HomeMy WebLinkAboutLetter #127 Lynn Tyler
Butler, Bric
From:LTYLER3@indy.rr.com
Sent:Sunday, November 17, 2024 12:59 PM
To:Butler, Bric
Subject:Proposed Stout Farm Development
Dear Mr. Butler,
I am writing to oppose the proposed development for the Stout Farm acreage. Like many of my neighbors
in the Village of West Clay, I am opposed to the proposal for several reasons.
1. The proposed project is inconsistent with the surrounding neighborhoods in west Carmel. Most of the
neighborhoods in west Carmel feature large homes on large lots. Although the Village has some smaller
homes and townhomes, these are not visible from the surrounding roads and are necessary to support
the upscale business district. The proposed development doesn't include a business district.
2. The proposed project is inconsistent with the property values in the Village, except for the higher
density ones necessary to support the business district. The increased traffic from the additional
population density will make the area less desirable.
3. The relative absence of greenspace and common area in the proposal is inconsistent with the Village
and other west Carmel neighborhoods. Indeed, it has 90% or greater lot coverage.
4. The proposed density is too great and inconsistent with the Village and the rest of west Carmel. Also,
during the meeting held at the Village Meeting House, it was unclear if the proposal relies on counting a
multi-family dwellings as one house or two when calculating its density. Further, its calculations include
seven large estate lots. It is hard to imagine people wanting to build multi-million dollar homes next to
the rest of the proposed development (again in the absence of any amenities like sufficient greenspace,
common areas, a business district, etc.). What happens if all the small homes are built and most or all of
the seven estate lots left empty?
5. The proposed development has limited setback and screening or buffer.
6. The residents in the proposed development (lacking much in the way of their own amenities) will be
able to use some of those in the Village without contributing to their ongoing maintenance. At the
meeting, the developer's representative said there are ways the Village can restrict access to its
amenities, but why should we have to incur that expense? Also, I moved to the Village in July from a
Zionsville neighborhood. After it was largely developed, an apartment complex was built on an adjacent
lot. Some of the apartment residents would walk their dogs through our neighborhood and not clean up
after them. (So did some residents of the neighborhood, but at least they were contributing). What's to
stop that from happening in this case?
7. At the meeting with the developer, they declined to state whether the development would prohibit
renting of the homes. Instead, they said it hadn't been raised yet. It was raised at the meeting and is being
raised now.
1
Thank you for your consideration and please let me know if you have any questions.
Best regards,
Lynn Tyler
2085 Rhettsbury Street
2