HomeMy WebLinkAboutCorrespondence
u
u
JAMES BRAINARD, MAYOR
Mr. Paul Spranger, President
CarmeVClay Plan Commissi
Six Shady Lane.
Carmel, IN 46032
11 02-0A
t1- (-
June 3, 2003
RE: Mineral Extraction Zone - Draft Ordinance
Last year at the request of the residents of Kings wood subdivision, the Department of
Community Services was asked to develop zoning regulations relative to hard-rock
mining in Carmel that would remove the decision-making authority from the hands of the
appointed Board of Zoning Appeals, ap.d place it with those of the elected officials on the
Carmel. City Council.
In a recent meeting with the Board of the Kingswood Homeowners Association, it was
requested that the decision-making authority for mining remain with the Board of Zoning
Appeals.
In response to the Kingswood request, the Mayor has suggested, and we now request of
you, that the draft ME Zone District Ordinance and the proposed Comprehensive Plan
Policies for Mining be removed from the agenda of the Plan Commission without further
consideration.
It is our belief that the withdrawal of these amendments is in the best interest of the
community, as well as all parties involved.
Very truly yours,
.~~
Councilor,a~Large
.~~~
Robert Battreall
Councilor, District Three
. cc: Carmel Clay Plan Commission
ONE CIVIC SQUARE, CARMEL, IN 46032 OFFICE 317.571.2401, FAX 317.844.3498
EMAIL jbrainard@cLcarmel.in.us
/~~j 2, -Zoo:] .. u .... ...
,.-0': ."~.~..
q . -~-~~_..~-
-~~~. ---.-
.~5~rd
L __ ~
1-
~
03/25/2003 RfCF/VfD
Revised DRAFT Mining Policies for inclusion into the Comprehensive Plan ~H 22,2003
A The City of Carmel recognizes the value of having mineral resources locatft~:='
its community. These mineral resmrrces are. non-renewable natural reso..~.. ~j
should be developed consistent with sound environmeI:1tal planning to the benefit ~
the community.
B. Mineral resources can only be extracted where they are located in nature. Therefore,
owners of property where these natural resources are located should be permitted to
develop those resources so long as they do not adversely impact the quality of life for
the rest of the community.
C. All mining land uses should be comprehensively reviewed to insure that reclamation
of the properties is consistent with the overall comprehensive land use objectives of
the city.
D. Planning within the community should consider existing and proposed mines as
valuable long~tenn open space candidates after reclamation.
E. All current and proposed mining activity within Clay Township should be evaluated
based on the following criteria:
1. Environmental impacts
2. Noise impacts
3. Visual impacts
"4. Dust
5. Integrity of underground mining
6. Impacts on hydrology and hydrogeology
7. Traffic impacts
8. Reclamation objectives
9. Location of storage &: processing of materials
10. Buffering from adjacent uses
11. Erosion Control
12. Monitoring and reporting of mining activities
13. Suitability of soils
14. The applicability of mining practices and technology that could minimi7e
impacts to nearby neighborhoods
15. Surrounding land uses
16. Vibrational/seismic impacts.
F. The area between the mine and nearby areas should be appropriately buffered
including, but not limited to, noise and visual barriers and landscaping such as trees,
shrubs and mounding. The goal of this buffer area is to minimize impacts to nearby
residences.
G When mining is complete, the reclamation plan should be initiated quickly to provide
the community with an attractive amenity in accordance with the adopted
reclamation plan. When appropriate, reclamation areas may be dedicated or acquired
for public use.
S:\Land Use Regulations\Comprehensive Plan\Mining Policies\2003~03~ 25 Mining Policies
DRAFI3.doc
Consider "G". to be slighdy modified to something like the following:
"In order to provide the community with an attractive amenity in accordance with
an adopted reclamation plan, reclamation should be- as concurrent during the
mining process as practical Where practical as determined during the permit
process, reclamation areas should be designed for and dedicated or acquired for
public use. n
The intent of this mocli.fication is that, consistent with the Stewardship Program,
concurrent reclamation is both good economic practice and more effective in achieving
the goals of reclamation. As G. 'now reads, on a 20 year mining project, reclamation
would not be required to begin until mining is 'complete', and that could be 20 years.
Tom
~i;>;;'
""-; /<
03/25/2003
Comments of the Kingswood Mining Committee
on the
Revised DRAFT Minine Policies for inclusion into the Comprehensive plan
A. The City of Carmel recognizes the value of having mineral resources located
within its community. These mineral resources are non-renewable natural
resources that may be considered for development subject to compatibility with
nearbv existing uses and Jw..JJ 1.., J..,...,Ll'..,J w.u~:.,l..,~..:l ..:M~ sound
environmental planning to the benefit of the community.
Rationale: It is respectfully suggested that the proposed revisions are necessary and
appropriate to strike a proper balance between the importance of mining uses and
other land uses of the City. Substitution of "may be" for "should be" with respect to
development of mineral resources is essential to achieving such a balance. Similarly,
requiring compatibility of a proposed mining use with nearby land uses is just as
important as sound environmental planning in assuring that the community will truly
benefit /rom the proposed mining use.
B. It is also recoenized bv the City of Carmel that certain land uses are inherently
incompatible with minin~ operations. These include residential. educational.
retail. and governmental services. as examples. Substantial spatial buffering
between such land uses and a proposed mining district. as described in Item G.
is necessary to satisfactorily mitigate the incompatibility.
Rationale: Achieving a reasonable balance between proposed mining uses and other
community land uses in the planning process requires recognition that mining
activities are truly incompatible with residential and certain other uses that are located
proximate to a proposed mine site. Spatial buffering is needed to mitigate the
incompatibility. This recognition is critical to preserving the upscale residential
ambiance of the City
C ;D. Mineral resources can only be extracted where they are located in nature.
Therefore, owners of property where these natural reSources are located ,;L.I~lJ
may be permitted to develop those resources so long as they do not adversely
impact the quality of life for the rest of the community.
Rationale: Though subtle, the shift /rom "should" to "may" again serves to strike a
reasonable balance between various competing land uses and activities within the
community.
D. & Given the permanency and substantial nature of mining impacts on nearby
areas. all All mining land uses should be comprehensively reviewed to insure
that operation of proposed mines as well as reclamation of the properties is
consistent with the overall comprehensive land use objectives of the city.
: :ODMA\PCDOCS\Downtown \773483\1
".
--~
03/25/2003
Rationale: First, it is important to acknowledge in the planning process that conduct
of mining will effect permanent and substantial change in the character of the mine
site. Second, it is equally important for the planning process to be cognizant of the
impacts of active mining operations on nearby land uses as well as of the nature of the
reclamation proposed for the mine site after cessation of those operations.
E.I;). Planning within the community should consider existing and proposed mines
as . ..cL...hL potential long-term open space candidates after reclamation.
Rationale: We respectfully suggest that it should not be presumed that all mines,
when and if reclaimed, will offer valuable open space.
F. It All current and proposed mining activity within Clay Township should be
evaluated based on the following criteria:
1. Environmental impacts
2. Noise impacts
3. Visual impacts
4. Dust
5. Integrity of underground mining
6. Impacts on hydrology and hydrogeology
7. Traffic impacts
8. Reclamation objectives
9. Location of storage & processing of materials
10. Buffering horn adjacent uses
11. Erosion Control
12. Monitoring and reporting of mining activities
13. Suitability of soils
14. The applicability of mining practices and technology that could
minimize impacts to nearby neighborhoods
15. Surrounding land uses
16. Vibrational/seismic impacts.
G. 1*. The area between the mine and nearby areas should be appropriately buffered
including, hut not limited to, noise and visual barriers and landscaping such as
trees, shrubs and mounding. and adequate spatial separation horn.
incompatible land uses. The goal of this buffer area is to minimize adverse
impacts to nearby residences, schools and other sensitive uses.
Rationale: Since this item addresses practical mitigation of the potential
incompatibility of nearby land uses with a proposed mining operation, it is critical that
spatial separation be expressly identified as a buffering mechanism.
G When mining is complete, the reclamation plan should he initiated quickly to
provide the community with an attractive amenity in accordance with the
: :ODMA\PCDOCS\Downtown\773483\1
,.
....
03/25/2003
adopted reclamation plan. when appropriate, reclamation areas may be
dedicated or acquired for public use.
: : ODMA\PCDOCS\Downtown \773483\1
ORDINANCE NO. Z-
AN ORDINANCE
TO AMEND THE CARMEL CLAY ZONING ORDINANCE
TO ESTABLISH SPECIAL PROVISIONS
GOVERNING THE REVIEW OF PROPOSALS
FOR THE EXTRACTION OF MINERAL RESOURCES
4/tt-
WHEREAS, mining and processing should give due regard to (1) the protection
of the health, safety and general welfare ofthe people; (2) the natural beauty and
aesthetic values, and enhancement of the environment of the City of Carmel and Clay
Township; (3) conservation and reclamation oflands affected by such activities in order
to restore them and provide for their further productive use and t6 aid ill maifttainmg or
-imFw~liHg the tffi( B~i~ and (4) the prevention of erosion, stream pollution, water, air
and land pollution and other injurious effects to persons, property, wildlife and
natural resources; and
WHEREAS, the Common Council of the City of Carmel finds that, to protect the
public health, safety and welfare of the citizens of Carmel and Clay Township and to
maintain an environmentally sound and stable mining and processing industry, it is
reasonable and necessary to amend the Zoning Code, Ordinance No. Z-289, as amended,
of the City of Carmel and Clay Township to establish new provisions under which
proposals for the extraction of mineral resources (EMR) shall be reviewed;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Common Council of the City of
Carmel, Indiana, that, pursuant to IC 36-7-4-600 et seq., it adopts this ordinance as an
amendment to the text of the Zoning Ordinance as follows:
A. Section 3.7 of the Zoning Ordinance (entitled Definitions) is amended by adding
JL~~~--:~
d,/z.z. .aafliti&n' efimtlOns .':;l~t.:, to read as follows:
"Air Blast" (also known as "air overpressure") means airborne waves resulting
from the detonation of explosives, whether caused by burden movement or the
release of expanding gas into the air, and whether or not audible.
d.lz,~
"De~a)d" Rl911BIl fl 1;IRit ef iuund GDmmllDly al-ed too me-lSlh 0;- ....hl'
"Extraction of Mineral Resources (EMR)" means the removal of Minerals from
surface or underground extraction of deposits. The term includes dredging,
drilling, blasting, and removal of Overburden. The term does not include the
excavation, removal, and disposition of Minerals from construction projects or
excavations in aid of agricultural activities.
"EMR Operation" includes all EMR, Processing, and Sales Activities in a Mine,
but does not include Related Industries.
Co
"1~L~'
~l
,
~~.
~
Proposed Zoning Ordinance Amendment
ME-l DISTRICT - Dated 1/14/2003
"Haulageway" means all streets utilized for EMR purposes, together with that
area of land over which Material is transported, which are located within the
Mine.
"Mine" means any lands from which EMR Operations will occur, including all
Haulageways and all equipment above, on or below the surface of the ground
used in connection with an EMR Operation.
"Minerals" means any naturally formed, usually inorganic rocks, stone, gravel,
sand, soil, clay, limestone, or Minerals located on or below the surface of the
earth.
eMf{.
"Operator" means any person engaged in and controlling an EMR Operation.
~\1.'Z-
"Overburden" means earth, vegetation, topsoil, subsoil, caprock or non-
specification material on the surface of the earth which must be removed to
provide access to Minerals.
4[~1-
"Particle Velocity" means a measure of ground vibration which describes the
velocity at which a particle of ground moves when excited by a seismic wave.
e~p~ ." h" d' rt' 'ft' .. d' .
rocessmg means was mg, grm mg, so mg, Sl mg, slZmg, rymg, sawmg
and cutting stone, splitting, gauging, and crushing of Minerals after extraction,
transportation directly related to specific on-site EMR Operations, warehousing
and storage directly related to specific on-site EMR Operations, and the
operation and construction of plants, machinery, dams, ponds, canals, power
lines, pipe lines, telephone lines, roads, and stockpile areas to carry out such
activities.
"Reclamation" means the conditioning of the land used for an Operation as
provided in the Reclamation Plan.
4ltl, "Reclamation Plan" means a description of activities to be performed by an . ?
Operator to reclaim the land to be mined over the life of the Mine.~ ~ 0
"Related Industry" means any activity utilizing Minerals subsequent to EMR
and Processing, or producing building or construction products serving similar
customers as those for Minerals, including asphalt or redi-mix concrete plants,
fabrication operations, recovery of Minerals from construction debris for
purposes of recycling, and trucking and transportation operations for the
delivery of completed products.
^\ ~ eM(l
'\ 1, "Sales" means the sale of products from an EMR Operation.
2
Proposed Zoning Ordinance Amendment
ME-1 DISTRICT - Dated 1/14/2003
~ (t~ "Sand and Gravel Extraction" means the extraction of sand and gravel deposits
by Surface Mining through the use of all 8l8dr9Bieally powered floating dredge.
l € ~~Oil" means any waste material removed from its natural place in the process
~ 1,1-- of an EMR Operation and all waste material directly connected with the
cleaning and preparation of any Minerals.
"Stone Mining" means the extraction of limestone deposits or related minerals
by Surface or Subsurface Mining using Blasting.
"Subsurface Mining" means the extraction of Minerals below the surface ofthe
earth hy means of underground mining.
"Surface Mining" means the extraction of Minerals by accessing and removing
the Minerals from the surface of the earth. The term includes Sand and Gravel
Extraction, or Stone Mining by means of an open pit.
B. Section 5.2 ofthe Zoning Ordinance (entitled Special Uses) is amended by deleting
"Mineral extraction," from the list of special uses applicable in the S-I, S-2, R-l, R-2,
R-3, and R-4 residence districts.
C. Section 5.2.2 (entitled Other Requirements) is amended by deleting "Mineral
extraction," from the list of uses therein.
D. Section 11.2 ofthe Zoning Ordinance (entitled Special Uses) is amended by deleting
"Minera I extraction," from the list of special uses applicable in the R-5 residence
district.
E. Sections 13.2 ofthe Zoning Ordinance (entitled Special Uses) is amended by deleting
"Mineral extraction," from the list of special uses applicable in the B-1, B-2, and B-3
business districts.
F. Section 13.2.2 (entitled Other Requirements) is amended by deleting "Mineral
extraction," from the list of uses therein.
3
?
~o
~
Proposed Zoning Ordinance Amendment
ME-l DISTRICT - Dated 1/14/2003
G. Section 15.2 ofthe Zoning Ordinance (entitled Special Uses) is amended by deleting
"Mineral extraction," from the list of special uses applicable in the B-4, B-5, and B-S
business districts.
H. Section 15.2.2 of the Zoning Ordinance (entitled Other Requirements) is amended by
deleting "Mineral extraction," from the list of uses therein.
I. Sections 20B.2 of the Zoning Ordinance (entitled Special Uses) is amended by
deleting "Mineral extraction operations, including sand, gravel, soil, aggregate and all
related processing operations" from the list of special uses applicable in the M-I
manufacturing district.
J. Sections 20B.2.2 ofthe Zoning Ordinance (entitled Other Reauirements) is amended
by deleting "Mineral extraction operations including sand, gravel, soil, aggregate and
all related processing operations" from the list of uses therein.
K. Chapter 201, to be entitled ME-l/MINERAL EXTRACTION DISTRICT, is added
to the Zoning Ordinance to create a new zoning classification for the City of Carmel
and Clay Township, reading as follows:
CHAPTER 201: ME-l/MINERAL EXTRACTION DISTRICT
20 I. 0 ME-l/Mineral Extraction District.
201.1 Permitted Uses.
201.2 Special Uses.
201.3 Special Exceptions.
201.4 Accessory Buildings and Uses.
201.5 Area Requirements.
201.6 Loading Berth Requirements.
201. 7 Criteria for Approval.
201.8 Development Plan - Submittal Requirements.
201.9 Reclamation - Minimum Performance Requirements.
4
Proposed Zoning Ordinance Amendment
ME-l DISTRICT - Dated 1/14/2003
201.10 Landscaping Installation and Maintenance.
201.11 Explosive Materials.
20T .12 Conflicting Laws.
201. 13 Transitional Provisions.
Chart A Maximum Allowed Noise Levels.
201.0 ME-l/Mineral Extraction District.
201.0.1 Purpose and Intent.
The purpose of the ME-l/Mineral Extraction District is to create and
protect areas for extraction of mineral resources and related processing
operations while mitigating the environmental and nuisance impacts. This
district is intended to ensure proper design, placement and grouping of
these industri es within the community so as not to create a nuisance to
other surrounding land uses. Land to be placed in this district is intended
to have major transportation facilities readily available. This district
should be buffered as much as possible from undeveloped commercial and
residential districts. No ME-l District should be created within three
hundred feet (300') of an established or platted residential subdivision.
Vehicular traffic serving the ME-l District should not be routed into or
through a residential development.
201.1 Pe1111itted Uses:
Agricultural or other plant growing operations
Artificial lake or pond
EMR Operations
Office space within the same building or building complex directly
associated with on-site EMR Operations
Excluded Uses:
Bulk storage of petroleum products not used for on-site operations
Disposal of radioacti ve materials
Fertilizer manufacturing
Related Industries
Stock yards
Slaughtering
Leather curing and Tanning
5
Proposed Zoning Ordinance Amendment
ME-l DISTRICT - Dated 1/14/2003
Reclaiming processes involving materials and/or chemicals that are
considered dangerous to the health, safety and welfare ofthe
general public as determined by the State of Indiana, Board of
Health or City of Carmel
Refining or manufacturing of petroleum products
Refining or manufacturing of wood preservatives, cement, lime and
gypsum
201.2 Special Uses: (See Chapter 21 for additional regulations):
Radio or television transmission antenna, if mounted on another structure
201.3 Special Exceptions. (See Chapter 21 for additional regulations):
Wireless telecommunications service tower, monopole-type construction
only
201.4 Accessorv Buildings and Uses. (See Section 25.1)
201.5 Area Requirements. (See Chapter 26 for additional requirements.)
201.5.1 Minimum Area Requirements: fifty (50) acres, for any EMR Operation.
201.5.2 Minimum Front Yard: one hundred fifty (150) feet, measured from any
public right-of-way; three hundred (300) feet, measured from any other
public place.
201.5.3 Minimum Side and Rear Yard:
Use
Minimum Setback
from All
Residential Uses
or Districts
(Feet)
Minimum
Setback from
Other Industrial
or Commercial
Districts (Feet)
Processing Operations
Sand and Gravel
Extraction
Stone Mining
1,000
300
300
150
2,500
300
6
Proposed Zoning Ordinance Amendment
ME-1 DISTRICT - Dated 1/14/2003
201.6 Loading Berth Requirements. (See Chapter 27 for additional requirements.)
201.6.1 All storage facilities except office buildings:
1. 5,000 - 20,000 square feet of gross floor area: one (1) berth
(loading dock or ground level loading door).
2. 20,001 - 50,000 square feet of gross floor area: two (2) berths
(loading docks or ground level loading doors).
3. Each additional 50,000 square feet: one (1) additional berth
(loading docks or ground level loading doors).
201.6.2 Office buildings:
1. 100,000 or less square feet gross floor area: one (1) berth.
2. 100,001 - 300,000 square feet gross floor area: two (2) berths.
3. Each 200,000 additional square feet: one (1) additional berth.
201.7 Criteria for Approval:
1. Zoning. The use of any land for the Extraction of Mineral Resources
(EMR) shall be permitted only in the ME-1 District where EMR is
listed as a Permitted Use. In addition, all EMR Operations shall be
subject to Development Plan approval by the Commission as
provided in Section 2018.
2. Commitments bv Owner. In the case of a rezone proposal which will
also necessitate approval of a Development Plan (DP) for a new or
expanded EMR Operation, the Council shall, before approving
such rezone, require the applicant to make written Commitments
respecting:
(a) methods of operation;
(b) hours of operation;
(c) maximum structure height;
(d) open space buffer yards;
(e) dust control;
(f) noise control;
(g) blasting;
(h) glare mitigation;
(i) erosion control;
(j) surface and ground water pollution control;
(k) Reclamation; and
(l) ultimate land use.
7
Proposed Zoning Ordinance Amendment
ME-l DISTRICT - Dated 1/14/2003
The Council may also, before approving such rezone, permit the
applicant to make any other written Commitment concerning the
use or development ofthe subject parcel which is reasonably
related to the elements contained in the Comprehensive Plan.
3. Enforcement of Commitments. A Commitment made under
Subparagraph (2) above shall be recorded pursuant to state statute
and may be enforced by the Council, by the Director, or by any
interested party as specified in the Commitment. If, after thirty (30)
days notice from the Director, a person subject to a binding
Commitment refuses to honor or abide by such Commitment, the
DP approval shall be revoked by the Director.
201.8 Development Plan - Submittal Requirements:
1. Area Plan. In addition to the submittal requirements for any other DP,
an application for approval of a DP for an EMR Operation must
include an Area Plan that shows not only the locations of all
structures on the subject parcel, but also the locations of all
structures within a two (2) mile radius of the center of the proposed
operation. The Area Plan must also indicate the proposed streets
and Haulageways for shipping and receiving Materials and
equipment, along with estimated daily, monthly, and yearly
averages and maximum quantities of Materials to be transported to
and from the operation.
2. Site Plan. In addition to the submittal requirements for any other DP, an
application for approval of a DP for an EMR Operation must
include a Site Plan or Plans that are drawn to a scale of one (1)
inch equal to not more than one hundred (100) feet and that show:
(a) the total area of the parcel owned or leased by the applicant;
(b) the names of all abutting property owners;
(c) all public and private rights-of-way and easements on or
abutting the parcel with notation as to proposed
continuation, creation, enlargement, relocation, or
abandonment;
(d) existing contours shown with intervals sufficient to show
existing and proposed drainage, but not more than ten (10)
feet;
( e) all existi ng structures on the parcel and within two hundred
(200) feet of the perimeter of the parcel;
(f) the general layout of the proposed operation showing proposed
limits of excavation and all proposed structures;
(g) the location, dimension, and description of any proposed
buffer yards, buffer strips, screening, and embankments;
8
Proposed Zoning Ordinance Amendment
ME-1 DISTRICT - Dated 1/14/2003
(h) all existing streets abutting the parcel, with width and type of
pavement, existing and proposed right-of-way width, and
existing and proposed drainage structures;
(i) all existing drainage courses, with proposed relocations,
channel changes, diversions, retention basins,
sedimentation basins, and drainage structures;
(j) a schedule of development showing the estimated time frame
for development and Reclamation ofthe parcel, including a
description ofthe maximum active area for operations,
ongoing Reclamation areas, and design of site work to
minim ize the active area and minimize the time that
inactive areas remain unreclaimed;
(k) all proposed streets and Haulageways with descriptions of the
maximum load weight limits on each street proposed to be
used for transportation of Materials; and
(1) the proposed ultimate land use (such as, but not limited to,
open space or an artificial lake or pond) after full
Reclamation.
3. Proposed Commitments. The application must contain the applicant's
proposed written Commitments as described in Section 20I.7
above.
4. Dust Control. The application must include a list of equipment to be
used for dust abatement, along with a written summary of the
applicant's fugitive dust requirements pursuant to current rules and
regulations of the Indiana Department of Environmental
Management and the United States Environmental Protection
Agency.
5. Noise Control. The application must include a list of equipment to be
used that may impact noise pollution, along with projections of
average and maximum decibel levels at the perimeter of the parcel
and at any adjacent residential structures and mitigation measures
such as enclosures and berms.
6. Glare Mitigation. The application must include a summary of the
applicant's proposed compliance with the glare standard set forth
in this subparagraph, including a list of any fixtures or equipment
to be used to mitigate light pollution. No direct or reflected glare in
excess of 0.1 foot-candles oflight (lights, fire, etc.) shall be
permitted which is visible from any property adjacent or from any
street.
7. Blasting. The application must include a description ofthe projected
average size of blasts, blasting frequency, the projected average
9
Proposed Zoning OrdinanceAmendment
ME-1 DISTRICT - Dated 1/14/2003
and maximum levels of peak Particle Velocity measurements from
blasting, and the projected average and maximum Air Blast
measurements from blasting. The applicant must also include a
proposed number and location of monitoring stations.
8. Erosion Control. The application must include a description of surface
soil quantities and proposed stockpiling of such for subsequent
Reclamation. No erosion, by either wind or water, shall be
pennitted which will carry substances onto neighboring properties.
All requirements of the Indiana State Board of Health, the Indiana
Department of Natural Resources and Hamilton County Soil and
Water Conservation District shall be followed.
9. Surface and Ground Water Pollution Control. The application must
include a summary ofthe applicant's proposed compliance with all
water pollution monitoring and waste handling requirements (such
as, but not limited to the Indiana Department of Environmental
Management and the United States Environmental Protection
Agency National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
(NPDES) pelmit), the details of any expected use or disturbance of
any lakes, ponds, streams, rivers, or creeks, or the creation of any
dikes, impoundments, settling ponds, or other methods for water
retention for the purpose of operation, water supply, Reclamation,
treatment, ultimate land use, or otherwise (such as, but not limited
to any activity that requires application and approval from the
United States Army Corps of Engineers), and the details of any
proposed use of underground storage tanks.
10. Reclamation Plan. The application must include a written description
of a Reclamation Plan that promotes the protection of persons and
their property, land, water and other natural resources, and
aesthetic values. Atminimum, the Reclamation Plan must contain:
(a) a detailed site description and overview of the operations;
(b) general Reclamation methods, including but not limited to
backfilling, grading, top soil redistribution, liming,
fertilization, other soil preparation, seeding, planting,
mulching, and revegetation of all land that is disturbed by
the operation;
(c) a description ofthe division ofthe parcel into sections (if any)
and the design for phasing (if any) and the Reclamation
Plan for each section through each phase, along with all
pertinent details such as erosion controls and preparation
for the Ultimate Land Use Plan as described below; and
(d) an Ultimate Land Use Plan that describes and provides for the
LIse of the parcel after final Reclamation, which Plan must
be prepared by a licensed, professional engineer and
10
Proposed Zoning Ordinance Amendment
ME-l DISTRICT - Dated 1/14/2003
include a detailed design of the final reclaimed topography,
drainage, and solid content of the parcel; the time frame of
the proposed final closure plans; a detailed description of
the any additional work (such as but not limited to the
construction of structures and earthwork that may be
needed to accomplish the ultimate land use); and detailed
cost estimates ofthe work needed to finalize Reclamation
and complete the site for the ultimate land use, which
estimates must be based on the costs to the applicant of
hiring a third party to complete final Reclamation and site
preparation.
201.9 Reclamation - Minimum Performance Standards:
1. Topsoil Removal and Replacement. Water-retarding siltation control
structures, diversion ditches shall be utilized to control run-off and located
as close as possible to the grading activities. All areas disturbed by EMR
Operations, unless submerged, shall be covered with an amount and type
of soil material sufficient to support the growth of the proposed vegetation
cover. Such soil cover shall be deposited and uniformly spread over the
reclaimed and graded areas.
2. Timing. Reclamation activities shall be phased with respect to each EMR
Operation and shall be initiated within one (1) year on those portions of
the mined lands that will not be subject to further disturbance. Interim
Reclamation may also be required for mined lands that have been
disturbed and that may be disturbed again in future operations.
Reclamation may occur on an annual basis, in stages compatible with
continuing operations, or on completion of all excavation, removal, or fill.
Reclamation shall begin on any Mine declared to be permanently inactive
within one year of cessation of Mining. Final grading and contouring of
mined areas shall be completed according to the Reclamation Plan.
Operations wi 11 be considered as temporarily closed for a period not to
exceed two (2) years. If the closure extends beyond two (2) years,
Reclamation shall be accomplished in accordance with applicable portions
of the Reclamation Plan. Prior to temporary cessation of Mining, drainage
and sedimentation controls shall be established and functional. During
any temporary cessation, routine inspections to maintain the site to ensure
public safety and environmental protection shall be carried out; provided,
however, that temporary closure of operations due to adverse weather
conditions is expected and will be considered routine winter shut down
and not a temporary cessation of an operation.
3. Slopes. All spoil materials shall be placed, graded, and stabilized to
minimize soil erosion, surface disturbance and water contamination.
Ridges, peaks and slopes created by excavation, overburden removal, or
11
Proposed Zoning Ordinance Amendment
ME-l DISTRICT - Dated 1/14/2003
spoil placement shal I be graded to a slope that provides for stability,
prevents erosion, and supports vegetation. A final stable slope of
unconsolidated material shall be less than a ratio of 3 feet horizontal to
one- foot vertical (3: I). Final reclaimed slopes steeper than 3: I may be
permitted if these slopes are stabilized by proven engineering practices.
4. Revegetation. An Operator shall establish on regraded areas, and all other
lands affected by its operation, a diverse, effective and permanent
vegetative cover of the same seasonal variety native to the area ofland to
be affected and capable of self-regeneration and plant succession at least
equal in extent of cover to the natural vegetation ofthe area; except, that
introduced species may be used in the revegetation process where
desirable and necessary to achieve the approved Ultimate Land Use Plan.
A vegetative cover shall be established on all affected lands consistent
with the approved landscaping and Reclamation Plan. Regraded
Reclamation areas and slopes shall be prepared and seeded at the
beginning of the next growing season following completion of final
grading. A minimum of sixty-five percent (65%) ground cover shall be
established by the end of the first growing season. Coverage of eight-five
percent (85%) shall be established by the end of the second growing
season. The Operator shall reseed not later than the end ofthe second
growing season if the Reclamation effort or the required growth has not
been sustained. The seeding mixes shall conform to the Reclamation Plan.
5. Water Impoundment. Areas mined beneath the water table that are
indicated as permanent impoundments on the Reclamation Plan will not
require Reclamation. Slopes will be reclaimed to the static water level of
permanent impoundments.
6. Removal of Equipment, Etc. Within two (2) years after the completion of
Reclamation of an area, the Operator will remove and dispose of all
. buildings, processing plants, equipment, parts, machine, tools, and
structures in that area not compatible with the Reclamation Plan.
7. Berms. An Operator shall install berms around any portion of its operation
which borders another land use or a street. Berms shall be constructed
from overburden produced from on-site Mining. The Operator shall
ensure that all berms are seeded and landscaped to protect against erosion.
8. Landscaping. Deciduous trees planted to satisfy the landscaping
requirements of this Ordinance shall have at least a two and one-half-inch
caliper and eight foot height at the time of planting unless otherwise
specified herein or otherwise indicated on the Reclamation Plan.
Evergreen trees shall be a minimum of three to four feet high at the time
of planting. Shrubs shall be two feet in height at the time of planting. All
trees, shrubs, and ground covers shall be planted according to accepted
12
Proposed Zoning Ordinance Amendment
ME-l DISTRICT - Dated 1/14/2003
horticultural standards. Landscaping materials shall be appropriate to local
growing and climatic condition. Plant material shall be nursery grown
stock conforming to ANSI Z60.1(American Standard for Nursery Stock).
201.10 Landscaping Installation and Maintenance:
1. Installation. All required landscaping shall be installed prior to the
issuance of a Certi ficate of Occupancy by the Department Administrator.
If it is not possible to install the required landscaping because of weather
conditions, the property owner shall post a bond for an amount equal to
the total cost of the required landscaping prior to the issuance of the Final
Certificate of Occupancy.
2. Maintenance. It shall be the responsibility ofthe owners and their
agencies to insure proper maintenance ofthe landscaping in accordance
with the standards set by this Ordinance. This is to include, but is not
limited to, replacing dead plantings with identical varieties or a suitable
substitute, and keeping the area free of refuse and debris.
201.11 Explosive Materials.
No EMR Operation may store or utilize materials or products which decompose
by detonation unless such activity is specifically licensed by the State of Indiana,
City of Carmel, Clay Township, or Hamilton County. Such activity shall be
conducted in accordance with the rules promulgated by the Indiana Fire
Prevention and Building Safety Commission. Said materials shall include, but are
not limited to, all primary explosives such as lead ozide, lead styphnate,
fulminates and tetracene; al] high explosives such as TNT, RDX, HMX, PETN
and picric acid; propellants and components thereof, such as nitrocellulose, black
powder, boron hydrides, hydrazine and its derivatives; pyrotechnics and fireworks
such as magnesium powder, potassium chlorate and potassium nitrate; blasting
explosives such as dynamite and nitroglycerine; unstable organic compounds such
as acetyl ides, telrazoles and ozonides; strong oxidizing agents such as liquid
oxygen, perchloric acid, perchlorates, chlorates and hydrogen peroxide in
concentrations greater than thirty-five percent (35%); and, nuclear fuels and
fissionable materials and products including reactor elements such as Uranium
235 and Plutonium 239.
201.12 Conflicting Laws.
Whenever any provision of this Chapter 201 imposes a greater requirement or a
higher standard than is required in any Federal, State, or County statute,
ordinance, or regulation or other City ordinance or regulation, the provision of
this Chopter 201 shall govern. Whenever any provision of any Federal, State, or
County statute, ordinance, or regulation or other City ordinance or regulation
13
Proposed Zoning Ordinance Amendment
ME-1 DISTRICT - Dated 1/14/2003
imposes a greater requirement or a higher standard than is required by this
Chapter 201, the provision of such Federal, State, or County statute, ordinance, or
regulation or other City ordinance or regulation shall govern. Specifically, this
Chapter 201 does not supersede any other statute, ordinance, or regulation that
may require an Operator to apply for and obtain a permit from a Federal, State,
County, or City agency.
201.13 Transitional Provisions.
This Section applies to any application for a special use to authorize mineral
extraction (including a bon-ow pit or top soil removal and storage) which is
pending before the Board on the effective date ofthis amendatory ordinance. The
applicant or any interested party may request that the Board treat such a special
use application as ifit were a proposal to rezone the subject parcel to the ME-l
Minera I Extraction District filed pursuant to Section 20/. 7 above. If the Board
grants such a request, the application shall then be transferred to the Commission
and heard as a proposal to change the zone maps pursuant to Section 31.6.3 ofthe
Zoning Ordinance and the rules of the Commission. All persons deemed by IC
36- 7 -4-604 or the rules of the Commission to be interested parties must receive
notice of the transfer. Upon receiving a transfer under this Section, the
Commission shall require the Director to give such notice to interested parties and
to the public, not less then twenty-five (25) days prior to the date ofthe public
hearing to be held pursuant to Section 31.6.3. This Section 20/.13 expires one year
from the effective date of this amendatory ordinance.
14
Proposed Zoning Ordinance Amendment
ME-l DISTRICT - Dated 1/14/2003
CHART A
MAXIM UM ALLOWED NOISE LEVELS
OCTAVE-BAND PIANO MAXIMUM SPL ATA GIVEN
CENTER NOTES (DECIBELS) BOUNDARY ENVIRONMENTAL
FREQUENCY RANGE DISTANCE
(HERTZ)
31.5 (Bo - C\) 80 Light trucks in city Offices with tabulating
20' machines
63 (B1 - C2) 79 Light trucks in city Offices with tabulating
20' machines
125 (B2 - C3) 75 Conversational Average Traffic 100'
Speech 3'
250 (B3 - C4) 69 Conversational Average Traffic 100'
Speech 3'
Accounting Offices
500 (B4 - Cs) 63 15,000 KV A 115
KV Transformer
at 200'
1000 (Bs - C6) 57 15,000 KV A 115
KV Transformer
at 200'
2000 (B6 - C7) 52 Private Business
Offices, Light Traffic
Average Residence
4000 (B7 - Cg) 48 Private Business
Offices, Light Traffic
8000 ( - ) 45
L. Effectiveness. This Ordinance shall take effect in the manner described in Ie 36-7-4-
607.
15
/
/
lI\Id OV:90:vO W00/00/VO U6P'>1jM~+SOe\rojd-JOpeds\u6P\'"
MAR-24-03 18,08 FROM, PHEA~~ AND MOLDOVAN ID, 77@~636715
U U
PHEARS & MOLDOVAN
PAGE 1
A PARTNERSHIP INCLUDING PROFESSIONAl. CORPORATIONS
AlTORNEYS AT LAW
SUITE 375
4725 PEACHTREE CORNERS CIRCU;
NORCROSS, GEORGIA 30092
TELEPHONE
770'446'2116
FACSIMILE
770'263'6715
FACSIMILE TRANSMISSION
THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE INDIVIDUAL OR ENTITY TO WHICH IT IS ADD~ESSED AND MAY
CONTAIN INFORMATION THAT IS PRlV.LEGED, CONFIDENTIAL AND EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE UNDER APPUCABLE
LAW. IFTHE READER OF THIS MESSAGE IS NOT THE INTENDED RECIPIENT OR THE EMPLOYEE OR AGENT RESPONSIBLE
FOR DEUVERING THE MESSAGE TO THE INTENDED RECIPIENT, YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED THAT ANY DISSEMINATION.
DISTRIBUnON OR COPYING OF THIS COMMUNICATION IS STRICTlY PROHIBITED. IF YOU HAVE RECEIVED THIS
COMMUNICAnON IN ERROR, PLEASE NOTIFY US IMMEDIATELY BY TELEPHONE, AND RETURN THE ORIGINAL MESSAGE
TO US AT THE ABOVE ADDRESS VIA THE U.S. POSTAL SERVICE. THANK YOU.
To:
Mike Hollibaugh
FAX NUMBER:
(317) 571-2426
FROM:
Wayne Pheara
DATE;
March 24, 2003
SUBJECT:
PAGES:
7 (Including fax cover sheet)
COMMENTS:
MAR-24-03 18.11 FROM. PHFft~S AND MOLDOVAN
~f U
ID. 770~"'l,3B715
U
PAGE 2
'r
H, IVATNI "IIA1II
YIC;lORL. MOI.OOVA N
(A$ClN L, CIlO<:H"
STACT N PlIo/tO
PHEARS ta MOLDOVAN ~DJ~~
"MIlfNIUM1"I'C~IlINO -.II_L c:oaPO~A"'j'O ;<'~;/ A X,\~<';\
ATTORNltyS AT LAW l:t R6 ~ \~
(i;if h~R CFlVFD SIIIT~'
_I ,I 244T"A~C"TU~.!J!lN"S CIKLI
:J D (~IIlUJ.C;!~\"3OQDZ
March 24, 2003 \.)\ . Des .'.;~
\/\ Tlllt I
\<~" !.~~~"""'Zll$
,,(, 'j' ,-,,, ,,;;
.< ..i^>.",_..."~,,<':'\, 'yt/lQIMILl
'~! :::~ i \ \(.,;:>fTo'leNl1t~
-,._.__.....~~
lI'UMlrrll'tf~ MDANDG"
Cannel Plan Commission
Special Studies Committee
Attn: Dianna Knoll, Chairperson
One Civic Square
Carmel, Indiana 46032
Re: Pronosed Ordinance Retarding Extraction of Mineral R~sour~es
Dcar Ms. Knoll:
As you know, Martin Marietta submitted some general comments prior to the last
meeting of the Special Studies Committee regarding the proposed mineral extraction ordinance.
We would likc to take this opportunity to submit more detailed comments on portions of the
ordinance and to respond to some issues that were raised at the last meeting. Martin Marietta
does not, by making these comments. waive any of its rights, but simply wishes to exercise its
right to engage in this public discussion. Subject to the foregoing, nur comments are as follows:
FOCUS ON MARTIN MAR1ETIA
It is apparent from public and other statements that the ordinance under ,consideration is
aimed squarely at Milrlin Marietta's existing opCfatlons ond pending applications. Indeed, th~
"Transitional Provisions" leave no doubt about that. It is clear under Indiana law, however, that
Martin Marietta has vested rights under the existing ordinances that cannot constitutional1y bc
taken away by the new ordinance this committee is considering. As a result, all of this effort to
craft. an ordinance to stop Martin Marietta is not appropriate.
POLlCY STATEMENT
A. Need for Mining, Districts. A number of speakers questioned the inclusion ill the
comprehensive plan of any recognition ofthe need for mineral resourcc~ in the community.
Cnlshed stone, sand, and gnlvel, however. are the basic elemenls UIl which every community
builds. Stone and sand make up over ninety percent of what we know as ready mix concrete and
asphalt; 11 yard of concrete has over n ton of stone in it. Cannel's homes, oflices, government
buildings, roods, retail centers and parking lots are all built out of crushed slone or gravel, most
of it from the Maron Marietta quarry.
MAR-24-m3 18.11 PROM. PHB~~S AND MOLDOVAN
,i U
ID. 77m?Cl3B716
U
PACE 3
1
Dianna Knoll, Chairperson
March 24, 2003
Page 2
The suggestion sometimes heard that building stone be obtained from elsewhere is bad
pluMing und bad environmental policy. That is nothing more than a plea to put it in someone
else's backyard and then truck it an extra twenty miles to tbe market where it is needed, burning
more fossil fuel, emitting more hydrocarbons, and putting more burden on the roads. An
adequate supply of building stone located strategically close to the market should be a
cornerstone of any comprehensive land use plan.
Further, B comprehensive plan should recognize Bnd encout1lge the development of
existing resources. The Martin Marietla quarry is a good example. The quarry was there long
before its neighbors and development around the quarry presumably took into account the
presence of that facility. Existinl facilities such as it should be encouraged to grow to avoid the
necessity of having to find a site for a new location. and the attendant potential disruption in land
use patterns caused by that.
B. DevelODment o(Natural Resources. There was discussion at the last meeting
about the doletiun ufParagraph B. The statements in Paragraph B are not only correct. but also
good policy. They should perhops be preceded by the statement thot'vrhe City orCarrnel
recognizes that the development ofmineml resourceS. I . ," but otherwise this is an important
component of any policy statement.
C. Pres~ation ofNaturnl Resources. Wilh respect to p;trasraph C, there wa.t; a
suggestion that the word "significantly" should simply be changed to "adversely." We
respectfully submit, however, that "adversely" should be modified to at lea.~t require that any
impact be significant. Most every business venture can be said to have some adverse impact on
someone and the lanl&uage should, at a minimum, require that the impact be significant or
subsumtial.
D. Buffer Zones, There wa., a recutting discussion of compatibility issues with
respect to mining. This seems generally to be seen only as a one way street, i.e., everyone seems
to think that the only role of planning is to ensure that a mine isn't placed next to a residential
area. If, however, mines are seen as incompatible with residential development even thousands
of feet away, the position apparently taken by one uf the neighborhoods, then the comprehensi ve
plan'should also discourage residcntia1lund uses neat an existing mine. Indeed. it would appear
that eJl the existing subdivisions within the three thousand foot buffer proposed by some groups
should never have been built. If there is to be such a buffer after a mine has been in existence for
decades. it can only be established by precluding so called incompatible uses within that distance.
At the hearing several residents expressed the view that they shc.lUld not have to make any inquiry
themselves into the potentfa1land uses next to lheir neighborhoods. TItst would appear to make
it important for the City to en9W'C that zuniIlg around existing mines always protects these
persons from inadvertently moving near a mine.
- --~---
- ~-~----
- -----
- - ~-------
MAR-24-03 18.12 FROM. PHEARS AND MOLDOVAN
U
ID. 7702838715
U
PAGE 4
1
Dianna Knoll, Chairperson
March 24, 2003
Page 3
The recommendation by Kingswood that there be buffers of one-half mile or more around
mining sites is shown to be unnecessary by the fact that high qUlllity development is noW
occurring within a. few hundred feet of mining operations in Carmel. Many of those persons
supporting a new ordinance bought their homes near the Martin Marietta mine from sellers who
expressed no problem with the mine. If a butTer of the si1.e sought by Kingswood is to be
imposed. and incompatible land uses prohibited within it, vast areas around Martin Marietta's
mine. including properties north of J 0611I Street. will have to be mapped for industrial use
according to Kingswood's own notions or compatibility. It is also inappropriate to measure these
distances from the property line of the mine. Most mines strive to have bufft!r land on their own
property and thus all distances to other uses should be measured from active mining areac;,
E. OJ>eQ SjJace. The reference to "open space candidates" in Paragraph E is unclear.
Is this intended to be public parkland, permanently undeveloped property, or what? Is it land thlll
is anticipated to be taken off the tax rolls?
F. Criteria: The criteria for evaluating mining should include the nature and quality
of minerals. whether they are used locally or not, whether lhe proposed location will minimize
uvel'811 environmental impacts. ond the necessity of certain minerals for the construction of roads
and houses. Environmental impacts should be measured on the basis of area wide impacts so
that decisions are made with regard to what is best for the overall area. TIle criteria should
include whether the proposed mining use is an expansion of an existine mine or not. Existing
mines should be encouraged to expand to avoid the potentiallBnd u.'le disruptions caused by
siling a new mine.
H. Prohibition nfMinina:: The statement that there should be no mining north of
I06th Street is more a zoning statement than a statement of policy. A great deal of mining has
occurred north of 106111 Street already and mining is ongoing there. An application to mine there
should be evaluated by the criteria applicable to it at the time and not predetermined.
I. Isoseismi9.Study: The City is currently evaluating regulatory criteria for mining
and this requirement for an isoseismic study is more appropriately considered either as a part uf.
those regulatory requirements, or as an issue to be addressed in an application, and not as a policy
statement.
K. Exaction of Land: This policy appears intended to coerce mining companies to
give land to the CUr 3Ild is wholly inappropriate.
L. Expert E~nses: Once again, this provision seems inappropriate us a statemenl
of policy and better left to each individual case. It is also questionable why mining is being
singled out for such a burden. Many other \1~e~ have issues beyond the ability of the average
MAR-24-03 18.12 FROM. PHE"~S AND MOLDOVAN
U
ID. ??0?~3S?IS
U
PACE 5
Dianna Knoll, Chairperson
Much 24, 2003
Page 4
person to understand, yet the City has not imposed any open ended requirement on persons who
apply far those uses.
COMMENTS ON PROPOSED ORDINANCE
1. fmtmble:
The preamble should contain a recognition that mining is an essential indust!)' that has
contributed to the economic development and well being of Carmel without unduly affecting the
development of the City.
2. Definitions.:
Air Blast. The request by Kingswood that this definition be amended to add "shock
waves" instead of ''waves'' would make it unclear whether an airborne wave of a lesser severity
would be included or not.
C\lmpntible and Incomoatible Land Uses. The proposed definitions by Kingswood are
cor'Ifusing, difficult to understand, and contribute little to understanding what either of these
terms means. Any effon to define these tenns should deal in ~pecific categories OrUSC8. Further,
the reference in Kingswood's proposed detlnition to "nuisance impacts of mining" is unfair
hyperbole inappropriate to a dermition such as this. The development around Martin Marietta's
property. not to mention property values, plainly rebuts these types of one-sided statements.
Extraction of Mineral Resou~es. Kingswond proposes to expand this definition in u way
that makes its applicability unpredictable. The removal offill dirt, whether by hand or by
mechanized means, would appear to fall within this definition. especially since the exemption is
for the removal of material from a constroction project and thus would not include the removal of
material from Bnother area for a constnJ(~tion project. Further. addina drilling to the definition of
mining would prohibit someone from even dctcnnining whether there are minemls present on his
property. The section also exempts blasting at construction projects and leavclllluch activity
unregulated.'
EMR ODer'dtion. The exclusion of concrete and asphalt operations from this definition is
bad policy und bad planning. If these types of operations are not to be put on mining propeJ1y.
then where ure they to be located'l Forcing these plants from mining property only forces them
into another location in the community. Mining property provides a large imct of land which
provides better buffers than would be the case with frec-standing asphalt or concrete plants.
Further. such n policy would mean that trucks delivering stone to these pl~nts would have to
leave the quurry and travel on public roads just to deliver materials that are currently delivered
entirely on internal quarry roads. .
-~---- ---
------- ~~ -
.. MAR-24-03 lB.13 FROM. PHEQS AND MOLDOVAN
ID. 770~<=l3B71 Ei
U
PACE B
Dianna Knoll, Chairperson
March 24. 2003
Page 5
B&$lamation. This definition refers to an "Operation," but that term is not defined
anywhere.
Sand and Gravel ~tion. The proposed definition appears to include only wet sand
and gravel extraction.
PU1'Jlose and Intent. The various references to nuisance impacts are inappropriate and
one-sided. A simple reference to significant adverse impacts would avoid the use of such a
pejorative term.
Permitted Uses and Excluded Use~. Related industries should not be excluded from
pennanent uses, for the reasons identified previously herein.
Buffers and AreQ R~irements. The proposed setback of twenty-five hundred feet from
residential districts is grossly excessive, for the rea.C1ons discussed previously. Likewise. the
minimum front yard of three hundred feet, measured from the closest public space. is excessive.
By way of example, i(this ordinance applied to Martin Marietta it might well require 8 three
hundred foot front yard all along Hazel Dell Parkway, a plainly inappropriate result. Further. it is
unclear what these ~tbacks mean in the context of mining, because the ordinanee does not
describe what is allowed in setback areas. What is a front yard or a side yard for a mine?
Development Plan. Submittal Reauirements. The proposed requirement that an
applicant submit a plan lIlhowing the locations "of all stNctures within a two 0) mile radius of
the center of a proposed operation" is unfairly burdensome, tor no apparent reason. Such a
distance from the existing locati~n would sweep within its boundaries land and structures that
have no conceivable relationship to operations on a site.
Noise Contro.l. We note that the ordinance proposes. in Chart At certain maximum
allowed noise levels. At the same time, the ordinance 8PIH'W'S to suggest, in both the Criteria for
Approval and the Submittal Requirements, that the applicant must meet some other type of noise
standard. If there is n noise ordinance. presumably, it will control, and iflhe applicant meets it
there should be nO need for a different set of noise regulations. It iR also worth noting that the
chart depicting maximum allowed noise levels is incomprehensible.
Manin Marietta will submit further comments on the balance of the ordinance at a later
date. At that time we will address the Transitional Provision in this ordinance. In the meantime,
we note that this provision violates Martin Marietta's vested rights with respect to its pending
applications, and is also unconstitutional. It should be rejected in its entirety Dnd the City should
simply observe existing Indiana law,
MAR-24-03 18.13 FROM. PHEUr~S AND MOLDOVAN
,.. . .
Diannll Knoll. Chairperson
M"roh 24. 2003
Page 6
HWP/mkg
cc: John R. Molitor, Esquire
Yvonne Bailey, gsquire
ZeiT A. Weiss, Esquire
Mr, John J. Tiberi
X:\D^ T ^ \MlIItin Mllrilltlil\lndi;\Ila\'I;!l"ial Studies CunllniUcc. wild
ID. 7702"'38715
U
PACE 7
Hancock. Ramona B
Subject:
Wendy de Luca [WDELUCA@indy.rr.com]
Tuesday, February 25,20032:35 PM
rhancock@ci.carmel.in.us; dkk49@hotmail.com; Idierckman@aol.com; icacep@in-motion.net;
wawilson24@aol.com; RFHouck@Lilly.com; jerrLchomanczuk@conseco.com
Minining Ordinance
From:
Sent:
To:
February 25,2003
To the Members of the Special Studies Committee:
Ron Houck
Nicholas Kestner
Jerry Chomanczuk
Wayne Wilson
Leo Dierckman
Dan Dutcher
Dianna Knoll
RE: Docket No. 177-02 OA, 178-02 CPA
Amendment to the Carmel/Clay Zoning Ordinance & Comprehensive Plan- Mineral Extraction District
My family resides in Kingswood & our house is adjacent to the Mueller property. I'd like to echo
Kent Broach's comments as in his Feb. 23 memo to members of the Special Studies Committee. I
feel the preliminary comments by the Kingswood Neighborhood Association have merit, but that they
are extreme & thus do not represent the opinions of the entire neighborhood, especially those who
are most affected by the mining ordinance-those of us on the front line who live adjacent to the
Mueller property. We would support sand and gravel mining on the Mueller property as such use is
minimally invasive & less disruptive to neighboring residents than other potential uses of this
property. I feel a buffer of 300 feet for sand and gravel mining is sufficient & much more appropriate
than a buffer of 3000 feet proposed by the Kingswood Homeowners Association.
I too, support the revisions to the Comprehensive Plan and the Ordinance which have been
proposed by Tom Yedlick. His comments recognize that there are different types of mining which
require different treatment. I feel he provides a reasonable compromise on the difficult issues at
hand.
Thanks you for your time.
Wendy
1
Hancock, Ramona B
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Sveen, Russ [RJSVEEN@dow.com]
Monday, February 24, 2003 9:29 AM
'dkk49@hotmail.com'; 'Idierckman@aol.com'; 'icacep@in-motion.net'; 'wawilson24@aol.com'
'rhancock@cLcarmel.in.us'
Mining Ordinance
February 24, 2003
To the Members of the Special Studies Committee:
Ron Houck
Nicholas Kestner
Jerry Chomanczuk
Wayne Wilson
Leo Dierckman
Dan Dutcher
Dianna Knoll
RE: Docket No. 177-02 OA, 178-02 CPA
Amendment to the Carmel/Clay Zoning Ordinance & Comprehensive Plan- Mineral Extraction District
Following are a few comments with respect to the proposed amendment to the Comprehensive Plan and the ordinance
concerning the establishment of mining districts.
The difficult challenge before you is to properly balance the interests of homeowners with the business of mineral
extraction. Mining of such minerals is essential to provide the materials necessary to build the infrastructure of our growing
community. However, such mineral extraction should be conducted in a manner as to have minimal adverse impact on
surrounding neighborhoods.
As you know, there are at least three different types of mining involved. In my opinion, surface stone mining (open pit
blasting) is clearly incompatible with neighboring residential uses. I understand that underground stone mining is less
onerous; however, because blasting is also used in this process, this method may also be incompatible with residential
uses.
On the other hand, sand and gravel mining by dredge does not involve blasting, is conducted underwater, and does not
adversely effect surrounding neighborhoods. The noise is minimal and with appropriate buffering measures, therewould
be no detrimental effects on surrounding residential neighborhoods. .
My family and I reside in Kingswood subdivision and our home is adjacent to the existing sand and gravel dredging which
has occurred on the land adjacent our property to the East. We have not experienced nuisance from the dredging
operations; and therefore, support this specific use as preferable to many of the other potential uses of the Mueller
property which begins a short distance to our South. We would support sand and gravel mining on the Mueller property so
long as such mining operation was found to have complied with the provisions of the new ordinance.
I have had an opportunity to review the preliminary comments of the Board of Directors of the Kingswood Homeowners
Association and I believe many of their comments have merit; however, their comments are faulted in that they fail to
make a distinction between the different types of mining. In my opinion, a buffer of 300 feet or less for sand and gravel
mining (dredging) is more appropriate than a buffer of 3000 feet.
I support the revisions to the Comprehensive Plan and the Ordinance which have been proposed by Tom Yedlick. His
comments recognize that there are different types of mining which require different treatment. I believe he provides a
reasonable compromise on the difficult issues before you.
I understand and appreciate the sacrifices you make to serve the community. Thank you for your time and consideration.
Russ Sveen
11109 Woodbury Drive
Carmel, IN 46033
1
Hancock. Ramona 8
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
kbroach@indy.rr.com
Sunday, February 23. 2003 4:56 PM
rhancock@ci.carmel.in.us
Fw: Mining . e
istribute this to the members of the special studies
---- Original Message -
From: roa h .
To: 4 t il.c <m
<mailto:ldierckman@aol.com> , .
@aol.com <mailto:wawilson24@aol.com>
Sent: Sunday, February 23,20034:52 PM
Subject: Mining Ordinance
February 23, 2003
To the Members of the Special Studies Committee:
Ron Houck
Nicholas Kestner
Jerry Chomanczuk
Wayne Wilson
Leo Dierckman
Dan Dutcher
Dianna Knoll
RE: Docket No. 177-02 OA, 178-02 CPA
Amendment to the Carmel/Clay Zoning Ordinance & Comprehensive Plan- Mineral Extraction District
Following are a few brief comments with respect to the proposed amendment to the Comprehensive Plan and
the ordinance concerning the establishment of mining districts.
The difficult challenge before you is to properly balance the interests of homeowners with the business of
mineral extraction. Mining of such minerals is essential to provide the materials necessary to build the
infrastructure of our growing community. However, such mineral extraction should be conducted in a manner
as to have minimal adverse impact on surrounding neighborhoods.
As you know, there are at least three different types of mining involved. In my opinion, surface stone mining
(open pit blasting) is clearly incompatible with neighboring residential uses. I understand that underground
stone mining is less onerous; however, because blasting is also used in this process, this method may also be
incompatible with residential uses.
On the other hand, sand and gravel mining by dredge does not involve blasting, is conducted underwater, and
does not adversely effect surrounding neighborhoods. The noise is minimal and with appropriate buffering
measures, there would be no detrimental effects on surrounding residential neighborhoods.
My family and I reside in Kingswood subdivision and our home is adjacent to the Mueller property, which has,
on various occasions, been considered for sand and gravel mining.W e have supported such use in the past as
we have felt that sand and gravel mining is preferable to many of the other potential uses of such property. We
would support sand and gravel mining on the Mueller property so long as such mining operation was found to
1
.l.
(~
I
SM
<>
...
LEGAL Et BUS I N E S S AD V I SO RS
February 21, 2003
WRITER'S DIRECT NUMBER: (317) 236-2319
DIRECT FAX: (317) 592-4788
INTERNET: weiss@icemiller.com
VIA E-MAIL & US MAIL
Carmel Plan Commission
Special Studies Committee
Attn: Dianna Knoll, Chairperson
One Civic Square
Carmel, IN 46032
RE: Proposed Ordinance Regarding Extraction of Mineral Resources
Ladies and Gentlemen:
As you will recall, we are counsel to Martin Marietta Materials, Inc. ("Martin Marietta").
Weare writing in respect of the ordinance proposed by the Department of Community Services
(the "Department") in respect of the extraction of mineral resources within the City of Carmel
and Clay Township. Our comments in respect of this proposed ordinance should be considered
in light of the following. To the knowledge of Martin Marietta, the property owned and/or leased
by Martin Marietta both north and south of 106th Street along Hazel Dell Parkway are the only
properties within the jurisdiction of the City of Carmel from which one may reasonably expect to
commercially extract mineral resources. All such area controlled by Martin Marietta is situated
within zoning districts that currently permit the extraction of mineral resources pursuant to
special use permits. In addition to permits under which Martin Marietta currently operates,
Martin Marietta has filed five separate applications for special use permits to extract mineral
resources that are situated on or under such properties. Thus, it appears that the sole purpose of
the proposed ordinance is to govern land that is presently owned and/or controlled by Martin
Marietta. This seems to be inappropriate for the following reasons. First, a broad zoning
ordinance should not be directed toward one particular operator. In addition, because the
operations of Martin Marietta are either covered by existing perm~ts or permits sought under
pending applications, the proposed ordinance will not, absent a voluntary agreement in respect
thereto, govern Martin Marietta. This is because Martin Marietta rights are vested with respect
to existing operations and those anticipated by the pending applications.
The existing special use ordinance expressly favors the issuance of permits with respect
to the extraction of mineral resources. Such special use ordinance requires Martin Marietta to
address various operational and development standards. Thus, the existing ordinance is adequate
to address all reasonable concerns of the Department and the community with respect to existing
and proposed mining operations by Martin Marietta. The existing ordinance, however, mandates
the issuance of a special use permit following the demonstration by the applicant of compliance.
The proposed ordinance works in a markedly different fashion. Specifically, the proposed
One American Square I Box 820011 Indianapolis, IN 46282-00021 Phone: (317) 236-2100 I Fax: (317) 236-22191 www.icemiller.com
Indianapolis I Chicago I Washington DC
r'
February 21, 2003
Page 2
ordinance would change the structure from an obligation of the BZA to issue the special use
permit upon request following demonstration of compliance, to a discretionary procedure
whereby the Plan Commission and/or the City Council could refuse to either rezone the property
to the mineral district and/or refuse to approve the proposed development plan for the mining
operation based on wholly subjective standards. In light of the proposed change in the structure
of addressing the extraction of mineral resources from Martin Marietta's property, we find
ourselves in the position of being unable to support the proposed ordinance in its current fashion.
In short, we believe the same is unnecessary and directed at terminating Martin Marietta's
existing, vested rights to extract mineral resources. In this regard, we refer you to Section 20
1.13 of the proposed ordinance, as well as the second paragraph of the Department's Summary of
Key Provisions of the Proposed Mineral Extraction District (ME-I) which was submitted by Mr.
Hollibaugh at your meeting held on February 3,2003. The aforementioned provision relating to
"Transitional Provisions" and the overview by the Department suggest a goal of regulating
existing operations under the new zoning ordinance and transitioning the pending applications
for special use permits to a request to rezone the property. As noted above, these are different
structures with different standards. Martin Marietta is unwilling to waive its rights under the
existing ordinance with respect to both the existing operations and the pending applications.
As you no doubt realize, the backdrop to this proposed ordinance is the concern of the
Kingswood Neighborhood Association (the "Association") in respect of existing and proposed
expansion of Martin Marietta's mining operations. The Association and sO!I1e of its more vocal
members choose to ignore the fact that Martin Marietta and its predecessors have mined in the
immediate area for many, many years. No one in Kingswood could reasonably claim that they
purchased their homes without knowledge of the adjacent mine operations.
The extraction of mineral resources from the Mueller Property was and is reasonably
foreseeable and consistent with the natural development pattern of the existing mine. The
Mueller Properties are situated between Martin Marietta's existing mining operations along
Hazel Dell Parkway. The extension of the mines to meet one another is obvious. The proposed
mining operations will be no closer to Kingswood and other neighborhoods than that which
presently exist along the common eastern border of the Kingswood neighborhood. The impacts
from mining on the Mueller Property will be no greater than that which is presently experienced.
Once again, this is a situation where the neighborhood moved to the mine.
Our general comments with respect to the proposed ordinance are as follows. First, the
proposed ordinance oversteps its jurisdictional limits with respect to certain operational and/or
development standard issues. For example, discharges to water, including erosion control, are
governed by the Federal Clean Water Act under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System (NPDES) permit program and the Indiana Department of Environmental Management
(IDEM). The regulation of underground storage tanks is addressed under the federal Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) as administered by IDEM. The handling of explosive
materials is governed by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Fire Arms. Fugitive dust is
governed by IDEM. Clearly, the standards for the items are already regulated and should not be
subject to additional regulation by the City. With all due respect, particularly in light of the
~ February 21, 2003
Page 3
subjective evaluation standards under the proposed ordinance, the City internally lacks the
expertise and staffing to address all of these very technical issues. These issues are more
appropriately addressed by governing bodies which have the experience and resources to
appropriately regulate the same.
The proposed ordinance would eliminate mining as a permitted use in all existing zoning
districts except the proposed ME-I District. There are no proposed changes to the zoning map(s)
that would make any property within the City of Carmel or Clay Township rezoned to the ME-l
District. Thus, all existing mining operations of Martin Marietta would be deemed to be legally
existing, non-conforming uses. This is unfair and, once again, an inappropriate taking of vested
rights. Moreover, even if the City were to simultaneously rezone the subject properties to the
ME-I District, that would not resolve the problem unless the existing mining operations were
exempt from the proposed development plan requirements.
Clearly, the "Related Industry" activities should be a permitted use as opposed to an
excluded use under proposed Section 20 1.1. Further, the minimum setback requirements as
proposed are excessive and the loading berth requirements seem inappropriate in the context of a
mine (see Section 20 1.6.). The proposed development plan submittals are excessive, and the
information sought with respect to internal roadways seem of no consequence to the City. In the
context of development standards and setbacks, it seems to us that the focus should be upon the
impact to the adjoining owners (i.e. landscaping buffers, noise levels at the perimeter of the
property, glare [light pollution effecting adjoining property owners], and vibration at the
perimeter of the property and beyond), as opposed to static setbacks that bear no relationship to
external impacts. For example, the proposed ordinance anticipates a substantial berm with
landscaping along the perimeter of the property. In light of such visual barrier, what would be
the purpose of a minimum 2,500 foot setback from a stone mining operation? Section 20 1.10
suggests that the perimeter landscaping should be installed prior to the issuance of a "Certificate
of Occupancy". Absent the construction of additional buildings, it is not likely that there would
be any structure that would justify the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. While Chart 8 in
the proposed ordinance appears to address maximum allowed noise levels, they appear to be ill
conceived and un-interpretable.
In conclusion, we believe that the issues before you are quite complex, involve various
vested rights in favor of Martin Marietta, and that the proposed zoning ordinance is probably not
necessary and is certainly unworkable in its present form. To the extent that you intend to
proceed forward with the proposed ordinance, we suggest that you review and harmonize the
same with the proposed mineral extraction regulations that are presently being considered by the
City Council.
Our previous efforts to assist the City in respect of a proposed ordinance have been
publicly criticized. As a result, we are concerned that any effort to provide a detailed set of
comments to the proposed ordinance would be treated in a like fashion. We, nonetheless, refer
you to the draft ordinance that was previously submitted by Martin Marietta for a comparison to
an approach which we believe would better serve the City of Carmel.
February 21,2003
Page 4
Thank you for your time and consideration of the foregoing.
Very truly yours,
ICE MILLER
Zeff A. Weiss
Zeff A. Weiss
ZA W/sd
cc: John Tiberi (via e-mail)
Yvonne Bailey, Esq. (via e-mail)
Wayne Phears, Esq. (via e-mail)
John Molitor, Esq. (via e-mail)
Gene Lausch, Esq. (via e-mail)
Mike Hollibaugh (via e-mail)
Carmel Plan Commissioners (via e-mail)
Ms. Luci Snyder, President - City Council (via e-mail)
INDY 1123578vl
.\
~
THOMAS C. YEDLICK
5053 St. Charles Place
Carmel, Indiana 46033
580-1614
..~
/) /~?
It"
2"
~ECFlVED
FEu 20 2i7r},1
DOCS
..:-"
February 18, 2003
Paul Spranger, President
Special Study Committee Members:
Ron Houck
Nicholas Kestner
Jerry Chomanczuk
Wayne Wilson
Leo Dierckman
Dan Dutcher
Dianna Knoll
Department of Community Services:
1yIichael Hollibaugh John Molitor
Ramona Hancock
, .?
Re: Special Studies Committee Meeting February 25, 2003
Amendment to the CarmeJlClay Zoning Ordinance & Comprehensive Plan -
Mineral Extraction District
At the Special Studies Committee meeting on February 4, 2003, the following documents
were distributed:
o Underground Mining ordinance from Boone County, KY
o Sand and Gravel Extraction ordinance from Boone County, KY
1:1 Portion of the Settlement Agreement between the City, Martin Marietta, and
Kingswood
The purpose of the Boone County ordinances if to provide a point of reference for
development of mineral extraction ordinances for Carmel. A request was made to see the
entire Settlement Agreement, and in response, the complete document is enclosed.
Comprehensive Plan
The Comprehensive Plan should provide the guidelines for land use development within the
City of Carmel, whether by ordinance or Special Use. As you may be aware, there are also
five Special Use applications pending for filing before the Board of Zoning Appeals. These
applications cover essentially the same uses proposed to be covered by the zoning ordinance
being considered by the Plan Commission.
Under the uncertainty of how these land uses will eventually be considered (i.e. under an
ordinance or as a Special Use), the Plan Commission and the BZA would be best served by
first considering the amendment to the Comprehensive Plan. By first defining mineral
~
\1
extraction operations, and then considering their suitability as land uses for inclusion in the
Comprehensive Plan, this approach will serve the development of the ordinance and, should
the pending applications come before the BZA, provide that body the appropriate guidelines
to consider those applications.
Two distinct mineral extraction processes are being considered: 1) sand and gravel by
floating dredge, and 2) underground and surface (open pit) stone mining. Stone mining,
whether underground or surface, involves the use of blasting to breakup the stone for
extraction.
The effects of blasting cannot be entirely contained within the boundaries of the property, and
therefore are deserving of special consideration in establishing an adequate buffer against
adverse impact to properties beyond the mine's boundaries. For this reason, open pit mining
within Carmel should be an excluded use, and underground blasting permitted only where the
operator can demonstrate there will not be an adverse impact on the surrounding residential
community.
to this 'end, a draft Minim! Policies for Inclusion into the Comprehensive Plan is enclosed for
your consideration. These policies recognize that all mining is not the same, and that sand
and gravel and stone mining need to be considered separately. This is much the same as
Carmel's current residential and business land use ordinances in which there are different
zoning districts based on density, intensity, and/or business use. There should not be a
suggestion within the Comprehensive Plan, or the' zomng regulations themselves, that sand
and gravel extraction and stone mining must exist within the same zoning district.
Thank you for your consideration,
~~
Tom Yedlick
Cc: Mayor Brainard
Greg Sovas, Spectra Environmental
John Tiberi, Martin Marietta Aggregates
Prepared by T. Yedlick 2-16-03
-~
Mining Policies for Inclusion into the Comprehensive Plan
A. The City recognizes that mineral resources exist within its community. These mineral
resources exist in limited geographic locations, generally along the White River.
B. Mineral resources can only be extracted where they are located in nature. Therefore, owners
of property where these natural resources are located should be permitted to develop those
resources only so long as they do not adversely impact the quality oflife for the rest of the
community.
C. Recent annexation of land containing significant mineral resources provides the City with the
opportunity to regulate existing mining as well as set standards for new mining and
expansion of existing mining.
D. New land for mineral extraction, or expansion of existing mining, should be permitted only
as long as it does not adversely impact surrounding land uses with due regard to public
. '. heij,lth, safety, and welfare including property damage by way of diminution of property
value.
E. Mineral resources consist principally of sand and gravel (found on the surface) and
limestone. Stone mining, whether underground or surface, involves the use of blasting to
breakup the stone for extraction. Since sand and gravel is generally extracted by cl.redging
and limestone is extracted by blasting, separate criteria and zoning districts should be
established for each extraction process.
F. The effects of blasting cannot be entirely contained within the boundaries ofthe property,
and therefore are deserving of special consideration in establishing an adequate buffer. The
impact of open pit blasting can only be adequately buffered by distance. Extraction of
mineral resources (limestone) by blasting (especially open pit) in close proximity to
residential districts is inherently incompatible with residential uses. Open pit mining within
Carmel should be an excluded use, and underground blasting permitted only where the
operator can demonstrate there will not be an adverse impact on the surrounding residential
community.
G. Zoning ordinances and mining regulations should be no less restrictive than exist in any other
jurisdiction a mining operator applies to operate, and should provide adequate buffer from
residential districts.
H. In consideration of new mining or expansion of existing mining, any mining operations
currently existing as non-conforming uses should be required to comply with the City's
mining regulations at the time expansion or rezone is requested.
1. All current and proposed mining activity within Clay Township should be evaluated based on
the following criteria:
1. Quantity of reserves committed to mining
2. Environmental impacts
Prepared by T. Yedlick 2-16-03
\
3. Noise impacts
4. Visual impacts
5. Dust
6. Integrity of underground mining
7. Impacts on hydrology and hydrogeology
8. Traffic impacts
9. Reclamation objectives
10. Location of storage and processing materials
11. Buffering from adjacent uses
12. Erosion control
13. Monitoring and reporting of mining activities
14. Suitability of soils
15. The applicability of mining practices and technology that could minimize impacts t
nearby neighborhoods
16. Surrounding land uses
"
.
.'
... '., ".
Page 1 of 1
u
U
/~<~\\ j~ ! /~
/,. ~l!" \.__t__:....J--J I r,",:,>;
< \~':,:;:..".--. -"~['-.~' /
;;:,,)/ "'-{./ \
I ,," , ~,
1~.Jm ~mmmm'r..',
C"i 7; , ~ '\
! --.1 <2" '~ (.-....\
i;.,..1 -' /h I_e.
1'.,. /I d" <<A IIt'i
'\'t~:. -0;' ,) <./ F~"'I
-,\ 'tl ';1JiJ 1"--.,
.....-1\ J' &(;? /...... /
\(? " _ /t!r/
\ -' :' .-< "/
"</ /,:\ y
'~,/..ll?~I..\.~'y'
LiIIig, Laurence M
From: HOUCK_RON_F@L1LLY.COM
Sent: Wednesday, February 05, 2003 11 :45 AM
To: lIi11ig@cLcarmel.in.us
Subject: Mining Ordinance
Lawrence,
Please ask the attorney for Martin-Marietta to provide the committee the following:
1. A log of all blasting from the previous 12 months. The log should show Date and Time of the blast and any
seismological or any percussion or sound measurements they may have made.
2. Are mining operations regulated by any state or federal agencies?
If 50, what inspections are performed and with what frequency?
What information must mining operations submit for state/federal review?
Ron
2/5/2003
Page 1 of 1
w
u---
L\\., \ \}cJJ_L~
/~)\/~/,-,,(</~
! ".;/~ _,-"i \
", / '\":.' '"
if ~~. \~
1-, /'I V "" H
\::? \ va <'t,;?"" 1-- f
\'-\ r'J1 "1r /i,.:,1
'\>\ /, /
\ --=-'" /, /.
~/' :'. ./,;)\ "-
'<<?1iDTn~:j>;V
LiIIig, Laurence M
From: Dobosiewicz, Jon C
Sent: Wednesday, February 05,20032:37 PM
To: Hollibaugh, Mike P
Cc: Lillig, Laurence M
Subject: FW: Mining Ordinance
Mike,
Do you want me to forward this to Martin Marietta?
They are not the applicant. Why is Ron asking them to produce information for consideration?
I do not think Ron "gets it",
Thanks,
Jon
-----Original Message-----
From: Lillig, Laurence M
Sent: Wednesday, February 05,20032:33 PM
To: Dobosiewicz, Jon C
Subject: FW: Mining Ordinance
-----Original Message-----
From: HOUCK_RON_F@ULLY.COM [mailto:HOUCK_RON_F@ULLY.COM]
Sent: Wednesday, February 05, 2003 11:45 AM
To: lIi11ig@ci.carmel.in.us
Subject: Mining Ordinance
Lawrence,
Please ask the attorney for Martin-Marietta to provide the committee the following:
1. A log of all blasting from the previous 12 months. The log should show Date and Time of the blast and any
seismological or any percussion or sound measurements they may have made.
2. Are mining operations regulated by any state or federal agencies?
If so, what inspections are performed and with what frequency?
What information must mining operations submit for state/federal review?
Ron
2/5/2003
.
u
Carmel/Clay Plan Commission
Rules of Procedure
Revised December 1999
Page 5 of10
(1) All interested persons shall constitute the general public, residents, and property owners
of the jurisdiction.
(2) Notice will be given by publication in a newspaper of general circulation in the County
and in a local newspaper for the City.
(3) It shall be the responsibility of the municipality to publish the notice.
Section 8.
A. When a public notice of hearing is required for the amendment to the wording or text of
the Zoning Ordinance under IC 36-7-4-607, it shall be given to interested persons as
follows:
(I) Interested persons shall be the residents of the jurisdiction of the Plan
Commission and of the two (2) adjoining counties.
(2) Notice will be by publication in a newspaper of general circulation in the county,
and one in a local newspaper. Additional notice will be given in the two (2) legal
newspapers for each of the adjoining counties.
(3) It will be the responsibility of the municipality to publish all of said notices.
B.
When a Public Hearing is required for a rezone by an amendment to the zone maps under
IC 36-7-4-608, then notice shall be given as follows:
(1) Interested persons shall be the owners of real estate lying within 660 feet of the
subject property, or a depth of two (2) property ownerships, whichever is less, as
shown by a certified issue of the Auditor of Hamilton County (or an adjacent
county as described below), or by a title insurance company and dated not more
than forty.five (45) days prior to the date of the Public Hearing.
(2) If the subject of the proposal abuts or includes a county line, or a county line or
road, or a county line body of water, all owners of real property to a depth of two
(2) ownerships or one eighth (1/8) of a mile into the adjacent county are
interested parties (pursuant to IC 36-7-4-604{c)) and must receive notice.
(3) The Petitioner will be the person responsible for causing the notice to be sent by
certified letter, and will be responsible for publishing the notice as required in
this paragraph.
u
Section 9. The Commission shall require the Petitioner to notify by certified letter all persons deemed by
State Statute and the Commission to be interested as defined above. Notice of all hearings shall be
published or sent not less then twenty-five (25) days prior to the Public Hearing date (including the
date of the hearing). The parties designated in the above sections will be the persons designated by
the Commission as the party responsible for causing the notice to be published. For the purposes of
consideration, a newspaper of general circulation in Hamilton County in accordance with the
Indiana Code would be the Noblesville Dailv Ledger. For papers that have weekly circulation
dates, the next available weekly circulation date will be deemed the required date for publication.
Section 10. The following information shall be included in both the published legal notice (Section 9) and
the notice to interested parties (Section 8):
(a) Docket number and the substance of the matter to be heard
(b) The legal description of the subject real estate
(c) General location by address or other identifiable geographic characteristic of the property
(d) Name of the person, agency or entity initiating the matter to be heard
(e) A general description of the petitioner's request of approval
(f) Date, time and place of the hearing
(g) Statement that the petition may be examined at the DOCS office
u
,
Carmel/Clay Plan Commission
Rules of Procedure
Revised December 1999
Page 6 of 10
o
(h) Statement that any person may offer verbal comments at the hearing or may file written
comments prior to or at the hearing
(i) Any other information which may be required by law to be contained in such notice
Section 11. Three (3) working days prior to the date of the public hearing, the Petitioner shall deliver to the
Office of the Director of DOCS a copy of the notice mailed to the interested persons, a copy of the
Petitioner's certified mail receipts and an affidavit from the publisher (newspaper(s)) certifying the
date that the notice was published.
Section 12. An interested person may waive, at any time, notice of the public hearing by the execution of a
written statement addressed to the president or secretary of the Commission stating that such
interested person has or had knowledge of the date, time and place of the public hearing, and the
nature of Petitioner's requested approval and hereby waives notice of such public hearing thereon
as required under this Article.
Article VIII. Conduct of Public Hearinl!s.
Section 1. At a public hearing before the Commission, the petitioner, property owner, or agent for the
petitioner shall first present the facts and arguments in support of the case. Comments and
questions from the Commission members may be inteIjected during the presentation for
clarification of the subject matter. Each of those persons who wishes to comment on the petition
must address the president and be recognized before speaking. Each person must state his or her
name and address. To maintain orderly procedure, each side should proceed without interruption
by the other side.
Section 2. All items for Public Hearing shall be presented in the following manner:
Petitioner's Presentation: 15 minutes
General Public Comments Favorable: 5 minutes
Organized Remonstrance Unfavorable: 15 minutes
General Public Comments Unfavorable: 5 minutes
Petitioner's Rebuttal: 5 minutes
Staff Comments: as requested for explanation or at the end of the public hearing.
-0
At the discretion of the majority of the Commission members present the above time may be
extended.
There should be no time for rebuttal of the rebuttal; however, should it occur the Petitioner shall
always be given the opportunity to give final rebuttal (per Roberts Rules of Order).
Section 3. The president shall close the public hearing after the Commission has adequately heard from all
interested persons. The president shall distribute or read all written public comments on the
petition received by the Commission. All public comments will be entered into the public record
by the Commission secretary.
Section 4. The petitioner may summarize arguments and the Commission may question further. After the
public hearing is formally closed and comments and questions from the Commission and/or Staff
have been heard, the matter shall then be assigned to the appropriate committee, unless these Rules
are suspended and a vote taken in accordance with Article XII, Section 2, herein.
Section 5. If the Staff and Commission's questions and concerns have been satisfactorily answered during
the public hearing, then final action may be taken at that time. To take final action at this time a
suspension of the rules is required.
o
1/16/2003
G. Mining should not occur within 300 feet of an existing residential area. The area
between the mine and nearby residential areas should be buffered including, but not
limited to, noise and visual barriers and landscaping such as trees, shrubs and
mounding. The goal of this buffer area is to minimize impacts to nearby residences.
H. No additional subsurface mining should occur north of 106th Street or West of Gray
Road.
1. Mining applications involving blasting should be required to include an isoseismic
study that will indicate appropriate techniques and use of technology to mitigate
the impacts of blasting on nearby residential areas. The techniques described in the
study must be employed by the mining company with the approval of the City.
J. Only mining companies that are members of the Environmental Stewardship
Council and have adopted the Guiding Principles of the Environmental StewardshiP Council
should be allowed to mine within the CarmeVClay community.
K. When mining is complete, the reclamation plan should be initiated quickly to
provide the community with an attractive amenity in accordance with the adopted
reclamation plan. The City can require the posting of reclamation bonds if deemed
necessary. When appropriate, reclamation areas may be dedicated or acquired for
public use as part of the community parks system.
L The city should employ experts, at the expense of the mining company, to review
the applications and mining plans and provide a recommendation to the appropriate
city agency regarding said materials.
S:\Land Use Regulations\Comprehensive Plan\Mining Policies\2003~0l~14 Mining Policies
DRAFT2.doc
1/16/2003
DRAFT Mining Policies for inclusion into the Comprehensive Plan
A. The City of Carmel recognizes the value of having mineral resources located within
its community. These mineral resources are non~renewable natural resources that
should be developed consistent with sound environmental planning to the benefit of
the community.
B. The development of mineral resources benefits the community by providing the
means to create and construct our homes and our infrastructure. Mineral resources
are the backbone of economic development for both private development and public
works projects. By providing these non~renewable natural resources cheaply,
savings are captured by homebuyers looking to move their families to Carmel and in
the cost of infrastructure improvements enjoyed by all residents of the city.
C. Mineral resources can only be extracted where they are located in nature. Therefore,
owners of property where these natural resources are located should be permitted to
develop those resources so long as they do not significantly impact the quality of life
for the rest of the community.
D. .All mining land uses should be comprehensively reviewed to insure that reclamation
of the properties is consistent with the overall comprehensive land use objectives of
the city. Before properties are developed for housing and other permanent uses,
mineral resources on the site should be evaluated first, to ensure that these natural
resources do not become permanently inaccessible.
E. Open space planning within the community should consider existing and proposed
mines as valuable long~term open space candidates after reclamation.
F. .All current and proposed mining activity within Clay Township should be evaluated
based on the following criteria:
1. Environmental impacts
2. Noise impacts
3. Visual impacts
4. Dust
5. Integrity of underground mining
6. Impacts on hydrology and hydrogeology
7. Traffic impacts
8. Reclamation objectives
9. Location of storage Cst processing of materials
10. Buffering from adjacent uses
11. Erosion Control
12. Monitoring and reporting of mining activities
13. Suitability of soils
14. The applicability of mining practices and technology that could minimize
impacts to nearby neighborhoods
15. Surrounding land uses.
S:\Land Use Regulations\Comprehensive Plan\Mining Policies\2003~0l~14 Mining Policies
DRAFT2.doc
1/16/2003
G. Mining should not occur within 300 feet of an existing residential area. The area
between the mine and nearby residential areas should be buffered including, but not
limited to, noise and visual barriers and landscaping such as trees, shrubs and
mounding. The goal of this buffer area is to minimize impacts to nearby residences.
H. No additional subsurface mining should occur north of 106th Street or West of Gray
Road.
1. Mining applications involving blasting should be required to include an isoseisrnic
study that will indicate appropriate techniques and use of technology to mitigate
the impacts of blasting on nearby residential areas. The techniques described in the
study must be employed by the mining company with the approval of the City.
J. Only mining companies that are members of the Environmental Stewardship
Council and have adopted the Guiding Principles of the Environmental StewardshiP Council
should be allowed to mine within the Carmel/Clay community.
K. When mining is complete, the reclamation plan should be initiated quickly to
provide the community with an attractive amenity in accordance with the adopted
reclamation plan. The City can require the posting of reclamation bonds if deemed
necessary. When appropriate, reclamation areas may be dedicated or acquired for
public use as part of the community parks system.
L The city should employ experts, at the expense of the mining company, to review
the applications and mining plans and provide a recommendation to the appropriate
city agency regarding said materials.
S:\Land Use Regulations\Comprehensive Plan\Mining Policies\2003~0l~14 Mining Policies
DRAFT2.doc
1/16/2003
DRAFT Mining Policies for inclusion into the Comprehensive Plan
A. The City of Carmel recognizes the value of having mineral resources located within
its community. These mineral resources are non~renewable natural resources that
should be developed consistent with sound environmental planning to the benefit of
the community.
B. The development of mineral resources benefits the community by providing the
means to create and construct our homes and our infrastructure. Mineral resources
are the backbone of economic development for both private development and public
works projects. By providing these non~renewable natural resources cheaply,
savings are captured by homebuyers looking to move their families to Carmel and in
the cost of infrastructure improvements enjoyed by all residents of the city.
C. Mineral resources can only be extracted where they are located in nature. Therefore,
owners of property where these natural resources are located should be permitted to
develop those resources so long as they do not significantly impact the quality of life
for the rest of the community.
D. All mining land uses should be comprehensively reviewed to insure that reclamation
of the properties is consistent with the overall comprehensive land use objectives of
the city. Before properties are developed for housing and other permanent uses,
mineral resources on the site should be evaluated first, to ensure that these natural
resources do not become permanently inaccessible.
E. Open space planning within the community should consider existing and proposed
mines as valuable long~term open space candidates after reclamation.
F. All current and proposed mining activity within Clay Township should be evaluated
based on the following criteria:
1. Environmental impacts
2. Noise impacts
3. Visual impacts
4. Dust
5. Integrity of underground mining
6. Impacts on hydrology and hydrogeology
7. Traffic impacts
8. Reclamation objectives
9. Location of storage Cst processing of materials
10. Buffering from adjacent uses
11. Erosion Control
12. Monitoring and reporting of mining activities
13. Suitability of soils
14. The applicability of mining practices and technology that could minimize
impacts to nearby neighborhoods
15. Surrounding land uses.
S:\Land Use Regulations\Comprehensive Plan\Mining Policies\2003~0l~14 Mining Pohcies
DRAFT2.doc
;@
u
THOMAS C. YEDLICK
5053 St. Charles Place
Carmel, Indiana 46033
580-1614
o
/
! ..
/''\
,.J,
Rr:r> -f'
.-" ": i ,f- , Vr:f)
{"[,-,,,: 1)0' I.",
1) /.. ,"'1
'J
D(1('1....,
VG.)
February 18, 2003
I
I-
i
I
Paul Spranger, President
Special Study Committee Members:
Ron Houck
Nicholas Kestner
Jerry Chomanczuk
Wayne Wilson
Leo Dierckman
Dan Dutcher
Dianna Knoll
Department of Community Services:
Michael Hollibaugh John Molitor
Ramona Hancock
,.' 1"'".
Re: Special Studies Committee Meeting February 25, 2003
Amendment to the CarmeUClay Zoning Ordinance & Comprehensive Plan -
Mineral Extraction District
At the Special Studies Committee meeting on February 4,2003, the following documents
were distributed:
a Underground Mining ordinance from Boone County, KY
a Sand and Gravel Extraction ordinance from Boone County, KY
a Portion of the Settlement Agreement between the City, Martin Marietta, and
Kingswood
The purpose of the Boone County ordinances ifto provide a point of reference for
development of mineral extraction ordinances for Carmel. A request was made to see the '
entire Settlement Agreement, and in response, the complete document is enclosed.
Comprehensive Plan
The Comprehensive Plan should provide the guidelines for land use development within the
City of Carmel, whether by ordinance or Special Use. As you may be aware, there are also
five Special Use applications pending for filing before the Board of Zoning Appeals. These
applications cover essentially the same uses proposed to be covered by the zoning ordinance
being considered by the Plan Commission.
Under the uncertainty of how these land uses will eventually be considered (i.e. under an
ordinance or as a Special Use), the Plan Commission and the BZA would be best served by
first considering the amendment to the Comprehensive Plan. By first defining mineral
u
o
extraction operations, and then considering their suitability as land uses for inclusion in the
Comprehensive Plan, this approach will serve the development of the ordinance and, should
the pending applications come before the BZA, provide that body the appropriate guidelines
to consider those applications.
Two distinct mineral extraction processes are being considered: 1) sand and gravel by
floating dredge, and 2) underground and surface (open pit) stone mining. Stone mining,
whether underground or surface, involves the use of blasting to breakup the stone for
extraction.
The effects of blasting cannot be entirely contained within the boundaries ofthe property, and
therefore are deserving of special consideration in establishing an adequate buffer against
adverse impact to properties beyond the mine's boundaries. For this reason, open pit mining
within Carmel should be an excluded use, and underground blasting permitted only where the
operator can demonstrate there will not be an adverse impact on the surrounding residential
community.
To this"(md, a draft Mining Policies for Inclusion into the Comvrehensive Plan is enclosed for
your consideration. These policies recognize that all mining is not the same, and that sand
and gravel and stone mining need to be considered separately. This is much the same as
Carmel's current residential and business land use ordinances in which there are different
zoning districts based on density, intensity, and/or business use. There should not be a
suggestion within the Comprehensive Plan, or the zoning regulations themselves, that sand
and gravel extraction and stone mining must exist within the same zoning district.
Thank you for your consideration,
<J:.. ~
Tom Yedlick
Cc: Mayor Brainard
Greg Sovas, Spectra Environmental
John Tiberi, Martin Marietta Aggregates
@
Prepared by T. Yedlick 2-16-03
~.
Mining Policies for Inclusion into the Comprehensive Plan
A. The City recognizes that mineral resources exist within its community. These mineral
resources exist in limited geographic locations, generally along the White River.
B. Mineral resources can only be extracted where they are located in nature. Therefore, owners
of property where these natural resources are located should be permitted to develop those
resources only so long as they do not adversely}mpact the quality of life for the rest of the
community.
~.. \ K Recent annexation of land containing significant mineral resources provides the City with the
~\,,~ t).. oppo~ty to r~~late :x~sting mining as well as set standards for new mining and
:~IYJ expanslOn of eXIsting ffilmng.
, lift D. New land for mineral extraction, or expansion of existing mining, should be permitted only
\ as long as it does not adversely impact surrounding land uses with due regard to public
. .,he~th, safety, and welfare including property damage by way of diminution of property
value.
@
@1.
E. Mineral resources consist principally of sand and gravel (found on the surface) and
limestone. Stone mining, whether underground or surface, involves the use of blasting to
breakup the stone for extraqtion. Since sand and gravel is generally extracted by dredging
and limestone is extracted by blasting, separate criteria and zoning districts should be
established for each extraction process.
F. The effects of blasting cannot be entirely contained within the boundaries of the property,
and therefore are deserving of special consideration in establishing an adequate buffer. The
impact of open pit blasting can only be adequately buffered by distance. Extraction of
mineral resources (limestone) by blasting (especially open pit) in close proximity to
residential districts is inherently incompatible with residential uses. Open pit mining within
Carmel should be an excluded use, and underground blasting permitted only where the
operator can demonstrate there will not be an adverse impact on the surrounding residential
community.
G. Zoning ordinances and mining regulations should be no less restrictive than exist in any other
jurisdiction a mining operator applies to operate, and should provide adequate buffer from
residential districts.
H. In consideration of new mining or expansion of existing mining, any mining operations
currently existing as non-conforming uses should be required to comply with the City's
mining regulations at the time expansion or rezone is requested.
All current and proposed mining activity within Clay Township should be evaluated based on
the following criteria:
1. Quantity of reserves committed to mining
2. Environmental impacts
Prepared by T. Yedlick 2-16-03
3. Noise impacts
4. Visual impacts
5. Dust
6. Integrity of underground mining
7. Impacts on hydrology and hydrogeology
8. Traffic impacts
9. Reclamation objectives
10. Location of storage and processing materials
11. Buffering from adjacent uses
12. Erosion control
13. Monitoring and reporting of mining activities
14. Suitability of soils
15. The applicability of mining practices and technology that could minimize impacts t
nearby neighborhoods
16. Surrounding land uses
,/
......;... ~"
,..
.'
~
Preliminary Comments
on
Draft Mining Policies for the Comprehensive Plan
And
Proposed Zoning Ordinance
for Mineral Extraction Districts
Submitted to the Special Studies Committee of
The Carmel-Clay Plan Commission
By the Mining Committee of the
Kingswood Homeowners Association
February 17, 2003
;;
PRELIMINARY COMMENTS
ON
DRAFT MINING POLICIES PROPOSED FOR THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
AND
PROPOSED ZONING ORDINANCE FOR MINERAL EXTRACTION DISTRICTS
Introductory Remarks
The following comments are offered to the Special Studies Committee of the Carmel-
Clay Plan Commission (as well as to the Plan Commission as a whole) with respect to two
pending and interrelated proposals: (1) the draft Mining Policies for inclusion in the
Comprehensive Plan; and (2) the proposed ordinance to amend the Carmel-Clay Zoning
Ordinance to establish procedures and criteria for proposals to rezone parcels for extraction of
mineral resources. These comments are provided by the Mining Committee of the Kingswood
Homeowners Association ("KHA").
The draft mining policies and proposed zoning ordinance have potential for providing
adequate protection to landowners within the City of Carmel in addressing the substantial
property impacts associated with proposals to create mineral extraction districts. However, for
that potential to be realized, it is firmly believed by our committee that both documents need to
be enhanced and strengthened in critical aspects to provide adequate tools to the Plan
Commission for its review of such proposals. Among these key aspects are: (i) an explicit
recognition of the inherent incompatibilities between mining operations and certain other land
uses, (ii) the need for adequate buffering between such incompatible uses; and (iii) the need for a
hydrogeologic study of the potential impacts of the proposed district on groundwater availability
to surrounding properties and to public water supplies. These items along with other
suggestions and comments are discussed in detail in Section I and Section II below.
In addition, as the Special Studies Committee develops recommendations on the draft
Mining Policies and the proposed ordinance, we urge the Committee to give strong emphasis to
the characteristics and assets of the City of Carmel that have contributed to its outstanding
position among Indiana communities. While the City is far more than its residential districts,
nonetheless, it is the quality, beauty, and other supportive amenities of its residential areas that
have become the hallmark that distinguishes Carmel from other communities of this state and
many others.
In contrast, heavy industry, which includes mining or mineral extraction, is at most a
minor aspect of the Carmel community and, we would anticipate, not a principal emphasis for
future development.
Thus, we would hope and expect that this Committee will be acutely sensitive to the
innate incompatibilities between residential areas and proposed mining operations and to the
need for criteria to be applied to future rezoning proposals that will prevent juxtapositions of
such incompatible uses.
..,
.
@C.
@D.
Preliminary Comments of Kings wood Mining Committee
February 17,2003
Draft Mining Policies and
ME-I Zoning Ordinance
SECTION I
Preliminary Comments on
Draft Mining Policies Proposed for Inclusion in the Comprehensive Plan
The following preliminary comments, including proposed revisions, are offered by the
Mining Committee of the Kingswood Homeowners Association with respect to draft Mining
Policies that have been proposed to the Carmel-Clay Plan Commission for inclusion within the
Commission's Comprehensive Plan:
A.
The City of Carmel recognizes the value of having mineral resources located within its
community. These mineral resources are non-renewable natural resources that mav be
considered for development subiect to compatibility with nearby existine uses and
akeula ee ae,\T@lepea eeRBistem '\~,-itl1 sound environmental planning to the benefit of the
community.
B.
It is also reco~mized by the City of Carmel that certain land uses are inherently
incompatible with minine operations. These include residential. commercial. and
!!overnmental services. as examples. Substantial bufferine between such land uses
and a proposed minine district, as described in Item F. is necessary to satisfactorily
miti!!ate the incompatibility.
B.
The ae~:elepme:at €If mmeml FeBeureeB eeRdits the eelIlmtiftity ey pre7imRg the meanB te
ereate ana eellBwet eur hemeB ma eur inffaawetUfe. Mmeral feBeureeB we the
eaekeeRe ef eeeRemle ae';elepmem :wr eeth pFiy;ate ae.:elepm€lRt ana pueli€l ',';erks
prej€letB. By preTfilling th€lB€l ReR r€lR€lT.yaele RaMal reBellf€l€lS eh€lapl~;, BW;ingS we
€lapmr€la e~; hem€leUj'erB leelBRg te me';€l th€lir families te C8.fm€l1 ana in th€l €l€lBt €If
iRffastrtietUfe impr€ly;emeRta €lRj e~'€la ey all resia€lRtB €If the €lity.
c.
Mineral r€lSellfeeS eRR €lRI)' e€l errtra€lt€la ','\'Dele tl1€lY are leeatea iR Ra~€l. Ther€l:Wf€l,
eTl.lIl€lf8 €If pftJfHilFty T;;.k8l'e theBe RaMal re8€lllfe€lB we leeatea sheula ee permitted te
a@T;elep these FeseuF0es Be leRg aB they ae llet BigmIieantl~' impaet the tiuality €If life f-€lr
1ft€l F€lBt €If the eemmlmitJ'.
Given the permanency and substantial nature of minin!! impacts on affected lands.
even after reclamation, all proposed mining land uses should be comprehensively
reviewed to insure that potential impacts on eroundwater supplies durin!! minine
operations and the limited land use options after reclamation of the properties is
consistent with the overall comprehensive land use objectives of the city. Be:wr€l
prep€WtieB ale ae~:eleped fer Reusing ana ether perm.anem use8, min€lral reBem-ees en tft8
Bite BReula ee e':akulted mst, t€l e1l8l:H"e that these llamral leS€lm-eeB ae n€lt e€le€lme
p€lFmRReRtly maeeeBsmle.
Open space planning within the community should consider existing and proposed mines
as T;alu8.elelong-term open space candidates after reclamation.
Preliminary Comments of Kings wood Mining Committee
February 17, 2003
@E.
(il-
~G.
(P'
f~
0.
~J.
Draft Mining Policies and
ME-1 Zoning Ordinance
..;
All current and proposed mining activity within Clay Township should be evaluated
based on the following criteria:
1. Environmental impacts
2. Noise impacts
3. Vibrational/seismic impacts
4. Visual impacts
5. Dust
6. Integrity of underground mining
7. Impacts on hydrology and hydrogeology
8. Traffic impacts
9. Reclamation objectives
10. Location of storage & processing of materials
11. Buffering from adjacent uses
12. Erosion Control
13. Monitoring and reporting of mining activities
14. Suitability of soils
15. The applicability of mining practices and technology that could minimize impacts
to nearby neighborhoods
16. Surrounding land uses.
Surface minim! ~1mmg should not occur within 3.000 WG feet of incompatible land
uses (such as an existing residential area). Undere:round minine: should not occur
within 2.500 feet of incompatible land uses. The area between the mine and nearby
residential areas should be buffered including, but not limited to, noise and visual barriers
and landscaping such as trees, shrubs and mounding, and/or other. more compatible
uses. such as recreational. ae:ricultural. or other open space uses. The goal of this
buffer area is to minimize impacts to nearby residences.
No additional subsurface mining should occur north of 106th Street or West of Gray
Road. No expansion should occur of the existine: open pit mine located in the area
bounded by 106tb Street. Gray Road. and Hazel Dell Parkway.
Mining applications involving blasting should be required to include an isoseismic study
that will indicate appropriate techniques and use oftechnology to adequately mitigate
the impacts of blasting on nearby residential areas !Q.M to prevent property damae:e.
nuisance conditions. and diminution of property values. The techniques described in
the study must be employed by the mining company with the approval of the City.
Only mining companies that are members of the Environmental Stewardship Council and
have adopted the Guiding Principles of the Environmental Stewardship Council should
be allowed to mine within the Carmel/Clay community. [17]
When mining is complete, the reclamation plan should be initiated quickly to provide the
community with an attractive amenity in accordance with the adopted reclamation plan.
The City can require the posting of reclamation bonds if deemed necessary. When
2
Preliminary Comments of Kingswood Mining Committee
February 17,2003
Draft Mining Policies and
ME-l Zoning Ordinance
appropriate, reclamation areas may be dedicated or acquired for public use as part of the
community parks system.
K.
The City should select and employ independent experts, at tl1€l 81~8l1Be €If the mining
€l€lmpanj', to review the applications and mining plans and provide a recommendation to
the appropriate city agency regarding said materials. Application fees for rezonin~ of
land to minin~ use can be specified which are adequate to defray expenses of such
experts.
I~
SECTION II
Preliminay Comments on Proposed Zoning Ordinance
for Mineral Extraction Districts
The following preliminary comments, including proposed revisions, are offered by the Mining
Committee of the Kingswood Homeowners Association with respect to a proposed Zoning
Ordinance for Mineral Extraction Districts that has been proposed to the Carmel-Clay Plan
Commission:
Definitions: The following revisions and additions are proposed:
"Air Blast" (also known as "air overpressure") means airborne shock waves resulting from the
detonation of explosives. . .
Rationale: insertion of the modifier "shock" seems to better describe the airborne waves which
result from detonation of explosives commensurate with practical experience,
"Compatible Land Use" means any existin~ land use (i) inherentlv compatible with minin~
and/or (m that requires a minimum public or private investment in structures and/or other
real estate improvements and which may accommodate minin~ in a proximate location
because of the relative economic value of the land and its improvements. Examples of such
uses may include. but shall not be limited to~ very low density residential. ~eo~raphicallv
extensive but low impact industrial. recreational. a~ricultural. silvicultural. and open space
~
Rationale: Addition of this definition for "Compatible Land Use" as well as the corresponding
obverse term "Incompatible Land Use J1 are recommended as helpful terms in addressing where
ME-l districts should be considered or where they should not.
"Extraction of Mineral Resources (EMR)" means the removal of Minerals from surface or
underground eJitraetl€lll €If deposits, whether of a consolidated or unconsolidated nature. and
re~ardless of the particular means emploved. The term includes, without limitation. the
3
. Preliminary Comments of Kingswood Mining Committee
February 17,2003
Draft Mining Policies and
ME-l Zoning Ordinance
'j
removal of Overburden. preparatory activities such as drilline or bias tine. and mechanical
operations such as use of aueers. draelines. conveyors. or dredees. wsdgiIlg, drilliIlg,
blasting, ana rSHi€I':al ef O\'ocblifaSIl. . . . .
Rationale: This term in the current proposed Ordinance seems unclear and circular in its form.
It is suggested that the term be clarified as proposed above.
"Incompatible Land Use" means any existine land use (i) inherently incompatible with
minim! as a result of. e.e.. the nuisance impacts of minine on such use and/or (m that
requires public or private investment in structures. land improvements. and landscapine
and which may preclude minine because of the ereater economic value of the land and its
improvements. Examples of such uses include. but shall not be limited to. hieh density
residential. low density residential with hieh unit value. public facilities. eeoeraphically
limited but hieh impact industrial. and commercial.
Rationale: see the comment above for "Compatible Land Use".
"Reclamation" means the process of land treatment that minimizes surface or eround water
deeradation. fueitive dust. damaee to aquatic or wildlife habitat. floodine. erosion. and
other adverse effects from surface minine operations. includine surface effects incidental to
undereround mines. so that mined lands are reclaimed to a usable condition which is
readily adaptable for alternate land uses and creates no daneer to public health or safety.
The process may extend to affected lands surroundine mined lands. and may require
bacIUilline. eradine. recontourine. topsoil replacement. reveeetation. soil compaction.
stabilization. and/or other measures. ths seIlaitienmg efths lIm.a liS sa fer an Opsfatien as
pFe-;iasa in the ReelamatieIl PlIm.
Rationale: the currently proposed definition is too uninformative and nondescriptive and is
circular with the proposed definition of Reclamation Plan.
"Sand and Gravel Extraction" means the extraction of sand and gravel deposits by Surface
Mining through the use of an slsstIem.sally pe,-:srs€l ! floating dredge.
Rationale: it is unclear what is meant by an "electronically powered" floating dredge and use
of such a qualifier also seems unnecessarily limiting. It should be sufficient for definitional
purposes to refer to use of a floating dredge without describing the precise means of powering of
the dredging operation.
"Stone Mining", "Subsurface Mining", and "Surface Mining" should be better correlated to the
principal definition of "Extraction of Mineral Resources". For example, "Stone Mining" could
be defined as "an EMR Operation involving the removal of limestone or related minerals from
surface or underground deposits, typically through blasting operations."
4
Preliminary Comments of Kingswood Mining Committee
February 17,2003
Draft Mining Policies and
ME-I Zoning Ordinance
Rationale: to facilitate clarity and minimize interpretive questions that may arise concerning
the interaction of the various definitional terms.
20I.0.1 Purpose and Intent
The purpose of the ME-I/Mineral Extraction District is to create and protect areas for \
extraction of mineral resources and related processing operations while adeauately
mitigating the environmental and nuisance impacts. This district is intended to ensure
proper design, placement and grouping of these industries within the community so as not
to create a nuisance to other surrounding land uses. L8ftd tEl h@ plaeed in this distflet is
illteftaed tEl ha','e maj€lf tnms}J€lFtati€lR faeiliti8s Feadilj" a':ailahle. This district sll€luId
must be buffered adeauately a5 lmlell a5 p€lssi@le from established. as well as
undeveloped, @€lIDm@I@ial 8ftd residential districts with incompatible land uses
(includin!!. e.!!.. commercial and residential districts). }T€l },iE I :Dis'tri@t slltHlld h@
Bleated ".7ithin thre@ llWlM@d feet (399') Elf 8ft @stahlish@d €lf platted r@sideRtial
8lihai':ision. Proposed ME-l Districts must be demonstrated to not threaten critical
environmental impacts associated with minin!! operations. Land to be placed in
this district is intended to have maior transportation facilities readily available.
Vehicular traffic serving the ME-I District should not be routed into or through a
residential development.
Additional Comments altd Rationale:
. In the first sentence, the reference to mitigating the environmental and nuisance impacts
must be modified by insertion ofa modifier "adequately" or "appropriately".
. The proposed statement of purpose and intent nominally recognizes the critical importance
of the ordinance in precluding the creation of a nuisance to other surrounding land uses.
The remainder of the proposed ordinance is not adequate to achieve this stated purpose.
. The draft's proposed requirement to establish buffering between zoned ME districts and
undeveloped commercial and residential districts is commendable. The question of practical
importance is how much buffering is adequate? As expressed in the introductory comments,
it is preferable to use the terminology of "Incompatible Land Use" already implied by the
proposed language of this section concerning the need for buffering from residential and
commercial uses. Moreover, the need for adequate buffering is all the more acute with
respect to existing districts with incompatible uses.
. A 300-foot buffer would be required between a ME-l District and an established or platted
residential subdivision. This is woefully inadequate to prevent nuisance. A minimum buffer
of2,500feet should be requiredfrom the nearest boundary of an established or platted
residential subdivision or other district of incompatible use.
. Specific buffering requirements should not be set forth in this general purpose section but
should be stated in a separate ordinance section dedicated to such substantive provisions.
. An environmental review should be required which demonstrates that critical adverse
impacts - such as substantial dewatering of critical aquifers for surrounding land uses
(including but not limited to municipal utility uses) - will not be threatened by the proposed
ME-l district.
5
Preliminary Comments of Kingswood Mining Committee
February 17, 2003
Draft Mining Policies and
ME-I Zoning Ordinance
201.1 Permitted Uses.
Excluded Uses
Some of the proposed excluded uses seem superfluous. It would not seem that a specific use
would need to be listed for exclusion unless it first were ostensibly included within the general
scope of one of the permitted uses. As an example, it makes sense to exclude "Related
Industries" since those activities are directly derivative to EMR operations. Similarly, it may
make sense to list "Slaughtering" as an exclusion since it could be viewed as closely affiliated
with or a part of "Agricultural operations" (although this may be resolved by existing definitions
of these terms found elsewhere). However, for activities like "Fertilizer manufacturing," "Stock
yards," "Leather curing and tanning," "Refining or manufacturing of petroleum products," etc.,
which could not reasonably be construed as contained within one of the permitted uses, there
would seem to be no reason to list such activities as Excluded Uses. The only possible basis
for designating "Disposal of radioactive materials" as an Excluded Use would be for naturally
occurring radioactive materials (NORM) that might be included within the overburden or the
strata from which minerals were extracted during permitted mining operations. Whether this
would be relevant depends on whether NORM actually occurs within the limestone formations
located in the City of Carmel.
201.5.2 Minimum Buffers
Minimum buffers between an ME-I District and other land uses shall be
provided and maintained as specified in the followinl! table:
ME-I District Type
Minimum Buffer
From Incompatible
Land Uses
Minimum Buffer
From Compatible
Land Uses
General 1
Process in I! Operations2
Sand & Gravel
Extraction3
Stone Mininl!4
3.000 ft
2.500 ft.
Oft
Oft.
3.000 ft.
2.500 ft.
Oft.
Oft.
1 ME-I District with no restriction on type of operations per commitments
2 ME-I District restricted throul!h commitments to specific mineral processinl!
operations
3 ME-I District restricted throul!h commitments to Sand and Gravel Extraction
4 ME-I District restricted throul!h commitments to Stone Mininl!
Rationale: drawing upon the introductory concepts that certain land uses, such as, e.g., high
density residential, low density residential with high unit value, or retail, are inherently
6
. Preliminary Comments of Kingswood Mining Committee
February 17,2003
Draft Mining Policies and
ME-I Zoning Ordinance
incompatible with mineral extraction operations, it is logical to incorporate minimum buffer
zone requirements into the ordinance to provide adequate separation from a mineral extraction
district to satisfactorily mitigate the incompatibility. Conversely, no buffer would be required
between a ME-l District and compatible land uses. It is strongly urged that this concept must be
an indispensable element of the proposed ordinance. We interpret the minimum side and rear
yard specifications of the proposed ordinance as directed to this purpose. However, it seems
that a buffer zone more directly meets the intended purpose and is less burdensome on a
proposed mining operation. The proponent of the proposed mining district is not required to
own or control the minimum buffer zone, which by definition would be outside the ME-l District.
Rather, the buffer zones simply must be honored in establishment of the boundaries of a ME-l
District. In contrast, the owner of the mining operation would be required, presumably, to own
or control the side and rear yard areas and may have difficulty in putting large dimension side
and rear yards to productive use. In addition, the proposed ordinance does not treat front yards
in the same manner as side and rear yards, which is myopic. A mining operation would have
no less adverse impact on incompatible land uses located across a public thoroughfare from the
mining operation than such uses located to the side or rear of the mining operation.
20I.5.~ Minimum Front Yard [no comments]
20I.5.~ Minimum Side and Rear Yard
Use
Minimum Side Yard
Setback Frem ~A.,ll Residential
Uses er Diatflets (Feet)
Minimum Rear Yard
Setback gem .\U Retail ef
Cemmereial Distflets (Feet)
Processing Operations
Sand & Gravel
Extraction
Stone Mining
300 +;ooG
150 ~
300
300 ~
150
150
Rationale: Since buffering objectives are now addressed through a separate buffer section
(Section 201.5.2), this section should revert to the conventional use of side and rear yard setback
distances. The above proposals may need revision to achieve consistency with other existing
land use district specifications.
201.7 Criteria for Approval:
201.7.1 Zoning.
1. The use of any land for the Extraction of Mineral Resources (EMR) shall
be permitted only in the ME-I District where EMR is listed as a
Permitted Use. Ift atitiitiell, all ~11R O}}eratie118 shall 013 Bliojeet te
7
; Preliminary Comments of Kings wood Mining Committee
February 17,2003
Draft Mining Policies and
ME-l Zoning Ordinance
.
D€>:@18j3lR@llt Plan &fJfJI87al13y the CemmissieR as pTe':hl@t! ill
S@@ti81129I.g.
2. The proposal shall not specify any Excluded Uses within the
proposed ME-I District.
3. All minimum buffer requirements of Section 201.5.2 shall be met for
the proposed ME-I District.
4. Maior land transportation facilities must be readily available and
accessible to the proposed ME-I District.
5. A Hvdrol!eolol!ic Study demonstrates that the impact of EMR
Operations on aquifers within the proposed ME-I District and
surroundinl! parcels will not cause sil!Dificant adverse effects
upon Quantity or Quality of l!round water available to
surroundinl! property owners or public water utilities.
6. All proposed EMR Operations shall be subject to Development Plan
approval by the Commission as provided in Section 20I.8
7. Other factors that are appropriate under this Ordinance or the
Comprehensive Plan.
Rationale: This section as proposed does not appear to provide any substantive criteria by
which the Commission would approve or deny a proposal for rezoning. Thus, several specific
criteria are proposed for consideration by the Commission, including among others
requirements that: (i) the proposal comply with the Ordinance's buffer provisions; (ii) adequate
transporation facilities are available and accessible to the proposed district; (iii) a
hydrogeologie study demonstrates that mining operations at the proposed district will not cause
a significant adverse effect on quantity or quality of ground water available to surrounding
property owners or public utilities; and (iv) a Development Plan is submitted which is
approvable. The hydrogeologic study deserves highlighting as a specific criterion for approval
apart from other environmentally related issues addressed by commitments in a development
plan since the potential adverse impacts of a mining operation on ground water quantity and
quality should be considered as a potentially significant locational factor for a ME-l District
vis-a-vis existing uses and planned uses under development at nearby properties.
20I.7.2 Commitments by Owner. In the case of a rezone proposal which will also
necessitate approval of a Development Plan (DP) fOT a new or
expanded EMR Operation, the Council shall, before approving such
rezone, require the applicant to make written Commitments
respecting the followinl! items. which Commitments shall
demonstrate at minimum compliance with any ordinance of the
. City which rel!Ulates EMR Operations as well as applicable state
and federal laws:
8
Preliminary Comments of Kingswood Mining Committee
February 17, 2003
Draft Mining Policies and
ME-1 Zoning Ordinance
(a) methods of operation;
(b) hours of operation;
(c) .
Rationale: For clarity, this section should expressly state that the commitments to be provided
in a Development Plan must show compliance with the City's ordinance regulating mining
operations as well as with state and federal law.
201.8 Development Plan - Submittal Requirements:
4. Dust Control. The application must include a list of equipment to be used for
dust abatement, along with a written summary of the applicant's fugitive
dust requirements pursuant to current rules of the Indiana Air Pollution
Control Board Department ef EWiir€lnmental MaDagemem and the United
States Environmental Protection Agency.
Rationale for proposed revision: The reference to the state agency which establishes rules for
control of fugitive dust should be corrected.
7. Blasting. [Future comments will be provided on this topic.}
9. Surface and Ground Water Pollution Control. The application must include:!!l a
summary of the applicant's proposed compliance with all re2ulatorv
reauirements for water pollution mana2ement. dischar2e and monitoring
ana ';nwte Illm.almg feqmremeftt8 (such as but not limited to the Indiana
Department of Environmental Management's ana the Unite a States .
En7inmmental J?r€lteeti€ln ~A.<g8ney National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System (NPDES) permit pr02ram and the Indiana Water Pollution
Control Board's 2roundwater standards); 00 the details of any expected
use or disturbance of any lakes, ponds, streams, rivers, 0F creeks, and/or
under2round aauifers. or the creation of any dikes, impoundments.
and ~ the details of any proposed use of underground storage tanks.
Rationale: Revisions are proposed for clarification, to establish informational requirements
pertaining to ground water impacts, and to delete references to waste handling in favor of a
separate paragraph on that topic as provided below.
9
Preliminary Comments of Kingswood Mining Committee
February 17,2003
Draft Mining Policies and
ME-I Zoning Ordinance
10. Solid Waste Manaeement. The application must include a summary of the
applicant's proposed compliance with all reeulatorv reauirements
pertainine to the manaeement of solid and hazardous wastes (includine
but not necessarily limited to those of the Indiana Solid Waste
Manaeement Board and the IDEM).
Rationale: This proposed paragraph addresses another aspect of potential environmental
impacts from the EMR Operations of the propoed district.
11. Reclamation Plan. The application must include a written description of a
Reclamation Plan that promotes. . . .
201.9 Reclamation - Minimum Performance Standards:
3. Slopes. All spoil materials shall be placed. .. A final stable slope of
unconsolidated material shall less (numerically) than a ratio of one foot
vertical to 3 feet horizontal 0:3) t8 8lUl fe8t 78Fti8al (3:1). Final reclaimed
slopes steeper than 1 :3 ~ may be permitted if. . . .
Rationale for proposed revision: The revisions are proposed for clarification of the technical
meaning of the phrase that the "final. . . slope. .. shall be less than. . . "
7. Berms. [Thisparagraph does not include any specifications for minimum height
of berms to be constructed in compliance with the ordinance. It seems
reasonable that a minimum height specification should be included.]
201.13 Transitional Provisions.
This Section applies to any application for a special use to authorize mineral extraction ( .
. . ) which is pending before the Board on the effective date of this amendatory ordinance.
The applicant or any interested party may request, within sixty (60) days after the
effective date of thisamendatorv ordinance. that the Board treat such a special use
application as if it were a proposal to rezone the subj ect parcel to the ME-I Mineral
Extraction District filed pursuant to Section 201.7 above. If the Board grants such a
request, in its sole discretion. the application shall then be transferred . . . This SEBtitm
29!.! 3 Ell'fpir8s 811@ j"88.f K€!m the @ffe@tiv@ aat@ €If this anl@11aat€!I)" ~mlmlm.8@.
Rationale for proposed revisions: To avoid uncertainty in the implementation of this Section, it
is recommended that a specific timeframe (e.g., 30 days) be established for submittal of requests
to reconfigure pending special use applications as a proposal to rezone. The insertion of
express reference to the Board's discretion in acting upon requests under this Section is
10
Preliminary Comments of Kingswood Mining Committee
February 17, 2003
Draft Mining Policies and
ME-l Zoning Ordinance
i'
probably implied but is more clear with the explicit statement. Also, in order to avert potential
interpretative issues, it is recommended that the one-year expiration provision be deleted.
Otherwise, it is certainly possible that a party could mount a judicial challenge to an action by
the Board granting a request to consider a pending application as a rezone proposal which
might take in excess of the one-year period to resolve. If this Section has expired in the
meantime, questions could arise as to what ultimate disposition could be made of the special use
application.
11
/
....
@
u
IC~
SM
f
LEGAL a BUSIN ESS ADVISORS
VIA E-
WRlTER'SDIRECTNUMBER: (317) 236-2319
DIRECT FAX: (317) 592-4788
INTERNET: weiss@icemiller.com
RE: Proposed Ordinance Regarding Extraction of Mineral Resources
Ladies and Gentlemen:
As you will recall, we are counsel to Martin Marietta Materials, Inc. ("Martin Marietta").
We are writing in respect of the ordinance proposed by the Department of Community Services
(the "Department") in respect of the extraction of mineral resources within the City of Carmel
and Clay Township. Our comments in respect of this proposed ordinance should be considered
in light ofthe following. To the knowledge of Martin Marietta, the property owned and/or leased
by Martin Marietta both north and south of 106th Street along Hazel Dell Parkway are the only
properties within the jurisdiction of the City of Carmel from which one may reasonably expect to
commercially extract mineral resources. All such area controlled by Martin Marietta is situated
within zoning districts that currently permit the extraction of mineral resources pursuant to
special use permits. In addition to permits under which Martin Marietta currently operates,
Martin Marietta has filed five separate applications for special use permits to extract mineral
resources that are situated on or under such properties. Thus, it appears that the sole purpose of
the proposed ordinance is to govern land that is presently owned and/or controlled by Martin
Marietta. This seems to be inappropriate for the following reasons. First, a broad zoning
ordinance should not be directed toward one particular operator. In addition, because the
operations of Martin Marietta are either covered by existing permits or permits sought under
pending applications, the proposed ordinance will not, absent a voluntary agreement in respect
thereto, govern Martin Marietta. This is because Martin Marietta rights are vested with respect
to existing operations and those anticipated by the pending applications.
,
The existing special use ordinance expressly favors the issuance of permits with respect
to the extraction of mineral resources. Such special use ordinance requires Martin. Marietta to
address various operational and development standards. Thus, the existing ordinance is adequate
to address all reasonable concerns of the Department and the community with respect to existing
and proposed mining operations by Martin Marietta. The existing ordinance, however, mandates
the issuance of a special use permit following the demonstration by the applicant of compliance.
The proposed ordinance works in a markedly different fashion. Specifically, the proposed
One American Square I Box 820011 Indianapolis, IN 46282-00021 Phone: (317) 236-2100 I Fax: (317) 236-22191 www.icemiller.com
Indianapolis I Chicago I Washington DC
February 21, 2003
Page 2
o
o
'i.
ordinance would change the structure from an obligation of the BZA to issue, the special use
permit upon request following demonstration of compliance, ~9. adiscrdionary procedure
whereby the Plan Commission and/or the City Council could refuse to'ieither rezone the property
to the mineral district and/or refuse to approve the proposed development plan for the mining
operation based on wholly subjective standards. In light of the propose~ change in the structure
of addressing the extraction of mineral resources from Martin Marietta's property, we find
ourselves in the position of being unable to support the proposed ordinance in its current fashion.
In short, we believe the same is unnecessary and directed at terminating Martin Marietta's
existing, vested rights to extract mineral resources. In this regard, we refer you to Section 20
I.13 of the proposed ordinance, as well as the second paragraph of the Department's Summary of
Key Provisions of the Proposed Mineral Extraction District (ME-I) which was submitted by Mr.
Hollibaugh at your meeting held on February 3,2003. The aforementioned provision relating to
"Transitional Provisions" and the overview by the Department suggest a goal of regulating
existing operations under the new zoning ordinance and transitioning the pending applications
for special use permits to a request to rezone the property. As noted above, these are different
structures with different standards. Martin Marietta is unwilling to waive its rights under the
existing ordinance with respect to both the existing operations and the pending applications.
As you no doubt realize, the backdrop to this proposed ordinance is the concern of the
Kingswood Neighborhood Association (the "Association") in respect of existing and proposed
expansion of Martin Marietta's mining operations. The Association and some of its more vocal
members choose to ignore the fact that Martin Marietta and its predecessors have mined in the
immediate area for many, many years. No one in Kingswood could reasonably claim that they
purchased their homes without knowledge of the adjacent mine operations.
The extraction of mineral resources from the Mueller Property was and is reasonably
foreseeable and consistent with the natural development pattern of the existing mine. The
Mueller Properties are situated between Martin Marietta's existing mining operations along
Hazel Dell Parkway. The extension of the mines to meet one another is obvious. The proposed
mining operations will be no closer to Kingswood and other neighborhoods than that which
presently exist along the common eastern border of the Kingswood neighborhood. The impacts
from mining on the Mueller Property will be no greater than that which is presently experienced.
Once again, this is a situation where the neighborhood moved to the mine.
Our general comments with respect to the proposed ordinance are as follows. First, the
proposed ordinance oversteps its jurisdictional limits with respect to certain operational and/or
development standard issues. For example, discharges to water, including erosion control, are
governed by the Federal Clean Water Act under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System (NPDES) permit program and the Indiana Department of Environmental Management
(IDEM). The regulation of underground storage tanks is addressed under the federal Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) as administered by IDEM. The handling of explosive
materials is governed by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Fire Arms. Fugitive dust is
governed by IDEM. Clearly, the standards for the items are already regulated and should not be
subject to additional regulation by the City. With all due respect, particularly in light of the
I
,
February 21, 2003
Page 3
o
o
subjective evaluation standards under the proposed ordinance, the City internally lacks the
expertise and staffing to address all of these very technical issues. These issues are more
appropriately addressed by governing bodies which have the experience and resources to
appropriately regulate the same.
The proposed ordinance would eliminate mining as a permitted use in all existing zoning
districts except the proposed ME-I District. There are no proposed changes to the zoning map( s)
that would make any property within the City of Carmel or Clay Township rezoned to the ME-I
District. Thus, all existing mining operations of Martin Marietta would be deemed to be legally
existing, non-conforming uses. This is unfair and, once again, an inappropriate taking. of vested
rights. Moreover, even if the City were to simultaneously rezone the subject properties to the
ME-I District, that would not resolve the problem unless the existing mining operations were
exempt from the proposed development plan requirements.
Clearly, the "Related Industry" activities should be a permitted use as opposed to an
excluded use under proposed Section 20 I.I. Further, the minimum setback requirements as
proposed are excessive and the loading berth requirements seem inappropriate in the context of a
mine (see Section 20 I.6.). The proposed development plan submittals are excessive, and the
information sought with respect to internal roadways seem of no consequence to the City. In the
context of development standards and setbacks, it seems to us that the focus should be upon the
impact to the adjoining owners (i.e. landscaping buffers, noise levels at the perimeter of the
property, glare [light pollution effecting adjoining property owners], and vibration at the
perimeter of the property and beyond), as opposed to static setbacks that bear no relationship to
external impacts. For example, the proposed ordinance anticipates a substantial berm with
landscaping along the perimeter of the property. In light of such visual barrier, what would be
the purpose of a minimum 2,500 foot setback from a stone mining operation? Section 20 I.1O
suggests that the perimeter landscaping should be installed prior to the issuance of a "Certificate
of Occupancy". Absent the construction of additional buildings, it is not likely that there would
be any structure that would justify the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. While Chart 8 in
the proposed ordinance appears to address maximum allowed noise levels, they appear to be ill
conceived and un-interpretable.
In conclusion, we believe that the issues before you are quite complex, involve various
vested rights in favor of Martin Marietta, and that the proposed zoning ordinance is probably not
necessary and is certainly unworkable in its present form. To the extent that you intend to
proceed forward with the proposed ordinance, we suggest that you review and harmonize the
same with the proposed mineral extraction regulations that are presently being considered by the
City Council.
Our previous efforts to assist the City in respect of a proposed ordinance have been
publicly criticized. As a result, we are concerned that any effort to provide a detailed set of
comments to the proposed ordinance would be treated in a like fashion. We, nonetheless, refer
you to the draft ordinance that was previously submitted by Martin Marietta for a comparison to
an approach which we believe would better serve the City of Carmel.
I
February 21,2003
Page 4
o
o
(
Thank you for your time and consideration of the foregoing.
Very truly yours,
ICE MILLER
Zefr A. Weiss
Zeff A. Weiss
ZAW/sd
cc: John Tiberi (via e-mail)
Yvonne Bailey, Esq. (via e-mail)
Wayne Phears, Esq. (via e-mail)
John Molitor, Esq. (via e-mail)
Gene Lausch, Esq. (via e-mail)
Mike Hollibaugh (via e-mail)
Carmel Plan Commissioners (via e-mail)
Ms. Luci Snyder, President - City Council (via e-mail)
INDY 1123578vl
MAR-24-m3 18.11 PROM. PHEARS AND MOLDOVAN
IC. ?7m2S3S715
PACE 2
@
PHEARS 6) MOLDOVAN
~ MJlfNIUMI' 'l'C~IlINO ~.'IIOIlAL COIrClR A'fIOIlIS
ATlORNItYS AT LAW
H. WAYNII'tIl...1I.I
Vfc;1OR L MOLtlQVAN
r"$ON L. ClIOCH"
STACY M "1110
Win :U$
4ns N"CHTRUCORNluc:rIlCU
NOlCIIClSJ. COIClOI" 300112
March 24, 2003
nLtrllQNl
170'''4''-211$
f/IQIMILl
770' z63-il7U1
".UMlrr1Ct'1" MDAWOGA
Cnrmel Plan Commission
Special Studies Committee
Attn: Dianna Knoll, Chairperson
One Civic Square
Carmel, Indiana 46032
Re: Pronosed Ordinance R~ardini Extraction of Mineral Resources
Dear Ms. Knoll:
As you know, Martin Marietta submitted some general comments prior to the last
meeting of the Special Studies Committee regarding the proposed mineral extraction ordinance.
We would like to take this opportunity to submit more detailed comments on portions of the
ordinance and to respond to some issues that were raised at the last meeting. Martin Marietta
does not, by making these comments, waive any of its rights. but simply wishes to exercise its
right to engage in this public discussion. Subjee~ to the foregoing, our comments are as follows:
FOCUS ON MARTIN MARlETI A
It is apparent from public and other statements that the ordinance under ,consideration is
aimed squarely at Martin Mllriettn's existing operations and pending applil;Uliol1s. 1 ndccd, the
"Transitional Provisions" leave no doubt about that. It is clear under Indiana law. however, that
Martin Marietta has vested rights under the existing ordinances that cannot constitutionally be
taken away by the new ordinance this c:ommittce is considering. As a result. all of this effort to
craA: an ordinance to stop Martin Marietta is not appropriate.
POLlCY STATEMENT
A. Need for Minin2 Districts. A number of ~'Peakcrs questioned the inclusion in the
comprehensive plan of any recognition of the need for mineral resources in the community.
Crushed stonc. sand, and gn1vel, however, are the basic elem~nl9 un which every community
builds. Stone and sand make up over ninety percent of what we know as reudy mix concrete and
asphalt; 11 yard of concrete hilS over n ton of stone in it. Cannel's homes, oflices, government
buildings, roads, retail centers and parking lots are all built out of crushed stone or grnvel. n10st
of it from the Manin Marietta quarry.
MAR-24-03 18.11 PROM. PHEARS AND MOLDOVAN
10. 7702636715
PAGE 3
Dianna Knoll, Chairperson
March 24, 2003
Page 2
The suggestion sometimes heard that building stone be obtained from elsewhere is bad
pluMing Ql1d bad environmental policy. That is nothing more than a pica to put it in sometme
else's backyard and then truck it an extra twenty miles to the market where it is needed, burning
more fossil fuel, emitting more hydrocarbons, and putting more burden on the roads. An
adequate supply of building stone located strategically close to the market should be a
cornerstone of any comprehensive land use plan.
Further, a comprehensive plan should recoenize and encourage the development of
existing resources. The Martin Marietta qul1lT}' is a good example. The quarry was there long
before its neighbors and development around the quarry presumably rook into account the
presence of that facility. Existinl facilities such as it should be encouraged to grow to avoid the
necessity of having to find a site for a new location. and the attendant potential disruption in land
use patterns caused by that.
B. Development of ,Natural Resources. There was discussion at the Jast meeting
about the dcleliun urParagraph B. The statements in Paragraph B arc not only correct. but also
good policy. They should perhaps be preceded by the statement that'vrhe City of Carmel
recognizes that the development ofmmeral resources. . f ,It but otherwise this is an Important
component of any policy statement.
C. Preservation oCNatuml Resources. With respect to Paragraph C, there WHS a
suggestion that the word "significantly" should simply be changed to "adversely." We
respectfully submit, however, that "adversely" should be modified to at least require that any
impact be significant. Most every business venture can be said to have some adverse impact on
~omeone and the language should, at a minimum. require that the impact be significant or
substantial.
D. Ruffer Zones, There wa.~ a recuni~g discussion of compatibility issues with
respect to mining. This seems generally to be seen only as a one way street, i.e., everyone seems
to think that the only role of planning is to enS\lfe that a mine isn't placed next to a residential
area. If, however, mines are seen as incompatible with residential development even thousands
of feet away, the position apparently taken by one uCthe neighborhoods, then lhe comprehensive
plan'should also discourage residcntiallund uses near an existing mine. Indeed, it would al'pear
that all the existing subdivisions within the three thousand foot buffer proposed by some groups
should never have beert built. Ifthere is to be such a buffer after a mine has been in existence for
decades. it can only be established by precluding so called incompatible uses within thOlt distance.
At the hearing several residents expressed the view that they should not bave to make any inquiry
themselves into the potentia11and uses next to lheir neighborhoods. TIlst would appear to make
it important for the City to ensure that zuning around existing mines always protects these
persons from inadvertently moving near a mine.
---~~-~ ------- -~-
MAR-24-m3 18.12 FROM. PHEARS AND MOLDOVAN
10. 77m263B715
PAGE 4
Dianna Knoll, Chairperson
March 24, 2003
Page 3
The recommendation by Kingswood that there be buffers of one-half mile or more around
mining sites is shown to be unnecessary by the fact that high qUlllity development is now
occurring within a. few hundred feet of mining operations in Carmel. Many of those persons
supporting a new ordinance bought their homes near the Martin Marietta nline from sellers who
expressed no problem with the mine. If a buffer of the Si1.e sought by Kingswood is to be
imposed. and incompatible land uses prohibited within it. vast areas around Martin Marietta's
mine, including properties north of 106* Street, will have to be mapped for industrial use
according to Kingswood's own notions of compatibility. It is also inappropriate to measure these
distances from the property line of the mine. Most mines strive to have bufr~r land on their own
property and thus all distances to other uses should be measured from active mining areas.
E. QpeO Space. The reference to "open space candidates" in Paragraph E is unclel1J'.
Is this intended to be public parkland, permanently undeveloped property, or what? Is it land that
is anticipated to be taken ofT the tax rolls?
F. Criteria: The criteria for evaluating mining should include the nature and quality
ofmincrals, whether they tire used locally or not, whether the propOsed location will minimize
overall environmental impacts, nnd the necessity of certain minerals for the constrUction of roads
and houses. Environmental impacts should be measured on the basis of area wide impacts so
that decisions are made with regard to what is best for the overall area. TIle criteria should
include whether the proposed mining use is an expansion of an existing mine or not. Existing
mines should be encouraged to expand to avoid the potential land u.c;e disruptions caused by
siting a new mine.
H. Prohibition ofMinin2: The statement that there should be no mining north of
l061b Street is more a zoning statement than a statement of policy. ^ great deal of mining bas
occurred north or 10611I Street already and mining is ongoing there. An application to mine there
should be evaluated by the criteria applicable to it at the time and not predetermined.
I. Isoseismi9..5..tudv: The City is currently evaluating regulatory criteria for mining
and this requirement for an isoseismic study is more appropriately considered either as a part ur
those regulatory requirements, or as an issue to be addressed il'l an application, and not as a policy
statement.
K. Exaction.,ofLand: This policy appears intended to coerce mining companies to
give land to the City anu is wholly inappropriate.
L. Expert E'Cpenses: Once again, this provision seems inappropriate us a statement
of policy and better left to each individual case. It is also questionable why mining is being
singled out for such a burden. Many otber lL~e~ have issues beyond the abilitY of the average
MAR-24-03 18.12 FROM. PHEARS AND MOLDOVAN
ID. 7702838715
PACE 5
Dianna Knoll, Chairperson
M~eh 24, 2003
Page 4
person to understand, yet the City has not imposed any open ended requirement on persons who
apply for those uses.
COMMENTS ON PROPOSED ORDINANCE
I. ~mble:
The preamble should contain 8 recognition that mining is an essential indusUy that has
contributed to the economic development and well being of Cannel without unduly alTecting the
development of the City.
2. Definitions.:.
Air Blast. The request by Kingswood that this definition be amended to add "shock
waves" instead of ''waves'' would make it unclear whether an airborne wave of a lesser severity
would be included or not
Compntible and IncomDatible Land Uses. The proposed definitions by Kingswood are
C01"lfl1.l1ing, ditllcult to understand, and contribute little to understanding what either of these
terms me'dns. Any effort to define these tenns should deal in ,;pecific categories or uses. Further,
the reference in Kingswood's proposed detinition to "nuisance impacts or mining" is unfair
hyperbole inappropriate to a defmition such as this. The development around Martin Marietta's
property, not to mention property values, plainly rebuts these types of one-sided statements.
Extraction of Mineral Resources. Kingswood proposes to expand this detinition in tl way
that makes its applicability unpredictable. The removal offill dirt, whether hy hand or by
mechanized means, would appear to fall within this definition, especially since the exemption is
for the removal of material from a construction project and thus would not include the removal of
mZltcrial from Mother area for a construction project. Further. addina drilling to the definition of
mining would prohibit someune from even determining whether there: are mincndN present on hi.!
property. The section also exempts blasting at construction projects and leave~ such activity
unregulated. .
EMR Operation. The exclusion of concrete and asphalt operations from this definition is
bad policy und bad planning. Ifthesc: types of operations are not to be put on mining property,
then where ure they to be located? Forcing these plants from mining property only forces them
into another lucation in the community. Mining property provides a large tnlct ofland which
provides better buffers than would be the Cll$C with froc-standing asphalt or concrete plants.
Further. such a policy would mean that trucks delivering stone to these plants w(>uld ha.ve to
leave the quarry and travel on public roads just ro ~liver materials that are currently delivered
entirely on internal quarry roads. .
MAR-24-03 18.13 FROM. PHEARS AND MOLDOVAN
ID. 7702836715
PACE 8
Dianna KnoU, Chairperson
March 24, 2003
Page S
B.e~18mation. This defmition refers to an "Operation," but that term is not defined
anywhere.
Sand and Gravel Extraction. The proposed definition appears to include only wet sand
and gravel extraction.
PIll1'ose and Intent. The various references to nuisance impacts are inappropriate and
one-sided. A simple reference to significant adverse impacts would avoid the use of such a
pejorative term.
Permitted Uses and Excluded Use~. Related industries should not be excluded from
permanent uses, for the reasons identified previously herein.
Buffers and Atelt ReqJ1irements. The proposed setback of twenty-five hundred feet from
residenlial districts is grossly excessive, for the rea..c;ons discussed previously. Likewise, the
minimum front yard of three hundred feet, measured from the closest public space, is excessive.
By way of example, if this ordinance applied to Martin Marietta it might well require a three
hundred foot front yard all along Hazel Dell Parkway, a plainly inappropri~te result. Further, it is
unclear whaL these ~tbacks mean in the context of mining, because the ordinance does noL
describe whal is allowed in setback areas. What is a front yard or II side yard for a mine?
Development Plan. Submittal Reauirements. The proposed requirement that an
applicllnt submit a plan ~howing the locations "of 011 structures within a two (7.) mile radius of
the center of a proposed operation" is unfairly burdensome. tor no apparenl reason. Such a
disl.ance from the existing locati~n would sweep within its boundaries land and structures thut
have no conceivable relationship to operations on Q site.
Noise Control.. We note that the ordinance proposes, in Chart A, certain maximum
allowed noise levels. At the same time. the ordinance appears to suggest. in both the Criteria for
Approval and the Submittal Requirements. that the applicant must meet some other type of noille
standard. Ifthere is a noise ordinance. presumably, it will control. and if Lhe applicant meets it
there should be nO need for a different set or noise regulations. It i!; also worlh noting that the
chart depicting maximum allowed noise levels is incomprehensible.
Martin Marietta will submit further comments on the balance of the ordinance at a later
date. At that time we will address the Transitional Provision in this ordinance. In the meantime,
we note that this provision violates Martin Marietta's vested rights with respect to its pendins
applications, and is also unconstitutional. It should be rejected in its entirety and the City should
simply observe existing Indiana law.
------ ----
~-~~-~--~
MAR-24-03 18.13 FROM. PHEARS AND MOLDOVAN
Dinnnll KnoUt Chtlirperson
MJ\roh. 24. 2003
Page 6
HWP/mkg
cc: John R. Molitor, Esquire
Yvonne Bailey, gsquire
zclr A. Weiss, Esquire
Mr. John J. Tiberi
X:\D^ T A\MlIItin Mllrietlll\lndhula\,o;p"lal Studies Cunnniltcc,wpd
10. 7702838715
Very truly yours. ,....
. if4/
PACE 7
MAR-24-03 18.10 FROM. PHEARS AND MOLDOVAN
10. 7702838715
PAGE 1
PHEARS & MOLDOVAN
II. PARTNERSHIP INCI.llDING .ROJIESlIIONAL CORPORA nONS
ATIORNEYS AT LAW
SUITE 375
4725 PEACHTREE CORNERS CIRCLE
NORCJlOss, GEORGIA 30092
TELEPHONE
770'446'2116
FACSIMILE
770'263'6715
FACSIMILE TRANSMISSION
THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE INDMDUAL OR ENTITY TO WHICH 11 IS ADDRESSED ANOMAY
CONTAIN INFORMATION Tt:fAT.I6. PRIVILEGED. CONFIDENTl6I. 6tiP J!X~MPT ~ROM DISCLOSURE UNDER APPLICABLE
J.AYt. IFTHE READER OF THIS MESSAGE IS NOT THE INTENDED R~CIPIENTORTHE EMPLOYEE OR AGENT RESPONSIBLE
FOR DEUVERING THE MESSAGE TO THE INTENDED RECIPIENT. yOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED 'tHAT ANY DISSEMINATION,
DISTRIBUTION OR COPYING OF THIS COMMUNICATION IS STRICTLY PROHI8IT~D. IF YOU HAVE RECEIVED THIS
COMMUNICATION IN ERROR, PLEASE NOTIFY US IMMEOIATEL Y BY TELEPHONE. AND RETURN THE ORIGINAL MESSAGE
TO us AT THE ABOVE ADDRESS VIA THe u.s. POSTAL SERVIce. THANK YOU.
To;
Mike Hollibaugh
FAX NUMBER:
(317) 571.2426
FROM:
wayne Phea...
DATE:
March 24, 2003
SUBJECT:
PAGES:
7 (inGluding fax Gover sheet)
COMMENTS:
u
u
Lilli , Lau
~1;j.'Y'
From: ;<:~:'" ~ ~ libaugh, Mike P
senti." ~.'iiY Nt\) ~~~daY, February 04, 2003 1 :09 PM
To:. ~ RtCf\ I\~~ Dl'(." , Joh~ M; Lillig, Laurence M
SubJ ~\: ~t~ ~ '}.\I F"'!,-- uestlons
~~ ~\)C~ It!
fyi ~~" A^'Y
O . ,~ -r-M---...<~5>
----- rl ~~n~$~e-----
From: Bralnar~ames C
Sent: Tuesday, February 04, 2003 11:55 AM
To: 'Joliet, Jeff (HQ) ,
Cc: Duffy, John M; Hollibaugh, Mike P
Subject: RE: Questions
Jeff,
The zoning ordinance is intended to grandfather existing areas (in fact, I don't think we
have a choice under the law) but is not intended to approve any new areas for mining-just
set up a different process {city council v BZA) if MM wants to expand.
For the water concerns John Duffy, our utility director, can speak to those much better
than I can. His number is 571-2451 and e-mail is JDuffy@ci.carmel.in.us
Take care,
Jim Brainard
-----Original Message-----
From: Joliet, Jeff (HQ) [mailto:jjoliet@guidant.com]
Sent: Tuesday, February 04, 2003 9:46 AM
To: JBrainard@ci.carmel.in.us
Subject: Questions
Importance: High
Jim -
It was good to talk to you last night. Following up from our conversation, I wanted to
ask a couple of questions. With regard to the water issue, you indicated that the water
department had tested the lake to the east of Kingswood and did not find any abnormally
high elevations of pollutants. But you suggested that the water department did have some
new concerns. Can you share those with me or put me in contact with the correct person?
Secondly, I want to be sure I'm clear on the practical adoption of the zoning ordinance.
Is it true, or at least your position, that when the zoning amendment is adopted creating
the ME classification and dropping mining as a Special Use from existing classifications
that the only area that will be zoned M-1 or M-4 or wh
atever the mining abbreviation is MM's existing 96th Street operations AND NOT the Mueller
properties north and south of 106th Street - which will retain their current S-l
residential classification?
Thanks!
Jeff
Jeff Joliet
Strategic Planning Manager, GSC
Guidant Corporation
111 Monument Circle
Indianapolis, IN 46204
Tel 317.971.2232
jjoliet@guidant.com
1
.u
(j
u
CITY OF CARMEL
Department of Community SelVices ~ .
One Civic Square
Carmel, IN 4S:I32
(317) 571-2417
Fax: (317) 571-2426
Fax
To:
From:
L
u
Re:
Pages:
Dat. ~
. CC:
Fax:
Phone:
o Urgent 0 For Review 0 P.lease Comment 0 Please Reply 0 Please Recycle
kAI-. E~ll-
.
a~e~ is t.IM If. ~-?.J. (),.J,~4"CA
~ ",,,,1.1 C~ ~ ~E" \ ~I~'C:+
I
It, I \k... it.. ~"I"" MlW,"CI .t ~ .JAti
.
u ~) ~4 ~ "'MIt.S'r. G.",
N ~ tAli ,'f ~ ~Itl II~ ~ i-JI: NMI
4~fA,t -I-lu - ~k, S.". ~1-.-Z
'-
. '
'.
iC'"
u
THOMAS C. YEDLICK U
5053 St. Charles Place
Carmel, Indiana 46033
580-1614
~
RECFIVED
/~
"t
January 30, 2003
Ron Houck
Nicholas Kestner
Jerry Chomanczuk
Wayne Wilson
Leo Dierckman
Dan Dutcher
Dianna Knoll
rI~
Paul Spranger, President
Special Study Committee Members:
Department of Community Services:
Michael Hollibaugh John Molitor
_a1W(jiii{Ii~~ock
Re: Docket No. 177-02 OA, 178-02 CPA
Amendment to the Carmel/Clay Zoning Ordinance & Comprehensive Plan -
Mineral Extraction District
I am pleased to provide you with comments on the proposed Amendment to the Zoning
Ordinance and Comprehensive Plan. The City is to be acknowledged for its efforts to fmd a
resolution to both existing mining and proposed expansion of mining activity in Carmel.
Mineral extraction activity has existed for over 25 years in Clay Township without regulation
or zoning jurisdiction. In fact mining is not even an established use in Carmel's
Comprehensive Plan. It has operated under the radar screen for many years because it has
been exempt under Indiana state law from local regulation.
The ruling by the court in March 2002 that the Mueller property is in an "urban area"; the
annexation oftms area by the City; and the Settlement Agreement between Martin Marietta,
the City, and Kingswood provide the basis to find a permanent solution through proper land
use regulations.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN CONSIDERATIONS
While not the sole issue, the overwhelming issue is the adverse impact of blasting. This
impact is already experienced within the community. Since existing mining operations
constitute legal non-conforming uses, they have been immune from regulation where they
exist. Whether expansion is in the best interest of the City ofCarrnel, and under what
conditions, is the question at hand.
o
o
'Ii
/
f
Land Use Considerations
Zoning should identify and separate non-compatible uses, such as in this case, open pit
mining and residential properties. Zoning is intended to sort out these uses so property owners
can acquire property with reliance that they will be protected.
ben~ark should be the land use that is normal within the community. The key is how
~~tJpnal use, and this cannot be done in the abstract. But when considering a mining
It, re . onS' >, . e do not have to rely on theory or hypothetical consequences. Carmel has over
'\- 't5~arsactual experience on which to form a conclusion.
C' 'l~l pies J st'be treated fairly. Homeowners in southeast Carmel were never provided with
> ~ disclo e of ih,e~isting mining operations when they purchased. That is because existing
mining operatio~ave never been indicated on the zoning map, or even recognized by the
City in its land use regulations. However, the scope of blasting operations reaches far beyond
the boundaries of the mining property, thereby imposing a burden and nuisance on
homeowners.
;~
\,
Environmental Considerations
For certain mining activities (i.e. blasting), it is impossible to contain the impact of uses of
property completely within the property. No matter what is done, other people will see, hear,
or feel it. It is not conjecture whether open pit mining will have an adverse impact. It exists
today, and expansion cannot be expected to do other than to escalate the adverse impact.
Fairness requires that mining not be allowed to expand if it further shifts the risks and burdens
to homeowners.
Amending the Comprehensive Plan
In consideration of these concepts, I have enclosed an "alternative" Amendment to the
Comprehensive Plan for your consideration. This alternative reflects the principles set forth
above, and provides a better land use balance recognizing where we are today with proposed
mining expansion.
COMMENTS ON THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO THE ZONING ORDINANCE
The proposed zoning ordinance amendment before you accomplishes the material goals of
this alternative amendment to the Comprehensive Plan, except for two key areas.
1) Open pit stone extraction should be excluded from permitted uses, or in the alternative,
the setback from residential uses should be 3,000 feet instead of the proposed 2,500 feet.
The Settlement Agreement between the City, Martin Marietta, and Kingswood in May
2002 contained a "no less restrictive" clause regarding future mining regulations. In
essence, the City and Martin Marietta agreed that Carmel would not adopt future mining
regulations less restrictive than other jurisdictions where Martin Marietta would apply.
i'
,
'~
:~
'"
u
u
The City has on file a copy ofthe zoning ordinance from Boone County, KY, requiring a
3,000 foot setback for stone mining. Martin Marietta has previously applied for a mining
permit under this ordinance, including the 3,000 foot setback for stone mining. Therefore
to be consistent with the commitment in the Settlement Agreement, Carmel's ordinance
should consider a similar provision.
The City and Martin Marietta were fully aware of the Boone County ordinance at the time
that the Settlement Agreement was signed. In fact, Kingswood extensively referred to the
Boone County ordinance in its remonstrance before the BZA in May 2001. Kingswood
asks that the Plan Commission give due consideration to the intent of this "no less
restrictive" provision.
2) Additional study is required whether underground stone mining can be conducted at less
than 3,000-foot setback (note: the MM's permit application in Boone County, KY was
based on a 3,000 foot setback for underground mining). Because underground blasting is
done with smaller charges, and the noise and air blast are "contained", there is more
flexibility with this type of mining.
SUMMARY
Carmel has a long history of excellence in land use planning. However the issue of mineral
extraction haS been immune from Carmel jurisdiction because of the state's urban area
exemption. Mineral extraction has some very specific environmental spillovers, especially
blasting. The Carmel community has never accepted these spillovers, but the City has been
powerless to regulate. While most all ofthese"spillovers can be resolved with a well-defined
buffer requirement, blasting impacts resist traditional buffer design.
When there are alternative mining practices available, the requirement should be to adopt
those that do not adversely impact the community. Stone can be extracted either by
underground mining or by open pit mining. Given these alternatives and their inherent
environmental impacts, Carmel should limit the options to the least offensive.
In considering a mining ordinance, Carmel has the advantage of experience from existing
mining operations and the example from Boone County. Carmel's regulations should reflect
that experience. Much work needs to be done to understand the present impact of mining on
our community and to design mining ordinances that work.
Thank you for your consideration,
~
Tom Yedlic
"
Q
u
Alternative Mining Policies for inclusion into the Comprehensive Plan
A. The City recognizes that mineral resources exist within its community. These mineral
resources exist in limited geographic locations, generally along the White River.
B. Mineral resources provide benefits to our community and to surrounding communities.
Therefore it is in the City's interest to create provisions within its land use policies to provide
for expansion of mineral resource extraction activities consistent with existing land uses.
C. Mineral resources can only be extracted where they are located in nature. Therefore, owners
of property where these natural resources are located should be permitted to develop those
resources only so long as they do not adversely impact the quality of life for the rest of the
community.
ce extraction has been exeIppt from Carmel/Clay land use regulations for over
25 years du 0 an exemption provided by state law. Recent annexation of land containing
signific mineral resources provides the City with the opportunity to regulate existing
. . g as well as set standards for new mining and expansion of existing mining.
E. Existing mineral extraction uses are legal non-conforming uses within the boundaries of their
current operations. New land for mineral extraction, or expansion of existing mining, should
be permitted only as long as it does not adversely impact surrounding land uses with due
regard to property damage including diminution of property value, emotional distress, loss of
peace of mind and happiness, discomfort, inconvenience, annoyance, disruption, or nuisance.
F. Extraction of mineral resources by blasting (especially open pit) is inherently incompatible
with residential uses. The impact of open pit blasting can only be adequately buffered by
distance. Mining regualtions in the City should be no less restrictive than exist in any other
jurisdiction a mining operator applies to operate.
G. No open pit stone mining should occur within 3,000 feet of a residential district, and no
underground stone mining should occur within 2,500 feet of a residential district.
H. All current and proposed mining activity within Clay Township should be evaluated based on
the following criteria:
1. Quantity of reserves committed to mining
2. Environmental impacts
3. Noise impacts
4. Visual impacts
5. Dust
6. Integrity of underground mining
7. Impacts on hydrology and hydrogeology
8. Traffic impacts
9. Reclamation objectives
10. Location of storage and processing materials
11. Buffering from adjacent uses
12. Erosion control
13. Monitoring and reporting of mining activities
o
o
14. Suitability of soils
15. The applicability of mining practices and technology that could minimize impacts t
nearby neighborhoods
16. Surrounding land uses
1. In consideration of new mining or expansion of existing mining, any existing mining
operations should be subject to comply with the City's mining regulations at the time
expansion or rezone is requested.
;::-
."
.
u
u
.!:!!!!P, Laurence M
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Hollibaugh, Mike P
Wednesday, January 29,2003 11 :55 AM
Zeff A. Weiss (E-mail); John J. Tiberi (E-mail)
Lillig, Laurence M; Gregory H. Sovas (E-mail)
Draft Mining Ordinance (and special TAC mtg. )
~
Proposed Mining
Ordinance Fina...
Zeff & John
attached is the draft mining ordinance which will be introduced at the Feb. 3 City Council meeting. my understanding from
talking with Luci is that there won't be a lot of discussion the night it is introduced, that the draft will be sent to their land
use/annexation committee, which is where the real work will occur. that committee has a standing meeting on the second
thursday of each month, next one being February 13, at 7:00.
Also, Laurence has confirmed with the other TAC members for that same day (February 13) to be the date for a special
TAC meeting to review the MM petition related to sand and gravel operation, south of 106.
will continue to be in touch
Mike
1
u
u
Sponsor: Councilor's Carter, Rundle & Snyder
ORDINANCE NO. D - 1619 - 03
AN ORDINANCE OF THE COMMON COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF CARMEL, INDIANA,
TO REGULATE MINING OPERATIONS
WITHIN THE CORPORATE BOUNDARIES OF THE CITY OF CARMEL
WHEREAS, mining and the processing of mineral resources should give due regard
to (1) the protection of the health, safety and general welfare of the people; (2) the natural
beauty and aesthetic values, and enhancement of the environment of the City of Carmel; (3)
the conservation and reclamation of land affected by such activities in order to restore the land
and to provide for its further beneficial use and to maintain or improve the City's tax base;
and (4) the prevention of erosion, stream pollution, water, air and land pollution and other
injurious effects to persons, property, wildlife and natural resources; and
WHEREAS, it is important to the economic health of the City of Carmel to provide
for the environmentally sound and stable mining and processing of mineral resources existing
within the corporate boundaries of the City of Carmel; and
WHEREAS, the Common Council of the City of Carmel finds that, for the protection
of the public health, safety and welfare of the citizens of Carmel, and to maintain an
environmentally sound and stable mining and processing industry, it is reasonable and
necessary to regulate mining operations as provided in this Ordinance.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Common Council of the City of
Carmel, Indiana, that Chapter 6 of the Carmel City Code is hereby amended by adding a New
Article 6 thereto to read as follows:
Section I:
ARTICLE 6. MINING OPERATIONS.
Section 6-166. Definitions.
"Administrator" means the Director of the Department of Community Services (DCS). The
Administrator is hereby authorized and directed to enforce and carry out all the provisions of this
Article, both in letter and spirit and is further empowered to delegate the duties and powers
granted to and imposed upon him or her under this Article. As used in this Article,
"Administrator" shall include his or her authorized representative(s).
"Affected Land" means the sum of acreage that has been mined, will be mined, or will be
affected by mining activity but has not been reclaimed.
u
u
"Air Blast" (also known as "air overpressure") means airborne waves resulting from the
detonation of explosives. Air Blast may be caused by burden movement or the release of
expanding gas into the air. Air Blast mayor may not be audible.
"Batch Plant" means an asphalt or redi-mix concrete plant.
"Blast" or "Blasting" means the detonation of explosives by an Operator during Mining.
"Effective Date" means the date on which this Article takes effect.
"Haulageways" means all roads utilized for Mining purposes, together with that area of land
over which material is transported, that are located within the Mine.
"Isoseismic Study" means an analysis of Blasting events by qualified and independent
vibration experts to determine the optimum conditions under which Blasting can be
accomplished to reduce ground vibration and structural response.
"Life of the Mine" means the total economic and environmental limit of a Mining Operation
in acres and/or years.
"Minerals" means any naturally formed, usually inorganic rocks, stone, gravel, sand, soil,
clay, limestone, or minerals located on or below the surface of the earth.
"Mine" means any lands from which Mining, Processing and/or Related Activities will occur,
including all Haulageways and all equipment above, on or below the surface of the ground
used in connection with Mining.
"Mining" means the surface or underground extraction of deposits of Minerals, including
drilling, crushing, grinding, sorting, sifting, sizing, washing, drying, sawing and cutting stone,
Blasting, trimming, punching, splitting, gauging and removal of Overburden and Minerals and
the construction and use of buildings, facilities and equipment to carry out such activities.
"Mining" shall not include the excavation, removal and disposition of Minerals from
construction projects or excavations in aid of agricultural activities.
"Mining Plan" means a document, consisting of an Operations Plan and a Reclamation Plan
that describes proposals for the conduct of an Operator's Mining method and Reclamation of
the land thereof to achieve the purposes of this Article.
"Monitoring Station" means any station mandated by City, State, or Federal authorities where
measurements of environmental conditions may be required.
"Operator" means any Person engaged in and controlling Mining, Processing, or a Related
Activity.
"Operation" means any Mining, Processing, Sales, or a Related Activity at a Mine.
"Overburden" means earth, vegetation, topsoil, subsoil, caprock or non-specification material
that must be removed to provide access to Minerals.
u
u
"Particle Velocity" is a measure of ground vibration that describes the velocity at which a
particle of ground moves when excited by a seismic wave.
"Person" means any individual, partnership, corporation, or other legal business entity.
"Processing" means washing, crushing, and processing Minerals, and the operation of plants,
machinery, dams, ponds, canals, power lines, pipe lines, telephone lines, roads, stockpile
areas, buildings or offices, and any other machinery or equipment required for the processing
of Minerals.
"Protected Structure" means any dwelling, public building, school, church, commercial or
institutional building or other building designated as such by the Administrator. Protected
structures do not include structures owned and operated by the Operator.
"Reclamation" means restoration of land in accordance with the Guiding Principles of the
Environmental Stewardship Council of the Indiana Mineral Aggregates Association; the term
also includes such reclamation as may be required by the Common Councilor Board of
Zoning Appeals pursuant to any zoning or land use approval.
"Reclamation Plan" means a description of activities to be performed by an Operator to
reclaim the land to be mined over the Life of the Mine. The Reclamation Plan shall describe
the proposed method of reclaiming the Affected Land, providing, where possible, for orderly,
continuing Reclamation concurrent with Mining; and a schedule for Reclamation. The
Reclamation Plan shall include maps, plans, and the schedule for Reclamation, planting plans,
written material and other documents.
"Sales" means the sale and transport of Minerals or the products of Related Activities to
offsite customers.
"Surface Mining" means Mining of Minerals by removing the Overburden lying above
natural deposits thereof and Mining directly from the natural deposits thereby exposed, or the
deposition of Overburden there from, through stripping, quarrying, dredging, Blasting, or
other means, including the Mining of sand and gravel underwater. "Tailings" means material
of inferior quality or value resulting from the removal, preparation, or Processing of Minerals.
"Underground Mining" means Mining of Minerals from beneath the surface of the earth, with
or without removing the Overburden, through tunneling, and including the construction of a
box cut, slope, or shaft.
Section 6-167. Administration of Article.
(a) Generally. No Person may conduct Mining, Processing, or any Related
Activity within the corporate boundaries of the City of Carmel unless (1) such land use is
permitted or duly approved pursuant to the Carmel Clay Zoning Ordinance and (2) such
Person obtains a permit under this Section.
u
u
(b) Suoercedure. Nothing in this Article is intended to supercede any requirement
of state or federal law, except that this Article may impose stricter requirements, in whole or
in part, than may be imposed by any state or federal authority.
(c) Powers and Duties of the Administrator. The Administrator has the following
powers and duties:
1) To issue permits in accordance with the criteria set forth in this Article;
2) To administer and enforce the provisions of this Article and all orders issued
pursuant thereto;
3) To order an immediate suspension of any Operation upon any repeated or
willful violation of any of the provisions of this Article or when there is an
imminent danger of irreversible or irretrievable damage to natural resources,
property, or to the City's water supply.
4) To conduct investigations and obtain data with respect to any aspect of mining
regulated under this Article in addition to research experiments and
demonstrations, and to collect and disseminate information regarding Mining;
5) To accept grants or funds for purposes of administration of this Article and
research into the field of Mining;
6) To cooperate with any other governmental entity to further the purposes of this
Article;
7) To contract with the Hamilton County Drainage Board or any soil or water
conservation district operating in Hamilton County to achieve the purposes of
this Article;
8) To assess fees upon an applicant consistent with the expenses involved in
hiring consultants to assist the Administrator with the review of the application
and to provide inspection, monitoring, and assessment upon request by the
Administrator.
(d) Permits.
1) An application for a permit may be submitted for a term not to exceed five (5)
years, subject to renewal. A complete application for a new permit must be
accompanied by a $10,000 application fee and contain (1) a completed
application in the form specified by the Administrator, (2) a Mining Plan, (3)
for a quarry Operation or for a modification or expansion of an existing
operation, a new or updated Isoseismic Study which is less than 2 years old,
(4) an assessment of the potential impact to the City's water supply and any
mitigation proposed, (5) copies of all applications and approvals or permits
needed from other City, State, or Federal agencies, (6) complete submittals and
final approval of an M-4/Mining District, if applicable, and (7) any other
u
u
studies required by the Administrator, including but not limited to any studies
required under Section 6-l68(f).
2) Before the Administrator may issue a permit, the applicant shall furnish
financial security to ensure the performance of such Reclamation as may be
required by the Common Councilor Board of Zoning Appeals pursuant to any
zoning or land use approval and naming the City of Carmel as beneficiary.
Financial security shall be in the form of a bond from a corporate surety
licensed to do business as such in the State of Indiana or any other form the
Administrator may deem acceptable. Any interest accruing as a result of such
security shall be the exclusive property ofthe permittee.
3) The Administrator shall determine the amount, condition, and terms of the
financial security. The amount shall be based upon the estimated cost of
reclaiming the Affected Land, which shall be based on information contained
in the permit application and upon such information as an investigation by the
Administrator may disclose.
4) The financial security shall remain in full force and effect until the
Administrator has approved the Reclamation. At the discretion of the
Administrator, the permittee may secure the release of that portion of the
financial security for Affected Land on which Reclamation has been completed
and approved by the Administrator.
5) If the financial security shall for any reason be cancelled, within thirty (30)
days after receiving notice thereof, the permittee shall provide a valid
replacement under the same conditions as described in this section. Failure to
provide replacement financial security within such period may, at the
discretion of the Administrator, result in the immediate suspension of the
Mining permit.
6) If a permit is suspended or revoked, the Administrator may reqUIre the
permittee to commence Reclamation upon thirty (30) days notice.
7) If the permittee fails to commence or to complete the Reclamation as required,
the Administrator may attach the financial security furnished by the permittee.
In any event, the full cost of completing Reclamation shall be the personal
liability of the permittee and/or the Person engaged in Mining and the
Administrator may bring suit to recover all costs to secure the Reclamation not
covered by the financial security. The materials, machinery, implements, and
tools of every description which may be found at the Mine, or other assets of
the permittee and/or the Person engaged in Mining shall be subject to a lien of
the Administrator for the amount expended for Reclamation of Affected Land
and shall not be removed without the written consent of the Administrator.
Such lien may be foreclosed under State law in the same manner as a
mechanic's lien.
u
u
Section 6-168. Minim!: Plan.
(a) The Mining Plan consists of an Operations Plan and a Reclamation Plan. The
Applicant's Operations and Reclamation Plans shall describe the Mining method, as
designated by the Applicant on the basis of current or anticipated Mining practices, and the
Reclamation method, having as its objective the preparation of the Affected Land for a future
beneficial use. The proposed method of operating a Mine and the method of reclaiming the
Affected Land to achieve the Applicant's land-use objective shall be compatible with sound
environmental management practices.
(b) The Operations Plan shall consist of a written and graphic description of the
proposed Operation, including the boundaries and legal description of the land controlled by
the Applicant, the outline of potential affected acreage for the Life of the Mine, topographic
contours, and the general sequence of areas to be mined. The graphic description shall
include the location of the Mine and shall identify all areas of excavation; areas of
Overburden, Tailings, and spoil; areas of topsoil and Mineral stock piles; processing plant
areas; Haulageways; shipping and storage areas; drainage features and water impoundments.
The written description of the plan shall include the Operator's Mining method and measures
to be taken to minimize adverse environmental impacts resulting from the Operation. The
Operations Plan, at a minimum, should include a discussion of proposed hours of operations
by function, measures to mitigate noise, visual impacts and dust, routing of vehicles, and
traffic and trucking impacts. All operational commitments made through zoning an M-4
Mining District should be included in the Operations Plan.
(c) The Operations Plan shall be presented in a combination of graphic (map) and
written (text or narrative) form. The information to be presented in graphic form shall be
submitted utilizing aerial photogrammetry as described in this section. An equivalent map,
prepared on the required scale, may be utilized in lieu of a quadrangle sheet. The map shall be
prepared by a licensed engineer, geologist, land surveyor or other individual trained in such
plan and map preparation and stamped by a professional licensed in Indiana. Vertical aerial
photographs may also be utilized when presenting information in graphic form. The
Administrator reserves the right to reject aerial photographs or photogrammetry on the basis
of being out of date, of poor quality, of improper scale or for other reasons that render them
unsatisfactory for the required purpose. All maps and photographs shall be presented with a
horizontal scale not to exceed one-inch equals 400 feet. Contour intervals and/or cross
sections shall be as prescribed by the Administrator. Overlays may be submitted in
conjunction with either maps or photographs to illustrate any of the required information. The
maps and photographs shall be prepared in a neat, legible manner and shall include a title
block and legend containing the following information:
1) the scale, contour interval, where required, a north arrow and a reference
datum;
2) the location of the groundwater table where such information is available;
3) the name of the individual responsible for the preparation of the maps
and/or photographs; and
4) the date of preparation.
(j
(j
5) record of work and/or revisions
(d) The Reclamation Plan shall consist of a graphic and written description of the
proposed Reclamation. The graphic description shall include maps and cross sections that
illustrate the final physical state of the reclaimed land. The written description of the plan
shall describe the manner in which the land is to be reclaimed including the disposition of of
topsoil, and a schedule for performing such Reclamation and planting and seeding plans. All
Reclamation commitments made during the establishment of an M-4/Mining District should
be included in the Reclamation Plan.
(e) The Administrator shall retain an independent consultant with professional
experience in Mining to assist it in reviewing each application. The consultant shall report to
the Administrator whether the Mining Plan satisfies the policies, objectives and requirements
of this Article, or, if not, what conditions or modifications are necessary for such
achievement. In formulating its report, the consultant may require additional information,
explanation, documents, maps or photographs.
(f) The Administrator reserves the right to require studies to be done by the
applicant to supplement the Mining Plan. Such studies include, but are not limited to,
hydrogeologic investigations, fugitive dust and air quality considerations, noise assessments,
Underground Mining structural certification, subsidence investigations and monitoring, visual
studies, Blasting analyses including Isoseismic Studies, and traffic surveys.
(g) The Administrator shall issue the permit only if the Administrator approves or
approves with conditions a Mining Plan for any Mine, and all Mining, Processing, Sales, and
Related Activities. Reclamation shall be conducted in accordance with an approved Mining
Plan. The Administrator reserves the right to impose operating conditions, including hours of
operation, if deemed necessary to mitigate impacts.
(h) All permittees or Operators shall submit an annual report, accompanied by an
annual report fee of$10,000, on:
1) their activities detailing the Mining and Reclamation accomplished during the
past year, and an updated mining plan map depicting the current extent of
mining activities, including current mining faces as surveyed by a licensed
surveyor, and the proposed advancement of the working faces for the
subsequent three years;
2) results of studies or monitoring mandated (including Blasting reports) by the
Administrator or any other State or Federal agency,
3) certification by the Mine manager that all mining related activities conducted
during the reporting year were in conformance with the permit and the
approved plans, and that the company is in compliance with this Article;
4) correspondence with City, State, and Federal agencies with regard to
permitting, complaints, and enforcement matters;
u
u
5) a log of complaints and efforts to resolve the complaints;
6) information regarding the source and volume of any water inflow into the mine
and the disposition of such water;
7) public information and education efforts; and
8) any other information that may be required by the Administrator.
(i) The Administrator may suspend or revoke a permit for repeated or willful
violation of any of the terms of the permit or the provisions of this Article. The Administrator
may refuse to renew a permit upon a finding that the permittee is in repeated or willful
violation of any ofthe terms ofthe permit or the provisions ofthis Article.
CD Permits issued pursuant to this Article shall be renewable. A complete
application for renewal shall be accompanied by a $10,000 application fee and contain the
following:
1) completed application forms;
2) an updated Mining Plan and including an identification of the area to be mined
during the proposed permit term with updated maps;
3) a description of any changes to the Mining plan;
4) an identification of Reclamation accomplished during the existing permit term;
5) copies of approvals or permits needed from other City, State, or Federal
agencies, and
6) any other information required by the Administrator.
Section 6-169. General Ref!ulations.
(a) Lateral Supports: All Underground Mining shall be conducted with sufficient
lateral support to be safe with respect to: hazard to persons; physical damage to adjacent land
or improvements; and damage to any trees, sidewalks, parking area, or utility, by reason of
slides, sinking, or collapses.
(b) Stock Piles: Stockpiles within five hundred (500) feet of any residence shall
not exceed fifty (50) feet in height. No stockpile shall be located closer than two hundred
(200) feet from the centerline of any public street. All reasonable precautions shall be taken to
prevent any materials or waste deposited upon any stockpile from being washed, blown, or
otherwise transferred off of the site by normal causes or forces.
(c) Slope of Excavation: No slope created by Surface Mining shall be maintained
exceeding the normal limiting angle of repose of the material in which the excavation or
extraction should be made.
u
u
(d) Fencing: Chain link type fences at least six (6) feet in height, shall be required
on the perimeter of a Mine, at a point not closer than the right-of-way line of any street
bordering a Mine, to be maintained in a constant state of good repair. Appropriate warning
signs, which warn against trespassing and the presence of a quarry, shall be mounted or
posted along the fence at intervals of not more than one hundred (100) feet.
(e) Batch Plants: Batch Plants are not allowed within two thousand five hundred
(2,500) feet of any residential property line.
Section 6-170. Operatin2 Re2ulations.
(a) Conformity to Laws and Regulations. All permitted Mining, Processing,
Sales, and Related Activities shall conform to all applicable City, County, State, and Federal
statutes, ordinances, regulations, and standards relative to water or air pollution, particle
emission, noise and waste disposal, vibration, and land rehabilitation and after-use.
(b) Days of Operation. There shall be no Mining of any type on Sundays, surface
or otherwise, deemed by the Administrator as disruptive to the community.
(c) Erosion and Dust Control.
1) Each Operator shall obtain and maintain all permits required for its Operation
pursuant to State and Federal air pollution control laws and regulations.
2) Overburden removal shall be limited to the area expected to be mined during
two operating seasons, except where an Operator desires to construct earthen
berms around any portion of a Mine (in which case, if the areas so disturbed
will not be mined within two years, they will be seeded and maintained in a
permanent cover crop to prevent wind and water erosion). Overburden
removal within one thousand (1,000) feet of a residence shall be completed
during daylight hours, during the months of November through March, and
only on days other than Saturday or Sunday.
3) Each Operator shall also provide the Administrator with a copy of any erosion
control plan that such Operator is required to file pursuant to applicable State
or F ederallaw.
4) Overburden berms shall be graded and seeded promptly following completion
of the berm and shall not exceed a slope of 1: 1.5 vertical to horizontal.
5) Wet suppression control system equipment shall be installed and maintained at
all crushing and screening equipment, and conveyor transfer points, except for
the wet section of a processing plant when water is added to the process in
sufficient quantities to clean the stone free of all fine particles. Fugitive dust
shall be suppressed, provided petroleum-based products shall not be used for
fugitive dust suppression.
6) Unpaved roads and parking lots
w
Q
a. All interior roads, any quarry floor, stockpile areas, and the like, that
will experience vehicle traffic shall be sprayed with water on an as
needed basis to minimize the generation of dust.
b. Records of water applications shall be retained for a period of at least
three years at the site, and made available to the Administrator for
inspection and copying.
7) Loading of stone into trucks, hoppers, or bins shall be done in a manner to
minimize the free fall distance to the extent practicable.
8) All trucks removing Minerals from a Mine shall have covered beds (open beds
may be covered by tarpaulins).
Section 6-171. Miscellaneous.
(a) "No Trespassing" signs shall be posted around the perimeter of each Mine.
(b) Petroleum products shall be stored in accordance with applicable regulations of
the United States Environmental Protection Agency and Indiana Department of
Environmental Management.
(c) All Operations shall be subject to Section 7-85 ofthe City Code (provisions for
the protection of the aquifer serving the City's wells).
(d) All Operations shall ensure that mining will not significantly impact the City
of Carmel's water supply. The Administrator reserves the right to require an assessment from
the Operator when there is a determination by the Utilities Director that there is a reasonable
likelihood of an impairment of to the quality or quantity ofthe City's water supply.
Section 6-172. Blastin!! Re!!ulations.
( a) In General.
1) Each Operator shall comply with all applicable State and Federal regulations as
they relate to Blasting by that Operator.
2) The Operator shall retain responsibility for all Blasting by that Operator
regardless of whether the Blasting is done by the Operator's personnel, done
by others under direct supervision of the Operator's personnel, or done by
others performing as independent subcontractors.
3) The Operator will undertake an Isoseismic Study to determine the most
appropriate parameters to minimize impacts and will utilize the
recommendations of the study to mitigate impacts upon Protected Structures.
An operator may be required to undertake an updated study as a requirement of
a renewal application.
u
u
(b) Blasting Practices.
1) All Blasting in connection with Surface Mining shall be limited to the period
between 10:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. on weekdays (other than holidays recognized
by the State of Indiana), and explosives shall not be detonated at other times,
except when necessary to detonate a loaded shot which could not be detonated
because of sudden adverse weather or other conditions which could not
reasonably be foreseen by the Operator, or as required to comply with
applicable governmental requirements. The Operator is required to notify the
Administrator before any blast that may occur beyond the prescribed time of
day limits. Every effort shall be made to schedule blasts at the same time of
day whenever possible.
2) All Blasting shall be conducted by individuals trained and experienced in the
design and safe use of Blasting systems, and no Blasting shall be done during
adverse weather conditions.
3) Blasting shall occur no closer than 500 feet (measured horizontally) to any
residential property line, or one hundred (100) feet to any natural gas pipelines,
unless the pipeline company authorizes or confirms, in writing, a lesser
distance, provided that such distance shall in no event be less than twenty-five
(25) feet.
4) Blast hole drillers shall report any cavities encountered during drilling to the
Blasting supervisor, who shall record such reports in a Blasting report. During
loading of explosives, accepted Blasting practices shall be used, and the
amount of explosives loaded into each hole monitored and recorded to avoid
overloading a Blast. These Blasting reports shall be available for inspection
and copying by the Administrator during regular business hours.
5) Under any Blasting conditions, flyrock should never leave the property
boundaries of the Mine site.
6) All blasts shall be conducted using electronic blasting systems.
( c) Monitoring Guidelines.
1) All blasts shall be monitored by an independent third party contractor, subject
to the approval of the Administrator, engaged and paid for by the Operator.
The contractor will be responsible for collecting and analyzing the data
independent of any review by the Operator.
2) All Blasts on the property shall be monitored by properly calibrated
seismographs at any Monitoring Stations for both horizontal and vertical
ground vibrations and for Air Blast. All equipment for the monitoring of the
blasts will be maintained and calibrated by the independent contractor
exclusively. The Administrator may require that additional Monitoring
Stations be located or relocated to or from certain sites from time to time.
u
u
3) All blasts shall be monitored remotely using satellite technology or other
similar technology by the independent contractor and made available to the
Administrator upon request for the permanent Monitoring Stations. Portable
seismographs may be installed at other locations, and the reporting of the
results can be done without using remote capabilities
4) Records for each Blast, including location of Blast, number of holes, depth of
holes, amount of explosives used, amount of stemming and approximate
number of tons of stone Blasted, qualifications/certification of the blaster,
together with the seismograph record, shall be maintained by the Operator at
the site for a period of no less than three years.
5) Records from each Blast shall be available for inspection and copying by the
Administrator.
(d) Vibration and Air Blast Limits.
1) The maximum peak: Particle Velocities for any Blast shall comply with the
criteria referenced in the former U.S. Bureau of Mines Report of Investigations
(RI) 8507, Structural Response and Damage Produced by Ground Vibration
from Surface Mine Blasting (Siskind 1980) measured at the property line. See
Appendix I for the graph of the particle velocity limits versus frequency. The
graph has been modified for clarity of presentation.
2) The maximum peak: Particle Velocities for any Blast at a Protected Structure
shall not exceed one inch per second, unless the Protected Structure is owned
by the Operator and not leased to any other person.
3) Airblasts shall be controlled so that the maximum decibel limits are not exceeded
at Protected Structures. The maximum Airblast limits shall be governed by the
following table shown in the table below, based on the former U.S. Bureau of
Mines RI 8485, Structure Response and Damage Produced by Airblast from
Surface Mining (Siskind 1980). Nothwithstanding the limits listed in the table, the
Administrator may impose lower maximum airblast limits than those identified, if
necessary in specific locations to prevent damage. Every effort shall be made by
the Operator to reduce airblast to 120 dB or less.
134 dB
133 dB
129 dB
105 dB
4) An Operator shall maintain all records for Blasting for Underground Mining
and Surface Mining.
u
u
5) An Operator shall provide a Blasting report with analyses to the Administrator
in January of each year for the preceding calendar year as part of the annual
report requirement and will provide the analyses to make recommendations to
further mitigate impacts on protected structures.
6) Blasting records will be made available by Operator to be audited by the
Administrator during regular business hours.
Section 6-173. Claims for Damaees
(a) Any Operator who receives a permit under this Article has expressly accepted
full legal responsibility for all damages, direct or indirect, arising from the operation and
development of the mining operation, including but not limited to bodily injury, property
damage, and damage to surface structures or loss of water supplies caused by either surface or
underground mining.
(b) At his own expense, the Operator may undertake a survey of adjoining
residential properties, with the permission of the owner ofthe residential property, to establish
current conditions, including but not limited to, visual and structural inspections.
(c) Any Person who believes that he/she has a claim for a mining-related damage
must fill out a form prescribed by the Operator with the information. The Person must send
the original form to the Operator and a copy to the Administrator. When the information is
received by the Operator, the form will be faxed to the Operator's general liability insurer.
The claimant will be contacted by phone to set up an appointment for a site visit.
(d) A licensed insurance adjuster, a professional engineer, and a representative of
the Operator will meet with the claimant onsite to review the claim. Subsequent to the onsite
inspection, the Operator and its insurer will review the claim in good faith and advise the
claimant within 15 days of the onsite inspection as to whether the claim is valid or not.
(e) If the claimant disputes the denial of a claim or disputes the settlement
payment proposed by the Operator or its insurer, in addition to all remedies available at law,
the claimant shall have all legal rights to commence legal action in any relevant court of
competent jurisdiction.
Section 6-174. Inspections and Violations.
(a) In order to insure that the provisions of this Article are complied with, the
Administrator shall have the right to inspect any Operation. Such inspection or inspections as
the Administrator may deem necessary may be conducted at any time without prior notice or
consent.
(b) It is unlawful to violate any of the provisions of this Article, or fail to perform
any duty imposed by this Ordinance, any permit condition, or any order issued by the
Administrator. Any Person found to have committed such a violation shall be liable for a
u
u
penalty not to exceed two thousand five dollars ($2,500) for each day such violation
continues.
Section 6-175. Effective Date.
This Article shall be in full force and effect ninety (90) days from and after its
passage. However, Operations in existence on the Effective Date shall be granted sixty (60)
days from the Effective Date to obtain a permit under this Article.
Section II: All prior Ordinances or parts thereof inconsistent with any provision of this
Ordinance are hereby repealed.
Section III: This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect from and after its passage and
signing by the Mayor.
u
u
PASSED by the Common Council of the City of Carmel, Indiana this _ day of
2003, by a vote of ayes and nays.
COMMON COUNCIL FOR THE CITY OF CARMEL
Presiding Officer
Kevin Kirby
Luci Snyder, President Pro Tempore
John R. Koven
Robert Battreall
N.L. Rundle
Ronald E. Carter
Wayne Wilson
ATTEST:
Diana L. Cordray, IAMC, Clerk-Treasurer
Presented by me to the Mayor of the City of Carmel, Indiana this _ day of
2003, at .M.
Diana L. Cordray, IAMC, Clerk-Treasurer
Approved by me, Mayor of the City of Carmel, Indiana, this _ day of
2003, at .M.
James Brainard, Mayor
ATTEST:
Diana L. Cordray, lAMC, Clerk-Treasurer
Prepared by: Michael Hollibaugh,
Department of Community Services, CITY OF CARMEL
A
Appendix I
I
-
~
; 1A
w
I
~
u
u
u.s. BUREAU'OFMINES CRITERIA
From Report RI-8S07 (November, 1980)
10.0
21n1Mc
0.75 InIIec.
1
1
10
FREQUENCY. Hz
u
u
". 1!!!!,v, Laurence M
"': From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Hollibaugh, Mike P
Wednesday, January 29,200310:27 AM
Lillig, Laurence M
RE: Mining Ordinance
sorry, forgot you're not clairvoyant
i've saved them in the appropriate place on the S drive...titled Duffy's Comments
thanks
Mike
-----Original Message-----
From: Ullig, Laurence M
Sent: Wednesday, January 29, 2003 9:55 AM
To: Hollibaugh, Mike P
Subject: RE: Mining Ordinance
I need the attachment....
-----Original Message-----
From: Hollibaugh, Mike P
Sent: Tuesday, January 28, 2003 5:06 PM
To: Ullig, Laurence M
Subject: FW: Mining Ordinance
LL
fyi, let me know what you think
-----Original Message-----
From: Hollibaugh, Mike P
Sent: Tuesday, January 28, 2003 5:05 PM
To: Duffy, John M; 'gsovas@spectraenv.com'
Cc: Brainard, James C
Subject: RE: Mining Ordinance
John
thanks for the comments.
my thought would be we share these with council now, yet let them know they will be finding their way into the draft
at the committee level
otherwise we are changing the document which has already gone out and that often gets people upset
thanks
mike
-----Original Message-----
From: Duffy, John M
Sent: Tuesday, January 28,200311:15 AM
To: Hollibaugh, Mike P; 'gsovas@spedraenv.com'
Cc: Brainard, James C
Subject: Mining Ordinance
1
I am attaching a few co~ents on the prosed ordinance for your rev'd. As far as the groundwater issues go,
I think this is a good document and gives us more protection than we currently have. Please let me know if I
can answer any questions. Thanks
J Duffy
<< File: mmarieta comments.doc >>
2
Page 1 of 1
u
u
LiIIig, Laurence M
From: Lillig, Laurence M
Sent: Monday, January 27,200311 :07
To: 'wdmcevoy@msn.com' ~
Subject: RE: Proposed Chapter 201: ME-1/MI
-----Original Message-----
From: wdmcevoy@msn.com [mailto:wdmcevoy@msn.com]
Sent: Monday, January 27, 2003 10:11 PM
To: Lillig, Laurence M
Subject: Re: Proposed Chapter 201: ME-1/Mineral Extraction District
Thank you for the quick response. Can you also Email me a copy of the new mining
ordinance.
----- Original Message -----
From: Lillig, Laurence M
Sent: Monday, January 27,200310:48 AM
To: 'wdmcevoy@msn.com'
Subject: Proposed Chapter 201: ME-1/Mineral Extraction District
Mr. McEvoy,
Mike Hollibaugh asked me to forward the hearing draft of the proposed
ME-1/Mineral Extraction District ordinance to you. It is attached herein as
a .pdf file:
<<2003-01-16 Zoning Ordinance Draft Public Hearing.pdf>>
Laurence M. Lillig, Jr.
Planning & Zoning Administrator
Division of Planning & Zoning
Department of Community Services
City of Carmel
One Civic Square
Carmel, IN 46032
317/571-2417
fax: 317/571-2426
lIillig@ci.carmel.in.us
2/3/2003
Page 1 of 1
LiIIig, Laurence M
From: Lillig, Laurence M ~ FEB 4 2003
Sent: Monday, January ~003 1G8&~M
To: Hollibaugh, Mike P \f^
Subject: RE: Zoning ordinanc;:~2\
u
Done.
-----Original Message-----
From: Hollibaugh, Mike P
Sent: Monday, January 27,2003 10:41 AM
To: Lillig, Laurence M
Subject: FW: Zoning Ordinance
LL
would you save the draft ME zone ordinance as a PDF and forward it to Bill? i really don't
want to send him a Word file. if possible, i'd like to get it to him sometime today.
thanks
mike
-----Original Message-----
From: wdmcevoy@msn.com [mailto:wdmcevoy@msn.com]
Sent: Monday, January 27,20039:44 AM
To: Mike Hollibaugh
Subject: Zoning Ordinance
Mike
Could you Email me the new zoning ordinance that was introduced at Plan Commission
meeting as an attachment. We are trying to post on our web site and the Email you sent I
can not save as a word document, and forwarding as an Email to someone else the words get
jumbled. Thanks!
Bill McEvoy
2/3/2003
u
u
~, Laurence M
Mr. McEvoy,
Lillig, Laurence M .___
Monday, January 27,200310:56 AM '4B~" e
'wdmcevoy@msn.com' ~ ~(~
Proposed Chapter 201: ME-1/Min . Extracti<4DistriCt;- \
iEl1 FEZtCFlVtD \('~~
. 42003 ~
~ Dnf'C' I{X)
Mike Hollibaugh asked me to forward the hearing draft of the ~ posed 1Vfel1/Miner ~traction District ordinance to you.
It is attached herein as a .pdf file: ~ ~".
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
~
2003-01-16 Zoning
Ordinance Dr...
Laurence M. Lillig, Jr.
Planning & Zoning Administrator
Division of Planning & Zoning
Department of Community Services
City of Carmel
One Civic Square
Carmel, IN 46032
317/571-2417
fax: 317/571-2426
llillig@ci.carmel.in.us
1
1!!!!i, Laurence M
u
u
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
John Molitor [jmolitor@prodigy.net]
Tuesday, January 14, 2003 12:09 PM
'Dobosiewicz, Jon G'; 'Gregory H. Sovas (E-mail)'
'Hollibaugh, Mike P'; 'Lillig, Laurence M'
RE: Mining District- Ordinance
~
Zoning rewrite
1-14.doc
Here is my proposed final draft of the Zoning Ordinance to be submitted
to the Plan Commission for public hearing next week.
As indicated earlier, this draft incorporates most of Tom Yedlick's
suggestions. However, it does not delete the last few sections of the
earlier draft which deal with reclamation, landscaping, explosives, and
transitional issues.
It appeared to me that Tom was attempting to make this ordinance serve
double duty--regulate the land use, and regulate the mining operation as
such.
We are submitting two ordinances to avoid the legal difficulties
inherent in the dual-purpose approach.
I'll check in later today to see if you have any comments.
John
-----Original Message-----
From: Dobosiewicz, Jon C [mailto:JDobosiewicz@ci.carmel.in.us]
Sent: Monday, January 13, 2003 12:16 PM
To: 'John R. Molitor (e-mail)'
Cc: Hollibaugh, Mike P; Lillig, Laurence M
Subject: Mining District- Ordinance
John,
Please forward to me a copy of the Proposed Mining Ordinance. We have
sent
notice and people are asking. I need to have something to show them.
Mike told me we might have gotten something on Friday but I did not get
copied if we do.
Thanks,
Jon
*** eSafe has scanned this email for malicious content and found it to be clean ***
*** IMPORTANT: Do not open attachments from unrecognized senders ***
1
u
u
CarmeR
artment
.t
m:CfWEO
l' \' ;'> 2~1f'\3
,\1 , :, ::J . \:~.; \
t. '.'1",
DOCS
January 8, 2003
Mr. John J. Tiberi
Martin Marietta Aggregates
Indiana District Office
1980 E. 116th Street, Suite 200
Carmel, IN 46032
RE: Martin Marietta Materials, Inc.
177--o~ 0 A
/7j/ PLe/'/i-
Dear Mr. Tiberi:
I have received and reviewed the information for the above-mentioned
project.
At the present time, I see nothing in the plans that would hamper law
enforcement efforts.
If we can be of any further assistance to you, please contact us.
Respectfully,
~)).~
Michael D. Fogarty
Chief of Police
MDF:vb
cc: Dept. of Community Services
A Nationally Accredit
(317) 571-2500
forcement Agency
Fax (317) 571-2512
u
w
~ 1/
3;:?f) /x3
CITY OF CARMEL, INDIANA
Request For Records Pursuant To Indiana Access To Public Records Act
(I.C. 5-14-3-1, et ~, as amended)
l,
'/-(;"'1 ""~f)L Id(
/ _.r~ Ii
[name optional]
,hereby request of the City of C;ormel,
Indiana, the right to inspect and copy the following records:
~ ~oCYM7~
f
177 - O?.cJ;A 17o:J>.-o~ c 1>11-
.,i
""-0/-1. YI3{) e I~. ;.!e~
Dated this /3 day of ~ ' 200.Q..,
The City may provide m"lth its response to this request:
o By telephone at
o By facsimile transmission at
:J By mail at
LJ Other
Received by:
at
_.m.on
,200_.
Signature:
'Printed Name and City Department:
Sent to Legal Department for response on: by
Received by Legal Department on: by
Exhibit A
ll. \LlIW'E BosslMy OIlcuml!lllSIR=rdJRequ.!lSIFORM ~OOI.daeoll410lJ
/-/.
~. I /" _ .. ~//'
, / ..-:"'1 .c:- :::>
~--------~
u
u
~, Laurence M
Judi.Martinez@indystar.com
Monday, December 16, 2002 2:22 PM
Lillig, Laurence M
~~}~i9,ticeJ:('TlalJ" Commission Hearing: Docket Nos. 177-02 OA & 178-02
,/,1~[Mineral Extract!9n>
l' 0..........~, /t~ \/ . '\
/': ',."~'I 4 \~ ' \
/-J ,REcr:/I/t'D \(J
BtU" (1:-,~~" ,:: r,... \
i f/i_"(; ",'" '.- . 'i,'"
\,'c.'.:.J J. /;,n/'J ,j.";
, \ --, c I. ''' i
2002-12-16; 2002-12;'16; DOCS [I
77-02 Ok Commiss78-02 CPAl\cdmmiS, /r,.,.,j
, , \/ '" ,I........ '/
,,/"~ ':'''/'
'-.,~' I '-- _ /"'
WEDNESDAY I ,/
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
~
THANK YOU
THEY WILL RUN ON
JUDI
"Lillig, Laurence M" <LLillig@ci.carmel.in.us> on 12/16/2002 12:32:18 PM
To: "'judi.martinez@indystar.com'" <judi.martinez@indystar.com>
cc: "Dobosiewicz, Jon C" <JDobosiewicz@ci.carmel.in.us>, "Lawrence,
Kelli A" <KHahn@ci.carme1.in.us>, "Hollibaugh, Mike P"
<MHollibaugh@ci.carmel.in.us>, "Hancock, Ramona B"
<RHancock@ci.carmel.in.us>
Subject: Notice of Plan Commission Hearing: Docket Nos. 177-02 OA &
178-02 CPA; ME-1/Mineral Extraction
Judi,
Please publish on the first available date in the Indianapolis Star.
Attached are the notices for public hearing before the Carmel/Clay Advisory
Plan Commission for Ordinance Amendment Docket No. 177-02 OA and
Comprehensive Plan Amendment Docket No. 178-02 CPA:
<<2002-12-16; 177-02 OA; Commission Notice.rtf>> <<2002-12-16; 178-02
CPA; Commission Notice.rtf>>
Please call or e-mail me if you have any questions.
Thank you,
Laurence M. Lillig, Jr.
Planning & Zoning Administrator
Division of Planning & Zoning
Department of Community Services
City of Carmel
One Civic Square
Carmel, IN 46032
317/571-2417
fax: 317/571-2426
llillig@ci.carmel.in.us
(See attached file: 2002-12-16; 177-02 OA; Commission Notice.rtf)
(See attached file: 2002-12-16; 178-02 CPA; Commission Notice.rtf)
1
CPA; ME-