HomeMy WebLinkAboutRemonstrator's Presentation 09-27-04 w/attachments
u
a
D
u
1J
U
D
o
Q
o
D
ID
,ij
la
o
D
a
o
D
~"
u
u
u
u
u
u
[.J
o
D
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
en
CD
::J
en
en
II c: CJ c= ~ ~ CJ c::: CJ c: -== r== Cl EJ ~ -==1 CJ CJ ~ ~
I ss -<as
. 1. WRONG Zoning Request
. 2. Mining expansion violates public
. 3. Relationship of Petitioner to land ow
. 4. Underground and surface water
. 5. Mining Expansion increases nuisances
. 6. Inadequate mining regulation
. 7. Inadequate wellhead protection
. 8. Illegal expansion of nonconforming uses
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
. WRONG Zoning Request
. -- Need MI/Manufacturing District for
commercial mining operation, not
S l/Residence District
. --Description of permitted activities in MI m
clearly includes commercial mining
. --Performance standards found in MI but none
found in S 1
. --Intent of Carmel Common Council
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
ssue #2
ic policy
. Mining expansion violates p
. -- The Zoning Ordinance is intended to prom
public health, safety, comfort, morals, con
and general welfare," not the profits of a busI
. --The S l/Residence District is intended "to provide
development of innovative residential environm
keeping with the rural character of this district. . .
. --The Ml/Manufacturing District is intended for
businesses that have "objectionable factors," includi
"noise, glare, dust, odor, smoke or other offensive
characteristics. "
C~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
ssue #3
. Relationship of Petition to the land owners.
Who owns the surface righ ineral rights,
and the mining rights of Muell outh?
. --Does the Petitioner own all of the above rig
. --If rights are leased, when will they be terminat
. --Are the land owner and its owners making the sa
commitments and representations as the Petition
. --Will the land owner and its owners be able to fulfill a:
the commitments being offered by or required of th
Petitioner if the Petitioner does not?
. -- Is the land owner also in the commercial mining busines
. --Will the land owner be liable for Reclamation?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
. Underground and Surfac
Issue #4
. --Mining expansion will increase the
per day.
. --The total capacity of aquifer serving the PIa
reduced by 15%, more during drought con
capacity may be needed at a later time.
. --Such dewatering will increase the recycling by Pet!
groundwater and surface water to the Plant 4 cap
by 800,000 gal. per day.
. --The recycled water is collected on the ground within the
Petitioner's existing stone mine, exposing it to
contamination.
. -- The Petitioner's own Spill Prevention, Control, and
Countermeasure Plan cites to 11 separate locations of
hazardous materials without containment facilities.
atering by 800,000 gal.
wells will be
Such
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
ISsue #4 [continued]
. --Carmel is being required to for monitoring of its wells that
would not be required if Peti . ner did not dewater and
recycle the aquifer water.
. --The time of travel from Petitioner's pro y to the Plant 4
wellfield is less than one year
. --The increased recycling of 800,000 gallons p to the
ponds increases Blue Woods Creek runoff to ver
and erosion.
. -- When Petitioner has completed mining, it will turn
pumps, thus eliminating the recycling of groundw
help fill the ponds that recharge the aquifer; howev
proposed artificial lake will take all of the water fio
out of the Plant 4 aquifer, making recharging of the a
problematic.
. --Petitioner does not own Mueller South and may not own t11
land under the ponds at Gray Road and 106th Street.
Therefore, control of the surface water after the end of th
Petitioner's leasehold rights is not going to revert to the
City of Carmel but needs to be controlled.
lOlaWJeo
!. 1; ~ '
Jl rc
/(~-
., / )
......./ 0
~,\ \
,.
'I
I'
..
.
.
-.... q~r~. '
.". -\. -.'
. . .'\'~.
.'. ' : t ~
I ., cy
t.,' ,"'t
\.. J' ~ "c'
, '(.rl.-
. .. I.. ~
· " "'41'
III. 1:.
r \ L
I~ ~~'
In;' '= :/)
'\( ...,..." .
,,''''''''
.- /-,"
. "'-:,1 i ..'(! I
, .' ,II
.\I! ..
tr:\\. ,
~\) .
'" \~ -.:."" .
.
, ...
~..,'~- .
, ,.. .._r fI!." .......
t'
J -~ .-. ....1
, :. ", '. ,. I...
I" , I.. 'r-j'
.. . ~ . I II ..'
" . . ,.t II.
. t.. . '~..,' "\ r :.
t~ · ., f I , .
',I I 111.'~\lr.:,
t , ..1 I..
" I,' I'
<< . ~ I.. ' "
[I i" I ~'--~ ~ II
I,'" 11:.";;'l,"
"t L .. ." "1'
~:I. . , ~.' I , 'il
l. I I II.. "I '
'!," r I' I' , I ·
,.. "'r II' "I I
f '.::-,.. i: :/'
. , II '1 I
It""(;# :/
... '. " 'I\:
:.,... I... , 1(-
'I ,~J )J.
c; r= c c--: c::: C c-: C=C' c-. C' c: C: C' CJ c; c=: ~ ~.
e#5
. Mining Expansion Increases ances, including:
. -- Noise: Trucks, earthmoving equipm loading
equipment, increased use of Carmel Sa nt
. -- Fugitive Dust and Dirt from operations and
tracking dirt onto the streets
. -- Excessive Truck Traffic and Road Repair on Gra
106th St., and Hazel Dell Parkway
. -- Unreasonable Hours of Operation from 6 AM to 10
at minimum
. -- Blasting: Noise, vibration, dust, and flyrock are all
elements of blasting, if allowed to occur in the future.
~~~L;~C~C~~~~~~~~~~~
. Inadequate mining regulat!
inadequate commitments
. --There is no Mining Ordinance, Statute, or La
regulates mining activity of the Petitioner in
. --It is not feasible, through neighborhood or local
commitments adopted by private agreement, a B
or an APC, to adopt comprehensive regulations 0
business operation that involves dangerous activity
. -- The brief and self-serving commitments offered by the
Petitioner do not provide any real and enforceable
protection for Carmel or its citizens.
c=: C1 C: L ] C 0 C; C~ C' C=' t=) c= C; C' .-----~ '---l .-----, ------i ..----.
, ~ IL..---! .~ ~, ____, ,,------J
ssue #7
. Inadequate wellhead protec ·
inadequate commitments
. --The current Wellhead Protection Ordinanc
agreed to be inadequate to regulate the cu
situation and is being studied for major revi
. --It is not feasible to adopt comprehensive regulatio
the protection of wellheads through neighborho
local commitments adopted by private agreement,
BZA, or an APe.
. --The commitments offered by the Petitioner contain
nothing about future monitoring, pumping, or other
matters involving Plant 4 and provide no protection
for Carmel or its citizens.
.
IS
c; EJ C~: I J C 0 C: C C' C,' C) c= c: ,c: C! C-:l C! CJ CJ
Ssue #8
. Illegal expansion of exis ·
uses on adjoining lands
. --Petitioner will use the Indianapolis Nort
ponds on the west side of Gray Road to
recycle the groundwater from Mueller So
. --Petitioner will use the Carmel Sand Plant for pr
the aggregate from Mueller South.
. --Petitioner will use off-site roadways to access publ!
roads for its trucks to reach the Carmel Sand plan
. -- Each of these properties is a nonconforming use that
cannot be changed without a variance or special use
approval by this BZA.
. --None of the above properties are included in this
Application, so it cannot be approved as submitted.
nonconforming
nt and the
. and
0
0
u
0
U en
c
u 0
--
U en
--
U u
(])
[J 0
u (])
en
U ::J
0 co
U --
u
0 (])
c.
u en
u
u
u
u
c: ~ c: ~ C l~ Cl ~ C C' ~ ~ ~ e: G~ C' ~ ~
pecial Use Decisions
The particular physica .tability of the premises in
question for the proposed Sial Use.
The economic factors related to roposed Special
Use, such as cost/benefit to the co ity and its
anticipated effect on surrounding prop values.
The social/neighborhood factors related t
proposed Special Use, such as compatibili
existing uses and those permitted under curre
in the vicinity of the premises under consideratl
how the proposed Special Use will effect
neighborhood integrity.
The adequacy and availability of water, sewage and
storm drainage facilities and police and fire
protection.
The effects of the proposed Special Use on vehicular
and pedestrian traffic in and around the premises upon
which the Special Use is proposed.
Factors in
. 1.
. 2.
. 3.
. 4.
. 5.
C~~~~~!~l,]~~~~~~n~~~~
SpeCI8 ~se Decision #1 :
The premises are n~}!Sically suitable for the
proposed special u'Se ecause of
. Dewatering of the aquifer;
. Adverse effects on storm water manageme
. Potential wellfield contamination; and
. Removal of hundreds of mature trees and
natural buffer.
c: c:: C: Cl c= '-.-,! c) CJ L:J C=' c:: C:~= ~.. C CJ a::::::: c: E: Ci
Speci 1~se Decision #2:
and surrounding prop rt values far
outweigh the alleged benefi ecause of:
. Increased road maintenance for Carme ,
. Increased Carmel Utilities capital expendi
. Increased monitoring costs and contaminatio
. Negative impact on property values;
. Increased risk of subsidence;
. Potential for more open pit blasting; and
. De minimus offsetting tax increases.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~o~~~~
Special s ecision #3:
Expansion of Commercia ining is inherently
incompatible with expensiv "ngle-family
residential housing and will
neighborhood integrity becau
. Extensive hours of operation: 6 AM to lOP
longer;
. Increased risks to neighbors from truck traffic;
. Increased noise and dust;
. Attractive nuisance for children;
. Increased potential for blasting;
CJ t=) C; ~ C=' 1-,. CJ C~ e::; c: CJ .c=; CjCi C-=-:J CJ c:J C,~ CJ
Special
s J)ecision #3:
[conti~J
. Increased risk of injury from flyroc
subsidence; and
. No neighbor should have the right to con
another neighbor's property, but Petitio
suggests that all other uses should keep t11
distance and history shows that such distan
is perhaps 1500 feet. Such setbacks destroy
neighborhoods rather than building
neighborhood integrity.
A Commercial Mine does not belong here.
CJ Cl C; CJ .C.: c: CJ CJ C: c:: Cj Cl c=J L -; C-) ~ C--: E: c:
Speci l-Use Decision #4:
of groundwater for use Carmel and its
Citizens by
. Decreasing the groundwater available
Utilities Plant 4 by approximately 800,0
per day, which results in:
. -- Decreased yield of Carmel wells,
. -- Increased risk of contamination of aquifer, an
. --Increased monitoring costs for 50+ years; and
. --Increased storm water management caused by
pumping 800,000 gpd of additional
groundwater into ponds emptying into Blue
Woods Creek.
CJ CJ C: CjC i. c; Cl CJ C} C~ I ,.; CJ r::::J. Cl t:::::::J c: C: t:=: C'
Specia "Use Decision #5:
The proposed use ~'h~ve negative effects
on vehicular and pedestna traffic in and
around the premises be se of:
. Increased Truck Noise;
. Increased traffic hazards on 106th Street an
Hazel Dell and at their intersections;
. Increased dust and debris tracked onto public
roads; and
. If Gray Road is used, then truck traffic willlikel
destroy the new Roundabout at 106th and Gra
Rd. by cutting the comers.
o
!U
o
I
I
I Lt
{]
'0
o
o
'U
U
D
o
I
I
I
10
o
u
o
u
o
ID
~
Q)
c:::
~'DC::'C::~t= ceLL' ,
. ' C; , .~. ,~~ c-: t:=.=: ~,> {::: L' <<:=:, t=:J C=' r:;: c~
Rebuttals
. 1. The Neighborhood A sis tendered by Petitioner is
irrelevant and inco usive
. 2. The Sound Level Assessment t ered by Petitioner is
incomplete
. 3. Petitioner's objections to Remonstrato mphasis on
the hazards of blasting are disinge
. 4. Petitioner's objection to the incorporation 0
written materials," into the record ofp
by Remonstrators is not well founded.
. 5. The Law does not favor Special Uses until they s
criteria for approval.
. 6. The Petitioner has not provided evidence sufficient t
prove each of the five Special Use factors.
. 7. Petitioner's proposed Commitments are grossly inadeq
when laws do not exist to control behavior.
~~~~~~~~t~~~~~c~~~~
,..
. The Neighborhood Analy. tendered by Petitioner
is Irrelevant and Inconclusive
. --Petitioner's neighborhood analyzer do not address the
central question of whether or not the
commercial mine on Mueller South wou
property values in the future.
. --The Neighborhood Analysis uses obsolete data.
. --The days on market for Kingswood in 2002 are m
twice the average of the "competing subdivision
. --The sales and listing data for Kingswood are almost a
the west side of Kingswood, one-half mile from the
Carmel Sand plant.
. -- The resale on the east side of Kingswood shows an
increase in value of only 1.17 percent per year, less
than one-third of the rate for properties on the west sid
of Kingswood.
r=J
c:!
CJ t=l
r:=:J
~ c=;J D c:::;j
d
CJ
Cl
r::::=;
~
c
.. '. ..... ..'
';Kingswood CM4 .... ..,..,,:,,
CMA: -Number of Properties Low High Average List/Sale Price/sq.ft. Avg.DQM
Active Listings - 3 $299,900 $369,900 $343,233 $90.00 4~
Pending Sales -2 $279,900 $305,000 $292,450 $110.00 20
Sales 2000 - 24 $248.000 $355.000 $287.833 $94.00 53
Sales 2001 . 12 $281 ,500 $344,000 5312,837 $93.00 31
Sales 2002 - 1 2 $267,000 $334,000 5298,875 $101.00 91
\IV . .... dfi Id 'CMA .
..;" . ~.:. ; .::::;..
. ... . .....-
. . - '., .......
'.,,, .q,p. .,e .;;;, ". . '. "',;;"
CMA: -Number of Properties Low High Average LisVSale Price/sq.: AI/g. DOM
Active listings - 5 $384.900 $549,900 $444.900 $94.00 67
Pending Sales -1 $419.900 $419,900 $419,900 $83.00 215
Sales 2000 - 6 $300,500 $495,000 $357,983 $88.00 109
Sales 2001 - 7 5305,000 $493,000 $396,914 $99.00 79
Sales 2002 - 18 5407,500 $550,000 $431.257 $101.00 48
o
r=J c:J
CJ
o
D
Q
o
o
o
D
o
D
Q
u
0'
Q
Ill'
..
~
o
~
D
D
,
t, ~.
Ii
'f'
Iil
.",~
.~
,~
:3
~ ll~
"J
z
~.,<,
ti'..3
:;;:
~l
~':;
~ ~
~,~
1\
~
r
ri ~
~
"Iw"
r~,
~ 1
t
~,
a
Q
;<-,l;}t'
Q
o
o
~
~
D
~
I
i
a
0
~-; :~
a .~
Q
0
~
~~
a
t
i't~
~~,'}'
i-?' ~:"~~ i,i','
"
I'tl
~
~
~lff!;
'it
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
. The Sound Level Assess nt tendered by
Petitioner is Incomplete
. --Includes a berm that does not exist a .s not proposed.
. --Does not show the "spikes" of noise, su
beepers and truck dumping, only ten-m
averages.
. --Does not show the percentage of capacity ofth
Sand plant being used at the time of measure
. -- Measurements were taken during a cicada infestati
No measurements were taken at any second floo .
. --Shows that occasionally the Carmel Sand plant doubl
the actual noise for Kingswood.
. --Shows that dump trucks generate 100db, front-end
loaders generate 110 db, and the Carmel Sand plant
generates 70 db.
I'
o
~
Q
r-
~ I
I
~
_.._~
~ ~ 1:1.
"~I".
..
i,
Q
~~....
_",--,.i-;.
J-~
1-'
"
..
r
'i-
1&
G
~o..
ate:{
O:r .
t: z :: ;~-
Z 0 li:, - : '
0:-' .
:i~
Wli.,..'J
~O
o .,,F
.",.
.....
...
-
~..l g
\:' It}
~ II t-
O i! ~l
:f I' C
jH
f'l ~
~l. "";
I ~
I~ ,
'~!;:', , t
~~1
~ .....
i:
il"
~ .
~';1
/
t .~ \
!' ~i~;:
,", - r
Q
"",
: :J
; ~ ~~
L ~.~
!f :"
'1"...._ r
!
1
I
t "'f
1-:
I
i
~
~!,
L:::'
i'
"
~.....
.c.....
. ~
Xc
l:i-:S
~
- I
r'
.J I
"C'
.'
'"
- 0 ~
~ at::
-~- 0"',
~. .....,
.....-..- ,. (II
Iu,::--', "'.. '.'
-_.- '-....~ ~
'''':1'l\'"7~k..' "" ~.
'1:'.", It' ", '." ,~
~ r " -'I'
......... '1\ ...
-,-~j,
'~'I;
I
1;
,I"
.._1
i'
}.J\ti.~.~~
'-
-......
...-.
D
~'.
~;. ~...,>
, ......~
\.
\
~
-----
--------- -' .-.
,,~ .
'b.,.
~
0-0:
~ ~-.
~.i
)< ;r
i.U-l>-_
:5
C'"'S!,"
t:'.E....;.
iC.......,"c:r
;:~J8.;~}
fil'-" ' ~2~'
~ -~ ~ ~-g~
.- ~ tt':'
/oJ'., ~ .~
~f I
- {1 ~ ~ l-U~ r e'~ .
- - '(C-!f-~U' ;.J~ ~~ ~,~'~~ f ,i:u~
· .. 1.-. l -1-. to'< ~'-fI '11'-'1 "+"I'j c:: >-
I,';~ I":' .. "I~ .~ jtt. ~.~~. &:!: :~-'7.:.::'" ~~. Ji I ['~ ., ~ffi~
." .. - 'lGl- :lI · -.;;. ~ -H .. :l' t..! : ~ J w ~ ?\
~ '~ ,'~ ~ ".;;. ....' ~ ,-; - ,. ~ ~ f ~~1 ~ '" lil
' - ;". ..~ -' "' a. ., 1 ' i ;.:s u. I
f ~ .:': :' ~:>, i - ;)~':: :' ":t.j'I J ~, ~~~-' ---1' ,- f;j II' ~''''; ~ ;
'.01'" I .. ,-" i ~ , .. ; .:. "I ~ ,. ~ 'I ! - I ',' ~I' . __ _ ___ . _J,
f ,,,0<1(.. 1~' .... i.. ( ... - '1 ---- - _ --:;;;",.".......,t"".
I ~ '. - ~. ~ . h.; ~; r': ~ [. ~ :; ~ ::. c" l'-T ~--.-:::::::.-.::---.:---=:: -.=-~5...
! ........,.. ~.t...~ ., .:If ~_. r
'.... ,.....~ t ~ t' -i.;:..~ J ....... .. t 'r~-- -- --1 ::'-C- I
~""tf'. t!)! r ~ ~~ -tHl'.tnitl1 0 I
.... --... 1 ...i : l.... 5' ( iI< t I ~ ~ ;
"'... <I, ,-s. '~2. 1 f " ... ~l~ ;
.. I> ,,:;. ~ -. '" ~ 1; r t )- eo f
~ . 11; i .... f I >.1,;;- ~ I
::.. 'tl.. _\ .....$.. ., _ , .;. ~ . u. ~
~~ :;.~
~
'f
',,' . . A},d _.11.1(1 1::
---~.
....- .." ,
,. -- - '. - '::--1
I
I
~
Ii
:;- '-....
~
.. --I
D
~
~
I
I
[
f~
o
D
a
D
CJ
r=J
CJ
r:=J
EJ
EJ
CJ
CJ
EJ
EJ
r:=J
EJ
r:=J
TABLE 3.1
AMBIENT MEASUREMENT SUMMARY
r -.--. .--.r~~-T-...-.- ~.~~~~~'~~MSE~~Nst~~:~~-'--l
I LOCATION 1 SITE 1.0. I (leq [10 MINUTES1IN dB~___...._1
1':ll I PLANT I PLANT NOT !
! __ i OPERATING. I ~_ o.~_ER~T1~9__J
:- I~f:i:d ;;- i ~0:;i
rap of I)crm wost 01 eMmel ---B~~~;'~1-" GO :;"'.:;7
Sand Plant __..____
Belrn 5
t.,
,-'I
~/l-:i7
[301 rn {i
6~
t~4.t~7
r==~~..~:I~~~_ ____._
,~...--.._---- ..--~.~~t:.;;:;:~.....I---...-:;.
:\ I=.~~!!ii:~~~:; 7
r.~.e!::~1 55
Behind bUIITI west of sand I Berm 1 I :i8
and !Jrav<:l uperatlon L.-.--..-....---
Berm 12
:,:~ .S7
~tt.-S7
G:l.S7
n ~~~~~;.; .. _ _.. "._ j
I Fropc):;ccJ EXlJilnsion
I
t;4 S-1.:;7
. ------............ ....---.....---1--...----
55 I :;.1.r,7
r\e:~"" -----00.59---. "T'''''' :;"'-57
.......,.---------.-.- T I
. XP1 48 I 'l'i-~;D I
1'-"'''-'---'
i:::;~p. :; i;;;;==i
:::-- ::==~~.=-T~~;;--I
BK2 1\7 47.50
nellll I:i
"'---...--..---.--
BK3 51 i
----.--....
~I___...\_ ''':..',~.'''''---'''-~......... '17-:;0
i _..-J.... ~~~ ! l .:7.50__.
IINote: -. .
ll~_ ."_ _ .__ ~i~~_~~~_ i_:!,~_~~.~::_"ced ()"/ Cia.~:~~.~~;;;-i-~o~:.:.~"l.U~~-~l~.-~.:-~~-:.~~.~ll?n Ar::~..____.__ ~:~ .,_.__~_~_.. __:
Kin9SW()()d Subdivision
'11.50
. <J..
t=J
EJ
~
CJ
r=::J
r:=J
-
r== r== ~ c=. ~ ,.----. ~ ~ ~, r--r .----" .----r, .----, .---' .----r
------ ~ ~ ~ ----- ------.; ------ -------..J ------ ______ ------.; C::' c= C=' l:=='
. Petitioner's objections to monstrators' emphasis on
the hazards of blasting is disl enuous because:
buttal #3
. --Petitioner's Application for Surface Bla .
withdrawn;
. --Petitioner's Application for Underground Bla
withdrawn;
. --The Remonstrators suffer the effects of the existin
. --Blasting on Mueller South will bring noise and pote
flyrock and vibration damage to 106th Street, Haze
Parkway, Carmelot Park, and the homes located at 1
St. and Hazel Dell Parkway, and 1500 feet closer to
Kingswood residences; and
. --No Commitment is proposed to prohibit blasting for all ti
. -- Therefore, Remonstrators believe that Petitioner intends to
seek permission to blast at Mueller South 25 more years
D
a
.. * "4"
~~V' .:
.. ~ ................ .,.
.............:............. -:: : '
............. ;
...... .." .. .....
... ~, ':::::::::~
J" .. p. ~: .........- ....:
, . ,
: : '..' .....,...... ...
" ~ t "
: "'..,......."~ : :
t ..,..,~#"''' ,
...........~*......9.......'.............~ .'" "
. t ....~......~"..- ....1.
! : : _.w ",a.}.: i 1. .." .1 . ..
.. .. .... .... ... I' ... r. .'
: ~..~. \ .,~ ! .J' ,I : :
.""~,,,, ..: ..,.. l:: :~:::..::.-~'
., ~_.. ; ~... .. A:'.. -',
., &..... ................
. f
..
~ ,1 ::l --
0
!I~ >-
~: <
t~ -'
...
'I H~ ..
II !~~ 0;
..
~! Hi u
;,Q '"
z.: 0
It
..
II
"
.
.
".
~. "...
,. ,
~ ....:....
} , .:: ::,:',::>.
:: ~ ", ~ i:
4o" .. . a.": '~,
: ~ .. ~ ; ",.,".'
:,~j:_=:
....... ..
~. .- ': .
-J>
o
..
,
.'
~ .
. -
.~_...........'P
...-/ -UIIU'::= l
~ t;,- . -II':::: - ".
I. ~' 1-. I r 1'1 " .l;'
II \ ," ~ ;-0' f ;; ;;
>,10:.-" _ ,4,:
i~,"\t1tl ~ . C';":
l _ I; ,. ..: '..
,ll';'/I_ t I
,
~
Q
I
\-
r
, I
J
~ 'I
. ~, ~
, .
;
I,
. - ----..
; f :'.::::: :
" ..
, I
..--....,.,. ."
l';:~~:\ :
. ....It.. .
.. ..~'6~j
, .....(.. (.l~~'
/.o! . - -
"',;, .f....
...
,
I.
.
,
J
~
\
r
~.
..
. .'-
,&: p l
.,.' ...." ~~~~~~._~;:.:~~1I
t I.~~, '''''.._~.'' '"'
'., ,~t d ~i~ ~ ,~rJ' ..,'~; '>>
..~.ij;.-:~,- -<P
. . :-7 - ~,~~.
o
I'~
I'
'\,
- ,_'is'. \
",'" '''\0.-
n- #' ."N
Ln~ '
r ~~;~
(.... ..'
D
-...-.--...-.
- . .~~ ~ ~, ~ ~
... . It. t$
"jlj.-:- -~ J r~
1"__ .::' ..;~...~"._,..~ ~~
iv9~"f"BO'~o.V~... -... -o. ,-~-
..' ~_~__M 'I L.- 'I' ........
L L ....r. ~ r ~' ; \ '
I /.t:: :-.~.'~ \ . - 4. \! .. ;;:.~._..
il "'Sl .... ...: ::.
V .p ~i" 1. .. " :7
, .tf'\~r.~ :r
I/~
"
"
.,"-
.
o
'" '*~~-"It);
.~",,'j')l€-r'"
- ~"'-'-' ~-"'~~'~-:~)i\-
,9; J.~'r~ . ~
.".
,
'r.
f - $"F'";i
: .,...,.""" =-tJ::;
..... AN~, t>t'. 6.:. _ ,
· '~r~:
!1
':1
J~" .
r..: i
'& '. ~
~I:
~ - ~
i
,
"
o
---.'~-
, I
~"'"
~
1.;)
'"
~:
~
-,. ;j;.4-,. ......<.,-....
'OC (.
-9- ~- - . ",' ;:.; ~~::"-.:"';"7...._...~_~..'.;:.:::. ..
; "o.:i~/ .~. ~r.: ~,~. ~,..r:... 4o:'.""o'~/~~;, .~ .". .,:-;;; ~~,;..t;
!i ~'..'..~ '.' . ,;.;;t~ -4f~?~. ~,...~ "J ~ ".::.Jli:,"'.'
~J1.,~.t. .;!'......['~4i;tt.....~.;:' ~l.~',.~.. .. ,..\"r.l'.~.
If'(,,~' '"gtl' .~.: I~~_:-i~" ~...'.~~t'-~"...:"~_'~."it.._"i~.,::1!.M
r>. '. ........) ~ ,i'.'~;~,~o. ,....~..'E~'. .~.~.".....
;I.t".."'i''';o.~'i.,",:-;,,,,'-'''t,''... -... .....1.1".. .....:i
t<^ ....... ~ .,..,~_~~_,,:),~.-..._,~~r;.Ai_.._:t"_. ...,..,.....'
....,;, k"-'" . -"";"'-'-'!\IO~''''-'-j..~!<'''l'o
,;",~...",.' '..!~~. o1.~t."~~t,,I.~~~J..!llf: '.I.. ai. II"
t-":' -- "W'>..."'.;; . :;..,.......p,.<. "'.,.. ..
~ h ~ .-~:"'5~'I-'"f''''~,,~ ~..t...I.I.,.
",'-' ~-;?f.ci'&. ~:#:l."';,'''~, =Ii.
I :... ~~, ~~4....~ -:...._~:h. : (ii-;,,,[: ,
, -:- -. iT .f' -.0"01'" '.,.. ~",.I"l''''" ..p.
~~.. ~ -= . _~.;:: '~~t'-..,~~. 1t~r: ~ .
,\~ ~ ~ ~~.II....,.. :-.;a"c.!4#t.~ 'fr:
, r 1'j' ., [! 't~~~ :r: ~;' ~~.;J ,~:''I':.!'-~~'' Ii
'r !"" .~~". lI, It -,........ ..........':"...
D
":
tC g ~
c
T~
-:- t
,. ~
o
"
".~o ~
: . I' .... It'.:. l: l' ,(.'It
{'. ~~.~ 2,:; l~
~_ . ~fi,r;;n. f \~
. -"',,!~: c.. .- ~ f
~ '.l4--J:-:-. _ -.::-: '':- ----: .. ..:: ,
i -~,~ <At ~< t;~~-~~
... .. ~-'~1'..z.G
~ ~'; "';~ 11
i t I E,~~;' '11 J
~ . ~.. - ~~~ ';. A~? ~
..... .M Il~ "'_.:::C~.
.....4'""............., .., l .'rj:f::.~... ~:';"
L : ....4..'..:~ (}
""'ii
Q
~
00
U
.- ;!!!!<
Zo
O'.~
f-10::
-...1<
22
<(
I
~1
~ ..-lo. ........-..--.-___....~........._..
; :.:':}-~_~~~.:~::~~~:).,:::~ l
~ ... .~t. . '''' t
It. - ....... ....". # ~......_...--.-.
, ""'......"'..~' : ....--.... ". ~ .
......... ...~..._ .....' ~ 1
I,
'-'
D
..
..
"'''#..., ,
. .... :
It ~ . . ".
...
.
. .
.
,,'
o
':'.
....
"I
c ~
"1'.1
~' ~
q~ ;A
.(.~~. -I "
---. - . ~
;::~::F~ _~ ~
,.. -- ,.: 7r iii;
'j '"
. ~, c." .
. ~"".,-".....
: ft.' - ". "~~
_ ..":. t~~_ ~ lk"
~- -"I.... .,~~o"""_...'~
., 't: '" II J'.' '-
t_~ ~ .- -. c ':.-.
. '-~"'~
~
- o.
-~.~: 'U~i~
. ::; . .
g~
S;
~ r
...
....'1
~ ~ ..
f'f
D
-,
_ ;0 OM "'-
I"
II
~ 0 ._,' .' +
"
::J
;
. . t ~ . '
:J
Q
f'f.""-
Q
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
· Petitioner's objection to the. orporation of "all such
written materials," into the reco of proceedings by
Remonstrators is not well founded ause:
. --The BZA is not a trial court and is not boun the Rules of
Evidence;
. --The BZA ruled that it would not restrict evidenc
became repetitive;
. --The BZA is to weigh all evidence to determine if it s
the basis for a decision;
. --The Petitioner does not demonstrate in what way the ma
submitted to the record by the Remonstrators are supp
to be improper within the above standard, thereby wai
such objections; and
. -- The Petitioner has done exactly the same thing.
~~~~~~~~L1~~~~~~~~~~
Rebu tal #5
. The Law does not favor Special U
until the Petitioner satisfies all criteri
approval, which the Petitioner has not
. --All zoning is local and local ordinances control ca
from other jurisdictions.
. --This Application seeks a commercial mine in an S 1
district rather than in an M 1 district.
. --Being a commercial mine in an SI district, its use is
"obviously inappropriate as a result of special and
unique conditions" and should be denied, per Carmel
City Code Section 21.01.
LJ C~ c: CJ t::= c CJ t:=J L 1 .---: ~ .---; ~
------~L--~c;LJt=:t==CJc=
uttal #6
. The Petitioner has not pro · ed evidence
sufficient to prove each of the e Special Use
criteria necessary for approval.
. --The burden of proof rests with the Petitio
. --Each of the five criteria listed in Carmel Co
Use approval must be satisfied before any
Application approval arises
. --Mere argument does not substitute for evidence
. --Dewatering City wells, adding 64 dump truck trips
hour along Hazel Dell, cutting down hundreds of
mature trees, enlarging a commercial mine by almo
100 acres, "reclamation" in the form of an unusable
open pit 30 feet deep, and clearing the way for future
blasting, cannot be viewed favorably.
~~~~~c~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Rebu tal #7
· Petitioner's recently-proposed mitrnents are
grossly inadequate when laws do n
control behavior.
. --Carmel has no ordinance, Indiana has no statute,
there is no federal law regulating commercial r
. .
mInIng.
. --If commitments are intended to be a substitute for suc
laws, then they must be as comprehensive as the la
· --The proposed commitments make no attempt at being a
substitute for governmental regulation and leave the
Petitioner essentially free to operate at will.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
. Examples of Omitted Com etments:
. --No commitment against all future sting, so, door open
. --No commitment to adhere to MI perfo ce standards
. --No commitment of joint and severalliabili he land
owners, so loss of Lease could be loss of
liability
. --No true restriction on hours of operation, noise, d
traffic
. --No commitment that Blue Woods creek will be reloc
and the berms will be built before mining commenc
. --No commitment to reclaim the land for future beneficial
use, such as a Park
. --No commitment submitting to a special regulatory
scheme or jurisdiction of a mining commission
__.--J
[~L~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
. --No commitments for plan review, appr 1, monitoring,
or modification
. --No commitment for a meaningful penalty fo
the commitments, the mining plan, or other
regulations
. --No commitments regarding groundwater, recyclin
monitoring, or reimbursements to Carmel
. --No commitments regarding the amount, disbursemen
release, or management of the financial security
guarantying the reclamation plan
. --No commitment allowing neighbors to enforce the
commitments
u
u
u
o
u
u
o
u
o
u
o
o
u
u
o
u
u
o
u
......
(.)
CO
LL
'+-
o
C/)
en
~
-
~ c=; C~, c=: CJ ( ;. r= CJ c: C=. E:)" c; CJ c=. c: C). c= c:; c:
Findin ~f Fact #1 :
· Floodplain rule applies
· --Petitioner does not have all permits an
support documents from third parties in
to meet requirements of Carmel City Code,
· --Therefore, BZA does not have jurisdiction t
hear this Application at this time.
~~~~OD~~~~~~~~~~~~~
tna~ng of Fact #2
. The commercial mine is not consis
character of the district because the ci
comprehensive plan does not include co
mining in low-intensity districts and
. --It is not low intensity
. --It is incompatible with residential housing
. --Generates considerable traffic and noise
. --Does not conform to development standards
. --High intensity industrial use
. --Should be Ml zoning
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Finding f Fact #3:
. The Land in question is not ph
suitable because:
. --The use will be detrimental to the aquI
reducing the wellfield capacity by 15% a
Carmel Utilities Plant 4.
. --The land is currently heavily wooded, all of
which will be destroyed by the proposed use.
~~~~~~~~(~~~~~~~~~~~
· Effects on adjacent Ian property values
will be detrimental because
· --Increased noise and dust for several y
· --Increased heavy truck traffic for a numb
years
. --Increased road repair costs to City
· --Increased traffic hazards of gravel trucks on
residential roads
· --Increased use of illegal Carmel sand and gravel
plant
D~~~~~~~(l~~~~~~~~~~
Findin f~~ct #4:
[continued]
. --Decreased capacity of the Carmelot
. --Increased risk of wellfield contaminati
. --Increased risk of subsidence from dewate
. --Approval will harm property values
. --Unreasonable hours of operation, being virtu~
unlimited after the overburden is removed.
~~~~~~~~~~qC~~I~~~~~~
Findin ~f Fact #5:
. Vehicular and pedestrian t fic flow,
availability of water sewage 0 torm
drainage facilities and police an
protection will be adversely affecte
of
. --Increased heavy truck traffic-Unsafe risk to
Citizens
. --Increased road damage-Cost to Carmel
. --Decreased yield of Carmel wells-Cost to Carm
. --Increased risk of contamination of aquifer-Risk
to Citizens; Cost to Carmel
~~~~~~)~~~~o~~~~~~~~
Sum ary
. 1. WRONG Zoning Request
. 2. Mining expansion violates public
. 3. Relationship of Petitioner to land ow
. 4. Underground and surface water
. 5. Mining Expansion increases nuisances
. 6. Inadequate mining regulation
. 7. Inadequate wellhead protection
. 8. Illegal expansion of nonconforming uses
[10c~~~~~rl~d~~~~~~~~
mendations
The Remonstrator ~st that the
members of the BZ te to:
. ADOPT the Special Use Decisions set
above.
. DENY the Application by Petition
,
.-
YARGER
ENGlNEr1llNG
SpedaliziJ/g In TrqfJic EJ/gineering
1 Cor. 10:31
... whateL'er YOll do,
do it all for the glo!)' of Cod
i/t~~
Mr. Philip C. Thrasher
Thrasher Buschmann Griffith & Voelkel, PC
151 North Delaware Street
Indianapolis, Indiana 46204
September 27,2004
Re: Sand and Gravel South Mueller
Martin Marietta Aggregates Mining Operation
106th Street at Hazel Dell Parkway
Carmel, Indiana
Yarger Engineering Job Number: 20040401
Dear Mr. Thrasher,
On Friday, May 7, 2004 and Wednesday, August 11,2004, I examined the Carmel Department of
Community Services files for this project. While the files were quite large, there was little actual
information on traffic. Most of the comments on traffic were general without specific data or studies to
backup the comments. I also visited the roads surrounding the site. I have the following comments about
the petition.
1. From our discussions today, I understand that Martin Marietta's sound study indicated that
there will be 32 round trip per hour from the Carmel Concrete driveway on Gray Road. It is
unclear if this represents all of their traffic, or only the gravel trucks. It also does not break
down the traffic by hour since some hours will have more traffic than the average while
others have less traffic. I assume it is only the truck traffic since the peak hours would
contain workers coming and leaving their jobs. We also need to know how many of the
existing trips will continue and how many new trips there will be from other driveways.
2. The City of Carmel's Transportation Impact Studies for Proposed Developments Applicant's
Guide says a traffic impact study may be requested if there will be more than 100 peak hour
trips in the peak direction. I believe that this could be the case and an estimate is needed.
Even if they do not meet the 100 trips, a traffic operations analysis may be requested for a
driveway to any frontage road, arterial or collector street. A transportation impact study
should define how much traffic would use each of Martin Marietta's driveways, Gray Road,
96th Street, 106th Street and Hazel Dell Parkway.
3. Martin Marietta requested the vacation of River Road, but said in May that they will continue
its use as an access point. I assume they mean that they will use the vacated River Road to
access I06th Street. It was unclear how much of their operation will depend on this access
point or travel on I06th Street. In August I found references that indicated that their truck
traffic will use the existing Carmel Concrete driveway to Gray Road and not use River Road
to access 106th Street. Either way, this information should be documented in a transportation
impact study. Their plan to use the River Road to access 106th Street qualifies for a traffic
operations analysis even if it is not going to be used for trucks.
4. The study should consider the level of service impacts on all of the major roads listed in item
2 and their intersections for the morning and afternoon peak hours. It should also include an
appropriate horizon year of at least 10 to 20 years out to incorporate the development of the
surrounding areas. Heavily loaded trucks do not respond in traffic the same way that
passenger cars do, therefore, the study should specifically address the differences between
cars and fully loaded dump trucks.
1401 Alim.ingo Drive
Indianapolis, Indiana 46260-4058
Voiee 317-475-1100
Fax 317.475.0100
Mr. Thrasher
September 27, 2004
Page 2
5. I am concerned about the use of 106th Street as a heavy vehicle route if their trucks will then
travel on Hazel Dell Parkway. Turns for dump trucks should be checked at this location for
intersection sight distance. Dump trucks require significantly larger gaps in traffic to turn
than passenger cars. The median does not appear to be large enough for a dump truck to
make a left turn by first crossing the southbound lanes and waiting in the median for a
northbound gap, therefore, the gap in traffic must be in both directions for left turns. If there
is insufficient capacity or sight distance at the intersection of Hazel Dell Parkway and 106th
Street, then there could be a resulting safety issue. I also did a quick check of the speeds on
Hazel Dell Parkway. Even though the posted speed limit is 40 MPH, the 50th percentile
speed appears to be over 50 MPH. A traffic impact study should include a detailed speed
study to determine the proper gap for trucks for the intersection sight distance and capacity
analyses. Typically the speed used in a sight distance analysis would be the 85th percentile
speed. I only checked for the approximate 50th percentile speed. I would not be surprised if
the 85th percentile speed was over 55 MPH.
6. I am also concerned about the 106th Street pavement's ability to withstand a large amount of
truck traffic. Pavement cores with soil samples of the subgrade should be analyzed before
allowing additional trucks on 106th Street. If the pavement is inadequate, Martin Marietta
should upgrade it. The use of the driveway at the vacated River Road to access 106th would
actually be less detrimental to the 106th Street pavement since less pavement length would be
exposed to the trucks than if they use the Gray Road driveway and then travel the entire
length between Gray Road and Hazel Dell Parkway.
7. The pavement designs of Hazel Dell Parkway and Gray Road should be researched to
determine if Martin Marietta's truck traffic has been included in the calculations. While
some truck traffic probably was included, the actual heavy truck volume is particularly
important in determining the appropriate pavement design. Heavy vehicle traffic, soil
strength, and weather are the main factors in designing pavements. On heavy vehicle routes,
passenger car volumes have little impact on the pavement design.
8. In the documents supplied by Martin Marietta, they mention the reduction of trucks coming
from Noblesville. No where did I see a connection between this matter and the closing of the
Noblesville facility. Regardless, the routes involved for the Noblesville operation to use the
facilities north of 106th do not involve 106th Street, Gray Road, or Hazel Dell Parkway south
of 106th Street. To tie any decrease from Noblesville to this discussion is to "mix apples and
oranges," so to speak.
It is my opinion that the petitioner should provide a full transportation impact study to address the
issues listed above, and that the Board of Zoning Appeals should not approve this petition without the
additional information.
I have attached my qualifications for your use. If you have any questions or comments, please
call me at 317-475-1100.
Sincerely,
Yarger Engineering, Inc.
-tJ-LyA/L ~
Bradley William Yarger, P.E.; P.T.O.E.
President
BWYlbwy
Attachments: Biographical Data for Bradley William Yarger
".,
YARGER I
ENGINEmING
Specializi1/g In TrofJk E1/gi~
1 Cor. 10:31
...whateveryoll do,
do it 0/1 for the glory of God
Bradley William Yarger, PE, P.T.O.E
PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE
July 1995 to Present President / Owner
Yarger Engineering, Inc., Indianapolis, Indiana
Experience: . Ameriplex Development Traffic Study, Indianapolis, Indiana
. CMAQ Study, Lynhurst Drive, High School Road, Girls School Road,
Indianapolis, Indiana
. Kohl's Traffic Impact Study, Warsaw, IN
. McKinley A venue Remonstration, Muncie, Indiana
· Petro Planned Unit Development, Traffic Impact Study and Roadway
Design, Warsaw, Indiana Traffic Impact Study, Westfield Washington
Schools, Westfield, Indiana
· US 31 at American Legion Traffic Control Design and Construction
Engineering, Greenwood, Indiana
. College Avenue at l06th Street Remonstration, Clay Township, Carmel, IN
. Parkwood West Remonstration, 1-465 at US 31 North Junction, Hamilton
County for Heartland Coalition Towne Road at l06th St. Remonstration,
Hamilton Co., Indiana
. Traffic Study, Roadway Design and Construction Engineering, University
High School, Carmel, Indiana
. Clay West Transportation and Land Use Plan, Carmel, Indiana (Privately
Funded)
. Johnson Street Signal Timings, Elkhart, Indiana
. Hart Street Signal Timings, Vincennes, Indiana
. SR 1 Progression Study, Fort Wayne, Indiana
. Traffic Signal Operational Review, Elkhart, Indiana
. INDOT Statewide Traffic Data Collection
. On-Call Traffic Engineering Services, Vincennes, Indiana
. Village of West Clay Remonstration, Hamilton County
. Various Traffic Impact Studies
. Various Traffic Impact Study Remonstrations
. Various Governmental Project Promotions & Remonstrations, Private
Clients
. Various Traffic Signal Designs
July 1994 to June 1995 Transportation Project Manager
Schneider Engineering Corporation, Danville, Indiana
Experience: . Eli Lilly Roadway and Site Design
. Nordyke Street Design, Indianapolis
. 38th Street and Meadows Drive Design, Indianapolis
. Comprehensive Plan, Pendleton
. Wal-Mart Traffic Studies and Signal Designs, Terre Haute and Franklin
. Westfield Washington High School Traffic Study
1401 Alimingo Drive
Indianapolis, Indiana 46260-4058
Voiee 317.475-1100
Fax 317.475-0100
YARGER~
ENGJNmUNG
Specro/izing In Traffic Engineering
Bradley William Yarger, PE, P.T.O.E
PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE (Continued)
June 1994 to July 1994 Owner / President
Yarger Engineering, Indianapolis, Indiana
Experience:
July 1987 to April 1994
Experience:
Jan. 1987 to June 1987
Experience:
Nov. 1984 to Dec. 1986
Experience:
June 1983 to Nov. 1984
Experience:
1401 Alimingo Drive
· Sagamore Park Traffic Impact Study, Merrillville, Indiana
Project Manager / Engineer
HNTB Corporation, Indianapolis, Indiana
· West Sixteenth Street Signal System, Indianapolis
· Lafayette Railroad Relocation Project
· 1-70 4R Reconstruction Project
· Fifth Street Reconstruction Project, Lafayette
. Borman Freeway Management Study, Lake County
· Holiday Development Freeway Analysis, Marion Co.
· INDOT Traffic Signal Design Project
. Numerous Traffic Impact Analyses
· Eli Lilly and Company Master Plan
. Indianapolis International Airport Master Plan
. Zionsville Transportation Thoroughfare Plan
. Carmel - Clay Comprehensive Plan Update
Transportation Engineer
Bergmann Associates, Rochester, New York
. Traffic Impact Analyses
. Traffic Signal System Timing
. Traffic Signal Design
. Roadway Lighting Design
. Community Master Planning
District Traffic Development Engineer
Indiana Department of Highways
Crawfordsville, Indiana
. Traffic Signal Design, Operation, & Construction
. Signage Design And Construction
. Project Programming
. Roadway Lighting Design And Construction
. 3R Roadway Design And Construction
. Intersection Design And Construction
· District Traffic Division Liaison To Design And Construction
District Traffic Safety Engineer
Indiana Department of Highways
Crawfordsville, Indiana
. Accident Studies
. Driveway Permit Review
. Municipal Traffic Engineering Assistance
. Guardrail Design
Indianapolis, Indiana 4626O-40S8
Voiee 317-475-1100
1 Cor. 10:31
... whatel'er YOll do,
do it all for the glary of God
Fax 317.475.0100
YARGERtl
r~GJNE}lDNG
SpecializiJ/g In 7inffic El/gilleenllg
1 Cor. 10:31
...whatever you do,
do it aI/for the glory' of God.
Bradley William Yarger, PE, P.T.O.E
PROFESSIONAL REGISTRATION AND EDUCATION
Professional Traffic Operations Engineer, Institute of Transportation Engineers, 2003
Professional Engineer, Indiana 1988
Bachelor of Science, Civil Engineering, 1983
Purdue University, West Lafayette, Indiana
Major: Transportation Engineering
ADDITIONAL TRAINING
International Signal Manufacturers' Association Certification Traffic Signals Level 2, 2004
ITE Professional Traffic Operations Engineer Exam Review Seminar 2003
TSIS Seminar, MCTrans Center, 2002
International Signal Manufacturers' Association Certification Traffic Signals Levell, 2000
International Signal Manufacturers' Association Certification Work Zones, 1999
Annual Purdue Road School, 1984 - 1992, 1998, 1999, 2000
Indiana Section ofITE Traffic Seminars, 1989 - 93, 1996, 1997, 1999
SBA - SCORE - Ivy Tech, Small Business Workshop, 1996
Business Matters' Small Business Management, 1995
Lincoln Land Institute Short Course, 1994
ITE International Meetings, 1986, 1990, 1991, 1993
ASCE Applications on Advanced Technologies Conference, 1991
Traffic Signal Design Conference, 1986
Rural Highway and Urban Street Capacity Seminar, 1986
Freeway Traffic Management Seminar, 1985
Routine Maintenance of Traffic Signal Seminar, 1984
The Use of the Traffic Control Devices Handbook Seminar, 1984
PROFESSIONAL AFFILIATIONS
Institute of Transportation Engineers
Member: International, District III, Indiana Section
Past Chairman, Traffic 91 Seminar Committee
Past Member, Traffic 90 Seminar Committee
Past District Director
International Municipal Signal Association
Associate Member
RELATED EXPERIENCE
Speaker Highway Capacity Manual and Software
ITE Traffic 99 Seminar, July 99
ITE Traffic 96 Seminar, July 96
ITE Traffic 90 Seminar, June 90
Fully Actuated vs. Semi-Actuated Traffic Signal Systems,
ITE International Meeting, Sept. 1993
HNTB Seminar, October 1993
ITE District III Meeting, Sept. 1995
TRANSYT-7F Training Seminars, Spring 1986
Microcomputers Users, Purdue Road School, March 1986
Signal Operations, Purdue Road School, March 1986
Computerized Traffic Analysis using NETSIM
ITE Joint Indiana Section -- Purdue Student Chapter Meeting, Spring 1983
Author
Instructor
Panelist
Speaker
Speaker
1401 AIimingo Drive
Indianapolis, Indiana 46260-4058
Voiee 317-475-noo
Fax 317-475-0100
...' \'" ..
YARGER I
ENGlNffiRlNG
Specializing In Traffit; Engineering
1 Cor. 10:31
". whatever you da,
do it all for tIle glory of Cod.
Bradley William Yarger, PE, P.T.O.E
LIST OF REFERENCES
Client:
Pam Lambert
Treasurer
Heartland Coalition
616 Copley Place
Indianapolis, Indiana 46290
317-844-5511
317-566-8909 Weekends
David L. Palenchar
Traffic Supervisor
Public Works and Utilities
City of Elkhart
619 S. Fifth Street
Elkhart, Indiana 46516
219-522-2884
elkharttraffic@juno.com - preferred contact method
Carl (Bud) Wilson
BOCAR
1542 Greyhound Pass
Cannel, Indiana 46032
317-587-1460
Charles Webster
University High School
2825 West 116th Street
Cannel, Indianapolis 46032
317-733-4475
Brain Shapiro
Shapiro's Deli
808 South Meridian Street
Indianapolis, Indiana 46024
317-631-4041
1401 AIimingo Drive
Indianapolis, Indiana 46260.4058
Thomas Whitsitt
Attorney at Law
Giddins, Whitsitt, and McClure
121 North Meridian Street
Post Office Box 663
Lebanon, Indiana 46052
765-482-6632
Professional:
Randy Phegley, P.E.
District Traffic Investigations Engineer
Vincennes District
Indiana Department of Transportation
Post Office Box 376
Vincennes, Indiana 47591
812-882-8330
Kamyar Fattahi, P. E.
Traffic Engineering Consultants
Post Office Box 6760
South Bend, Indiana 46660
219-271-1002
Personal:
William Derrer
President
TEQ Solutions
1811 Executive Drive, Suite S
Indianapolis, Indiana 46241
317-227-2610
Tamantha Stevens
Attorney at Law
Stevens and Associates
3755 East 82nd Street
Indianapolis, Indiana 46240
317-915-9900
Voiee 317.475.1100
Fax 317.475.0100
.."
~~
,~ --- ...
STATE OF INDIANA
CARMEL/CLAY ADVISORY BOARD OF
ZONING APPEALS ~
DOCKET NO. 04040024 I I ~ b .
COUNTY OF HAMILTON
In re Application for Special Use Approval for
Sand and Gravel Operation on 96.921 acres
(Mueller South)
REMONSTRATORS' OBJECTIONS TO AFFIDAVIT OF MICHAEL C.
LADY AND ATTACHED NEIGHBORHOOD ANALYSIS
COME NOW William D. McEvoy, Larry J. Kane, Greg Policka, Rex Weiper, Phil
Kincaid, and Kingswood Homeowners Association, Inc. (collectively, the
"Remonstrators"), by counsel, and object to the admission into the record of the Affidavit
(the "Affidavit") of Michael C. Lady (the "Affiant") dated August 11, 2004 and the
Neighborhood Analysis Kingswood Subdivision dated January 30, 2003 attached
thereto (the "Neighborhood Analysis"), and in support thereof state the following
reasons:
1. Paragraph 2 of the Affidavit states that the Affiant prepared the Neighborhood
Analysis, but the Neighborhood Analysis states that it was prepared by two individuals.
There is no description of the amount or nature of the involvement in the preparation of
the Neighborhood Analysis by either individual.
2. The Neighborhood Analysis is not an appraisal of any home or group of
properties, but rather a simple summary of selling and listing prices during 2000-2002.
3. The stated purpose of the Neighborhood Analysis is "to determine if external
factors have had a negative impact on the marketability and value of properties" within
Kingswood; however, the Affiant did not interview any individuals, such as real estate
brokers, buyers, or sellers of homes within Kingswood, to find out whether or not the
existence of the Martin Marietta operations has any impact on prices or if it had any
impact on their buying or selling decisions.
4. Inasmuch as the decision to buy or sell a home is complicated with dozens of
separate factors, it is unreasonable to state from simple sales and listing price histories
that there was no adverse effect from any particular external factor, such as mining,
schools, shopping, access to downtown, or churches.
5. The Neighborhood Analysis is not intended to predict the effect on Kingswood of
the proposed expansion of the mining onto Mueller South and does not attempt to do
so; therefore, it is irrelevant to the question of whether or not the mining expansion on
Mueller South will have any impact on Kingswood.
6. Remonstrators object to all of paragraph 4 of the Affidavit as being hearsay from
representatives of the Petitioner, Martin Marietta Materials, Inc., and because it reaches
1
c ...
conclusions that are not based on any facts stated in the Neighborhood Analysis or
included in the Application of the Petitioner.
7. Remonstrators object to all of paragraph 5 of the Affidavit as being irrelevant.
There is no connection between the value of a new home located on a peaceful lake in
Marion County and a smaller, older home located in Kingswood. Further,
Remonstrators do not believe that the home in question is located "adjacent to an active
stone mining operation," but rather is located on an abandoned gravel pit that has now
filled with water and is available for the occupant's recreational use.
8. Remonstrators object to all of paragraph 6 of the Affidavit as incorporating
information allegedly reviewed by the Affiant but not included in the Neighborhood
Analysis, thereby eluding review. Such comments should not be given any weight.
9. In addition to the fact that both the Neighborhood Analysis and Affidavit do not
reach the central question of predicting the adverse effect on property values of the
expansion of the mining onto Mueller South, the Neighborhood Analysis suffers from the
following additional deficiencies:
a. The data are old and do not include any information from 2003 or 2004. It
is difficult at best to develop an accurate, reliable, and valid trend of prices or to predict
the future based on limited data.
b. The Neighborhood Analysis shows that in 2002 the "Days On Market" for
Kingswood was more than twice the average of the other five subdivisions analyzed, yet
the Affiant disregards this obvious trend in reaching his conclusion. There is no
explanation offered for the large difference in Kingswood with respect to the time on the
market for 2002 resales.
c. Although the Neighborhood Analysis describes all Expired and Withdrawn
Listings in Kingswood, it fails to note that all such properties are located in the west half
of Kingswood, one-half mile or more west of the Carmel Sand plant and less affected
thereby.
d. In the Resale Analysis portion of the Neighborhood Analysis, all but two
properties are located in the west half of Kingswood. Of the two sales of homes near
the Carmel Sand plant, the most recent sale indicates that in 2002 the value of such
home increased only 1 .17 percent per year, which is less than one-third of the rate of
increase in comparable properties located in the west half of Kingswood. No
explanation for this poor performance is given in the Neighborhood Analysis, which
occurred during the time that Petitioner and residents of Kingswood were before this
BZA and then in court.
In conclusion, the Remonstrators believe that the BZA should give no weight to
the Neighborhood Analysis or Affidavit on the question of predicting the future impact on
values caused by the proposed Mueller South mining expansion. Rather, the
Neighborhood Analysis contains information that suggests that Kingswood is already
2
;;' .
..- -=-- ..
showing the adverse effects of the notoriety caused by the Petitioner's continued
attempts at expansion closer and closer to Kingswood.
Respectfully submitted,
THRASHER BUSCHMANN GRIFFITH & VOELKEL, P.C.,
::omeY~2~L
, Philip . Thrasher, attomey no. 1075-49-
Thrasher Buschmann Griffith & Voelkel, P.C.
151 N. Delaware Street, Suite 1900
Indianapolis, IN 46204-2505
Telephone: (317) 686-4773
Distribution:
Zeff A. Weiss, Esq.
Ice Miller
One American Square
P. O. Box 82001
Indianapolis, IN 46282-2100
3
.'
."",
;';';:.~. ..
STATE OF INDIANA
CARMEL/CLAY ADVISORY BOARD OF
ZONING APPEALS
DOCKET NO. 04040024
~,
I, L-
5('.)}
COUNTY OF HAMILTON
In re Application for Special Use Approval for
Sand and Gravel Operation on 96.921 acres
(Mueller South)
REMONSTRATORS' OBJECTIONS TO AFFIDAVIT OF JOHN J. TIBERI
COME NOW William D. McEvoy, Larry J. Kane, Greg Policka, Rex Weiper, Phil
Kincaid, and Kingswood Homeowners Association, Inc. (collectively, the
"Remonstrators"), by counsel, and object to the admission into the record of the Affidavit
of John J. Tiberi, dated August 11, 2004 (the "Affidavit"), and in support thereof state the
following reasons:
1. All of paragraph 2 of the Affidavit, except the first two sentences, is irrelevant to
the Application to mine Mueller South.
2. The third sentence of paragraph 3 of the Affidavit is conjecture.
3. All of paragraph 4 should be deleted as conjecture.
4. All of paragraph 5 should be deleted as conjecture and because the statements
contained therein are irrelevant to the Application to mine Mueller South. The costs of
production of sand and gravel are not at issue.
5. The fourth and fifth sentences of paragraph 6 should be deleted as conjecture
and because they are irrelevant. The efficiency of the operation at Martin Marietta is not
at issue.
Respectfully submitted,
THRASHER BUSCHMANN GRIFFITH & VOELKEL, P.C.,
::ome~~m(~~
Philip . Thrasher, attorney no. 1075-49-
Thrasher Buschmann Griffith & Voelkel, P.C.
151 N. Delaware Street, Suite 1900
Indianapolis, IN 46204-2505
Telephone: (317) 686-4773
1
~~ ~--,-, .
-..
Distribution:
Zeff A. Weiss, Esq.
Ice Miller
One American Square
P. O. Box 82001
Indianapolis, IN 46282-2100
2
..
....i
'j'. ~-
STATE OF INDIANA
CARMEL/CLAY ADVISORY BOARD OF
ZONING APPEALS
DOCKET NO. 04040024
~d"
COUNTY OF HAMILTON
In re Application for Special Use Approval for
Sand and Gravel Operation on 96.921 acres
(Mueller South)
REMONSTRATORS' OBJECTIONS TO AFFIDAVIT OF
DAVID BUSS
COME NOW William D. McEvoy, Larry J. Kane, Greg Policka, Rex Weiper, Phil
Kincaid, and Kingswood Homeowners Association, Inc. (collectively, the
"Remonstrators"), by counsel, and object to the admission into the record of the Affidavit
(the "Affidavit") of David Buss (the "Affiant") dated August 11, 2004, and in support
thereof state the following reasons:
1. This Affidavit is apparently being offered into evidence as expert testimony, but
there is no resume or other evidence, apart from the statements of the Affiant himself, to
establish any credentials for the Affiant. Further, it is not an independent study, but
rather the opinions of a person who is apparently in the employ of the Petitioner.
Therefore, this Affidavit should not be treated as expert testimony by the BZA.
2. Paragraph 5 of the Affidavit should be deleted because it states that it is based
on hearsay from an unnamed person or persons at "the Carmel Utilities Department"
and does not provide any date or other reference from which the information may be
verified. If "the Carmel Utilities Department" is providing evidence, then the Petitioner
should have a spokesperson for the Carmel Utilities Department testify as to that
evidence.
3. In paragraph 6 of the Affidavit, the Affiant attempts to interpret and restate some
of the conclusions in the Wittman report, which mayor may not be as intended by
Wittman. The Wittman report should stand on its own merits without such interpretation
by the Affiant and, in fact, the report has been revised by Wittman since the date of this
Affidavit.
4. Paragraph 7 of the Affidavit should be deleted as being riddled with
unsubstantiated opinions, changes of assumptions, and more hearsay, this time from
"City officials."
5. In paragraph 8 of the Affidavit, the Affiant characterizes the Wittman report as
being "based on a conservative set of assumptions," but there is no comparison offered
to show what is meant by that statement and whether it aids or detracts from the
Petitioner's arguments.
1
.-
...
. -
6. In paragraphs 8 and 9 of the Affidavit, the Affiant discusses the water being
"provided" by the ponds on other land owned by the Petitioner, but does not discuss that
such ponds are being recharged only through the use of pumping by the Petitioner from
the existing Indianapolis North Plant stone pit and that most of the water actually came
from the Plant 4 aquifer in the first instance. There is no discussion of the effect on the
aquifer by the cessation of such pumping. Therefore, the statements contained in these
paragraphs are inaccurate by stating that the water is "provided" by Martin Marietta's
ponds when it is in fact provided by Martin Marietta by recycling water from Martin
Marietta's pit.
7. In paragraphs 10 and 11 the Affiant discusses a voluntary monitoring program
that mayor may not actually be implemented. These are not facts and should not be
relied upon by the BZA as the basis for any decision regarding the Petitioner's
Application. Rather, the commitments that are offered by the Petitioner and/or required
by the BZA are the only relevant issues regarding whether or not monitoring programs
will exist and at whose expense.
8. In the final paragraph of the Affidavit states that "the combined monitoring
program outlined by Wittman and the City substantially exceeds state or federal
regulatory requirements for the City of Carmel; however, the Affiant does not indicate
whether or not any such requirements actually exist and does not cite to any cross
reference. Therefore, this statement should be deleted.
In conclusion, the Remonstrators believe that the BZA should give no weight to
the Affidavit on the question of whether or not further dewatering of the Plant 4 aquifer is
a good thing for the community because the Wittman report, as revised, and the
testimony by Wittman and John Duffy, together with comments from John Mundell at
the August 11,2004 hearing, provide adequate and first-hand information and comment
with regard to that subject.
Respectfully submitted,
THRASHER BUSCHMANN GRIFFITH & VOELKEL, P.C.,
Attorneys for the Remonstrators
~C~
hilip . Thrasher, attorney no. 1075-49-
By:
Thrasher Buschmann Griffith & Voelkel, P.C.
151 N. Delaware Street, Suite 1900
Indianapolis, IN 46204-2505
Telephone: (317) 686-4773
2
.... -~
,;
Distribution:
Zeff A. Weiss, Esq.
Ice Miller
One American Square
P. O. Box 82001
Indianapolis, IN 46282-2100
3