HomeMy WebLinkAboutRemonstrance
'd \O~'")?,00
(-ec' c:.-?
We, the undersigned, reside in the neighborhood near 2640 W. 96tb Street,
Indianapolis, and we oppose the granting of the Special Use and Minimum
Lot Width Variances that are being requested by Lubavitch of Indiana.
Property location: 2640 W. 96th Street, Indianapolis
Docket No. 06050007 SU (Special Use)
06050008 V (Minimum Lot Width)
Signature
CD cfYJ A {l1Pfl<< j i? rrIY//lJtWU WJJGl)~
--Ll-f!J - {J () .
@ ,'ef: :;Zfl6otf/l;Je.Jtlf ~ 9'~
_ J.I7f >( V,
@ /'/11V0 "I/J&#loNL Z{,~~* r;
)/VVJf'& CjIR tb S
@~nt~.~ rJ.-44l{dwn(/J:'~J(,8'~~.~
/1. " "
@ ~l~UJ.,/ ~1~~kc2 ~vi?YttZ 7 " /if1~
({) fj&tAA r; 1: .c{~ c~{i, 7;; ~J
.~ ?PUP ()
~
f:
IS
x
1
-,
.
.
- ::-:;
ve c.-Lc/
to.. Z 5 -00
We, tbe undersigned, are residents of Shelborne Greene neighborhood and we
_~pose the granting of the Special Use and Minimum Lot Width Variances
that are being requested by Lubavitch of Indiana.
Property location: 2640 W. 96~ Street, Indianapolis
Docket No. 06050007 SU (Special Use)
06050008 V (Minimum Lot Width)
,_..,..,..,,,,,,,..~":J'!;!"'~~~~..<t<i'C"~?~~-'i"?''';'''''-''''''''~'~_'^._.'_
(i)
~"ec ~<-I eLL
3'-/ fJ 7 -::r;:;t/er"'~ss &1(/0/
Signature 4/
~~
Name/Address
~rMe(1 -r,..; t/603:L /J / t~ .
15:' C t\LV 11\1 L- Ii iki1j) D ~~, ll\l\f6~ R/J& L c:/r
l.!:!:.J (? fl.AM(f/"II}/ tfblP~ .-
f71\ 12-,. 0)1 MetlaA,/1l 3466 CLtJ-'1b7Dg~2-~ ."
\2./ _ ft/tA.'Vf (!At}~. r' 'I tv {;5
6J f)/I1.'1 -rk474S 7Y-";~.::~;,}S%~J.. . .;'{-
"6'- -Ir/)V\ I' () r. . I g~n vv. ~ VI 344.J. jf'\,V wY\e'65
\..V ~ f'<-J.IVVl ~.u I Ctvt'w I ( IIJ #"3;2.-
@
CD \( Q + hie en 0. n & S + to ph,o l"\ tv c ~ n e
q &; 53 r (1 f res. ~ IUn /1
@ p~\ OJ\ cl ~ \(1, L~~'-cIL
1 'iff I ~U~,,~ if ,B\u J.
~~
- (). 7)~
I
~Yh-~
~_....1.
We, tbe u~.ed, are residents ofShelborne Greene neitlhborbood and we
.-ppose tbe...ting of the Special Use and Minimum Lot Width Variances
that are being req.uested by Lubavitch of Indiana.
Property location: 2640 W. 96th Street, Indianapolis
Docket No. 06050007 SU (Special Use)
06050008 V (Minimum Lot Width)
"P~
" 0; 1ft; {P{ Gtf~ss ~ ~VVVJ.t{ I JrJ ,/,~z..
-, ..~!~z- ~~
I 0\<:'\0.. ~ I.V~o--
~ /:tr~~,4.? r. /4a..v
?tob ty ~r ~
9 AN U A.tJ 0 ( ~~ 1~A' 'K~ rA. P\.M.....--
~. 9 c.')If'~tSS ~A'I ~6L fk{-~bD"32- \tl-/-
<f lito lA.. ~ <- IJ - ~cf)v.:o .s' ~
10 '1 b / {. ( C(/~ ~ lrc.lc e(U1 c{~ .' . (~ j)
1_ ~~L- l -- J:::::>
Name/Address
3
'I
N Q{, ~ IJJ r/I,(.J
5""
~
I
@
.ri_..... "'_.....--.... i
..J
We, tbe undersigned, are residents of Shelborne Greene neighborhood and we
~pose the granting of the Special Use and Minimum Lot Width Variances
that are being requested by Lubavitch of Indiana.
Property location: 2640 W. 96th Street, Indianapolis
Docket No. 06050007 SU (Special Use)
06050008 V (Minimum Lot Width)
",__"'".,.c,;<,,.,"~~,':"",~.a.;ri.'i""10'$~~"-':~0':':;~.c;p-,,,,,,~,,,,,,,,,,,~,>,_'''''',",''''_~~'
@
Name/Address Fe.. !?As (f" fl~/^.J7- Signature
CD ;?oBEh-J- It/) CUru;II~,^) ~ l1..:Jd
Q'4-1 CYfG~lFSS WA-Y ~I?t.( oJ 4-6:?:S1.. , .
NlMJc,/ It- )/) c!-Av?lIl,J ~ q, m~
::'4-'1 C'tl'tI€!5 wAY C/!teMa., 'N 4f.on p::pj' ~
@ ALl::'X kAtftEJJS~ ~~/~~
qb\{\{ ('itPRJ=~ W 4'J ' ..
lk./~,\tJ \\S(}N ,
~~l-0 ~PU-b~
II ~\E~u~~:hn~
. q&ZJr ~-e.-'t,) (;rw
@) 6J~4J Q reG:{ [,J({ AAj/JV d3Ffl.JltJt-7rat...
05 [tl1 'f'!/fJ ~
/'
4'
I
.-
~-
-
-,- I
....~
LJ
.
, I ._... ,_.......,,_.._~___
::.:.' -:'1 I. =. _~____d
--
---
o
1-
2630
.: '.
',:,:. 'i. "
,.!. ,.
.. ., \
*11I
w
o
~ J?
RECEiVED
OCT 1 I 20fh
ijIJ
DOCS
October 9t\ 2006
Carmel/Clay Board of Zoning Appeals
Carmel City Hall
One Civic Square
Carmel, IN 46032
Attention: Ms. Connie Tingley, Secretary
Regarding: Proposed Worship Center Variance Request (Lubavitch oflndiana)
As a homeowner in Shelbome Greene, I would like to express my opposition to
the variance request petitioned by Lubavitch oflndiana (Docket No. 0605007 SU and
-- 06050008 V to be heard on October 23rd, 2006). I am opposed to the request for all of
the reasons listed below. Please note that I would be opposed if the petition was being
brought forward by anyone but someone desiring to build a single family residence. I
purchased my home on the adjacent property in February 2006. Before making the offer,
I contacted the City of Carmel to confirm what, if anything could be built next to my
property. I was assured by a City Representative that the lot was too narrow to build
anything but a single family residence.
Reasons for Opposition:
1. Decrease in home values in the entire neighborhood as a result in the decreased
values of the adjacent properties.
2. Environment changes - removal oftrees, wild life habitat, and natural drainage.
3. Impact of natural drainage between the property line and the adjoining common
area, as well as, the homeowners.
4. Parking lot security light pollution.
5. Building security light pollution.
6. Parking lot has the vehicles pulling into the spaces with their lights pointed
directly on adjoining homeowner's property.
7. Proximity of this type of building to the property line and adjacent homes.
8. Lack of adequate natural barrier between proposed building and homes.
9. General security of an unsupervised parking lot and picnic area hidden behind the
building.
10. Lack of a gate at the front entrance / driveway.
11. Noise from vehicular traffic.
12. Noise from group activities.
13. Lack of a master plan for the entire site (i.e. additional development in the future)
14. Proposed facility looks very commercial and not residential. The building has a
flat roofline.
15. Emergency access/egress - there is only a single lane for so many parking spaces.
16. Traffic access on/off of heavily traveled 96th street would add congestion to an all
ready over-loaded intersection.
Page I of2
o
o
17. Change of standards set by the Zoning Board that would set precedence for future
development.
18. Unfair to previous buyer's who passed on the property because they adhere to
zoning regulations.
I am aware that many of my fellow homeowners in Shelbome Greene have a similar,
strong opposition to the proposed development. I sincerely hope that the City of Carmel
will protect the interest of its tax-paying homeowners and rule against the petition
brought forth by Lubavitch of Indiana.
._- R~B4-- ~~
Andrew & Danielle Osterholzer
9643 Cypress Way
Carmel, IN 46032
(317) 228-0268
Page 2 of2
.... ..
Kathleen and Stephen Noone
9653 Cypress Way
Carmel, IN 46032
(317) 870-7513
, ,
c~
( -eG~d
q - 2,\"-D(o
l.P P VV\
September 25, 2006
Carmel Clay Board of Zoning Appeals
One Civic Square
Carmel, IN 46032
Property location: 2640 W. 96th Street, Indianapolis
Docket No. 06050007 SU (Special Use)
06050008 V (Minimum Lot Width)
We strongly oppose the granting of the Special Use and Minimum Lot Width Varim,ces that are being
requested by Lubavitch of Indiana.
. We DO understand that this property is zoned for private residential use.
. We DO understand that the approximate width of the property is approximately 136 ft wide rather
than the 200 ft minimum width, which would require approximately half as much more width.
. We do NOT understand why the owner purchased the property in February 2006 but placed no
"sold" sign on the property.
. We do NOT understand why the owner purchased the property for $220,000 without a
contingency of acquiring the needed special use variance.
. The petitioner stated that, at the time of purchase, he was not aware that a minimum width
variance was required. We do NOT understand at what point in time he learned of this need or
how such a purchase could be transacted without this need being realized or communicated by a
real estate broker or attorney.
. We do NOT understand why the owner would go to the expense of hiring an architect to draw a
very detailed set of plans for the building and extensive landscaping without fIrst having obtained
the required variances.
. We do NOT understand why the residerlts ofShelborne Greene community, especially those who
live in houses adjoining the property, were not advised of the owner's plans or of the BZA
meeting until a relatively short time before the BZA meeting took place.
. We do NOT understand why a required sign announcing the August 2006 BZA meeting was
never posted on the property prior to that meeting.
. The signage for the September BZA meeting was posted following the August meeting. But, we
do NOT understand why the signage was printed in small letters and amid tall grasses and weeds
(the property has been overgrown throughout the spring and summer), both of which made it very
difficult to be read by passing motorists.
The reasons we oppose the granting of the minimum lot width variance are:
. We do not support the waiver of the minimum lot width variance because it would set a bad
precedent for the Board of Zoning Appeals. We understand that the B,zA has not granted such a
variance, at least in the last three years, for a place of worship special use approval. Furthermore,
the waiver would place the building as close to the common area as regulations allow. This
placement will also require removal of many large trees that otherwise would provide a visual
and sound buffer between adjacent homes and the building. Any new landscapjng would not
likely serve as suitable replacements and would take years to grow - we doubt that large trees
would be planted so close to the building. Thus, the neighbors west of this building will be
directly affected by having to view the back of a building, part of which is two stories, rather than
the current natural landscape. This fact alone will have a direct affect on the resale value of these
homes.
..'" ~ ...
. Because the lot width is only 136.9 ft, any architect would probably need to design the length of
the building of this size from north to south. rather than from east to west. This is further
compounded by the religious requirement of having this worship center face the east. And this
particular plan having the entire building face the east. By doing so, there is an increase in the
number of Shelborne Greene properties that are directly affected in terms of viewing the back of
the building.
The reasons we oppose the granting of the special use variance are:
. Because the building is not a private residence, security will be an issue since the building will
not be occupied overnight as would a private residence, with the exception of Friday night.
Furthermore, the architect's design of the east driveway and north parking lot would give access
to the public to drive unseen after dark into the parking lot and potentially gain easy access to the
~djacent lots in Shelborne Greene. The owner has advised that there will be no overnight security
~n duty at the property. Hthe security lights remain lit at night, this might attract the public to
unauthorized use of the parking lot and picnic area, including skateboarding. juvenile partying,
etc. If the security lights are turned off overnight, this might make the area attractive to criminals
seeking access to the building and adjacent homes under the cover of darkness, and quick, easy
egress from the parking lot after committing their crimes. Even worse, it would make the wooded
area easily accessible to members of the public who have no business being in that area.
. We have lived in this property almost nine years and, in that period oftime, we have seen less
than 10 people on that lot. All were affiliated with the property in some way or another. What was
planned to be a private place, and what has been a private place, could now become a very public
place. The homeowners who abut the property have always felt very safe and many did not have
window coverings facing east. If you approve this variance, these homeowners would lose this
feeling of being safe.
. In our meeting with the owner, attorney and architect, the owner advised that there was no master
plan for development of the north half of the property. Hthere is no plan, then anything is
possible. The owner expressed the desire to grow his congregation, which could require the
expansion.in the nurilber of parking spaces on the north end of the building. This expansion
would result in the loss of even more green space and wooded area than has already been lost,
and would expose even more adjacent homes to a parking lot.
. Shelborne Greene homeowners purchased their properties with the understanding that this
residential lot would remain a buffer between our homes and the large parking lot and church to
the east. This fact would keep stable or perhaps increase our property values in the future. If you
approve the special use variance, we would lose this buffer, be exposed to even more parking lot
area, and potentially experience a decline in our property values.
. 96th Street is a busy, two-lane thoroughfare with no concrete berm and only a very short section
of sidewalk at the Shelborne Greene entrance. The owner indicated that members of his
congregation would be walking to Sabbath services. We are not only concerned for the safety of
those pedestrians, but we also are concerned about our potential liability as motorists since we
routinely drive along 96th Street.
We thank you for your consideration of our concerns.
Sincerely,
7( 4Zk.-Lu.~1 D a, -;? ~.,~
Kathleen and St hen Noone
~"
.
f-e~d
r-G)~ O~
Prepared for September 25, 2006 Public Hearing by Steve Hantz
Docket No. 06050007 SU (Special Use)
Docket No. 06050008 V (Minimum Lot Width)
Our opposition to the lot width variance and proposed Lubavitch building on the
property east of Shelborne Greene has been documented in a letter to the BZA.
Rather than repeat the concerns in the letter, and in order to supplement the
concerns of our neighbors-I would like to address instead the last section of the
Application for Special Use/Special Use Amendment Approval Request
required by the BZA.
This section contains 5 statements / questions and is entitled:
FINDINGS OF FACT -SPECIAL USE.
I would like to read and respond to each of these 5 statements.
1) The premises in question is particularly physically suitable for the
proposed Special Use because:
The premises in question is not physically suitable for the proposed special use.
The building is too wide for the property The requested site-width variance is
proof of that. 200 feet is the required lot width, this lot is 135 feet.
2) The Special Use will not injuriously or adversely affect economic
factors, such as cost/benefit to the community and its anticipated effect on
surrounding property values because:
The special use will adversely effect surrounding property values. Properties now
abutting an empty wooded lot will most definitely be worth less if they are
adjoining a 2 story 14,000+ sq. ft. building 20 feet from their property line.
3) The Special Use will be consistent with sociaVneighborhood factors,
such as compatibility with existing uses and those permitted under current
zoning in the vicinity of the premises under consideration and how the
proposed Special Use will affect neighborhood integrity because:
Compatibility with existing uses should call into question the compatibility of a
hidden parking area and the back yards of several residential property owners and
their families.
4) The Special Use will not injuriously or adversely affect the adequacy
and availability of water, sewage and storm drainage facilities and police and
fire protection because:
Adequacy and availability of police and fire protection, again as it relates to a
hidden parking area, with limited access 800 ft. from the entrance is a concern.
5) The Special Use will not adversely affect vehicular and pedestrian traffic
in and around the premises upon which the Special Use is proposed because:
The special use will definitely affect pedestrian traffic, and vehicular as well. The
rabbi informed our group that his religion requires that followers walk to the
building on Saturdays. To say that this special use will not adversely effect
pedestrian traffic is absurd. There are no sidewalks along 96th street. There are no
shoulders. Traffic on this section of 96th street is always heavy and is very
dangerous for the pedestrian as well as the vehicles trying to avoid them. The 36
parking spaces on the premises also suggests substantial vehicular traffic.
- ,
~
, Ill'CSM
,$/:1 'to
Lubavitch of Indiana is attempting to rezone and ob~ a lot width variance on the land'directly .? 0 1tJOtf
east of our property. We are strongly opposed to this, as it is currently zoned as single faniilY~OCS
. ~ ";,-
residential, and is too narrow for the proposed structure. The lot is intended for a house, notl!,::,
/
building.
We are also concerned about the manner in which Lubavitch has been conducting
themselves concerning notification procedures required by the BZA. Why was the property
purchased not contingent on obtaining special use zoning and lot width variance? We feel it was
highly presumptuous of them to think they could get it rezoned with or without resistance. Why
wasn't there a Public Hearing sign posted? This didn't happen until after the board forced them
to do so. Why is there still a FOR SALE sign on the property? It has been sold since February.
Why, even after a zoning meeting has no one in Shelbome Greene received a certified letter as
required by the zoning board. According to the Rules and Procedures, anyone within 660 ft of
the property should be notified by the petitioner. This would include 16 houses on the property
line, plus the 16 houses on the west side of the street Of course those of us at the meeting
already know about the rezoning, but how many of our neighbors within 660 feet of the
property still have not been notified? Is the petitioner prepared to present receipts of certified
letters and an affidavit from the Indianapolis Star certifying the date that a notice was
published? It took us five minutes to download the Rules and Procedures for rezoning from the
City of Carmel website to find out these requirements. We believe it is disrespectful to the
zoning board as well as to concerned property owners that these procedures were not initially,
and are still not being followed. We feel the petitioner was purposely trying to keep us from
knowing anything was going on with this property. He stated at the first hearing that he didn't
know he needed to put the sign up, and that our property was listed under "AMI Management"
therefore he notified them instead of the 16 houses right next to the property. He had several
excuses for these actions, none of which are acceptable.
Our understanding is that lot width requirements have to do with. safe entry to and exit
from the property. It is an extreme departure from the current requirement going from 200 ft to
only 135 ft, (65 ft. narrower than it should be). Such a narrow drive entrance extending over
800 ft. into the property, meant to accommodate people and traffic for 36 parking spaces seems
to be the type of hazard that the initial zoning and lot width requirements were intended to
prohibit. The proposed plan also shows a hidden unsupervised parking lot behind the building,
next to the wooded area. Many of the neighbors along the adjacent strip of wooded area are
concerned about security issues with a parking lot so far back in the woods. This location would
create an unsafe environment for adjacent homeowners and their families.
Another major issue concerns the treeline that currently separates the Lubavitch property
from Shelborne Greene residents. The majority of the trees and the fence are on Shelborne
Greene property and therefore need to remain intact. (See attached Plat highlighting the NW
section comer railroad spike). Lubavitch has mentioned getting rid of the "scrub trees" along the
property line and only keeping the trees that have value. All of the trees have value to us---not
monetarily, but for the privacy they provide. Lubavitch should take great care not to damage the
trees that are not on their property. Would anyone want an unobstructed view of a 2-story, high
traffic stone building in their backyard-in a neighborhood that was intended to be residential?
We do not feel that our concerns are unfounded.
I would also like to note that at a meeting with Lubavitch and the neighborhood, we
asked them if it would be possible to ''flop'' the building so that we would be facing the more
attractive front of the building and it would be setting back substantially from our property line.
(See Diagram A) This seemed like a very good compromise to us yet they immediately told us
they couldn't do this because the Beit Medrash must be facing the east where the sun rises. It
seemed to us that they were not even willing to take some time to look into this idea to see if it
could possibly work another way. The sun it seems plays an important role to them and in this
decision. It seems of little importance to them that their building will block the sunrise
completely from our view.
We would prefer that Lubavitch find property that is zoned for their intended use---mther
than moving into a residential area. If the board does accept the request for rezoning and lot
width variance, we would ask for the following modifications to the current plan.
1. Move the parking lot to the front of the building. (See Diagram B) This move would
eliminate the hidden lot and the security issues, provide for a safer entrance and exit to the
property, and allow the building to be moved east as the need for a drive on the east side of the
property would be eliminated. Even if they didn't remove the drive east of the building, having
the parking lot in the front has many benefits. As the site plan shows now, nearly half of the 2-
story structure parallels our lot 320. It is not ideal by any means to have the parking lot next to
our adjacent property, but as we have the least amount of buffer trees on our common area, we
feel this layout would be much more palatable to us, as well as addressing safety issues.
2. The existing fence and treeline are on the common area property of Shelborne Greene.
We do not want to see any of these trees damaged if the petitioner is allowed to build here.
Also, as mentioned earlier, our lot 320 has the least amount of buffer from trees. Although we
have the treeline and fence, our common area is the only lot without any large trees. The lots
north of our property have very tall, established trees on their common area which will help
block their view of the building. We would like to request that tall staggered pine trees be put in
our common area, as well as on the petitioners property along the treeline for additional buffer
in the winter. The existing trees, along with those they intend to provide, won't provide any
buffer during the winter months, for any of us. Their ''planting schedule" doesn't have any pine
trees on it.
3. A wooden fence ronning the length of the property is also requested as a barrier and to
control safety issues on adjacent properties.
Please consider our requests. We are not overly concerned about declining property values, as
many of our neighbors are, due to the fact that we plan to be here a long time. We simply want
this area to remain as it was initially intended, a residential area. This building is very
commercial looking, is very large for the size of the lot and is causing many concerns for the
adjacent homeowners.
Thank you,
Steve and Shelley Hantz
9605 Cypress Way
Carmel, IN 46032
317-471-8145
Lot 320
~(jPY 'Of- (eA-fu- tJJe...-1>n:-plf~ ~ #~ ~. ~~~ -PtJollc- t+Ui,r~~ I
August 28, 2006
Attn: City of Carmel Plan Commission/Board of Zoning Appeals
As two of the homeowners that will be affected the most, we would like it to be known to the
commission that we have only recently been made aware of this situation. We are greatly
opposed to this structure. We were told this lot was zoned residential when we decided to buy
our property 8 years ago. This is a very large structure trying to fit on a very narrow lot. We live
in lot 320, directly affected by the proposed area. The building would sit directly behind our
house and would greatly devalue our property which now has a very developed tree line.
Because of the narrowness of the lot, the structure will be very close to our property line.
We were notified by a fellow neighbor on Aug. 20th, followed by a site plan and letter by a
Shelborne Greene board member on Thursday Aug. 24th. This was only 8 days ago and 5 days
ago to actually see the site plan. Most importantly, we didn't receive anything by certified mail
from the petitioner or even a letter in the mail from him. As it states in the rules and procedures,
anyone within 660 ft must be notified.
As a result of failing to notify us, we feel we are very unprepared and would like more time to
research our options. We have an attorney available if we decide to go that route. We have also
discovered that many of our neighbors are completely unaware of this project. ISn't it proper
procedure to post a sign stating there will be a public hearing about a property in question?
And why wasn't a SOLD sign posted on the property? It still says FOR SALE as of now.
There are many questions we have and would like time to look at any options we may have that
may help this situation. The main goal would be to not have the structure visible from our back
yard. For example, a one story structure would be much less visible while a two story structure
would be very intrusive. Moving the structure back further from the road or leaving some of the
trees, these are all options we would like to look into and discuss.
Thank you for your time,
Steve and Shelley Hantz
9605 Cypress Way, Lot 320
elArr-en~
,
Sl~no~&.
l)"f(.l,rOW\ 1\ w,~ b\li\.l;~ -floppe,A
- .....m i~'
~ ,I
-.-l;1-
I
___ CONSTRUCTION
--- PICNIC SHeL.TER
LOT COVERAGE,
-----..--
SITE PLA.N
I:::=:f=::f
o 5C
" = 100'-0'
LOT AReA: 174.l'57.0 sa. FT.
SUlLOlNG AReA: 14~.7 sa. FT.
F'AVlNG ~ :ul.92a.5 sa. FT.
LOT COVERAGE! .. 24.896
. ~ i_ I
I 8 I ,-
~ II
I ~
I
\ bM~ 2. \+"'y
I ~..c,"",i on
\
~~
RIGHT ..oF.WAY I'IaOP. SITE PLA,N
5l!.;~
--- -
r = 50'-G I::.:L:.J
iI' 0 20
~~, I
_ l)iG~((J.~ ~ wi~ yo.f"\(.;"5 'cJ W'C)V,cf 4t. ..frClt'lt
- i1------ ~ I I
. "
i I
\\
\. /
. \ /
\ \ /
I'
I
II
i
Cr'PI<ESS WAY
/
/
I
I
LOT .318 !
I
I
LOT .316 !
LOT .311 LOT .:
LOT .320
LOT .319
__ CONS11aJcnON UMfT9.
I
I
~....-
-._~S-
"
-;---8"':.-- --.-----ilV>-
~........~ -. 0' ,i' (.'.J-. ~1"'~'-'
1329'-0'
SIT'E PLA,N
LOT COVERAGE.
..--....-
------...-.
1" .. 100'-0' I::::;i-"f ~~ -:1
o $0100'
p::
200'
LOT AREA: 174.357,0 sa. FT.
8UlLDlNS AREA: 14.285.7 sa. FT.
PAVlNS AREA: ~.926.5 sa. FT.
LOT COVERASE = :24.B96
,_J"
'. ~~~.-'..-,'''''''4..
U" ""'" "'"
.. ~ - . - - . - - . - - . - - .. - - .. - .-.......,.....'.. ,... -
. I
. " E'XIS11NS HOUse
New FACll.JTY TO ae D~~eo ~ --, '.':l';~
I - - - .-]- - -.
.~, ;~
. ........ ....-- .. - - .. ~--
:.:~.~.
ri~. .~r -II--r'
.~ '~-II wr
I'JlII~1N) .0
I I
~
.....---.,
.. \
( . \
, )
,.....-.....
H-H1
Dill 1'1' 1111.[ JI, ACTS Of IvaI, '.L J09
If: lIirA TE Of' IHClANA. ~ AU. ACTS
AIIO Nl CIIIOIHAHa: AIla'TED B'I' 'IHr.
AS'Ol.I.llWS:
I AT A llU1lNG HWl jjf~~
SHELBORNE GREENE
SECTION.7
SECONDARY PLAT
PART OF
SECTION 8- T17N- R3E
HAMILTON COUNTY, INDIANA
m:~'~lP"'!rd 'I~I_
_llTON COUfIY, n"
- ~:'~"'FND ~'lo!:l~~ AI o..o.! po.
I(.QS1DQllNG"~-_,.>>II I'LA Z4.oo
_ IIQ'mI ~ IIGoo
~'~I-':.=: lie. ..... I e.1;de N.. ,~o
;~
SOURCE OF TITlE
C.R. 280, PAGE 330
NT
ION
.~'W
EAST lIIE ltln SLI/4
c-~~n~
lllIl1I'lI'I
.L""'''
141U7'
.II
~
.L:::'!!_
~ ~
315 318
g,l::';:' I 9,nl Sf. I
C!!!:'! lii.!!-
.:;.". I \
./ I I
,11
t~1 I
.,SI I
I~II M
~ll I i
I~ il
I~I
I I
I I
I
I I l!!
Ic.o~l ~
I I
I
I I
I I
I I
I i
I I
I I
01' -
\
i
It
C~_
~
1II0lt
307
306
"0:,:'1
.6j-
r=RM=SS
~~- 1>l.1T
---.JOOi' -
Wl' ..~
~_:I"l>'
=--ll
302 I.
74 SF',..,ll"
I'- I -
I
/~am~~6J
1fISlR. NO. !lM0991
p.c. NO. I. SLa: NO. 632
mat
I
.
I
I
"",
Kathleen and Stephen Noone
9653 Cypress Way
Carmel, IN 46032
Carmel Clay Board of Zoning Appeals
One Civic Square
Carmel, IN 46032
~
/',;' ~..__.~~.__ -""1"-"
I </.:<~<--4
/ ." ::---
! /. - RECE\VED
AUG 2 8 2005
DOCS
1
/,-
August 28, 2006
"
RE: Docket No. 06050007 SU
06050008 V
We are residents of Shelbome Greene community (Lot 311) and wish to express several
concerns about the Special Use and Variance applications filed by Lubavitch of Indiana.
First of all, we are concerned about the size of the proposed building on such a narrow lot
that abuts Shelbome Green home sites. Will the facility contain security lighting that will
intrude upon adjacent properties?
Second, we have concerns about drainage and run-off from the parking lot to the north
end of the proposed construction. Since a swale and drain are on our property, we wonder
how the water run-off during heavy rains will affect our home site.
Finally, we e~oy the wooded vegetation and many large trees on this property and have
concerns about retention of the woodlands and trees. While the plan indicates that only
about 50% of the property will be developed, there is no guarantee against future
development that would destroy the retJlsining woodlands and trees.
We thank you for your consideration of our concerns.
Sincerely,
f:::-.'k 7~
Kathleen and Stephen Noone
w
o
Conn, Angelina V
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Hamberg Larry [Iarry.hamberg@thomson.net]
Monday, August 21, 2006 12:49 PM
Conn, Angelina V
Remonstrance against construction of church at 2640 W. 96th St.
My wife and I would like to voice our strong opposition to the proposal to build a church
at 2640 W. 96th St.
We have nothing whatsoever against churches of any demonination - our opposition is based
strictly on the impact such a facility would have on already over burdened roads in the
community. The traffic now is ridiculous - adding another major facility would be
unreasonable.
I believe that the church membership itself should be advised on the difficulty they would
have in accessing their new church - if it were located at this site.
Regards,
Crystal & Larry Hamberg
3472 Glen Abbe Ct.
Carmel, IN. 46032
Shelbourne Greene Subdivision
1