HomeMy WebLinkAboutLetter #15 Bruce BerryTo Members of the Carmel Board of Zoning Appeals Members,
My name is Bruce Berry. My family and I live at 733 Emerson Road, Carmel, IN 46032 and have for now,
for 22 years. We love our neighborhood and its location, and we are fully aware of the benefit to our
neighborhood that much of the nearby development has provided.
The proponents of the project, whether they be from the private sector or some of our entrusted city
employees have turned a blind eye to our neighborhood, a neighborhood that has a simple but long
history, that started late 1959, early 1960.
A neighborhood like ours should have the benefit of being looked after, not taken advantage of. As an
architect, I know that developers often try to bend rules, or exploit exceptions to rules to maximize the
square footage of what they can build. They (and their architect’s) often dissect the language of the
codes and local municipal documents segment by segment, focusing on the parts that are in their favor
in an effort to support their “view” of what is allowed. I offer the same scrutiny of the language of these
documents that govern this project to illustrate that there is no room for the interpretation that allows
this project to be approved.
By definition, in the Carmel UDO, (Article 11:02, Definitions) the definition for a Principal Building
(Building, Principal) is
By every essence of this definition, the project proposed by Buckingham is a single building that is
limited to 35 feet in height. The first part of the definition “A building in which the main or principal Use
of the Lot on which said building is situated” stipulates that a principal building comply with the use of
the lot and its conditions . The lot, is zoned C2 which initially allows for 75 feet height for principal
building, except when adjacent to single family residences which then only allows 35 feet for principal
height.
By this condition, the principal building, which located adjacent to Johnson-Wilson Addition, the entire
building is limited to 35 feet in height.
Those in support of this project have stated that this project is multiple buildings, but it is not. It cannot
be considered Principal and Accessory building(s) because an accessory building when “connected in a
substantial manner, as by roof, it shall be counted as part of the Principal building”. Since all of the lower
portions of this project, are connected by roof, this is one Principal building. Besides, an accessory
building cannot be used for permanent human occupancy.
One doesn’t have to be an architect to look at the currently submitted architectural drawings to
understand that the building truly functions as one building. Ms. Kelly Basket did a great job discussing
this in her letter that she submitted. All 244 units, including the attached two story portions of the
project, have access to all of the same amenities including the parking garage. This garage is accessed by
corridor that is contained within the envelope of the six story portion of the building, creating a
contiguous first floor and footprint of the building that functions as one entity, one building. Even the
developer acknowledged that their project was one building. When the Buckingham project was
filed, the developer stated it was for one building, so, I’m honestly, not sure why there is any question
about the non-compliance of the project based solely on this most basic non-compliance of the UDO.
However, there are additional reasons this Development Plan and ADLS application is non-conforming to
the standards of the Carmel UDO and Comprehensive Plan and should not have been accepted. This
Development Plan and ADLS application is not compatible in scale or character and should be disallowed
as stated in “UDO Basic Provision 1.04 G. – Compatibility. To bring about compatibility between different
land uses and to protect the scale and character of existing development from the encroachment of
incompatible uses or intensity.” Another failure of this Development Plan and ADLS application is the
proposed scale of the buildings, anticipated lighting and noise differences from a single family
neighborhood which is dictated by “Comprehensive Plan Section 1.3.7 – Protect single-family
neighborhoods from dissimilar adjacent uses with respect to scale of buildings, building materials,
lighting, noise and other incompatible impacts.
When one adds all these reasons together, there is no way this project can be considered in compliance
with most basic concepts of the UDO and The Comprehensive Plan requirements. The acceptance of the
Buckingham Development Plan and ADLS application by Mr. Hollibaugh was an incorrect choice, which is
why I am requesting that you grant our Appeal and overturn the approval Development Plan and ADLS
application by Buckingham for the project on the AT&T lot.
Sincerely,
Bruce Berry