage variances are a direct result of the proposed use of the site. In other words,
it is unlikely that any variances from development standards or lot coverage requirements would be
necessary if the current structure remained the same, was remodeled and upgraded, or torn down
with a new residential structure being built. No better example of this is the request to vary lot
coverage. In this case,the lot is 1.28 acres or 55,756.8 sq.ft. The proposed uses apparently require
more than 35%of lot coverage,hence,the variance request. A lot of this size and dimension would
ordinarily have no difficulty allowing for a single family home plus accessory structures without any
of the variances from development standards required by the applicant. These variances are
required,not because of any particular lot feature,but solely because the proposed use would have to
exceed 19,514 sq. ft. with building and improvements. By comparison, a tear down with new
structure could include a house with 9,000 sq. ft.of lot coverage together with accessory structures
of an additional 9,000 sq. ft. and still not violate the lot coverage requirement. Simply put, the
variances requested by the applicant are solely due to the fact that they are proposing a use not
contemplated or permitted, by right or condition, in the S-1/Residential District.
The remonstrators will choose not to detail each objection to the findings that must be made
by the Board relative to the Variance from Development Standards. Many of the same arguments
will apply to these variances asserted in the response to Petitioner's Request for a Variance of Use.
Page 7
Suffice it to say that while applicant states this institutional look will mirror the single family
residential architecture in the area,the remonstrators disagree. In fact,the look itself and the quality
of materials,together with the reduced open space requested by their lot coverage variance,suggests
strongly that the proposed memory care facility will look like anything other than the custom single
family residences in the area. Board members are encouraged to visit the area and view the
surrounding neighborhood.
Ironically, it appears that the applicant may have misstated the zoning requirements for
parking spaces at a memory care facility by using the CCRC parking space requirement instead of a
hospital, clinic or medical health facility parking space requirements. If they seek to utilize the
CCRC as parking space requirements,such a classification is permitted as a matter of special use in
the R-4 Residential District. In other words,Carmel has appropriate surrounding zoning districts to
accommodate the memory care facility if classified a CCRC and, of course, this was by design.
Remonstrators respectfully suggest the applicants locate the memory care facility in an already
approved zoning classification.
Additional design questions and issues remain as a thorough engineering review of the
applicant's petition indicates that responding public safety vehicles probably cannot make the 180°
turn with 10' radius in front of the facility. It appears that all significant responding public safety
vehicles would have to clear drive of other vehicles in order to back in and out. Will accel and decel
lanes be placed off of West Road? While these would allow public safety vehicles to get off road
when responding and when they choose not to go up the drive, it most notably replaces private
driveways and entrances into subdivisions in the area with an accel and decel lane for this business
only. This would drastically change the look and feel for those estate lots existing with a normal
drive to and from their residence.
Page 8
It appears the proposed sign is located off premises in the right of way, contrary to Section
5.39 of the UDO. It appears that the sign shows power from across the street so is it proposed to be
lighted? It appears the photogrammetry is incorrect(sign light is not included in the light intensity
map). A review of the plans causes concern regarding exterior trash storage/removal. There appears
to be none on the plans currently reviewed and perhaps resubmissions will be made at the request of
the Technical Advisory Committee. Of course,there are no standards in single family residential
zoning districts but there certainly are in the multi-family districts which requires:enclosure on all
four sides,self-enclosure grate,screen with landscaping to a minimum height of the dumpster and/or
compactor for 2 plus feet.
Fair Housing Standards Act
It appears from a review of the total record there may be some tangential discussion of the
Fair Housing Standards Act as it may apply to this particular proposed use. Respectfully, to the
extent this suggestion will be made or raised to the Board,this is an issue that should more properly
be raised with the Cannel Plan Commission and Cannel City Counsel to make sure Cannel is in
compliance with all requirements of the Fair Housing Standards Act. For starters,facilities such as
the one being proposed by the applicant, are permitted in residential districts,just not the S-1 low
density/single family residents District. As previously discussed,these are allowed conditionally in
the R-4 Districts and perhaps other commercial districts. To the extent that one might argue that this
should be broadened to include other zoning districts,this argument must properly be made before
the Cannel City Counsel as these issues and concerns are exclusively legislative in nature. The
remonstrators believe that the City of Cannel has adequately provided for areas of location of these
healthcare/memory care facilities judging by the number of these that have been appropriately sited
in and throughout the City of Carmel.
Page 9
Conclusion
There is an organized and wide spread opposition to the Use Variance and related
Development Standard Variances. The findings that must accompany an approval are not supported
by the facts. The approval of this Use Variance will harm the neighborhood and open a Pandora's
Box for other like uses in low density residential areas. There is nothing unusual or peculiar to the
subject property itself that justifies the approval of this Use Variance. Also,there is just no hardship
whatsoever to the property if the current residential use continues and is left undisturbed.
Finally,it may be worthwhile for the applicant to have further discussions regarding the use
itself and the need of such uses within the Carmel community. Respectfully, the applicant has
chosen the wrong venue to assert such a need as this must be done in concert with the Carmel City
Counsel and Plan Commission staff. Remonstrators request that the applicant withdrawal his request
for Use Variance or, in the alternative,the Board of Zoning Appeals disapprove this application.
Respectfully mitt ,
Michael J. Andreol ,
Attorney for Remonstrators
Glen Oaks Property Owners,Assn.
and Residents
Page 10
BEFORE THE CARMEL BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS
DOCKET NO. 19090019 UV, 19090020 V
19090021 V, 19090022 V
IN RE: THE MATTER OF
WILLOW HAVEN SENIOR HOME, LLC
PETITION IN OPPOSITION
TO WILLOW HAVEN SENIOR HOME
The undersigned property owners hereby voice their opposition and remonstrance to the
proposal currently before the Carmel Board of Zoning Appeals for the Willow Haven Senior Home.
The proposed Use Variance does not comply with the S-1/Residential District intent,
permitted uses or other special uses which are all uniquely residential in nature. This is a multi-bed
commercial business that seeks to be located in a low density single family residential district which
corresponds to the Suburban Residential Plan in the Comprehensive Plan and Land Classification
Plan. This proposed use will diminish our property values, reduce our quality of life and fails to
conform, even remotely, to any of the legal standards that the Board must find exists in order to
approve this Use Variance. This amounts to spot zoning in its most egregious format. We therefore
oppose the granting of this Use Variance,together with related Variances,and respectfully urge the
Board of Zoning Appeals to deny this Application.
Signature Address
La It 6-AI e,,,4,,c,4-4 / SV7Y &/4-eti c94-k)f 6/.
ee9tAct. L Sus(1.3 CoarE0 l3 47 6-kc-iN G c Si, V 0 quiyhln M i '" 141.32 Wan INa
EXHIBIT
CARMEL BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS
DOCKET NO. 19090019 UV, 19090020 V
19090021 V, 19090022 V
Signature Address
FL;Ivx t\its OK' L113•D. DDIan lAii\I
'flit? Do la_v Sty
.5-24/;._ 1JXdk-- sitA-, witiA-0/4 toot NI A m OA i
(7,7171 , MAR-IA
1141\111)05 (3 1+0 OM- (-)at Ct
1;_- p4) If,4 v i...t.,iv,$ 13 V‘ 7 c le v 06,14 C .
-
1 /
- 01 4
1 010- k-, I .-TeSiitk Pe.1720S07) 13 LIU 0 Gto,) ouit. Cf
43'&t171 MI I b RVO I 3 Kii VVI401 V-i, VI, C/—-
.../ Vitie 0 is/
c7-- cl,e-11,---/ tedoie /3 f3----
(, •
:1- - /4 / 3 (/51/1/
/-3-3
/3; O i-c). 6._.7__zttojQfL,.
....1-1
410 i /-1
1 i - P-IMA/ A , t(10‘)P_Ii I 3366 1/J1A/n/L t --(A/6 7--
C4A--44jEt , iiv //6074( bor I
%11JAI13 ecTag54-olv Of 1C3460 Weil Oaks Cf
.Iirme1 PO 4 60 lif
.3)= / C-1-.) .- 1 4 l /6 e r f-
/ it s Ci a/1---
C12-V me-/ --7---id 4 . 2 iC
I
I 5 V -"-
:5(4 I I- -:-. -: e
. i. .L.LL4,vd,./ 6( alt;,11H H:,I ( (AM/VA i tIN (vi: c. 7c1
K.. ,
•
,,`-.) b.,,,:..,, -' '.. 1.. ,L,i:_ ,-, 1 )LiA - - -- ,Li , L:
'2. 7,&k-Le :( 0/1.ki bleirj 1 3 rrp 1 i 1)t-1/11-- -- k 1-TAO Co t-tid
Page 2
CARMEL BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS
DOCKET NO. 19090019 UV, 19090020 V
19090021 V, 19090022 V
Signature Address
74 "7� _s .R— -- 133-?'4 l.J:, e r (L;NS A .
hA-8 1 : /337ef GJ/ r 47) &1
,// .a.cu pike /350? 149e-sf J , bo i
37/ e PJ
_l_ IL it A-170o7L
Nr06i--11LkeC&ucI e_ f LLB- i / /4&7
44c fifre ( / eFO 1301 Wei- egi 4667
--44F5 13.314, 1.6E-sr ‘ 0 Ltt-4-371/-
?., /tr,eVatt 4;121/E-4 i:'”94 id. -s--rA.D 14-r 47i--
j4,4(.a gvadi rt7/1-Kr--.by 13 7 2 GQAA
SLit e)ccw oAr et- a-7
Sri. 1 i LI 3 6 ( f& [2a'sLI' c0Y L1
q:)&04,11,g+6(4_t ;54�4 ti Q ( 3 (7 6wAsr4 6e)?Z. CTVht>7y
Page 3
BEFORE THE CARMEL BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS
DOCKET NO. 19090019 UV. 19090020 V
19090021 V, 19090022 V
IN RE: THE MATTER OF
WILLOW HAVEN SENIOR HOME, LLC
PETITION IN OPPOSITION
TO WILLOW HAVEN SENIOR HOME
The undersigned property owners hereby voice their opposition and remonstrance to the
proposal currently before the Carmel Board of Zoning Appeals for the Willow Haven Senior Home.
The proposed Use Variance does not comply with the S-I/Residential District intent.
permitted uses or other special uses which arc all uniquely residential in nature. This is a multi-bed
commercial business that seeks to be located in a low density single family residential district which
corresponds to the Suburban Residential Plan in the Comprehensive Plan and Land Classification
Plan. This proposed use will diminish our property values, reduce our quality of life and fails to
conform, even remotely, to any of the legal standards that the Board must find exists in order to
approve this Use Variance. This amounts to spot zoning in its most egregious format. We therefore
oppose the granting of this Use Variance,together with related Variances, and respectfully urge the
Board of Zoning Appeals to deny this Application.
Signature Address
1 1;‘. 1 . , <. - I j t zs
‘-- • 3 LI/47. ( 4.020,1 yz,e5-7f
,•
EXHIBIT
CARMEL BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS
DOCKET NO. 19090019 UV. 19090020 V
19090021 V. 19090022 V
Si2nature Address
/ :21 1e14412,47 Cf-- r Di Ill (h<C):;1(f)
ket--01---71,1 nil_at_ti A-eti, 13 4 C6 ,-0.Px1x eL_D-C-12- (1-
Li n 6 1
:-A-fa IL/i--7e._, /i\-/ r t
i .7/4767.AAA,/ Pal vt co_ /3 4 -,
11,141 ,E.,14,c...- 17,;?.1-iit,v)Atil•
— I 7/ /Y,
457 e/44/6", :.6,t'..?!--# 7,11 /...
ie /; , ./-) / '
,;, •-,- , 1') A '141(2,.4-4-11•L-4L1._ 1,-3/./2/Lif ,e.,1/4.:tcte /-- L''!-",-- k.-:-/-77Z-ir,>•Tz/
I /
, ft, i 0: ,4 1
Vt'''s ,i =--,...- -, ------- I 6 (( 3, -,,, /:::A-1' c, /2 ,' I/ ( 1
ii (i , (_ 4 ,f, t4:1-1 NI
(_...._ (361-3 2 --bc,ix (d.,c r _A- ,. -:../037 y
A;i ,eti , . ''isTk j'\•-• 1:3 ti 20 '1)5 ,,(di:-..f (-:..t', (c,-( tv(,-, ( Ix)
40-7/1
j_rt A1, /k*)1 ) )
- 1 -) 'i 1
1...;1-. .,:-L,) 1 i )/ 00
/- (*(...-,
; /-
/ ct6i; t•-•11
516 L,-1 1,3.ii. : ((/t 1,--J 6, 1 3,ci,"is' i ,, L2'4(:;.; L \ (.4im tt1 it'',
1 •( —14 L.,,A,,t,t,1-..., ;i 1..' :S..' i r- 1.---C-11'.
4 -
7)/ ( ,., ,-........I
(....-"i'l,‘147:1- -.7/vit_k..., / ;"7 i ? (A)j I.± ( „,
/ ":.,
(1( t‘...1ft,- , .,
_ , - , 1( ‘i !.11,1---,--' .. ),.) i ( 2 tA---vi 1.-t' -.) JA , '.
. Nit'Uldh. ' - ' (740.14., A till, ,,.:ti Tri.
c ,1 ma ,i -•,
13.j.,1 14 F,crf)t iviati) . 1)(Inti... talc ,11.4"
f ?).:-)--)9 :-„,-,-
—- •-•). ..., -c.:44,44.5. -c--21. kriv,_ i
\
13 LL53 „1) .xd-iie-1_,
1345- TA•X,e4 o t w 61-Qcitrkvleil
-.. ./4.------ / 3f .5
pV
CARMEL BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS
DOCKET NO. 19090019 UV. 19090020 V
19090021 V. 19090022 V
Signature Address
ttithi y ,,k__, 1.--3945-7-5x.2y07- ce, ofim/reit,
i 3 3 tif r. 4. ii-t-, Li.)
i 310, t_ Lirl'5 1.-#J Ckke411.4-
,
719,44 -
-- v /332-ze <:-.7 te in.' i_Ai OheeneZr /iQ
/3326 E . I-el--H' Li? alarti,IN
- ,
l3E6 . 6 )(6614/6/ 4jai .i.4.444,..e //v.
....„---
..,..._...."-
. )
/3i/es= AiAtedve, c'eux- 64-miP, i/V
i f
133,21 c•,:ti L__el,-, G1/4)
- iym& fct_ 13)--)A
- 3_-_ 0 7?,44ik---- v5-2,5D 11.1E-- - Volt./ Cakzevi )N
,
cmitdi- 13280 Nest- Rd. Car"Z-e.
4....,....2 I U-ZZ, (A j 2 .-1Ib_.124,dik,„
A 1
-1111,0 14-14(44,illi [54‘5,,Z 1-1)&1-1 /e di_ eatilie /
Page 3
BEFORE THE CARMEL BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS
DOCKET NO. 19090019 UV, 19090020 V
19090021 V, 19090022 V
IN RE: THE MATTER OF
WILLOW HAVEN SENIOR HOME, LLC
PETITION IN OPPOSITION
TO WILLOW HAVEN SENIOR HOME
The undersigned property owners hereby voice their opposition and remonstrance to the
proposal currently before the Carmel Board of Zoning Appeals for the Willow Haven Senior Home.
The proposed Use Variance does not comply with the S-1/Residential District intent,
permitted uses or other special uses which are all uniquely residential in nature. This is a multi-bed
commercial business that seeks to be located in a low density single family residential district which
corresponds to the Suburban Residential Plan in the Comprehensive Plan and Land Classification
Plan. This proposed use will diminish our property values, reduce our quality of life and fails to
conform, even remotely, to any of the legal standards that the Board must find exists in order to
approve this Use Variance. This amounts to spot zoning in its most egregious format. We therefore
oppose the granting of this Use Variance,together with related Variances,and respectfully urge the
Board of Zoning Appeals to deny this Application.
Signature Address
E�/,�q�,
l_0/ 42:6. ` ' !'�'�` i 7 0 hi- I-�' i r LN , (A V L .� 14j7.717‘
\IAfl3
if, . ,�� 1`?)9 rip `��W ,.� 5 1..�1 . �mr 06014
, solos
13.356 �� c (ti ie j (rJ '4( 7� y
EXHIBIT
CARMEL BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS
DOCKET NO. 19090019 UV, 19090020 V
19090021 V, 19090022 V
Signature Address
r(N�� a_ L .'N\., ,\e-ocn \.., 1?3 512 t Lj - -L AL 1_4.k_.
aykikm ' C s &\ ,Tm, y(aoy'/
3—,2, n vs..e...�, y2�g Y w• l3\sT '
me l IN (--V,o 1-y
4,0p,73 n iv rrt.4.,
1,3/ti/ 1-e-ta,--t4Gefo-
,---c.,-- .
S' p `! -Po tt'r cus /3/u( & 's-r Rn . /
47.4 �) C..ftre.w, c 4Ga7.7
g£G &Sk, 133A\ J. (--t1-1S LA0t
pGlfri ci Q ellsy,i t 3321 W . Lettl 1.-an t
Carron l I to 441014
a� l L l 3 L(.1 E. Lf T` S 1,-45
C A ilm u- 14.1 t-ua 0?`(
,lily .1ite / 1 6 f f�����
CV ceva 1ts .-e-
crw4 -iv 4.14,v?
ii-
.gyro n y rasa . Ca -�
vaa?-y
M ,� ...I .v rf A.io l T?r c CJ• c: 6.r-re 6,4.......
(' (nrq 4.., c. , JN Y6 a-,y
4.11'9 v1L4.)°/q2/ ( 3 2(i' (.r4 6 7 GK 7 r S L4A.ift.
nf►t=- l 06 E. L.:o r-P S 4-.J
C4e•u..5-1_, r,...) cL(o
t1ley AAitrp i S2bb E. LeN-s Lavt.e.
6 -, ca.„ , 4
4 G D'I-
CN�1t,�.k S S 13'Z-i w. \..-t.*s f x-e.
.J eLypt- ,S C/+� el--- 13 4 w G,.-dits. G
Ni(illi)- I'l $4.S" ti., te_146- (-4"C
,67���p� Gil' 24 544a)/
i-,"4 h q o --,5#/ l 33 s/ / 4f-C_c.,1t.4 Liiti.
-(Ct Y; v ut r a i-A ca y i+7 a / M Z/6 0 79
Page 2
CARMEL BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS
DOCKET NO. 19090019 UV, 19090020 V
19090021 V, 19090022 V
Signature Address
// /
G„J. /4 h-
tte
Utz\ 132 W t UZ E7taD
oAl L N v
'/2Z ). /a/4S.L_ CW►ruJ it o 7 '
�� -- &3z ( L4 Wiz' LA-),KI_Aert<c) L( o T.
/144(04
/1 1-- S i. 13 "Z 1 l 1r;T 1 C
1 L6C 4 4-
Page 3
BEFORE THE CARMEL BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS
DOCKET NO, 19090019 UV, 19090020 V
19090021 V, 19090022 V
IN RE: THE MATTER OF
WILLOW HAVEN SENIOR HOME, LLC
PETITION IN OPPOSITION
TO WILLOW HAVEN SENIOR HOME
The undersigned property owners hereby voice their opposition and remonstrance to the
proposal currently before the Carmel Board of Zoning Appeals for the Willow Haven Senior Home.
The proposed Use Variance does not comply with the S-UResidential District intent,
permitted uses or other special uses which are all uniquely residential in nature. This is a multi-bed
commercial business that seeks to be located in a low density single family residential district which
corresponds to the Suburban Residential Plan in the Comprehensive Plan and Land Classification
Plan. This proposed use will diminish our property values,reduce our quality of life and fails to
conform,even remotely,to any of the legal standards that the Board must find exists in order to
approve this Use Variance. This amounts to spot zoning in its most egregious format. We therefore
oppose the granting of this Use Variance,together with related Variances,and respectfully urge the
Board of Zoning Appeals to deny this Application.
Sie ture Address
\ 4,4-44.teits
t' r
t ✓ +
tctdivtAC -IA,
EXHIBIT
CARMEL BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS
DOCKET NO. 19090019 UV, 19090020 V
19090021 V. 19090022 V
Signature Address
/23 e.• )7/2.1, th•Cf.171- 13 d'Sel C ARVVitC...ki Ni!". Ls 1,..„K).
.<
‘.‘1;!-"i..2.tj•-•,?' ;IV,'.,,:""%,:it: I 333r; kt i 111 ‹. ilk)
4 it,.,_,I ,,,..--,-*
,, i ItA... /1"..../„je...,!2,-f 4..... . I 1 i)i ttpi< I iv
i----
)A
(
1 VA
, • • k
Ccci-c
,) Ajl,410-144(WWIJ
11-1.M1 -LVV\APAP,A 1 ; 'KIC (-011,11AILCoi>4 ....-,
NA k- %1
I .....
te.
--.„.,. ..._
(
ri 7:)-1,-40kAAN , frreA LI -) 1 6 I,AA,AA-- I
...--
8 )itv' j f.y"Li:33.(2.,./1, i iN-1 I,k k.
l'ii(4. 9-ik,' i:: c 41/1,44— It i4; Oct-oft ctik, 1.321,1 Mink_
13 z c i' /14/,,,,k C.,,
r
i (.;1 9), in,..,,,k, L .
.
...._,
' '.I tiL.A/Ik.‘•---. ,ji>F)-1..-x1,-"\L
I L i
i. !
I
IS1( 3 1•4\.)
liCiko--e
I, 1 ''''' ' '5•'-'C ,...,1
: C,4 t ti VIt ir ,..,/ "'4- ' M .<7. ' ; Vif 1,- "
k --- S li \L•L, ', I - /
f ' '
' ‘•)i '', 1 ''',4 .
Page 2
CARMEL BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS
DOCKET NO. 19090019 UV, 19090020 V
19090021 V, 19090022 V
Signature Address
- "?-1 UkatakickAa4 u_v)
6 • ._. / i
) tztvinialaeL L4-.
02.1
- .,-
151,67 6ri-Cuic-147\-25Z- /—AS
...
..,
)
133 I 16 11/4/Y-\ L_. j
N\c\.0,PrNi ) 5 lisqkilk I ,4A
.---,Q, ai:/-7
i,,... (AX_ 1 c,i'l CA c niuctie,,et 1-4-\,
ki-4-(AA.Dtz C /2..._ 322.5- C..t1,011016-a-i LiA
_ .
I ?)22-5 taymichafl 14,
(../.--, • i- , - ,e t :
li ,,iu,.,.,..tis,
z,70 I/ -1, ,k:(17,-... 4.,L ,L ...„ L.2:, '.e... -s, )
f.• \
ttC
A - 4/
P ,
, ,.
iti) UN ',JLA1
', -
)k)\\I
_. )
(, c
' kk , kA) /
IA tt ' e.
4I6(_ 2e--e4.- p. & ,
_ e
,,....6..:%1-•IL)/' 'r a1 ..7, i 1, t
, , i
I
•-•1 i 11_-1,:-- .4.,./.4-14
,fr 5,---1, -/-•-''./ 1-1 ii F6, , -c -.).6, r br,
Page 3
BEFORE THE CARMEL BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS
DOCKET NO. 19090019 UV, 19090020 V
19090021 V, 19090022 V
IN RE: THE MATTER OF
WILLOW HAVEN SENIOR HOME, LLC
PETITION IN OPPOSITION
TO WILLOW HAVEN SENIOR HOME
The undersigned property owners hereby voice their opposition and remonstrance to the
proposal currently before the Cannel Board of Zoning Appeals for the Willow Haven Senior Home.
The proposed Use Variance does not comply with the S-1/Residential District intent,
permitted uses or other special uses which are all uniquely residential in nature. This is a multi-bed
commercial business that seeks to be located in a low density single family residential district which
corresponds to the Suburban Residential Plan in the Comprehensive Plan and Land Classification
Plan. This proposed use will diminish our property values, reduce our quality of life and fails to
conform,even remotely, to any of the legal standards that the Board must find exists in order to
approve this Use Variance. This amounts to spot zoning in its most egregious format. We therefore
oppose the granting of this Use Variance,together with related Variances,and respectfully urge the
Board of Zoning Appeals to deny this Application.
Signature Address
LI[A ItiuqW r\)A
tkutivic
Lpas5
r.)
'—'46. V V( c wA(49 i--v 3(L2 &l,p(h`D) 1C
EXHIBIT
CARMEL BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS
DOCKET NO. 19090019 UV, 19090020 V
19090021 V. 19090022 V
Signature Address
q4(5-1 /21ñ/5.-.5
MCtivs.. Pi ( A.v.._:.) Lk )0 . c....V11 \,\CA :4-- .---JC'i\i Q
1 4r-
/‘,Il• -. /1/41e/01..' SS. Of.. ,
, . ,,,, .....
' •) ,,,,, / - i.,.," /
/ 15-2. 6c-4/vitt - -1) .1--
, . . .../
•0,"
-5- 1 t.c._ .
, 1
---CA-e it
-.-- i..- ,.... _s___s_ r--.)i,- •
/
1 1-1 7 ( c kri - -;(-- it)CL-
A, 3 i.i62 ) 1 't-6 \- LI Li •-) ,..12><:_il IA, ,,T) ( .5-(L__ i)cc__
1,1 -<"'-'
,4.•
• -.),
— -• .
, . .' .. . ,, , q '•, 1 .(.„,i. C , ' r \\:‘,\., 1.i. i ,,,,
,-. .' , / ! /\
1 ., , ff- .7..1 )0
, . • ii ,t,.-•/ ,
4' '-4-61-- ,
Page 2
CARMEL BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS
DOCKET NO. 19090019 UV, 19090020 V
19090021 V, 19090022 V
Signature Address
Page 3
BEFORE THE CARMEL BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS
DOCKET NO. 19090019 UV, 19090020 V
19090021 V, 19090022 V
IN RE: THE MATTER OF
WILLOW HAVEN SENIOR HOME, LLC
PETITION IN OPPOSITION
TO WILLOW HAVEN SENIOR HOME
The undersigned property owners hereby voice their opposition and remonstrance to the
proposal currently before the Carmel Board of Zoning Appeals for the Willow Haven Senior Home.
The proposed Use Variance does not comply with the S-1/Residential District intent,
permitted uses or other special uses which arc all uniquely residential in nature. This is a multi-bed
commercial business that seeks to be located in a low density single family residential district which
corresponds to the Suburban Residential Plan in the Comprehensive Plan and Land Classification
Plan. This proposed use will diminish our property values, reduce our quality of life and fails to
conform, even remotely, to any of the legal standards that the Board must find exists in order to
approve this Use Variance. This amounts to spot zoning in its most egregious format. We therefore
oppose the granting of this Use Variance,together with related Variances,and respectfully urge the
Board of Zoning Appeals to deny this Application.
i 'nature Address
NI in K. tea (lc
EXHIBIT
CARMEL BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS
DOCKET NO. 19090019 UV, 19090020 V
19090021 V, 19090022 V
Signature Address
Y
r; tv, :2.. CL fii►,it:i,teL
Page 2
CARMEL BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS
DOCKET NO. 19090019 UV, 19090020 V
19090021 V, 19090022 V
Signature Address
Page 3
BEFORE THE CARMEL BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS
DOCKET NO. 19090019 UV, 19090020 V
19090021 V, 19090022 V
IN RE: THE MATTER OF
WILLOW HAVEN SENIOR HOME, LLC
PETITION IN OPPOSITION
TO WILLOW HAVEN SENIOR HOME
The undersigned property owners hereby voice their opposition and remonstrance to the
proposal currently before the Carmel Board of Zoning Appeals for the Willow Haven Senior Home.
The proposed Use Variance does not comply with the S-1/Residential District intent,
permitted uses or other special uses which are all uniquely residential in nature. This is a multi-bed
commercial business that seeks to be located in a low density single family residential district which
corresponds to the Suburban Residential Plan in the Comprehensive Plan and Land Classification
Plan. This proposed use will diminish our property values, reduce our quality of life and fails to
conform, even remotely, to any of the legal standards that the Board must find exists in order to
approve this Use Variance. This amounts to spot zoning in its most egregious format. We therefore
oppose the granting of this Use Variance,together with related Variances,and respectfully urge the
Board of Zoning Appeals to deny this Application.
Si ture Address
/ St 0/
36tArehsit4i,v,u 7-,� I w, /344 St, Lien K_I
;eat/ htildelt l'D 9(iwai; - r �
EXHIBIT
CARMEL BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS
DOCKET NO. 19090019 UV, 19090020 V
I9090021 V, 19090022 V
Signature Address
C � 41172 i2,eJ r A2 rS "
all/f 4C7 (0-0- 1?6 )11; P/V (Any
Lii,2 u (A) ► 3 s t Sf C r ra f/xi c:v
•mac_ -P- 4/7 (Ai /3/ �r :. 46'
21
to
Page 2
BEFORE THE CARMEL BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS
DOCKET NO. 19090019 UV, 19090020 V
19090021 V, 19090022 V
IN RE: THE MATTER OF
WILLOW HAVEN SENIOR HOME, LLC
PETITION IN OPPOSITION
TO WILLOW HAVEN SENIOR HOME
The undersigned property owners hereby voice their opposition and remonstrance to the
proposal currently before the Carmel Board of Zoning Appeals for the Willow Haven Senior Home.
The proposed Use Variance does not comply with the S-1/Residential District intent,
permitted uses or other special uses which are all uniquely residential in nature. This is a multi-bed
commercial business that seeks to be located in a low density single family residential district which
corresponds to the Suburban Residential Plan in the Comprehensive Plan and Land Classification
Plan. This proposed use will diminish our property values, reduce our quality of life and fails to
conform, even remotely, to any of the legal standards that the Board must find exists in order to
approve this Use Variance. This amounts to spot zoning in its most egregious format. We therefore
oppose the granting of this Use Variance,together with related Variances,and respectfully urge the
Board of Zoning Appeals to deny this Application.
Signature Address
3 )6,6, /9)s- e(-1.1 p z_ 41,71 tl4L 0 2 y
L
1,4 6 A c
ty'1,r-ii. IT
•
Area Development
Ifrl .,' .':.' ______
�?. !• •,%, •.7 .. �G , j,
•
kl '• 0, ."1. '•
t \
Proposed Memory i;- t' •
I Care Center ;r, r
j� ._ Deft: , o6t iy ty # dr r h �g - it.. SEDGWICK
AP r 1 I
Y• ✓ 3 L ./ 3 't5nul , ri ro tl * g t nh„i °a �'z • y� HE`LAK
zip,
) y!r' a ��J.`"1 x s� 1tl3r 4 /ILAW HoMES AT STANFORD PARKR 1 VLc T— , : :
1 #� for N mg13WOQu °r • 4� i z 3 o ° j „
;j # � -4, it��cr ••* 'l' .:A .�� € t I. •
y m E rYl •t
4,.. 1
IT
•�tom ' �7i.1�tl: �. .'4 1aY { .��tr••',a tE hl...`)t2 r � (
RyEPASS RR---a F2EPA 8:.. ,#. b -... F, lA. - I
tit
kiit �d
el S a ar 'rrF,�LFF<L1A' li- n� \
_S ,4U111FU ; a■+I•.:'C. �• ra- •_ ` JJJ---ir f
�' -W MAIN ST W MA ST W MAIN Si
-.-.. •J, o W731575 .. lI _. -
±31575T -W9315T ST • �-tt- i + ----
Y/131ST SaT�r�r � ��'�`
�' ' CKY FORWARD �" '., '-rir �� , CSC T-Y VIEWJESTATES '4
i '
COPPER RUN - t t
j a SHELBOURNE ESTATES ASHMOOR SUBDIVISION,�y
: ✓r�',
•
z ABERDEEN BEND HA DEN-RUN'
3 ! 'i • 4�i qr ! t�1� .T ! r:::.f4. L.
�►
November 6,2019 1:6,446
Subdivisions LAKESIDE PARK SUBDIVISION THE LAKES AT HAYDEN RUN Carmel Duke 0 0.07 0.15 0.3 mi
I t
ABERDEEN BEND LONGRIDGE ESTATES TOWNHOMES AT STANFORD PARK t
Private Federal 0 0.13 0.25 0.5 km
ASHMOOR SUBDIVISION LUCKY FORWARD VILLAGE OF WESTCLAY
INDOT -- IPL
BELLEWOOD RIDGE AT HAYDEN RUN WOODS AT LIONS CREEK,THE
—
Sources: Esri, HERE, Gannin, Intermap, increment P Corp.,
CLAVBOURNE SEDGWICK Other Municipality — Other GEBCO,USGS,FAO,NPS,NRCAN,GeoBase,IGN,Kadaster NL,
ri Ordnance Survey,Esri Japan,METI,Esri China(Hong Kong),(c)
COUNTRY VIEW ESTATES SHELBORNE PARK Streets County i__1 City Boundary OpenStreetMap contributors,and the GIS User Community
GLEN OAKS SHELBOURNE ESTATES Other Clay Terrace 2019 Photography
HAYDEN RUN STANFORD PARK _Red' Red EX���I T ArcGIS WebApp Builder
7
Area Zoning
1
•
r 4YJ•-f � _ -- ± _ — = i , 4 ti 4.a,'-s, r t• ,''1 ,
•
to IL'
.'�
t, t` - v.
—s I
..
r < .� y Cr it - i
**r yr`4.- it ' . iiii
0'•k' ,
P4 I i off+
•
I
2 • �I i , •
•
i--,. ," til , .,
. .r � '; I
.: , ,, 7
: . ,"
. •.
,. .:
_... ..... ......
_.
..
'..) .
eryok. —;,. r7.4j)..,,,. 1
Proposed Memory .' ? `' "'i I
Care Center , -. f , yr
rt iExisting CCRC with
i Memory Care(The
d( t _ i A Stratford)
•
G.
.- . ►
�^". S1 _4V 1:+:ic".�5'^'.1.—._. --- .._w I•1%1lT �_��`.1 4�.rI3'IS .Ttj ." '•_�..� .�'�-�. , -.: . .. ,
;'LIN
."?f ems_
r =° S ,m 4 k
1 •
�,� J6. ,i s'Z . I
November 9,2019 1:8,287
Zoning 2019 Photography o 0.1 0.2 o.a mi
B-5 C-1 • P 1 R-3 S-2 111111
1 • • • • • ,
r 0 0.15 0.3 0.6 km
B 1 � B-6 • C-2 PUD • R-4 MC Red: Red lY..1
B-2 •R Green:Green �� Sources: Esn, HERE, Gannin, Intermap, increment P Corp..
IN
B-7 1-1 R-1 • R-5 • UC GEBCO,USGS,FAO.NPS,NRCAN,GeoBase,IGN,Kadaster NL,
- Blue: Blue Ordnance Survey,EsnJapan,METI,Esn China(I-long Kong),(c)
111 B-3 OpenStreetMap contributors.and the GIS User Community
m B-8 • M-3 R-2 S-1 • UR -,...14
'1, f-N,\ ArcGIS webApp Builder
;TF�