Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCorrespondence !!!!.pley. Connie S From: Sent: To: Subject: Hancock, Ramona B Friday, May 17, 200211:03 AM Tingley, Connie S FW: Martin Marietta proposal -Original Message-- From: Greg Kiray (SMTP:gkiray@indy.rr.com] Sent: Friday, May 17, 2002 10:50 AM To: rhancock@ci.carmel.ln.us Subject: Martin Marietta proposal We are in agreement with the homeowner's board decision regarding the Martin Marietta matter. Thank you, Greg and Susan Kiray 1 Tingley. Connie S From: Sent: To: Subject: Hancock, Ramona B Friday, May 17, 200210:26 AM Tingley, Connie S FW: Martin Marietta Materials, Inc. - Special Use Application -Original Message- From: Jthyen1214@aol.com [SMTP:Jthyen1214@aol.com] Sent: Friday, May 17, 2002 9:58 AM To: rhancock@ci.carmel.in.us Subject: Martin Marietta Materials, Inc. - Special Use Application May 17, 2002 Ms. Earlene Plavchak Ms. Pat Rice Mr. Leo Dierckman Mr. Michael A. Mohr Mr. Charles Weinkauf Re: Special Use Application From Martin Marietta Materials, Inc. Concerning The Property North Of 106th Street Between Carmelot Park And Hazel Dell Parkway Dear Members Of the Carmel Clay Board of Zoning Appeals, I am writing to you today to express my support of the sand and gravel dredge mining that Martin Marietta (MM) would like to under go behind my home. I live at 5083 St. Charles PI. My home sits on the corner of St. Charles Place and the stub street of Westchester. I have lived here since 1989 and plan to live here for many more years. I would like for the board to take into account that as a homeowner directly adjacent to the Mueller property that we would be most effected (both good and bad) by MM's proposal. A very vocal group of homeowners have recently gone around Kingswood with a survey asking whether you want mining or not adjacent to our development. I was not surveyed until after the results were "published" to the homeowners. I have since found out that some of the other adjacent homeowners were also not surveyed until after the information was passed out to homeowners. Please understand that in this neighborhood MM gets blamed for evervthino. If you have a window seal break, it's MM's fault. My home is in the first line to get hit with the air blast from the pit mining operation. We have one window seal that is broken, it happens to be where my kids have repeatedly tipped their chair and hit the window. Most of these homes are now 13 years old and things are starting to show up for repair. If a home here has a drywall seam cracking, it's MM's fault. If a Kingswood homeowner is driving home and gets hit by a bouncing rock off a truck, it's MM's fault. Many builders were involved in the development of Kingswood. No one wants to admit that maybe they made a poor choice in buying a lesser quality home. Why do that when they have MM to blame? I am greatly concerned with what would happen to this neighborhood if the land south of Kingswood would be developed. Kingswood has made this such a public issue that I truly don't believe comparable homes will be built on the Mueller land. I see apartments quickly going up south of 106th on gray road. I know the zoning is currently for single homes on the Mueller land, but Kingswood has proved zoning can be changed. I also worry about the opening of the stub street next to my home. For years this has been the neighborhood play area. Kids can safely learn to ride their bikes or learn to roller blade here. There are 18 children living in the surrounding nine homes to that stub street (two of these homes have no children or grown children). What will happen when that street opens and cars go zooming through Kingswood to avoid the heavy congestion at 106th and Gray Road? We know because. Kingswoocf residents go zooming through the W oodcreek addition to reach 116th Street. Woodbrook Elementary is back up to capacity numbers. Currently Clay Jr. High is over capacity. There is no money in the school budget and aid staff is being cut. If this land is developed it will add to the already overburdened school system in this area. Teachers already feel the large size of their classes affect their teaching ability. Please take the opportunity to vote for more open space in the city of Carmel. I heard at a school board meeting that there is only 15% of land left in Carmel that is not developed. Do we need more homes or apartments in Carmel? Would not a large body of water that wildlife and residents could enjoy not be an asset? Wouldn't it help the water table in this area, especially in times of drought? My last point is a personal one. The adjacent property owners (APO's) will be the ones living with the MM mining everyday. When I open my kids blinds in the morning, I will look out into the hole. MM has compromised to Kingswood's 1 benefit on several issues. The APO's and boardmembers have met for hours and hours to come to an agreement that is good for all the homeowners of Kingswood. These meetings and others have been opened to all of Kingswood residents....but they didn't come. Our annual meeting is poorly attended even when an issue as big as this is on the agenda. Now there is a very vocal group against this and it has become a pack mentality. If these people had taken advantage of coming to the meetings they would know that the information they are receiving is not always correct. This "pack," for lack of a better word, will be effected little to none by this operation. I stood and spoke for this application at the fist zoning meeting. That night after the meeting (around 12:00) there were people outside my home yelling against MM. I am personally afraid of some of my neighbors now. Please vote in favor of this application and let us get on with our lives. Sincerely, Janet Thyen 2 !!!2.SJ1ey. Connie S From: Sent: To: Subject: Hancock, Ramona B Friday, May 17, 2002 11 :36 AM Tingley, Connie S FW: Martin Marietta Materials, Inc-Special Use Application, Dev. Standards Variance Application and Use Varience Application -Original Message- From: Terry Weiss [SMTP:tweiss@lndy.rr.com] Sent: Friday. May 17, 200211:31 AM To: rhancock@ci.carmel.in.us Subject: Martin Marietta Materials, Inc-Special Use Application, Dev. Standards Variance Application and Use Varience Application Please be advised that we are in support of the proposal that Martin Marietta be granted the opportunity to "dredge mine" on the Mueller property at 106th Street and Gray Road. Terry and Marcia Weiss 5013 St. Charles Place 1 1-- ~Iey. Connie 5 . From: . Sent: To: Subject: Hancock, Ramona B Friday, May 17, 2002 1 :40 PM Tingley, Connie S FW: In Favor of Kingswood speacial use proposal by Martin Marietta -Original Message--- From: Tim Warner (SMTP:twamer@wthr.com] Sent: Friday, May 17, 2002 12:54 PM To: rhancock@cLcarmel.in.us Subject: In Favor of Kingswood speacial use proposal by Martin Marietta I am favor of grating Martin Marietta the special use proposed for drdge mining nest to Kingswood. Please read my attached letter. Thank You, Tim Warner Director of Sales WTHR Channel 13 Indianapolis 317-655-5640 ~J" W^_""'~ - twarner@wthr.com BZA Kingswood.doc 1 Mr. Charles Weinkauf Ms. Earlene Plavchak Mr. Leo Dierckman Mr. Michael A. Mohr Ms. Pat Rice Re: Martin Marietta Materials, Inc. - Special Use Application Mueller Property - North of 106th Street between Carmelot Park and Hazel Dell Parkway Dear Members of the Carmel Clay Board of Zoning Appeals, My family has lived at 11159 Woodbury Dr. since November 1990, adjacent to the property currently being mined by Martin Marietta. My family supports the granting the special use permit that MMM is seeking. I would like to bring to your attention to several facts as I see them regarding the special use permit and the fear that some of my neighbors are spreading. The processing plant, located directly behind my home, is the only part of the current operation that causes noise pollution. The dredge does not. The processing plant also is the source of much of the dirt that is in the air, just look at the dirt at the bottom of my pool each week. The proposal to move the plant would be a huge benefit to our neighborhood. The arguments used by those opposed are based on fear. . Home values would go down. This type of mining has existed next to Kingswood before any home was ever was built; yet we all bought or built houses here. I built my house adjacent to the operation because of the solitude, only when they built the processing plant did noise and dirt become a problem. . This would add noise pollution. As discussed earlier result of this proposal would reduce noise in the neighborhood. . Blasting is a problem. Blasting at the 96th Street location is a problem, but there is no blasting at the current location. . This will lead to underground mining. MMM has said that they will request at a later date a special use for underground mining. I am very much opposed to such a use, but I don't believe that this permit has any bearing on that issue. They are two separate issues and need to be treated accordingly. A fear I have that could happen if this use is not passed is that MMM has said, in the past, that the current lake could be drained and open pit mining could be conducted at this location. This is a realization that I fear could happen, and then Kingswood would have a major problem. The recent survey of homeowners that is being presented to you was very biased in its question design, and presentation. The presenter was giving me all the reasons to oppose the special use. I finally invited him to my backyard, since he had never seen the adjacent property line. After admitting that it was very appealing he commented that if we give them an inch they would take a mile. This is far from a scientific or unbiased survey. I propose that at the upcoming BZA meeting that a street map of Kings wood is available so that remonstrators can show where they live, as many of those opposed do not live where the greatest impact of this proposal will be. Thank you, Tim & Linda Warner 11159 Woodbury Drive Carmel, IN 46033 ~Iey. Connie S From: Sent: To: Subject: Hancock, Ramona B Friday, May 17, 200212:16 PM Tingley, Connie S FW: Ref. Martin Marietta Materials-Special Use Application -Original Message- From: Kurt Ullman [SMTP:kurtullman@sprintmail.com] Sent: Friday, May 17, 2002 11 :52 AM To: rhancock@cLcarmel.in.us Subject: Ref. Martin Marietta Materials-Special Use Application Mr. Charles Weinkauf Ms. Earlene Plavchak Mr. Leo Dierckman Mr. Michael A. Mohr Ms. Pat Rice Re: Martin Marietta Materials, Inc. - Special Use Application Mueller Property - North of 106th Street between Carmelot Park and Hazel Dell Parkway Dear Members of the Carmel Clay Board of Zoning Appeals: We would like to express our general support for Martin Marietta Materials Special Use Application to move the processing plant from the west to the east side of Hazel Dell Parkway and to conduct sand and gravel mining on the "Mueller Property" utilizing a floating dredge. We live at 11078 Huntington Court, which is the lot located near the southeastern corner of the Kingswood subdivision with a very long exposure to the Mueller property on the south edge. We have been very anxious about the uncertainty of the development plans for the field (Mueller Property) adjacent to our house and have supported the actions of the Kingswood Homeowners Association to gain greater detail regarding the proposed sand and gravel mining. Through the actions of the Kingswood Homeowners Association, Martin Marietta has finally developed a plan that we can support and we believe is beneficial to Kingswood. However there are some concerns that should be addressed in the final document. One of these is moving of the processing plant directly east of Kingswood. It is a significant nuisance to most of the neighborhood. Moving the processing plant to the east-side of Hazel Dell, which is farther away, lower in elevation and buffered by berms and trees, would be a great quality of life improvement to us and the neighborhood. I do have some concerns about Martin Marietta's sincerity in this matter. As you may recall, we were given a "drop dead date" of May 1 where this Application had to be passed or the plant could not be moved. The interesting thing is that this is at least the third "drop dead date" that we have had from MM during the time we have been discussing it with them. This one was about two weeks after the first day you had this on your calendar. The time before this was just a few days after the date the BZA had set last year for discussion of that plan. The timing of these drop dead dates and their constant resurrection leads me to believe that these dates are really nothing more than an attempt to intimidate many of the owners into agreeing to their plans or punishing us if we dare do otherwise. I have been told, albeit second hand, that this last date was because they would be mining the land the plant was supposed to be sitting on. Apparently up until 1 -; , ... 5-1, they had a way to work around that problem for at least the next 14 or so years. I find it amazing that it went away so suddenly on 5-1. For this reason (and the fact the last drop dead date has passed) I would strongly suggest that you not only approve the changes needed to make the move, but to include movement of the plant BY A TIME CERTAIN, as a condition of approval of the entire application. Otherwise, I fear that MM will find some reason to not move the plant after they get what they want. Some of MM's other actions have lead me to have concerns about dealing with MM. For instance, just a few days before last year's BZA meeting I received a phone call from the manager at MM informing me that they would fax me something to sign saying that I was in favor of what they wanted to do. I was then informed that if I did not sign, there would be a park and hiking trail put on the area between my lot line and the edge of the lake. This was instructive of their outlook. They first approached Kingswood with the initial support of Board with a plan that included a park on the "stub" road and a linear park, much like they were discussing last year. If the adjacent property owners had not vehemently opposed that plan, it is very likely that you would not be involved and MM would have been mining that area for a few years now. Thus, while it may be possible to find some other reasons for the most recent drop dead date on the plant, I see no other way to construe the above actions than as an attempt to intimidate and punish those who dared go against them. The timing of some of their interactions with us, also leaves me with concerns about what they will do once freed of any constraints. Last year, we got the information the Thursday before the meeting on Tuesday. Hardly enough time to look it over. It was only today (Fri.) that I finally got something from MM outlining their plans. I find it very interesting that the maps included STILL show that movement of the plant is contingent on getting plans approved by 5-1. While my wife and I are in general favor of the proposals, we strongly suggest that these proposals be very carefully set down in writing with specific timings and specific actions that must take place. MM has given me us no reason to accept any assurances that are not backed by the force of the City. Thank you for your time. Kurt & Dianna Ullman 11078 Huntington Ct. Carmel, IN 46033 2 I... "" , "'., Tingley, Connie S From: Sent: To: Subject: Hancock, Ramona B Friday, May 17, 2002 8:35 AM Tingley, Connie S FW: Martin Marietta Materials Inc. ? Special Use Application Developmental Standards Variance, Application And Use Variance Application. -Original Message-- From: Vinay Shukla [SMTP:vs@c-shops.com] Sent: Friday, May 17, 2002 8:27 AM To: rhancock@ci.carmel.in.us Subject: Martin Marietta Materials Inc. ? Special Use Application Developmental Standards Variance, Application And Use Variance Application. Ms. Hancock: Please forward the following as necessary. Thank You. From: Vinay Shukla - Resident of Kingswood at 5098 St. Charles Place Date: May 17th, 2002 To: Charles Weikauf, Earlene Plavchak, Leo Dierckman, Michael Mohr, Pat Rice Re: Martin Marietta Materials Inc. - Special Use Application Developmental Standards Variance, Application And Use Variance Application. In lieu of the special use petition by Martin Marietta, I am in favor of Martin Marietta's current proposal being submitted on or about May 17th, 2002. Further a survey conducted during the week of May 6th was improperly conducted. 1) The survey listed three options without providing any useful details about each choice. 2) To my knowledge homeowners on the perimeter of the Mueller property and Kingswood were intentionally left out of the survey process. 3) Alternatives to mining such as zoning for single home residential, or apartment complex etc. were not presented. These are possible alternatives and should have been mentioned in the survey so that homeowners can see if mining is the better of the solutions provided. All of the above factors result in data that is highly skewed. Should you need any more information or would want to discuss this matter, please let me know at the contact information provided below: Vinay Shukla 5098 St. Charles Place Carmel, IN 46033 Tel: 317-582-0244 1 E-Mail: vs@c-shops.com Vinay Shukla C-Shops.com/Megachip Technologies/@Mortgage Tel: 317-582-0244 Fax: 317-582-0284 E-mail: vs@c-shops.com Mail Service Provided by www.c-shops.com 2 .:-. ~-l -. ~ .!!!!,pley, Connie S From: Sent: To: Subject: Hancock, Ramona B Friday, May 17, 2002 8:34 AM Tingley, Connie S FW: BZA letter -Original Message- From: Kyle Higgins (SMTP:speedykjh@ureach.com] Sent: Thursday, May 16, 20029:05 PM To: rhancock@ci.carmel.in.us Subject: BZA letter This is an electronic letter of our position MMM application. ~ BZA Letter.doc 1 ~"it. .... May 16, 2002 Mr. Charles Weinkauf Ms. Earlene Plavchak Mr. Leo Dierckman Mr. Michaeli\. Mohr Ms. Pat Rice Re: Martin Marietta Materials, Inc. - Special Use i\pplication Mueller Property - North of 106th Street between Carmelot Park and Hazel Dell Parkway Dear Members of the Carmel Clay Board of Zoning i\ppeals: We reside at 11149 Woodbury Drive in the Kingswood Subdivision of Carmel for the past twelve years. Our property is adjacent to the property currently being mined by Martin Marietta Materials, Inc. (MMM). We stand in support of the above-referenced application by MMM. The current application allows for moving the processing plant East of Hazel Dell Parkway if the dredge mining is to be allowed to expand onto the Mueller property. The processing plant frequently operates 6 days a week during the fair weather seasons. i\lthough it is not particularly loud, the noise can be heard when we are in our yard. The movement of this plant will offer our neighbors and us a reprieve from this noise. However, it is less noisy then living next to the interstate (465 or 65). We have lived adjacent to MMM's floating dredge that mines (suctions) sand through the water and can offer the perspective of experience. We simply do not notice the dredge, as the sound that it generates is consistent and low pitched, as well as blocked by the berm behind our home. It is the processing plant that offers some nuisance. }\nother key reason for our support of this application is that it allows for a desirable development plan for the Mueller property that is adjacent to the Southern border of Kingswood. The proposed use offers Kingswood and Carmel additional open non-residential space. This is especially desirable adjacent to the city / county park. i\dditional housing in this area would simply increase the traffic in an already high-traffic area. We would see an increase in pass-through traffic, as well, cutting through Wood Creek and Kingswood to get to a new neighborhood. The remonstrators advocating "zero tolerance" for mining live well away from the planned use area. Their concerns. are primarily about blasting and open pit mining south of 106th Street and are not substantially relevant to this application. Please judge Martin Marietta's request on the content of the proposed application and give appropriate weight to the testimony from those of us who are literally closest to the issues, and most directly effected. Respectfully submitted, Jonn & Christine Higgins 11149 Woodbury Drive Carmel, In 46033-3790 .!!!!sley. Connie S From: Sent: To: Subject: Hancock, Ramona B Friday, May 17, 2002 8:34 AM Tingley, Connie S FW: BZA Hearing -Original Message- From: Dkc0023@aol.com [SMTP:Dkc0023@aol.com] Sent: Thursday, May 16, 2002 10:02 PM To: rhancock@ci.carmel.in.us Subject: BZA Hearing Please forward letter following and attached to BZA members. Thank you -- Don Craft To: Mr. Charles Weinkauf, Ms. Earlene Palavchak, Mr. Leo Dierckman, Mr. Michael A. Mohr, and Ms. Pat Rice Re: Martin Marietta Materials, Inc. - Special Use Application, Development Standards Variance Application and Use Variance Application C/O Ms. Ramona Hancock Dept. of Community Services Via E-Mail -- May 16, 2002 rhancock@ci.carmel.in.us Dear BZA: Well, depending on how you ask a question, you can get the answer you want. Proven once again by the recent survey in Kingswood. I answered, "I support the elected Board". I guess I made the other category. Complicated issues involved in this petition. As I believe I heard you originally expressed, you were not equipped a year ago to handle the issue. A lot of work has taken place, and additional commitments made by Martin Marietta. After 6 years on the Kingswood Board, I did not run for reelection and was out of town for our March annual meeting. With 19 years of mining company executive position experience following an MBA and engineering degree, I however followed and was deeply involved in the negotiations, discussions, court case and arguments over my 6 year Board period. You asked last month an impossible task. You asked for an informed opinion of the residence of Kingswood. The only informed residence of Kingswood are the Board members elected by the residence. The hours of research, discussions, neighborhood meeting, investigations, study, legal and expert support and negotiations invested by our Board are difficult to comprehend. And in the years of working on this project, we probably had 10 information meetings of our residence, including annual meetings. Average attendance, 35 homes out of 221 represented, with 7 by Board members. So, walks in your home and asks if you want Mining Next Door. I support the Board, as I do the elected representatives in Washington. We are not asked to be poled on the issues they work hard on to understand and are asked to vote on. Sincerely, Donald K. Craft 4988 St. Charles PI. WJ Kingswood M M Letter Heading.doc 1 . ..\ Donald K. Craft 4988 St. Charles Place Carmel, IN 46033 Phone No. 317 848-7690 Fax NO. 3178487691 To: Mr. Charles Weinkauf, Ms. Earlene Palavchak, Mr. Leo Dierckman, Mr. Michael A. Mohr, and Ms. Pat Rice Re: Martin Marietta Materials, Inc. - Special Use Application, Development Standards Variance Application and Use Variance Application C/O Ms. Ramona Hancock Dept. of Community Services Via E-Mail -- May 16,2002 rhancock@ci.carme1.in.us Dear BZA: Well, depending on how you ask a question, you can get the answer you want. Proven once again by the recent survey in Kingswood. 1 answered, "I support the elected Board". 1 guess 1 made the other category. Complicated issues involved in this petition. As 1 believe 1 heard you originally expressed, you were not equipped a year ago to handle the issue. A lot of work has taken place, and additional commitments made by Martin Marietta. After 6 years on the Kingswood Board, 1 did not run for reelection and was out of town for our March annual meeting. With 19 years of mining company executive position experience following an MBA and engineering degree, 1 however followed and was deeply involved in the negotiations, discussions, court case and arguments over my 6 year Board period. You asked last month an impossible task. You asked for an informed opinion of the residence of Kings wood. The only informed residence of Kings wood are the Board members elected by the residence. The hours of research, discussions, neighborhood meeting, investigations, study, legal and expert support and negotiations invested by our Board are difficult to comprehend. And in the years of working on this project, we probably had 10 information meetings of our residence, including annual meetings. Average attendance, 35 homes out of221 represented, with 7 by Board members. So, walks in your home and asks if you want Mining Next Door. 1 support the Board, as 1 do the elected representatives in Washington. Weare not asked to be poled on the issues they work hard on to understand and are asked to vote on. Sincerely, Donald K. Craft .... !!!!1Iley, Connie S From: Sent: To: Subject: Hancock, Ramona B Thursday, May 16, 2002 3:09 PM Tingley, Connie S FW: Support of Martin Marietta Materials, Inc One more for you. Ramona -Original Message- From: DaveKCombs@aol.com [SMTP:DaveKCombs@aol.com] Sent: Thursday, May 16, 2002 3:07 PM To: rhancock@cLcarmel.in.us Cc: DaveKCombs@aol.com SUbject: Support of Martin Marietta Materials, Inc To: Mr. Charles Weinkauf Ms. Earlene Olavchak Mr. Leo Dierckman Mr. Michael Mohr Mr. Pat Rice Re: Martin Marietta Materials, Inc. - Special Use Application Mueller Property - North of 106th St. between Gray Rd and Hazel Dell Pkwy Dear Members of the Carmel Clay Board of Zoning Appeals: We are residents in the Kingswood Subdivision of Carmel adjacent to the property currently being mined by Martin Marietta Materials, Inc. (MMM). We have lived at 11175 Woodbury Dr. since 1994 and have first hand experience of the processing plant and dredging operations of MMM. We stand in support of the above referenced Special Use Application. The processing plant usually operates 6 days a week and what little noise there is, comes from the processing plant itself and not from the dredging of sand and gravel. By allowing MMM to obtain their application, they will move the processing plant across the street to a location east of Hazel Dell. This will eliminate most, if not all of the noise that can be heard by our neighbors and us. Most of the remonstrators of the application from the Kingswood neighborhood believe the noise is coming from the dredging operation. Another reason to allow the application to be approved is to eliminate the possibility of housing developments on the current Mueller property. We have one child enrolled at the already over crowded Woodcreek Elementary school and believe that more development would only lead to an even bigger problem. It would also increase the traffic on Gray Road that already backs up from 106th St. to our southern most entrance into Kingswood most mornings. The residents of Kingswood advocating a 'Zero Tolerance' for mining do not, or have never lived adjacent to the property currently being mined and do not understand the full impact of not allowing MMM to continue with their work. We hope that you will consider our thoughts because we are the closest to the issues and most affected by them. MMM has been a good neighbor of ours since 1994 and deserve to continue their work in Carmel. Please approve the Special Use Application being submitted by MMM. We are in 1 - . I ..... ~ ',. support of it. Sincerely, Dave and Dana Combs 11175 Woodbury Dr. Carmel, IN 46033 davekcombs@aol.com 2 ..:R .!.!!lP1ey, Connie S From: Sent: To: Subject: Hancock, Ramona B . Wednesday, May 15, 200212:30 PM Tingley, Connie S FW: To Carmel Clay BZA Members FYI and action. Ramona -Original Message- From: Sveen, Russ [SMTP:RJSVEEN@dow.com] Sent: Wednesday, May 15,20029:27 AM To: 'rhancock@cLcarmel.in.us' Subject: To Carmel Clay BZA Members Please print and distribute as appropriate. Hard copy will follow, but may not physically arrive by distribution deadline. Thank you and best regards, Russ Sveen ~ Sveen BZA Letter.doc <<Sveen BZA Letter.doc>> 1 r- .,,""- ,- ~' '.r' May 15, 2002 Mr. Charles Weinkauf Ms. Earlene Plavchak Mr. Leo Dierckman Mr. Michael A. Mohr Ms. Pat Rice Re: Martin Marietta Materials, Inc. - Special Use Application Mueller Property - North of 106th Street between Carmelot Park and Hazel Dell Parkway Dear Members of the Carmel Clay Board of Zoning Appeals: We reside at 111 09 Woodbury Drive in the Kingswood Subdivision of Carmel. Our property is adjacent to the property currently being mined by Martin Marietta Materials, Inc. (MMM). We stand in support of the above-referenced application by MMM. The current application allows for moving the processing plant East of Hazel Dell Parkway if the dredge mining is to be allowed to expand onto the Mueller property. The processing plant frequently operates 6 days a week during the fair weather seasons. Although it is not particularly loud, the noise can be heard when we are in our yard. The movement of this plant will offer our neighbors and us a reprieve from this noise. We have lived adjacent to MMM's floating dredge that mines (suctions) sand through the water and can offer the perspective of experience. We simply do not notice the dredge, as the sound that it generates is consistent and low pitched, as well as blocked by the berm behind our home. It is the processing plant that offers some nuisance. Another key reason for our support of this application is that it allows for a desirable development plan for the Mueller property that is adjacent to the Southern border of Kingswood. The proposed use offers Kingswood and Carmel additional open non-residential space. This is especially desirable adjacent to the city / county park. Additional housing in this area would simply increase the traffic in an already high-traffic area. We would see an increase in pass-through traffic, as well, cutting through Wood Creek and Kingswood to get to a new neighborhood. The remonstrators advocating "zero tolerance" for mining live well away from the planned use area. Their concerns are primarily about blasting and open pit mining south of 106th Street and are not substantially relevant to this application. Please judge Martin Marietta's request on the content of the proposed application and give appropriate weight to the testimony from those of us who are literally closest to the issues, and most directly effected. Respectfully submitted, Russ & Susan Sveen 111 09 Woodbury Drive Carmel, IN 46033 ~." '. . Bern~rd &. Marilyn Lally 110S7 Huntington Gt. . Carmel, Indiana , 46033 , 5~12.02 <.:. i. Ramona Hancock .,' .' . . . BZA Ad~~istrative ~siStant c, , One. CivicSqua~e . Carmel, IN 46032 .Dear Mrs. Hancock,' . , Enclosedare twoidentic~lIetters. One is to for Pat Riceand'the'other for:Leo. Dierckman. I was not able to f'~d their home. address so. my friend Kent BrOach, . suggested I send them along to you ,fo... your dispersal. If you would be so kind to d() so, I would be most appreciative. . .....~....'......:......., . , . . ' , , " , " "," .' . . . , " beInie@indy.net · (317) 846-7090 . ,. ;' 5.12.02 a~S:' -'b~ -',-,<"l/" .....'y"<"-"/'~ ,-I' A '-/ ' ~()J.J T \6.:- G1J RECEIV'CD \-- _ c ~\ ,~'i MAY 15 2002 ic'~1 ~ \ t---I -~\ !-J \:\ DOCS 'j \<.), "",/ ",-<:".:;. . To: Leo Dierckman, BZA Dear Mr. Dierckman, Finally we aU have a solution that is within yours and our grasp. Mter years of wrangling, Martin Marietta and the Kingswood Neighborhood have reached agreements that will ensure the integrity of a neat weD-planned community and a commercial enterprise to co-exist. This is an example of how community, government and commerce can work together at the highest levels. Having liv~d in Kingswood at 11087 Huntington Court for almost ten years and having served on the Kingswood Neighborhood Association board for five years, I am well versed on the effect of Martin Marietta (MM) on us and the city. The solution hammered out over the vears benefits everyone. Kingswood benefits from the fact the processing plant at our doorstep finally gets moved much further away to the east of HazeldeU road. Therefore its clanking, noise making and dust will be minimized which has been a nuisance to all of Kingswood for years. Open space will be created thus eliminating the worry and concern so many residents had of what might locate next to us. Those fears could be realized with the possibility of multi-family housing and/or commercial development and ensuing lower property values. This development could go on for years and years. The benefits to the City of Carmel are enormous. Multi-family development and/or additional homes on the Mueller property will crowd already crowded schools such as Woodbrook Elementary. Overcrowding is already a problem as they are stretched to the limit now. Traffic on Gray Road would be considerably worse than it already is, and it is severe, especially at 106th and Gray during morning and evening rush hours. The infrastructure would be strained well beyond its capacity. The list could go on and on but you get my drift. Kingswood as you know it would be over-run with additional traffic and upset the ratio of cars to kids as newly housed residents south of Kingswood would cut-through to get to their homes or apartments. The BZA while granting this variance, does not alter nor impede the mining ordinance the City Council will be drafting in the future. Whatever restrictions the City of Carmel imposes in the new ordinance on surface or underground mining will be made retroactive so MM cannot escape more restrictive conditions. It is our belief that underground mining will be excluded and we will petition for its elimination when the bill is considered. The agreements agreed to by MM address the concerns of everyone in Kingswood. Their hours of operation, reclamation and plantings, noise and dust control, ongoing supervision, financial remuneration are all part of a lengthly process that has culminated in the Kingswood Board's giving its approval. This variance is ~ about blasting south of l06th street NOR is it about underground mining on the Mueller property. This variance we wish you to grant is about surface mining only! The loyal opposition has yet to understand that fact. We see this as a great opportunity to finally get on with our lives and put this endless skirmish behind us. And with your help, we will. Thank you for serving the community. Although it can be a thankless job, it is absolutely essential for the American process to survive. emard LaDy ~ 11087 Huntington Ct. ~ . d Kingswood, 46033 5.12.02 ,,,,- \-.c-L4 i ,/ .' ~ \~!i-- '~tf, , Ai j''A btN 4' ''\y:~ [RECEIVED e-\ ~ HAY 15 I)n Y \ ,J02 1""':1 \ D 1'--/ -~", DCS r~ -/ \\-'\\ ,( / \<.>\. '.~/ \,' , ' '< To: Pat Rice, BZA Dear Mrs. Rice, Finally we aU have a solution that is within yours and our grasp. After years of wrangling, Martin Marietta and the Kingswood Neighborhood have reached -~----==agreemelitsttiat wiU'ensurettitfintegrityofa Ileanvell-planned 'commiiDity arid a -- - ...- commercial enterprise to co-exist. This is an example of how community, government and commerce can work together at the highest levels. Having lived in Kingswood at 11087 Huntington Court for almost ten years and having served on the Kingswood Neighborhood Association board for fIVe years, I am well versed on the effect of Martin Marietta (MM) on us and the city. The solution hammered outoverthevears benefits evervone. Kingswood 'benefits from the Jactthe processing,plant at our doorstep fmally gets moved much further away to the east of Hazeldell road., Therefore its clanking, noise making and dust will be minimized which has been a nuisance to all of Kingswood for years. Open space will be created thus eliminating the worry and concern so many residents had of what might locate next to us. Those fears could be realized with the possibility of multi-family housing and/or commercial development and ensuing lower property values. This development could go on for years and years. The benefits to the Citv of Carmel are enormous. Multi-family development and/or additional homes on the Mueller property will crowd already crowded schools such as Woodbrook Elementary. Overcrowding is already a problem as they are stretched to the limit now. Traffic on Gray Road would be considerably worse than it already is, and it is severe, especiallyatl06th and Gray during morning and evening rush hours. The infrastructure would be strained well bey()ndits capacity. T,.c list could,gooJfand on: but You' get my drift. 'Kingswood as you know it would be over-run with additional traffic and upset the ratio of cars to kids as newly .~" '::-~"~\"''',,",_'f'; ""!.'~l: ..':.co.... .:~.,~.- ,_..(, ~:...,...l._ o..:.t. .~.. "'~,.., ,."~... .~., "_ ....,..,.,; ,...1. ~~.'^ ,_;,.':~_ "...~.. . .,."; .;" _.:_~'_ _, _'" .',' _. housed residents south of Kingswood would cut-through to get to their homes. or apartments. The BZA while granting this variance, does not alter nor impede the mining ordinance the City Council wiD be drafting in the future. Whatever restrictions the City of Carmel imposes in the new ordinance on surface or underground mining wiD be made retroactive so MM cannot escape more restrictive conditions. It is our belief that underground mining wiD be excluded and we wiD petition for its elimtDlltion-when-the-bilHs-considered;- --~-~-- -- --- -- ~-- -- ---~----- The agreements agreed to by MM address the concerns of everyone in Kingswood. Their hours of operation, reclamation and plantings, noise and dust control, ongoing supervision, financial remuneration are all part of a lengthly process that has culminated in the Kingswood Board's giving its approval. This variance is NOT about blasting south of 106th street NOR is it about underground mining on the Mueller property. This variance we wish you to grant is about surface mining only! The loyal opposition has yet to understand that fact. We see this as a great opportunity to finally get on with our lives and put this endless skirmish behind us. And with your help, we wiD. Thank you for serving the community. Although it can be a thankless job, it is absolutely essential for the American process to survive. emard Lally ~ 11087 Huntington Ct. Kingswood, 46033 ~~ ~)J-_U;,1 , R f. ~ uAyfCflVfD '='1 I7It 14 2002 Mr. Leo Dierckman, Mr. Michael Mohr, Ms. Earlene Plavchak, Ms. Pat Rice an . _' DOCS Charles W einkauf ~ .~ <.~ "- ,-:q!t'-- - 1'0 Re: Martin Marietta Materials, Inc. - Special use Application, Developmental ~~ Standards variance Application and Use Variance Application WmdydelAIca 5tXi3 St OlarlfsPlare Camd,In 4(ffi3 May 13, 2002 Dear Members of the Carmel Clay Board of Zoning Appeals, My family has lived in Kingswood for almost 5 years, at 5063 St. Charles Place, which borders the Mueller property. We have known from the beginning that the property would probably not remain a field forever. In the past 2-3 years I have attended many meetings sponsored by Martin Marietta, the Kingswood Board, or adjacent property owners, during which I have gathered information and have formulated my opinion, which is to support Martin Marietta's application. Regarding the residents who oppose Martin Marietta's application, I would like to note that many, if not most of these residents do not border the Mueller property and are less affected by what happens on the property than those of us who border the property. I feel that what they are actually opposing is the concept of "mining", rather than the actual issues at hand. (I dare add that this group has been influenced by, & probably organized by a neighbor who is a realtor. A realtor could benefit immensely from any alternative to mining on the Mueller property.) Many of those opposed to the surface mining have not been exposed to the issues as long as those of us who border the Mueller property have. Consequently, I fear that those who oppose the mining have not thoroughly considered all the facts & issues, including the actual noise & dust level (or rather, lack thereof) from an underwater dredging operation (a reasonably quiet white-noise sound.) Also, I feel they have not seriously thought through the possible alternatives to mining & the effects these would have on Kingswood. Many feel that mining will decrease the value of their homes, increase dirt & increase noise. They may also believe that allowing sand & gravel mining will open the door to the possibility of underground blasting under the Mueller property. As you know, undeqrround blasting is a completely different issue, one of which would likely be addressed in any future mining ordinance. Those of us who purchased homes adjacent to the Mueller property took a chance. We will be the most affected by what happens on this property, and we have been well educated on the issues relating to this land. Please realize that we are not greed driven- wanting solely to increase the size of our property. There is a tree line at the back of our lots & any additional land would NOT be part of our "backyards". I would also like to comment on the "poll" that was recently taken throughout our neighborhood, the results of which have probably been passed on to you. It needs to be pointed out that the poll was conducted by the "remonstrators", thus allowing for a probable skewing ofthe results. I also feel that there is a number of residents who feel that what happens to the field will not greatly affect them since they live away from it. For them, there was not an option on the poll such as "no preference" or "no opinion", or "leave decision to those who will be most affected-the adjacent property owners." The poll offered the following choices: against the mining, a preference to wait for a future mining ordinance, or, in favor of the mining. Due to lack of education, knowledge or familiarity of the issues, I feel that many who chose the first two (2) above options may not have thoroughly thought through the effects of these options. The field cannot & will not stay a field, unfortunately. The alternatives to surface mining would most likely be housing, apartment, and, or commercial development. I feel the noise & dirt & other effects from these would be a far greater detriment to Kingswood & would adversely affect the value of our homes. The proposal by Martin Marietta for sand & gravel mining and a resulting lake would have the following positive benefits to Kingswood: . Open space: desirable to bordering residents, the Kingswood neighborhood, Carmel in general, & the wildlife currently residing in this space. . Property value: Valuation of Kingswood homes would be positively affected due to open space remaining on the border of Kingswood & the creation of a lake. (The argument that our homes would devalue may be based on the current "limbo" situation, which is scaring realtors & buyers away from Kingswood. Once the issue is resolved & people are educated as to the minimal effects of surface miming, property values should not be an issue.) (Under any development alternative, property values of adjacent homeowners & all of Kings wood would decrease due to construction noise & dust.) . Traffic: Not affected by mining. (Traffic would increase greatly through & near Kingswood from residential or commercial development ofthe Mueller property. One house down from us is a stub street, which would connect to any new subdivision, increasing traffic and noise on our now quiet back street.) . Noise: Would be greatly reduced by the moving of the processing plant from a location directly east of Kingswood to a location further away. Also, MM would construct a berm on the north side of I06th St., thus reducing the noise reaching Kingswood from their 96th St. operations. Also note: ~Topsoil removal would occur in the winter when windows are closed (compared to year round noise from a subdivision development.) ~ A berm south of the Kingswood property lines would buffer any noise coming from the dredge operation. ~The dredge operation is reasonably quiet and thus non-disturbing, producing a white-noise type of sound (which is preferable to year round construction noises of a housing development.) . DustJDirt: Topsoil removal would occur in cold months when windows are closed, thus would not adversely affect residents. (Dust & dirt from a housing development would be year-round, affecting all Kingswood residents adversely.) In conclusion, the use of the Mueller property for surface sand and gravel mining & the maintaining of open space would be beneficial to Kingswood in and of itself, notwithstanding consideration of the alternatives, which it seems would affect Kingswood adversely in many ways. Thank you for considering this point of view. Regards, Wendy de Luca To Mine or Not to Mine! Have you thought through all the Facts fI Alternatives? Instead 01 Martin Marietta's surlace sand 8 gravel mining 01 the Mueller property, here's what Kin2swood would 2et as "the alternative": . Development rather than open space . Houses, commercial development or multi-family housing on the Mueller property . More traffic through Kingswood . More crowding in our already crowded local schools . Noise year-round, (especially in the summer) for many years (development of a subdivision or apartments) . Dirt & dust in the air year-round during such development . Increased traffic on Gray Road . Longer traffic lines & thus longer waits at the nearby intersections of Gray & both 106th & 116th · Lower property values in Kingswood due to cheaper construction, noise, traffic & school crowding · Permanent home, directly east of Kingswood, of the MM processing plant, which is a maior nuisance to the neighborhood Authored by Wendy de Luca & other concerned Kingswood homeowners, distributed within Kingswood 5/12/2002 This is what could happen ifthe BZA turns down the proposal to allow Martin Marietta to do surface sand & gravel mining on the Mueller property. In the agreement, MM would move the noisy processing plant on the east side of Kingswood to east of Hazel Dell Parkway. Make no mistake, the approval of sand & gravel mining WILL NOT lead to underground blasting, & MM is NOT ASKING for this in their application before the BZA for sand & gravel mining. In the future the City Council will determine all future mining regulations: not MM. As the council formulates the law, be assured that ALL of KINGS WOOD would fight against a proposal for underground blasting. Unfortunately the field cannot stav a field. The Muellers do not intend to continue farming the property. (Nor would any of us if we owned the land.) The alternative to sand & I!ravel mininl! & an eventual lake would be hil!her-densitv houses or apartments. & possible commercial development. And the results would be: . A large subdivision or apartment comvlex with possible commercial developments. (Please note: the land on the west side of Gray Rd., just north of9(/h St. was originally zonedfor single-family homes. A developer recently obtained permission to rezone & is currently constructing commercial office buildings & an apartment complex.) . More traffic through Kingswood: Local ordinances require adjacent subdivisions to be connected. Anyone living on St. Charles Place, Bradbury Place, Westminster Way and Kingswood Drive would see a great increase in traffic as it (especially from the north end ofthis new subdivision) would flow through Kingswood to get to Gray Road, and also on through Wood Creek, to get to I 16th Street. . A substantial increase in enrollment in W oodbrook Elementary would push already crowded classrooms past their capacity. . A new development south of Kingswood would take years to develop and the work would continue without end 7 days a week with substantial noise & dust! . THE PROCESSING PLANT TO THE EAST OF KINGSWOOD (WHICH CREATES MORE NOISE & DUST THAN SURFACE MINING), WOULD REMAIN WHERE IT IS FOREVER. WITH ALL ITS BEEPING & CLANKING! Sand & gravel mining will have the following minimal effects on Kingswood: ~ The removal of top soil will only be for a short period each year: in the winter when our windows are CLOSED, thus the noise & dust will have minimal impact on us, compared to year-round noise & dust from a subdivision development. ~ The dredge operation is conducted underwater & thus is reasonably quiet. The motor produces a low, humming, white-noise type of sound which is much better than the building construction noises of hammering, circular sawing, heavy equipment, etc. ~ The resulting lake from surface mining would allow for open. natural space, desirable for Carmel & Kingswood, & beneficial to the birds, deer & other wildlife that currently reside in this space. Keep in mind that sand & gravel mining has been east of Kings wood for years, & yet has not adversely affected Kingswood home values. The alternative to the proposed surface mining by Martin Marietta is noise, increased traffic plus school crowdinl! from the development of houses or apartments. This is what would drive home buyers away from Kingswood! We CAN control our future! Please Think Thoroughlv With YOUR OU OPIIN Mind Authored by Wendy de Luca & other concerned Kingswood homeowners, distributed within Kingswood 5/12/2002 ~--_._--- .... .'.. Frank & Julie Kozak 5073 St. Charles Place Carmel, IN 46033 Ms. Pat Rice, Mr. Leo Dierckman, Ms. Earlene Plavchak, Mr. Charles Weinkauf and Mr. Michael A. Mohr Re: Martin Marietta Materials, Inc. - Special Use Application, Developmental Standards Variance Application and Use Variance Application Dear Board members: My wife and I are writing you to let you know that we are in agreement with the most recent proposal between the Kingswood Association and Marten Marietta. (MM) We feel it is the best solution for our neighborhood and future property values and the city of Carmel as well. I have attended several meetings in the past year and a half and I became disappointed by how many home owners were acting on emotion rather than dealing with the facts. Having studied MM proposal in detail we have come to the conclusion that this proposal makes the most sense for the future of the Mueller property and Kingswood homeowners. We do not want any commercial buildings, apartments or lower cost housing in our back yard. If this were to happen it would only generate more complaints and concerns about the mining operations that are currently in place. Once again we are in agreement with the MM proposal. ._.../ Michael E. and Janet S. Thyen 5083 St. Charles Place Carmel, IN 46033 May 12,2002 Mr. Leo Dierckman Mr. Michael A. Mohr Ms. Earlene Plavchak Ms. Pat Rice Mr. Charles Weinkauf RE: Martin Marietta Special Use Application for the Mueller Property South of Kings wood Subdivision Dear Members of the Carmel Clay Board of Zoning Appeals: My wife, family and I live on the south side of Kings wood at 5083 St. Charles Place. We have lived here for over 12 years. As a property owner immediately adjacent to the Mueller property, we are most affected by the decision determining the use of this land. We are in favor of the agreement reached by the Kingswood Board of Directors with Martin Marietta, Inc., and therefore are in support oftheir application for a variance and special use permit to surface mine the property. At the last BZA hearing, my neighbors and I did not rise to voice our support for the Martin Marietta application because we felt the agreement the Kingswood Board had negotiated with Martin Marietta satisfactorily protected and represented the best interests ofKingswood as a whole. I still feel that way and appreciate this opporttmity to explain my position. When my wife and I purchased our home in December 1989, we realized that the cropland behind us would someday go away; especially after talking many years with the farmer who cropped the land and learning that the soil was poor and often did not produce an annual profit. We wondered every year when and what type of development would be forthcoming. We knew it was a reality. When the issue of mining expansion arose over three years ago, our Board engaged actively to pursue information, understanding. and to protect the interests of the Kingswood homeowners. I have always been impressed with our Board's dedication and the depth of knowledge they have demonstrated over the years on these mining topics. As you know, like your service on the BZA, this is many times a thankless endeavor. My wife and I also became actively involved with other neighbors, the Board, and Martin Marietta to address issues, concerns and needed safeguards. We have not taken this lightly. We have the safety and security of our family and our home, the value of our property, and quality of life as top priorities. We would not support granting Martin Marietta the variance and special use permit to move forward if we did not feel confident in the agreement they have offered the Kingswood homeowners. Specifically, I would like to address a few areas of concern and reasons for my support of the Martin Marietta mining: If the land south of Kings wood were to be developed for hundreds of homes, traffic in our neighborhood and on Grey Road would greatly increase. This would increase the sl,lfety risk to our children and the security of our homes. This would overtax an already stressed school system in this part of Carmel. This would eliminate even more open space in Carmel for wildlife and nature. This would not be in the best interest of all of Kings wood or the city of Carmel. Ifwe miss the opportunity to move the current processing plant on the eastside of Kingswood to across Hazel Dell Parkway, we miss the opportunity to raise the quality of life and serenity of the neighborhood by eliminating the noise, dust and sight impairment caused by the plant. True, the mining operation will raise some dust and minor noise, but nothing in comparison to the gravel processing plant. If we lose the opportunity to move the plant, this will not be in the best interest of all of Kingswood. We have the opportunity to secure, with the City's support, a reclamation plan that will leave the neighborhood and 106th Street more attractive to current and future homeowners and citizens of Carmel. This will be a positive reflection upon the city and our subdivision. Finally, for the reasons stated above, and more, we have the opportunity to fortify, not depress our home values. (I do not understand the speculation of the remonstrators at last month's BZA hearing that the home values would be adversely affected. There are many factors that affect the value of one's home. With the help of a Carmel realtor, I did an analysis of the movement of home sale prices over time of 16 randomly selected homes in the Kingswood development-7 on the south and east lines, 9 on the interior streets. The interior homes have averaged a gain on sale of over 13%, and the homes on the perimeter a gain over 10.5%. Only one home declined in its sale price by 0.9% from its sale in 1989 to its sale in 1993. All ofthese gains occurred while there was active mining on the property to the east of Kings wood.) In closing, I want to thank you, the Board of Zoning Appeals members, for the diligence you have given this issue. If it were not for you and your request last year for more study and specificity from Martin Marietta, we would not be in a position today to reach such a thorough agreement. Your actions have lead the city to retain consulting expertise in this area and to clear the way for the development of an ordinance to regulate future mining in the City of Carmel. Your actions have gained the Kingswood Homeowners Association the specificity we need to be comfortable to reach an agreement with Martin Marietta. It is time for closure. I urge you to approve the applications of Martin Marietta. Thank you for your time and consideration. Sincerely, ~ €.~ Michael E. Thyen w Lilli , Laurence M From: Sent: To: Cc: david.warshauer@BTLaw.com ~ ~..&\ Monday, May 06,200211 :11 AM ~ ~t.~~~:\\t\" KHahn@cLcarmel.in.us; LLillig@cLcarmel.in.u =:1 ~ \~ "I>l" bob.furlong@martinmarietta.com; dan.hoskins arti~riet\t'Som; john.schuler@martinmarietta.com ~ ~'J BZA site tour ~ Subject: Laurence and Kelli, Can you give me any further details regarding the protocol/agenda for the board's site tour next week? Thanks. David CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This email and any attachments are for the exclusive and confidential use of the intended recipient. If you are not the intended recipient, please do not read, distribute or take action in reliance upon this message. If you have received this in error, please notify us immediately by return email and promptly delete this message and its attachments from your computer system. We do not waive attorney-client or work product privilege by the transmission of this message. 1 ~<'t, ~ :;. ~ -. -, Giovarmi deLuca 5063 St Charles Place Canne~ In 46033 May 12, 2002 Mr. Leo Dierckman, Mr. Michael Mohr, Ms. Earlene Plavchak, Ms. Pat Rice and Mr. Charles Weinkauf Re: Martin Marietta Materials, Inc. - Special Use Application, Developmental Standards Variance Application and Use Variance Application Dear Members of the Carmel Clay Board of Zoning Appeals, My family and I have been residents of Kings wood for almost 5 years. Our address is 5063 St. Charles Place and therefore we border the Mueller property. When we purchased our property we realized there was a possibility that the field directly to the South of us would be used for purposes other than agricultural use. Given that the Muellers do not intend to continue farming, this possibility has now unfortunately become a reality. Over the past 2-3 years I have attended many meetings sponsored by either Martin Marietta, the Kingswood Board or other adj acent property owners during which I have gathered information and formulated my opinion as to whether I should support, be indifferent or protest Martin Marietta's plans for the Mueller property. Although I realize the BZA, during its next meeting, is voting on whether to approve or reject Martin Marietta's proposal for sand & gravel mining, your decision is, for us, ultimately one of mining V s urban development. As I have evaluated the pros and cons of mining V s development of the Mueller property, I favor sand and gravel mining for the following reasons: . Open space: I would prefer to border a lake V s houses, commercial development or multi family housing. . Property value: I believe a vote in favor of sand and gravel mining would remove the uncertainty ofthe fate of the Mueller property and increase in the short term the value of Kingswood property. Over the long term I believe bordering a lake would be a desirable feature increasing the value of my home, and consequently other homes in Kingswood. I feel if the Mueller property was developed residentially, the impact on Kingswood property values would be much more uncertain. To a large degree it would depend on the quality of the homes planned.. ..and I question who would develop and purchase quality homes so close to the open pit and blasting operations that Martin Marietta maintains between 96th & 106th . . Traffic: ifhousing were developed on the Mueller property there would be more traffic through Kingswood, coming through the current stub street area one house r Y' , I ~~-#< ~~ ..- .' down from us. There would also be increased traffic on Gray Road and longer traffic lines at the intersections of Gray and both 106th and I 16th . . Noise: I believe noise levels would be lower if Martin Marietta was allowed to mine compared to residential development: ~ In the agreement reached with the Kingswood board Martin Marietta has agreed to move the processing plant further east of Kings wood. In the event of residential development, or a settlement of the mining issue sometime in the future as opposed to right now, the plant would stay in its current location. ~The removal oftop soil would take place over a short period in the winter when windows are closed compared to year round noise and dust from a subdivision development. ~The dredge operation is reasonably quiet, producing a humming white-noise type of sound, which I find preferable to construction noises. . Impact on city services: housing development would increase crowding at our local schools. The quality of Carmel schools is one of the main reasons my family and I chose to live in Carmel. In conclusion, I favor the use of the Mueller property for surface sand and gravel mining compared to the alternative of residential or commercial development for the reasons stated above. Thank you for taking time to read my letter and considering my point(s) of view. Regards, Giovanni de Luca .:f.: ~ i-~~ "'t1IIIIo -::--.. ~-,1~1 ; ;:> ,;;;.-;' .. Kent M. Broach 5023 St. Charles Place Carmel, IN 46033 May 2, 2002 ~~~~ tYi v (""~1f;S";;.,~ Iff .9 '~/fjj ?,?~ " /1,.,.'," UOcs ''/,,/.' Ms. Pat Rice Mr. Leo Dierckman Ms. Earlene Plavchak Mr. Charles Weinkauf Mr. Michael A. Mohr Re: Martin Marietta Materials, Inc. - Special Use Application, Developmental Standards Variance Application and Use Variance Application Dear Members ofthe Carmel Clay Board of Zoning Appeals: My family and I reside at 5023 St. Charles Place in the Kingswood Subdivision in Carmel. We live adjacent to the Mueller property and are in favor of the above-referenced Applications by Martin Marietta Materials, Inc. ("Martin Marietta"). When Martin Marietta initially proposed to mine the Mueller property, we had serious concerns. However, since that time, adjacent property owners have met with Martin Marietta officials on numerous occasions to learn more about the sand and gravel mining operation. As a result, many of our concerns have been alleviated. The dredge operation is conducted underwater and is reasonably quiet. On the other hand, the noise from the processing plant located on the east side of our neighborhood is a nuisance. The proposed relocation of the processing plant by Martin Marietta to the east side of Hazel Dell Parkway will benefit our neighborhood tremendously. My wife and I understood when we purchased our home that the Mueller property would eventually be developed. After spending three (3) years on the Carmel Clay Plan Commission, I became acutely aware of all the potential possibilities (strip mall, commercial buildings, apartments). Of all such potential uses, I believe that a lake is best for our neighborhood. Although it mayor may not be useable, a lake is still "open space" which cannot be developed. At a recent neighborhood meeting, one of my neighbors stated that apartments could never be built on the Mueller property because it was zoned for single-family homes. As you may know, the land along the west side of Gray Road just north of 96th Street was also zoned for single-family homes. A developer recently obtained a rezone of such property and is currently constructing three (3) commercial office buildings and an apartment complex on such property. It is my opinion that a lake on the Mueller property is the better alternative for Kingswood. If the Mueller property were developed as a residential subdivision in accordance with its current zoning classification, I believe that there would be many more remonstrators from Kingswood. As you know, local ordinances require that adjacent subdivisions be connected. Depending on the configuration of a new subdivision on the Mueller property, cut through traffic by residents of the new subdivision through Kingswood could increase significantly. As Ms. Rice and Mr. Dierckman know from recent Plan Commission meetings, increased traffic through existing subdivisions has been a lightning rod issue for many homeowners. At Plan Commission public hearings concerning new subdivisions, neighbors residing in existing subdivisions would ,'<f . rl3....'- j':&._. ~---... ). - - -~ ~. " '> May 2, 2002 Page 2 remonstrate because a stub street in their neighborhood was proposed to be connected to a new subdivision. Many had safety concerns regarding the increased traffic through their neighborhoods. I think many Kingswood residents would have similar concerns. I realize that many of my neighbors are worried about the effect of mining on the home values in Kingswood. In my opinion, the most important fact for you to note is that sand and gravel mining by dredge has been conducted on the east side of Kingswood for years without negatively affecting our property values. At our most recent annual meeting of the Kingwood Homeowner's Association, our President reported that home values in Kingswood have increased in each of the last three years while Martin Marietta has conducted its sand and gravel operation on the east side of our neighborhood. History shows that this type of mining has no negative effect on our home values. The Board may have gotten the mistaken impression at the public hearing that no Kingswood neighbors are in favor of the Applications of Martin Marietta. None of the adjacent property owners spoke because we felt that the attorney for the Board of Directors of our Homeowner's Association spoke for the entire neighborhood in support of such Applications. I understand that a majority of the adjacent property owners are in favor of such Applications, the Board of Directors of the Kingswood Homeowner's Association is in favor, the City of Carmel is in favor and the expert consultant hired by the City to evaluate the Applications is in favor. I respectfully request your favorable vote on such Applications. As a former Plan Commission member, I understand and appreciate the sacrifices you make to serve on the Board. Thank you for your time and consideration. Very truly yours, #~ Kent M. Broach ~f~ Debra L. Broach 116186-1 ,- :~\ll&N\. William P. Wooden Robert L. McLaughlin Michael C. Cook Ronald G. Salatich Thomas W. Dinwiddie John D. Nell Douglas B. King Dale W. Eikenberry Andrew C. Charnstrom Daniel D. Trachtman WOODEN & McLAUGHLIN LLP Altorneys At Law May 7, 2002 Ms. Ramona Hancock City of Carmel Dept. of Community Services One Civic Square Carmel, IN 46032 Julie L. Michaelis Thomas M. Hanahan Mary Titsworth Chandler Kent M. Broach Jeffrey L. McKean Holly Hapak Betz Michael Rabinowitch John W. Hamilton Jane Ann Himsel John D. Waller I. James M. Boyers Robert J. Orelup Christine K. Jacobson Leslie A. Hitchman Misti Presnell De Yore E. Joseph Kremp Ann S. Grayson Melissa K. Beeman Jason K. Bria Of Counsel Donald W. Buttrey 1:- ~~({;f~1~~f"Rl NAY . 'JilLs/fJ; 921ft?? DOCS - Re: Martin Marietta Materials, Inc. - Special Use Application, Developmental Standards Variance Application and Use Variance Application Dear Ramona: Enclosed are letters for distribution to members of the BZA with respect to the Martin Marietta Applications. Should you have any questions, please let me know. Thank you for your assistance. I hope all is well. Very truly yours, p Kent M. Broach KMB/tlaw Enclosure 117039-1 1600 Capital Center South, 201 North Illinois Street, Indianapolis, Indiana 46204, Phone: (317) 639-6151 Fax: (317) 639-6444 r ----- ~-.( 1. Philip Comet Helen M Comet 4971 Williams Drive Carmel, In 46033 (317) 844 6071 p.-:;~\r-l. 1-~ /< \ .\.~- _-!.~; ! ~ /~ \ )...-' -,J.,...! /~ <... ;).~/- ......./ ('"::::) '-. .A,,/ ..... '0;;: '. :\ ,(~~i? :il' (Y'" .." \ lj R~~ \t,;\ i.:,!, 'fiy. \:":.- \ I--J /7/1. 8 I , i"--\ ?n i_! \ :\\ ,.,. ct/02 A~jj \ .~\ .vc, II \\~':rr::;'~y Mr. Chuck Weinkauf Carmel BZA City Hall One Civic Square Carmel, IN 46032 Dear Me Weinkau( Our names are J. Philip and Helen M Comet We live at 4971 Williams Drive, in Kingswood Addition, Cannel, Indiana. The pmpose of this letter is to go on record as opposing the mining operation on the Mueller property, adjacent to OlD" addition, by the Martin Marietta Corporation. When we plD"chased OlD" property, we were aware of the sand and gravel operationjust east of OlD" addition and the quanyingjust north of 96th street It was believed that this operation would nm its cOlD"Se. and stop. It was not expected that additional land would be rezoned to permit further operation. It is tenifYin.g to find that the Carmel zoning is so flexible that a change can be made at any time given the right cirC1.D1lStance. Is there no area safe? The reason we oppose this rezoning is its effect on the desirability of our property. It might be agreed that digging gravel seems bland, but the Martin Marietta Co. has already expressed that if a general mining ordinance is enacted that pennits quarrying, they will take advantage of this on the Mueller property and elsewhere. We don't want to let the camel get its nose mder OlD" tentf We are already putting up with the current blasting that has broken the seal on all of OlD" double glass windows along with OlD" neighbors, we have replaced all of the windows, some twice. The pictures hanging on the wall must be straightened at least weekly, and there is damage to some of OlD" walls. Their engineer, after inspection, claims this is normal house deterioration, but we have never experienced this in any other of OlD" houses. We are not, in my judgment, getting good neighborhood representation since there is a core of residents, the president among them, that believe they will benefit since they will have a lake in their back yard. (Or a rock quany?) ~~ ~f'V\'~ J. Philip Comet Helen M Comet / ~ $?JI!lI0t'Sfln /7"- Ii ll,k-':;~/LtI@ ~y 2 ;J~'., !,{/,/ Docs May 2, 2002 Mr. Charles Weinkauf Ms. Earlene Plavchak Mr. Leo Dierckman Mr. Michael A. Mohr Ms. PatRice Re: Martin Marietta Materials. Inc. - Special Use Application Mueller Property - North of 106d1 Street between CaJ:Inelot Park and Hazel Dell Parkway Dear Members of the Carmel Clay Board of Zoning Appeals: We would like to express OUT support for Martin Marietta Materials Special Use Application to move the processing plant from the west to the east side of Hue) Dell Parkway and to conduct sand and gravel mining OD the "Mueller Property" utilizing a floating dredge. We live at 11079 Huntington Court, which is the lot located in the southeastern corner of the Kingswood subdivision with the most exposure to the Mueller property (east and south). We have been very anxious about the uncertainty of the development plans for the field (Mueller Property) adjacent to our house and have supported the actions of the Kingswood Homeowners Association to gain greater detail regarding the proposed sand and gravel mining. Through the actions of the Kingswood Homeowners Association, Martin Marietta has finally developed a plan that we can support and we believe is beneficial to Kingswood. The processing plant directly east of Kingswood is a significant nuisance to 1110St of the neighborhood. Moving the processing plant to the east-side of Hazel Dell, which is farther away. lower in elevation and buffered by berms and trees, would be a great quality of life improvement to us and the neighborhood. The proposed sand and gravel mining of the Mueller Property utilizing a floating dredge now contains enough detail to earn our support. We have personal experience with the floating dredge and have found the noise to be fairly non-invasive as long as they .keep the doors to the engine compartment closed. We believe the creation of a lake (open-space) next to Kingswood., establishing sight and sound berms set back so not to be right on top of our backyard and appropriate landscaping of the borderland as positive to Kingswood and us. We understand, appreciate and support that, as a member of the Cannel Clay Board of Zoning Appeals, you need to weigh the merits of the entire proposal, not just the opinion of an individual household, but we do believe the support of the vast majority of the neighbors directly adjacent to the Mueller Property should count for something. It is our backyard after all. I also think the support of the Kingswood Homeowners Association, the City of Carmel and the city mining consultant should help you feel comfortable with approving the proposal. Again, we respectfully ask for you to approve the Special Use proposal. Thank you for your consideration. Sjncerely, Sharon, Michael, 10el & Jack Donnelly 100 III mmv A\oa 09CtLCCLIC XVd tt:Cl tOO~/~O/90 Frank & Julie Kozak 5073 S1. Charles Place Carmel, IN 46033 Ms. Pat Rice, Mr. Leo Dierckman, Ms. Earlene Plavchak, Mr. Charles Weinkauf and Mr. Michael A. Mohr Re: Martin Marietta Materials, Inc. - Special Use Application, Developmental Standards Variance Application and Use Variance Application Dear Board members: My wife and I are writing you to let you know that we are in agreement with the most recent proposal between the Kingswood Association and Marten Marietta. (MM) We feel it is the best solution for our neighborhood and future property values and the city of Carmel as well. I have attended several meetings in the past year and a half and I became disappointed by how many home owners were acting on emotion rather than dealing with the facts. Having studied MM proposal in detail we have come to the conclusion that this proposal makes the most sense for the future of the Mueller property and Kingswood homeowners. We do not want any commercial buildings, apartments or lower cost housing in our back yard. If this were to happen it would only generate more complaints and concerns about the mining operations that are currently in place. Once again we are in agreement with the MM proposal. _. . ~ -. '-041 l:SCHEIOlER Sl? 844 SS2? 04....28....02 10: 14Pm p. 001 ;0: ~ /f1 ~ 011./4 // rJ~ c (/ c....f' ,. , /~ c- ~ . .Qf'/7l//~ ~ J'C/7< /d( +~ ~.( .' ~ 4-,,- ,/}V A? rf/ /2 k T7 /;;1 ",.., -fI T/C"v'/j' C ./' , S ~E c ,/tf( (Jf .r E hd t~ I ".... / ,../~,,,.. L, C/"j,/ /'CJ~ ~o~ //7" C /L1 PJ C-f /!(),4/(.c:1 P,IC '2 \J~")vC 4//~Lj .A--t L ~rrW c ~4Cl[j ; .J ---- ..(1 .<.~J. P,':?::?'~,.:...~.. /1'0- , ' . II 29 ,",- (' DocS \-=.\ \ . \. \. \ \: "" ' ", ......,'-..: :' -----~------------ DAU ID SCHE IDLER 817 844 8627 04/28/02 10:14pm P. 002 . ~ ...... " \,,:)">-___--r \'>/ Ms. Pat Rice, Mr. Leo Dierckman, Ms. Earlene Plavch~ Mr. Charles Weinkaufand_Mi:.~\"/ Michael A. Mohr David M. Scheidler, MD 5113 St. Charles Place Kingswood Subdivision:, Carmel, IN 46033 April 28, 2002 . .4:~ -<'1 <.~~' , . ^':';Ji';; ., a <?'/,<~ Vc <P Re: Martin Marietta Materials, Inc. - Special Use Application, Developmental Standards Variance Application and Use Variance Application Dear Members of the Carmel Clay Board of Zoning Appeals, My family and I have lived at 5113 S1. Charles Place in the Kingswood Subdivision in Carmel for over 11 years. Our house is on the southern border of the subdivision adjacent to the Mueller property. We were drawn to this location, in part, because there was not anQther subdivision out our back window. We have enjoyed the privacy and openness that the field provides. We have known about Martin Marietta's intentions to mine this field for several years. We have taken an on site tour of the mining facility by Martin Marietta and have observed first hand the surface dredge mining operation existing to the east of our subdivision. We have seen what is involved with the removal of the topsoil before the start of the dredge mining. We have attended innumerable meetings between Martin Marietta and our neighborhood; and between Martin Marietta and the adjacent property owners (APOs). Our main concerns dealt more with moving the existing noisy processing plant east of Hazel Dell Road, the surface blasting in the open pit, the underground mining, moving the aspbah plants north of 96th 81. and the guarantee of desirable reclamation of the land after the surface mining is complete. We are in agreement with the recent proposal negotiated between Martin Marietta and our Kingswood Association Board. Knowing the turmoil and friction between these two groups, this negotiated agreement was by no means an easy feat. As an adjacent property owner, our concerns and wishes have been thoroughly taken into account by both negotiating parties. At the last BZA meeting, which I attended, I didn't speak up in favor of this proposal because I felt the Kingswood Association Board and our attorney were representing me, and my beliefs. I believe the outspoken neighbors against this proposal are a minority of the neighborhood. Most of the neighbors that I have spoken with are either in favor of only the surface mining, or they don't care. The price of homes in our neighborhood continues to go up with time. In my opinion, one of the biggest detriments to home prices is the noisy processing plant to the east of our subdivision. For the homes for sale on the southern adjacent property, the biggest detriment is the unknown of what is going to happen to the Mueller property. If the Mueller property is dredged as proposed, those people wanting privacy will pursue this property. DAU ID SCHE IDLER 317 844 3627 04/28/02 10:14pm P. 003 . ~., .'. In conclusion, I am in favor of the proposed agreement between Martin Marietta and the Kingswood Homeowners Board as stated at the last BZA meeting. Moving the processing plant east of Hazel Dell Road is of utmost importance for me and without this agreement, the plant will stay where it is. Since the Mueller property can not stay undeveloped, I would much rather have the privacy of surface dredge mining with the potential of a lake over the creation of another subdivision, apartment complex or commercial buildings. The future mining restrictions by the City of Carmel will help to control the more controversial issues of surface blasting, open pit mining and underground mining. Thank you for all your time and consideration. Very truly yours, / / J ).J~t...~~~ David M. Scheidler, MD 1// Hancock, Ramona B u u From: Sent: To: Subject: william I. curry [BD3CURRY@compuserve.com] Saturday, April 20, 2002 7:47 PM Blind. Copy. Receiver@compuserve.com Board of Zoning appeals Dear Members of the Carmel Clay Board of Zoning Appeals, I would like to go on record as being against any rezoning of the Mueller property adjacent to Kingswood or the granting of any special use for mining on that land. I know that you are busy so I will try to be brief. I consider the Zoning Ordinance not only a plan for the growth of the city of Carmel, but also a contract between the people and their government. I have been told that for changes to be made in this contract, one of the steps is to prove that the land values will not be adversely affected. Mining on this property will drastically lower the value of my home. If it causes the value of my home to drop by ten percent it will take us a long time to resave that ten percent. 1 also feel that the quality of my family's life will be adversely affected. This morning I walked up to the mining area that is already behind Kingswood. After my walk I must also state that safety is now another big consideration of mine. I was appalled at how dangerous this situation is, not only for children, but for adults as well. There is no real fencing; the banks are steep and rocky and there is not way to get out should someone fall in. Even an excellent swimmer would be at risk. I consider this area an accident waiting to happen. It seems to me that for the next fourteen years, although that too is subject to change, the only one who stands to gain is Martin Marietta. ,I am asking that Martin Marietta not be allowed to mine either above or below ground on this property. Thank you for your time, Dorie Curry 1 7 )dr. Mik~ Hollibaugh I April 18, 2002 Page 2 Dear Mr. Hollibaugh: As part of our discussions with Martin Marietta Materials, Inc. (MM), the City of Carmel, and the Kingswood homeowners' groups, we have reviewed various proposals related to the setback and buffer between the Kingswood subdivision and MM's proposal to mine sand andgravel on the Mueller property directly south of the Kingwood subdivision. While all parties have sought. to achieve unanimity on the design of the buffer area, it is apparent that a final determination could not be achieved that was protective of the public and mitigated the potential visual and noise impacts. It is our professional judgment that the following recommendations are protective of the public safety and in the best interests of the adjacent Kingswood subdivision residents, recognizing that compromises need to be made to accommodate the interests of all concerned: (1) A buffer of 50 feet from the property line of the subdivision should be established. The area should be landscaped in accordance with the City's requirements. All efforts should be made to protect the existing trees and to use the landscaping requirements to complement the final landscape plan. The landscape plan . should be implemented immediately. Comments: The existing trees along the property line are more substantial than originally thought, however, supplemental plantings will be necessary to complete the buffer. A detailed landscape plan should be prepared for review and approval by the urban forester. that . addresses those areas where additional landscaping will be required. l______________~____________________________________________________--- (2) A 6-footchain link or similar fence should be ereCted at the 50-foot line before any mining is commenced. The area from the fence line to the property line of the adjoining Kingswood subdivision owners should be conveyed (using an appropriate legal vehicle) to the adjoining homeowners for their exclusive use before mining commences. Comments: a. Chain link fence should be black vinyl coated (per Tom, agreed t9 by MM). , ' l___________________________________~-----------------_____________c. b. Is the intent of the fence to enclose all sides of the extraction operation or just along the north arid west property lines?? MM should add the fence to their plan / maps. " I______---~------------------------------_._,---------___~_~I' c.The second part of this recommendation, relating to conveyance, should be moved to your #5. . L________________________~_______________________________________,'. (3) An 8-foot temporary visual and noise barrier should be established beyond the fence line by the use of topsoil and overburden to be removed in the mining area. The barrier should be 8 foot high and have a base of 24 feet (1:1.5 slope). The visual and noise Comment: Psalm 8JId I do not want 10 eiii:roacb upon lbeJurlsdlcilon of lIic City's requirements coJiceming!be buffer 8JId lbe landscape plan. We 111= with !be climmenl,but it ia.up 10 you to decide on !be exlcnt ofll1c landscape plan sild .. !be actual requlrcments. Because !be City Icqulrcsa l8ndscapc plan, you doo't DCCd ourlfJclimmcDdallon to requlrc It Comment:.Agrcc. butlbcsamc Issue as above appUea; 1bis Is !be Oty's responsibility, but we III=lbat black vinyl coaled Is mucb preferable. Coinment: As I recall, !be fclieing would. be dcd 10 1bc eXisling fencing on !be west sldcto !be fencing lb8t cxi818 81 !be park.. 'Ibc fcnciDg on !be cast side soould WJBP around lbe last house on !be caslcmcomer; . c:ammeint: 'Ibc by point bcic Is lbat. !be conveyance or. casement or olber vehicle should occur before mlnlns co_ca. .1bat way, !be Jsildowners get lJiuncdiate use of !be first SO feel now instcad.of waiting forlbe mining to be completed In 14 years when !be rcmainlng land will be conveyed. l ~ ~r. Mike Hollibaugh April 18, 2002 Page 3 : barrier should be seeded with grasses, wildflowers or appropriate vegetative cover consistent with the City's requirements. The temporary barrier should remain for the life of the mining activity on the Mueller property south of the Kingswood subdivision. Comments: 1. At T AC it was recommended (and agreed to by MM) the slope into the water be 4:1 (or 1:4 in NY) to a point2' below the surface. i 1_ - --- - - - - _. -i" _U A -10' safety ledge wouldbuilt,-another slope-(3:I)for ten-morefeet~ .- U '- - - - '- - -- 1_________________________________________________________ 3. The mound would reinain in place until the end of phase 3. I (4) -.- -After- minini is -completed on the-Mueller property- south- of the siibd1vision~ MM should --\ (a) remove the fence, (b) remove the visual and noise barrier, and (c) should reclaim the '- mining area from the former fence line (at 50 feet) to the edge of the water. The water \ \ line is estimated to be 150 feet from the property line at Kingswood, and MM would \ \ reclaim on no more than a 1:3 slope back from the edge of the water (estimated water \ level at 722 :t feet). Reference comments above re: #3 (5) After final reclamation MM should make every effort to convey the property from the waterline to the adjoining property owners for their exclusive use. That area is estimated at 150 feet, including the initial 50 feet that was conveyed at the commencement of mining on the Mueller property. Comment: Our earlier understanding was that the entire 150' ofland would be conveyed after phase 7 of the operation is completed. Can you help us understand the advantages of the two phase conveyance. 1________________________'-'-______________-__________________________-'-- The temporary visual and noise barrier along Kingswood, will preclude concurrent reclamation. While - some reclamation of the area beyond the barrier to near the water will be done to minimize erosion and fugitive dust, MM will be unable to accomplish final reclamation until the barrier is removed and the lake reaches its ftilallevel. In general, concurrent reclamation cannot be done in water-based reclamation because the mining activity is continuing, and the sloping of the banks is dependent on the final elevation of the water body. With water-based reclamation that may be used for recreational wading and swimming, consideration should be given to even a lesser slope from the water's edge into the water for a distance of ten feet or more from shore. In summary, we believe that the recommendations set forth here (a) are protective of the public safety, (b) recognize the short-term impacts of both noise and visual by constructing the temporary noise and visual barrier, (c) ameliorate the temporary impacts of mining by allowing the private use of the additional 50 feet of landscaped area bordering their property, and (d) Comment: Agree, and Ibis is a good idea, Butl don't think il is wise to. revise our recommendations whim we were not at the T AC IIICl'lling. . Comment: To settle the- question of sloping, we would firsl sellle on how much land should be setback from the property line without aslope. In.olber wOnls, do the landowners wanl SO feet of flat land, t\Hln start lbeslope to the waler. .If that Is .thecase, then after the water levells established, the slope can bci as graduaI as possible, with.the watCr's"edge . to 10020 feet. in the water being very \ gradual (1:19). ..... ~ment: Wewouldrccommend leaving the mound in placeforthe duralionof the mining, i.e. 14 y~. We do think that if we are to argue that the J110illld is neceSsary for noise. and. visual impacts, then the mound should stay in p1acc,1f the landowners wanl it removed. thim perhaps thaI will be an option. HOwever, We recol1Ui1end keeping It tbtoughthe dUt1ltion ofalllbepbases In fronlof Kingswood on the Mueller property. COmment: Webave predicated the entire.recommendation on the fact that we are giving the laDdoWDe(S something immediately. and something in thefuture. We don't thInk.that MM would convey . the entire ISO feet until mining bas bcien . completed. On the otberband, giving the landowners lbC firsl SO feet now JIla\res seiue. 'Ibey would get exclusive use. of the SO feet with 1andscaplng, plus a fence. plus a noise and visual banicir that would beRc1aimed. We think that is igood deal for.lbe landowners. In the long run, they would get ISO feet of 1akefront for their exelusive use and llkely a slgi1iflcant Increase in their property value. .. 1 i .. Mr. Mike Hollibaugh ~ 'i April 18,2002 Page 4 , , recognize the long term concerns of the adjoining landowners by making land available to these homeowners on the water's edge, thereby guaranteeing their privacy for the future. This is a great letter, we are thankful for your assistance/contribution, see you on Monday I . _ if you -have -any - qu-estlons- or- need - ~cfdit10nal1iiformat1on. -please - do- not-hesitate - to - call~ - As - always, we appreciate the cooperation that wehave received from the homeowners and Martin Marietta, and we look forward to continuing to work with the City of Carmel in a comprehensive resolution to the mining and reclamation issues. Sincerely, SPECTRA ENVIRONMENTAL GROUP, INC. Gregory H. Sovas, P.E. Vice President of Governmental Affairs GHS/tCj G: 2OO1101233ltextlcorrespondencelLettcr 2 - Comment: Tbanks. Wetbink we have a winning solution.. With iome luck and soppotl from.otbe( landownen. .we may ~ this tbrouglL ThIs la a fun project, and in any event, even If we don't succeed onMouday. welUe making. progress. Under anycilcomstaoces, you sOOold make it clear to the BZA thatyoo (the City) are doing your best to resolve the situation and are sYmPathetic 10 all 9f the views, botdeclaions ileed to be inade. PsaIni and I will be ready lObe1p ansWer any questions. From our diScussions with David Warshauer, we are certain that they will be mucb better prepared. .. " J.;()t?1 lR' c;;' It - () {,tV,,! ~ 40 'b~ C ~P)s Issues for Consideration re Use 1) Compliance with the Comprehensive Land Use Plan. The Comprehensive Plan does not provide for an intensive mining use such as being considered. Therefore an intensive use such as an open pit aggregate mine needs to be evaluated in consideration of surrounding residential uses. Further, such use needs to be evaluated with highest and best land use practices of the City of Carmel, particularly since this property will essentially not generate any future tax revenue if used as a mine pit. The issue is whether a mining use is the highest and best use for this property within the guidelines of the Comprehensive Land Use Plan. 2) Adverse impact on residential neighborhoods should be considered as part of any proposal. These include by way of illustration and not limitation, property damage including diminution of property value, emotional distress, loss of peace of mind and happiness, discomfort, inconvenience, annoyance, disruption, nuisance or trespass. The City should have the ability to maintain continuous oversight over how this land is developed and used, particularly should unforeseen negative consequences develop. (a) Sand and gravel and stone mining should be evaluated separately. (b) Existing conditions should not become the basis of future regulations. New mining needs to be evaluated on the environmental impact it will create. Any land use approved by Carmel should meet the highest standards that Martin Marietta would comply with elsewhere. Determining and implementing an adequate buffer is a prime concern. Martin Marietta's permit application for Boone County, KY represents reasonable regulations which Martin Marietta has agreed to comply with for stone mining. (c) Any mining process involving blasting, especially open pit mining, within a residential district is problematic. (d) Sand and gravel extraction, if accompanied with an acceptable reclamation and tinalland use plan, could be a highly desirable land use. 3) Martin Marietta's currently existing operations should be brought into the regulation process. 4) A sufficiently detailed mining plan setting forth each activity should be provided. The mining plan should be consistent with the guidelines of the Indiana Mineral Aggregates Association and industry standards as contained in the Aggregate Handbook. See 2) and 3) above. 5) A reclamation plan consistent with the Indiana Mineral Aggregates Association, industry standards as contained in the Aggregate Handbook, and provisions in Carmel's ROSO Ordinance regarding landscape standards and use of open space should be provided. a) Timing of reclamation is a high importance. Concurrent reclamation is highly recommended in order to minimize disruptions to existing residential districts. b) Final land use needs to be established and made part of the permit process. For consideration ofa mining permit, final land use should contribute back to the community in the form of a park or other beneficial use. 12/03/01 1 v .. ; D.': , :fU\ u U INDIANA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONlV1ENTAL MANAGEMENT We make Indiana a cleaner, healthier place to live. Frank O'Bannon Governor 100 North Senate Avenue P.O. Box 6015 Indianapolis, Indiana 46206-6015 (317) 232-8603 (800) 451-6027 www.in.gov/idem Lori F Kaplan Commissioner December 20,2001 Dear Storm Water General Permit Applicant: Re: Notice of Sufficiency , Carmel Sand Hamilton County The Notice of Intent (NOl) letter submitted to the Indiana DepartmentofEnvironmenta1 Management (IDEM) for the above-mentioned project is sufficient to comply with the NOI letter requirements of327 lAC 15-5 (Rule 5). Enclosed please find a copy of Rule 5, the NPDES General Permit for Storm Water Runoff Associated with Construction Activity. Yon must comply with all of the requirements of this rule. Ill' accordance with 327 lAC 15-5-10, you are required to implement your Soil Erosion Control Plan, maintain the erosion control ,wo,-.$tructures until your project is complete, and amend yourNOl a~ dates or other facts are altered. The name of this project is Carmel Sand and is located ill Hamilton County. This name and county name should be included on any type of correspondence that is submitted to IDEM pertaining to this project. , If marked with an X, pleaSe review the enclosed sheet titled "Developer's Continuing Responsibility" ,and submit ,an amended timetable Which includes home or building construction, inst~lation ofroads and utilities, and rev:egetationof cleare,d:ateas after all construction is complete., ' ,'.; ~ .' . , NOTE: This Notice of Sufficiency does not constitute approvaIiJfyourErosion/Sediment Control Plan (E/SCP), nor does it supersede the requirements of your local Soil & Water Conservation District Office (SWCD) or the Indiana Department of Natural Resources, Division of Soil Conservation (DNR). Questions regarding the development or implementation of the E/SCP may be directed to the" local coun'ty SWCD or if you are unable to reach theSWCD, please contact DNR at 317/233-3870. Any other questions regarding Rule 5 requirements may be directed to the IDEM Rule 5 Coordinator at 317/233-1864 or 800/451-6027 ext.31864. For info andforms visit: www.state.in.us/idem/owm/facmang/storm/stormindex.html Sincerely, ~'k~" Reggie Baker, Jr., Chief Urban Wet Weather Section Office of Water Quality Enclosure NOTE: An approved Erosion & Sediment Control (E/SC) Plan and a complete Notice of Intent are both required for compliance with Rule 5. The following items have been received and approved"by the appropriate agencies: NOI Your EISC Plan has either not been received or has not yet been approved by the Hamilton County SYVCD. Contact the SWCD with questions about the EISC Plari review. . Recycled Paper @ An Equal Opportunity Employer Please Recycle 0 BARNES &THORNBURG 11 South Meridian Street Indianapolis, Indiana 46204-3535 U.S.A. (317) 236-1313 Fax (317) 231-7433 Thomas H. Engle (317) 231-7499 Email: tengle@btlaw.com wwwobtlaw.com December 3, 2001 VIA FEDERAL EXPRESS Mr. Greg Sovas Spectra Environmental Group, Inc. 19 British American Boulevard Latham, New York 12110 6\[iIOr 0 "V I";''' :1,l ~ RECEIVED DEe . 2001 DOCS Ms. Kelli Hahn Department of Community Services City of Carmel One Civic Square Carmel, Indiana 46032 Re: Martin Marietta Materials ProDosed PUD Ordinance Dear Mr. Sovas and Ms. Hahn: At Kelli's request and on behalf of Martin Marietta Materials, Inc., I am sending each of you the enclosed information: 1) an aerial photograph marked to indicate the Mueller property (in red) and the Martin Marietta property (in green) located in Hamilton County between 96th and 116th Streets; and 2) an aerial photograph marked to indicate adjacent land uses (other than single family residential, which are clear in the photograph). As to the other requested information, the proposed reclamation plan map for the Mueller property is not yet complete, and the proposed operational procedures for the Mueller property are as set forth in the draft PUD Ordinance. The anticipated timing for proposed mining activities on the Mueller property is as follows: 1) surface dredging for sand and gravel north of 106th Street from 2002 until 20 1 0; 2) open mining for stone south of 106th Street from 2002 until 2025; and 3) underground mining for stone north of 106th Street beginning no sooner than 2025. This time line is general, and could be extended somewhat due to market conditions. Thomas H. Enclosures cc: Robert Furlong (w/o enclosures) David Warshauer (w/o enclosures) !NDSOI THE 474111 Indianapolis Fort Wayne South Bend Elkhart Chicago Washington, DoC. ~ Martin Marietta Materials. Inc. \ "'iI' Mueller Property - Adiacent Land Uses A. ProposedJPending Commercial B. Pending Multi-Family C. Agricultural D. Religious E. Park/Municipal F. Proposed Park/Municipal G. Wastewater Treatment Facility/Municipal H. Asphalt Batch Plants .~ INDSOI THE 474110 ~ j;j \ 'i .... . ~ '-- .... /~\ \1b-n-;--f-. "\ ..,..!.III! 1:;;-"', ,(;!r/ ~-1~;,!<<~ ~ A. 4/.\ "tI, '.r '\~,j'~ RECEWEO s-: DEe 4 2001 'l>~ DOCS Q u LiIIig, Laurence M From: Sent: Subject: Lillig, Laurence M Tuesday, July 03, 2001 9:48 AM Martin Marietta Materials (SU-40-01; V-41-01) In a letter dated June 25, 2001, Thomas H. Engle of Barnes & Thornburg formally withdrew Docket Nos. SU-40-01 & V- 41-01 on behalf of Martin Marietta Materials for property located on the northwest corner of East 106th Street and Hazel Dell Parkway (the Mueller property). This Item had been tabled since the May 8, 2001, Special Meeting of the Board of Zoning Appeals. Laurence M. Lillig, Jr. Planning & Zoning Administrator Department of Community Services City of Carmel One Civic Square Carmel, IN 46032 Phone: 317.571.2417 Fax: 317.571.2426 llillig@ci.carme1.in.us 1 BARNES &THO~URG u 11 South Meridian Street Indianapolis. Indiana 46204-3535 U.S.A. (317) 236-1313 Fax (317) 231-7433 Thomas H. Engle (317) 231-7499 Email: tengle@btlaw.com www.btlaw.com June 25,2001 Re: Docket No. SU-40-01N-41-01 Mr. Michael P. Hollibaugh, Director Department of Community Services City of Carmel Cannel City Hall, Third Floor 1 Civic Square Carmel, Indiana 46032 Dear Mr. Hollibaugh: On behalf of Petitioner, Martin Marietta Materials, Inc., this letter is to notify you that we are hereby withdrawing the above petitions from consideration by the Cannel Clay Board of Zoning Appeals. Thank you for you assistance in this matter. Sincerely, ~r Thomas H. Engle, Esq. Enclosure cc: Robert Furlong John P. Molitor William Wendling Stephen W. Lee David R. Warshauer INDSOl THE 438587 Indianapolis Fort Wayne South Bend Elkhart Chicago Washington, D.C. '._M ~MV"Y'" ,_~':' ..=.::!...:.-*:,fIJ r~~./OIt')OU~1 ... '" ""'-- l~ ~ampDe~~ AY~e rrOII~~~ I(g uu~ .~ .. CAMPBELL KYLE PROFFITI ATTORNEYS AT LAW FJl....NK S. CAMPBE\.I. (1~~O.I'iM) JOHN M. KYI.I 101-1N D. PRl)f:fITT ROnl!llT f. CAMPBf;LL J~Fl:~EY S. NI(:J(LOY DEBORAH 1.. fARMER WILLIAM E. WY.NDLlNO. In. ANN!; HENSL~y' I'OINDl,X'l'E~ ANDR~W M. B^ltKER MICHAIS'- A. CASAfl JOHN S. "ERRY ROONEY 'C. SARKOVICS SCOTT P. WYI\r:'r ['RANK W. CAMPDl:'U. (1916.\991) 'fHOMAS D. Tl'rswOitTH Of Counsel June 7, 2001 Mr. John R. Molitor MOLITOR. GRISHAM & HESTER 11711 North Meridian Street, Suite 200 Carmel, IN 46032 Re: Kingswood Homet)wners AssociationIMartin Marietta Materials Dear John: The purpose of this letter is to communicate my client's receptiveness (0 the City's proposal to resolve the issues with Martin Marietta Materials' application for land use as it applies to the Mueller property. Although it seems that the ball is in Martin Marietta Materials' oourt as to the next step, we would like to keep the process moving steadily forward. Please advise me as to how the City intends to keep this process moving. In regard to your proposal, my client seeks clarification on the following issues: 1. There needs to be a clear definition of "legal nonconforming uses" and at what point in time they are effective. For example, would the nonconforming uses be defined as they existed at thc time of the 1997 contract between American Aggregatcs and thc City, or are the nonconforming uses to be determined at the present time? 2. As we review the proposed Plan Unit Development ordinance, our perception is that this will cover all the mining activity on the Mueller property and the Martin Marietta Materials property. If that is correct, will the nonconforming uses then be subject to t.he future Plan Unit Development regulations? 3. Martin Marietta Materials needs to understand that for Kingswood Homeowners Association to dismiss its lawsuit and to accept in principle the City's proposal it . will be responsible for Kingswood's expenses. But for the persistence of the Kingswood Homeowners Associalion to get this matter before the BZA, business 650 East Carmel Drive Suire 400 Carmel, Indiana 46032 (317) 846-6514 FAX (317) 843-8097 YU' VI' V.L .u1U ~".J r~~.1 04.)OUlH ~ampDell KYle ~rorrl~~ LEY vUe) ;0 j '~ Mr. John R. Molitor June 7.2001 Page 2 would be as usual for Martin Marietta Materials and they would be mining the Mueller property without the control of the City. My client strongly feels that both the City and Martin Marietta Materials had an obligation to bring this matter before the BZA. Therefore, the expenses incurred by the Homeowners Association were unnecessary. and they want to be reimbursed for those expenses. It appears to us the City is now committed to establishing a zoning classitication to deal with funher mining issues. If that is not an accurate perception of what YOll believe the City is committed to do, please let me know as soon as possible. If you have any questions regarding the above or any comments, please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, CAMPBELL KYLE PROFFITT . ~ 1"\ . . . . : ,. .;)}-l_Ll.A...,I.."Y'~ ,)1 c!-'Jl.~'I...e..~.'f{.Ji ~~. . U .' ".'x..,.I William E. Wendling, Jr. ,!,' . ... WEW!mew cc: Kingswood .Homeowners Association 790'1-1 CAMPBEIL KYLE PROFFTIT AnQRNEYS N l.AW .. '. ...\ Darrell L Leap, Ph.D. Licensed Professional Geologist (IN) #518 Registered Professional Hydrogeologist (Alli) #395 TERRA AQUA Geosciences, Inc. 5932 Lookout Drive. West Lafayette, IN 47906 Ph 765-567-2578 Fax 765-567-6210 terraaqua@iquest.net May 27,2001 Mr. David Ezell, Esq. 6655 Allisonville Road Indianapolis, IN 46220 FAX (317)257-9412 Dr. Mr. Ezell: In this letter, I am answering your questions as addressed in your letter of May 20, 2002. In addition, I am giving you my professional opinion about the situation and potential problems that could come about if the Martin-Marietta Corp. does indeed mine gravel and/or sand close to or within the well-head capture zone surrounding Wells 10, 11 and 12 at the Gray Street Water Plant. I have reviewed the documents you sent to me including the Well Head Protection studies for the city of Carmel from 1994 and from 2001 by Jones and Henry Engineers, Ltd. I believe them to be reasonable and as accurate as the data allows. The IDEM requires delineation of the 5-year Time of Travel Capture Zone and also likes to see, ifpossible, a IO-year zone. However, the 2001 study only computed the I-year and 5-year zones. The boundaries of the capture zone that I have addressed in this report are those of the 5-year zone. I have also studied the report of the Schneider Corp. to Martin Marietta about Schneider's numerical modeling of the groundwater flow of the region of planned mining expansion near and over the well-head capture zone of Wells 10, 11 and 12 at the Gray Road Water Plant as well as the map you faxed to me showing current and proposed areas of mining around the plant area and the capture zone. INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND Capture zones are based on averages of water-level elevations and pumping rates and may shrink or expand over time, depending upon the variation in pumping rates, interference from wells and discharges outside the zones, and recharge variation due to fluctuations in precipitation. Therefore, mining operations should not be considered acceptable if the pit comes exactly to the edge of the capture 1 zone and most certainly not if it overlaps the capture zone as the proposed expanded mines will do. The aquifer in the area of concern where expansions of surface mining operations are planned is an unconfined aquifer. This means that there is no truly confining layer with very low permeability (aquitard) above the aquifer to protect it from contamination from the surface. Although there are some layers of low- permeability clay and silt within the aquifer, they are discontinuous and do not offer complete protection. This aquifer, like most aquifers allows water to be pumped from a distance away from the wells. In this case, it comes mostly from the northwest.where the water table is higher in elevation from a distance of probably two or three miles, although the 5-year capture zone extends between 1.5 and 2 miles. The velocity of water moving through a porous medium, such as this sand and gravel aquifer, is given by Darcy's Law, named after Henri Darcy, a French engineer who discovered it in the middle of the 19th century: v = (lINe) (K) (I), where Ne is effective porosity, K is hydraulic conductivity, and I is the hydraulic gradient (the slope of the water table). The gradient of 0.003 is three times larger than the State average of 0.001 (per IDEM) and slopes downward from the northwest toward the well field. It is for this reason that the capture zone is somewhat elongated toward the northwest. Hydraulic conductivity is approximately 240 feet per day, and effective porosity is about 0.20. Using these values (from the Jones and Henry report, 2001) the natural velocity of groundwater flow outside the capture zone is computed to be 3.6 feet per day, or 1,314 feet per year. Within the capture zone, the velocity of the water due to pumping is added to this figure to increase the velocity even more. The land elevation at wells #10, 11 and 12 is approximately 745 feet. The static (non-pumping) water-table depth ranges from about 10 to 13 feet below the surface and fluctuates with recharge. Thickness of the aquifer which sits on limestone at Well 11, the easternmost well in the capture zone, is 58 feet with the elevation of its bottom at 687 feet. The diameter of the well is 16 inches and the well screen through which water flows from the aquifer into the well, extends from a depth of38 feet to the bottom over a 20-foot length. The pumping water level in Well 11 is presently around 42 feet from the surface. There is also an old well 900 feet east of Gray Road that could be a source of contamination directly into the aquifer. If it is not in use, it should be capped or 2 ". -', better still, plugged with cement or other acceptable sealant in accordance with IDNR and IDEM rules. According to the Schneider Report, Martin-Marietta plans to expand its mining operation north ofE. 106th Street and east of Gray Road, known as the Carmel Sand Surface Aggregate Pit (hereafter known as the North Pit), to the south and west -of its present border so that its western border will overlap the capture zone of Wells 10, 11 and 12. The company admits that it will be mining the aquifer. The 2001 Jones and Henry report shows the 5-year capture zone extending 876 feet east of Well #11, the easternmost well. Martin Marietta proposes to mine beginning 345 feet east of this well, which is 531 feet inside the capture zone, by expanding the North Pit. The company also plans to expand northward the Open Pit mining operation south ofE. 106th Street and east of Gray Road (known hereafter as the South Pit). This will bring the north border of the pit to within 250 feet ofE. 106th Street and overlapping the south border of the capture zone of Wells 10, 11, and 12 by perhaps 30 feet. In the southwest quadrant of the intersection of Gray Road and E. 106th Street, Martin-Marietta owns a former sand and gravel pond (hereafter know as the West Pit) that is presently used to collect water from pumping from the South Pit operation south ofE. 106th Street. This water is purported to enter the ground and supply additional recharge to the capture zone sustaining or elevating the groundwater elevation in the area. This practice should stop because of the potential for contamination within the capture zone if the South and/or West Pits are or should become contaminated. Modeling results from the Schneider Report predict that the dry-season water level in the North Pit will be 722:1:: feet in elevation or approximately 5 to 7 feet below their estimate of the static water table due to pumping from the expanded North Pit. We believe that it will be greater. The report also states that historical water-table fluctuations in the "area" (non-specific) have been 6.5 feet. The report goes on to mention that projected pumping from the South Pit will probably lower the regional water table another "few additional feet" (again, non-specific). Does this statement imply an additional 3 or 5 or 10 feet? The answer is indeterminate from the report. Water pumped from the active pits into the West Pit will add additional water to the aquifer. The Schneider Corp. report mentions that the natural flow of groundwater will be altered to flow more directly into the expanded and active pits. From earlier pumping-test records, the report goes on to state that the drawdown effects from pumping will extend for 1,500 feet. This calculation apparentlyo 3 ignores the well-head capture zone for Wells 10, 11 and 12 and the effects of pumping from this zone. In fact, at no place in the report are the well-head studies and determinations of this capture zone as determined by Jones and Henry Engineering, Ltd. even mentioned. The Schneider model, from what I have been able to determine, apparently did not discover them or consider them. The planned expansion of the mining operations as described in the Schneider Corp. report should not be allowed for two major reasons - 1) potential aquifer dewatering and 2) potential aquifer contamination as discussed below. POTENTIAL AQUIFER DEWATERING Information fromthe web site of the US Geological Survey (USGS) shows that during the period from 1999 to 2000 the water level during pumping in Well # 11 had dropped to 48 or 49 feet from the surface or about 6 to 7 feet below its present level of about 42 feet (16 feet above the bottom). This was during some dry periods in which water use was probably higher than usual and recharge from precipitation was below normal. If the predicted water-table drop from pumping the expanded North Pit will be a minimum of 5 - 7 feet, and pumping the South Pit will drop the water level a "few additional feet", it will invariably cause the water level in the pumping well to drop considerably below 42 feet and below the dry-weather historical levels of 48 or 49 feet. Such a scenario would cause the pumping water level in Well #11 to probably drop to within 9 feet or less from the bottom of the well. This is too close to complete dewatering of the well. An additional troubling fact is the lack of calibration of the Schneider model. It was impossible to do so because there was no historical water-level data with which to compare results from their modeled scenario. This, in addition to the fact that the well-head protection capture zones were apparently not considered, casts very serious doubt on the reliability of the Schneider model and its results. Without calibration and consideration of the capture zone, the potential error can be and probably is, quite significant. Therefore, the potential for even larger drawdowns than those reported is serious cause for alarm; especially during dry weather, the aquifer could potentially be dewatered at the Gray Road Water Plant. The proposed expanded mining activities are planned for approximately 14 years into the future. As more water is demanded for municipal and domestic uses, the capture zone around Wells #10, 11 and 12, will likely expand to allow more water to come into the wells. This will cause even more overlap of the pits with the capture zone. In addition, additional pumping to meet demand will lower the pumping water levels in the wells even more. Obviously, serious potential problems can arise with lowering of the water table by pumping from the pits. 4 POTENTIAL CONTAMINATION A gravel pit sitting directly over the deepest part of a capture zone where the hydraulic gradients are greatest can allow potential contamination to enter the well from the pit. Some contamination from fuel and oil and perhaps other chemicals will be likely to enter the aquifer during the mining process if there is such contamination in the pits and/or in their contained water. Above-ground storage tanks can also leak into the ground and the effluent can move to the aquifer. Such tanks often contain oils and fuels as well as other chemicals. Gravel pits have long been used for clandestine dumping of trash and hazardous wastes. Typical materials dumped include old batteries containing lead, TCE (trichloroethylene), oil, diesel fuel, solvents, paints, thinners and other volatiles, pesticides, fertilizers containing nitrate and phosphate, and lawn and garden chemicals in addition to industrial chemicals. Dense Non-Aqueous Phase Liquids (DNAPL's) are those that are heavier than water and will sink toward the bottom of an aquifer and will be drawn to the well intake screen, dissolving somewhat in the water as they descend. Light Non- Aqueous Phase Liquids (LNAPL's) float on the water table and also dissolve somewhat in the water. Both kinds of materials have low solubilities in water but enough to often exceed:MPC (maximum permissible concentrations). TCE is a DNAPL and the well fields of Lafayette, Indiana have had two contamination events from TCE in the last 18 years. One of the events was probably caused by clandestine dumping upgradient from a city well. The city had to take a well off the line in each event because it takes on,ly 5 ppb of TCE in the pumped water to shut down a well. In this case it is believed that the contaminant spike comprised only a few gallons. It is very costly to remediate such a scenario. Other contaminants might include some heavy metals from the gravels that are stirred up and abraded against each other during the mining process. Lead is known to exist in the mineral structure of igneous gravels, but it is not very soluble. Creating smaller grains by abrading larger ones will increase the surface area for solution and thus, the greater amount of heavy metals in the water. This may be a minor problem, but noteworthy nevertheless. According to the Jones and Henry reports (1994 and 2001), the recharge from the surface to the subsurface is about 12 inches of water per year. If the porosity is 0.20, the infiltrating front will move about 5 feet per year downward under natural conditions. This means that water from the surface, under natural recharge conditions, can reach the water table at 10-feet depth in 2 years. An additional problem is the lack of an aquitard between the proposed mine pit and the aquifer below it. This lack of a barrier will allow free movement of 5 ~ contaminants downward from the pit to the water table should any be in the pond water. After mining ceases and if the pit fills with water, a large pond of surface water next to and overlapping the deepest part of a capture zone will provide an easier source of water for the wells. As a result, the wells will then pump more water into them from the pond and less from the groundwater upgradient from the wells than under present pre-mining conditions. If the surface water is contaminated, this will only increase the risk of contaminating the aquifer and the water pumped from it. Finally, theT-WORD (TERRORISM) should be considered as a potential threat to the groundwater supply. Although the probability of such a risk is small, it is present, especially since September 11, 2001. In light of national concern about drinking;.water safety since that date, two large conferences on terrorism and water supplies have been held of which I am aware. Surface water can be spiked with poisons and chemicals and it can get into pumping wells in such a scenario as a pond sitting over the capture zone. It might take some effort, but it is possible. It would not likely cause immediate death or health problems, but could over time cause deaths, sickness and removal of contaminated wells from service. Again, this is not a highly-probable risk, but one that should be considered because even the detection of small concentrations of introduced poisons could cause panic among the water users. This too, is a goal of terrorists. Recently, the news reported the hijacking of a truck-load of sodium cyanide (NaCN) in Mexico. Although most of the load was recovered, a considerable amount was missing when the truck was found. It is possible that someone or some group plans to use it for poisoning drinking water somewhere. In a well-head protection plan submitted to the IDEM, cities and towns must inventory and describe all potential sources of contamination in their capture zones. I do not know if this was done for the capture zone around The Gray Street Plant. If not, it should be done. Often, the IDEM likes to have local citizens who use the water actually take part in such an effort. The purpose of the Well-Head Protection Act is to allow cities and towns to find ways of protecting their drinking-water sources. The planned mining activities are inconsistent with such safeguarding principles. I and my students performed the well-head study for the town of Battle Ground, Indiana. In addition to the required 200-feet sanitary setback around the wells, we also enclosed the computed capture zone for the two pumping centers with an additional buffer zone of 500 feet in width to protect the capture zone from surface contaminants. 6 This action was predicated upon the possibility of surface runoff getting into the capture zone area, and was determined from the topographic maps of the area that showed where creeks crossed the area and where the slopes were positioned to allow contaminants to discharge onto the capture-zone surface. Similar actions would be a very good idea for the Gray Road Plant capture zone and others as well. Shortly after we submitted the report and capture-zone delineations to the Water Conservancy Board, a local property owner petitioned the Area Planning Commission to allow him to open a small gravel pit upgradient from the wells and within the capture zone. The Commission studied our report and found the proposed site to be within the capture zone. They promptly refused him a permit. CONCLUSIONS 1) The Schneider Model is of highly-questionable reliability considering the lack of calibration (an impossible task) and the lack of input regarding the capture zone. Therefore, drawdown of the aquifer due to pumping the pits will probably be greater than predicted. 2) Pumping of the pits will change the present groundwater flow patterns and directions toward the pits rendering useless the computed capture zone for determining groundwater flow directions within the zone. 3) Ponded water over the capture zone after mining ceases will allow even greater possibilities for potential contamination to reach the aquifer and wells than during dewatering during the mining phase. 4) Martin-Marietta should not be allowed to expand their operations into the capture zone as discussed above. Their planned activities will push the envelope of safety too far to be consistent with safeguarding public water supplies from the standpoints of both quantity and quality, and will defeat the whole purpose and results of mandated well-head protection efforts. Please contact me if you want more detail or if something is unclear. I expect to hear more details from you about our planned meeting for the BZA hearing Tuesday evening, May 28. Sincerely, 7 -- ----~- - -- - - - ~ --~--------- - - -- --- -- ------------------ Darrell Leap 8 .. ....... '. ,J- -;'-. ---- ~ 'ii Kingswood Homeowners Association, Inc. PO Box 234 Carmel, Indiana 46082 May 16,2001 Mr. MichaelHollibaugh, Director Department of Community Services City of Carmel One Civic Square Carmel, Indiana 46032 Dear Mr. Hollibaugh: In connection with Martin Marietta's Application for a Special Use (SU 40-1) now pending before the Board of Zoning Appeals, we believe there are several technical deficiencies in the application that should be considered for remedy. 1. We believe the Application has combined three separate special uses in one application. Particularly these separate uses consist of sand and gravel mineral extraction, limestone mineral extraction, and an artificial lake. Each of the two "mineral extraction uses" are mutually exclusive, involving different extraction methods and operations, and have environmental issues that are unique to each use. More particularly, each separate use has unique impacts on the community and has different time frames for commencing and completing operations. (For additional background on separate uses, see outline of presentation by August Mack Environmental, Inc. and John Gasper, MSEM, P.E. attached.) As such we believe each mineral extraction activity should be treated separately for review of Findings of Fact by the BZA. Similarly, the pending application for development standards variance should follow the separate applications for Special Uses. 2. As currently fIled, the application for sand and gravel extraction on the Mueller property involves a "m,odification" of the non conforming special use on Martin Marietta property. Martin Marietta's operations on Hazel Dell are a legal non-conforming special use. This use was established for sand and gravel extraction at a time this property was outside an urban area. At the time Kingswood was annexed, this property became an urban area subject to Carmel's zoning regulations. Therefore any modifications of this existing use, or an expansion as defmed in the zoning regulations, should be subject to a Special Use application. /:;- ..~ - -". , 't Once the proposed operations on the Muller property are fully described, we believe you will note that Martin Marietta intends to use facilities on their current Hazel Dell property in support of the operations on the Mueller property. As such, we believe that a comprehensive understanding of the Special Use request for the Mueller property must take into consideration this support function. Furthermore, Martin Marietta has made commitments as part of their application for the Mueller property to relocate the existing processing facilities on Hazel Dell. We believe that this constitutes a material modification ofthe existing non-conforming use and should require application for Special Use. Further the commitment to relocate this facility is contingent on obtaining the necessary DNR permits. As such, Martin Marietta should be required to obtain those required DNR permits as a prerequisite to having their application docketed. Since Martin Marietta has incorporated the guidelines of the Indiana Mineral Aggregates Association (IMAA) into their application by reference, we request those guidelines be used as the basis for Staff review of the application for sand and gravel extraction. Kingswood has reviewed the IMAA guidelines and believes they are sufficiently comprehensive. Further we have condensed these guidelines and adapted them to the issues pertinent to this application. See PROPOSED GUIDELINES FOR REVIEW OF SAND AND GRAVEL EXTRACTION SPECIAL USE PERMIT attached. In light of the technical issues raised above, we respectfully request that the pending applications be resubmitted for T AC review after amendment to include details requested by the Board. We are available to participate with your Staff in this review. On behalf of the Kingswood Homeowners Association, I wish to express my appreciation for the kind manner in which your Department has assisted homeowners in the many questions that have been raised on this application. I personally look forward to continuing this approach as we all search for the proper balance between homeowners, Martin Marietta, and the City of Carmel. Sincerely, KINGS WOOD HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION <:[Z Tom Yedlic , Vice President Martin Marietta Aggregates ~ Indiana District Office 1980 East 116th Street, Suite 200 Carmel, Indiana 46032 Telephone (317) 573-4460 Fax (317) 573-5975 May 15,2001 Mr. Laurence Lillig Department of Community Services City of Carmel One Civic Square Carmel, Indiana 46032 Re: Visual Aids from May 8, 2001 Special Meeting Dear Mr. Lillig: Enclosed are the visual aids from last week's meeting that you requested. You requested that the documents with text be reduced to 8-1/2 inches by 11 inches, and the documents with drawings or photographs be reduced to 11 inches by 17 inches. I did have the text documents and the drawings of with the lakes reduced as request~d. I also included a full size copy of the drawings with the lakes. I felt that the photographs would be too small if reduced very much, however, so I had the individual shots made such that no one would be larger than 11 inches by 17 inches. Outlines are enclosed that indicate how they were placed on the full sized boards. They are labeled as Charts A through E on the back. A copy of the logo that appeared on all the charts with photographs is also included. Please contact me if you have any questions or need any changes made. Sincerely, :P:71f~ ~ D. Max Williams Senior District Engineer Enclosures cc: Bob Furlong Tom Engle TIME LINE OF MINING ACTIVITIES Date Activities 1964 & prior Gradle/Marburger properties purchased for mining 1964 & prior Sand and gravel mining started on Gradle/Marburger properties 1967 Limestone mining started north of 96th Street 1977 Sand and gravel mining began east of future Kingswood Subdivision 1987 Kingswood Subdivision platted 1988 First home built in Kingswood Subdivision adjacent to Marburger mining MARTIN MARIETTA CONCESSIONS IF ZONING APPROVAL ISSUED · Sand and gravel processing plant will be relocated east of Hazel Dell Parkway · Right to open pit limestone quarry adjacent to Kingswood will be given up · No underground mining north of 106th Street prior to year 2025 · 150 foot land buffer will be conveyed · Wooded area of Muller Property will not be disturbed · Right of Way along 106th Street will be donated to city/county · Times for blasting will be .shortened: Current Times: 9:00AM to Sunset Revised Times: 10:00AM to 5:00PM Airblast Limits Maximum Decibel Level At Any Dwelling, School or Church Outside the Mining Area Per Federal Blasting Guidance Manual of U. S. Dept. Interior 129-134 decibels Per Martin Marietta Commitments 125 decibels Martin Marietta has also committed to an annual AVERAGE of 110 decibels at the Kingswood monitoring station Maximum Peak Particle Velocity (Vmax) for Ground Vibration (in/see) Distance from Blasting Site To Any Dwelling or School Per Federal Blasting Guidance Manual of U. S. Dept. Interior o to 300 feet 1.25 301 to 5,000 feet 1.00 5,001 and beyond 0.75 Per Martin Marietta Commitments 0.50 0.50 0.50 Martin Marietta has also committed that the annual AVERAGE ground vibration shall not exceed 0.1 inches per second, LESS THAN 1/12 THE FEDERAL GUIDELINE FOR BLASTING WITHIN 300 FEET OF A DWELLING ~ fail .:s;:C'Il:i ~~~ 23 ~ ~...... ~ /:#::..... q ~ <( I- ~ <( ::J: (J CD en en "II'"' o o o N en en en "II'"' m ~ <( :J: o o o o ('II ..... ..... Q) "I"'" ~ ~ii ~~c."\i S::: ts ~~ i& ~ o t- o::: <( :J: o CD CO en - - CO en - en CO en - co CO en - ~~~ ~~a ~~ ~ f1 C"') ..... en .... c ~ 0:: c( J: o .... ..... en .... ..... ..... en .... I I .... ..... en .... ~ r::::,~ SE~ ~:-- ~ ti~ tJ ~::... & ~ co co Q) "I"'" W I- 0::: <C J: o "I"'" .... Q) "I"'" o o o N co CO Q) "I"'" tJ) W z ::J c w 0::: o ...I o o J: I- 3: u ~ u '(ffl!f/~ \\\\lib. Of=_.~A~ _ @\\t- j1~~ ~ tit '.. ~ I*\~i ~ &)*1 ~ \ ___~_11 ~ ~ ~~,~/~., l'/{7'ON cO'1fili\\\~ ~111f, CITY OF CARMEL DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY SERVICES Division of Planning & Zoning TR:ANSMITTAL Date: 11 May 2001 To: Board of Zoning Appeals Cc: John Molitor From: Laurence M. Lillig, Jr. Planning & Zoning Administrator Department of Community Services One Civic Square Carmel, IN 46032 Re: Martin Marietta Materials (8U-40-0 1,' V-41 a-O 1,' V-41 b-O 1) ph. 317.571.2417 fax. 317.571.2426 Dear Board Members, Enclosed you will find the following items received at the May 8, 2001, meeting of the Board of Zoning Appeals: 1. A Statement of Position signed by eight of the adjoining property owners in Kingswood Subdivision. 2. A Statement of Support signed by George P. Sweet of the Brenwick Development Company. 3. A copy of the Agreement between Amencan Aggregates and the City of Carmel. 4. Section 1150 (1-3 Surface Mining District) of the Boone County, KY, Zoning Ordinance. 5. Section 1187 (1-4 Subsurface Mining District) of the Boone County, KY, Zoning Ordinance. 6. Martin Marietta's application for an 1-4 Rezone in Boone County, KY. 7. Findings-of-Fact from the aforementiorted Rezone petition. 8. Commitments attendant to the aforemel;1tioned Rezone petition. 9. The Staff Report regarding the aforementioned Rezone petition. The Department will make an effort to evaluate these materials and prepare a report prior to the Tuesday, May 29, 2001, meeting of the Board of Zoning Appeals. If I can be of any further d~; d9,:mrero oonmctmeat 317.571.2417. Laurence M. Lillig, Jr. ~~ , '. , Martin Marietta ATgregates \ w ~ 5040 Mallard View Drive Indianapolis, IN 46226 Telephone: (317) 549-3165 FAX: (317) 549-0633 Email: john.schuler@martinmarietta.com May 8, 2001 BZA meeting in Carmel, Indiana Mueller Property Introduction: My name is John Schuler I am Pirector of Governmental Affairs and Public Relations for Martin Marietta Aggregates and I reside at 5040 Mallard View Drive Indianapolis, Indiana 46226. I am here this evening to introduce our presenters and to give you a brief presentation on Martin Marietta Aggregates civic activities and our voluntary implementations of public safety. Also with me this evening is Bob Furlong the Vice President and General Manager of the Indiana District, Max Williams Indiana District Engineer and Howard Pugh Indiana District Employment Relations and Safety Manager, Attorneys Tom Engle and David Warshauer from the law firm ofBames and Thornburg. ' Martin Marietta Aggregates has donated sevbral parcels of land over the last few years that have become recreational areas and imp~rtant arteries for the traveling convenience of the citizens of Carmel. They are the Flowing Well Park, Founders Park, Hazel Landing Park, Town Run Trail Park, the ~onveyance of land for the Hazel Dell parkway and additional land for the sewage treatment plant. In total we have donated apprQxim~tely 87 acres. '~'~t."~.}";"'. , Aggregate operations have also become ideal locations for residential development. Beginning in 1960 Martin Marietta Aggregates has assisted in many developments in this area starting with Lake Maxinhall, Mallard 4ake, Kessler Wood, Lake Clearwater, Keystone at the Crossing, The Precedent, Stonebridge on East 116th Street Waterstone Development at 126th and Grey Road, and the newest on East 96th Street Crystal Lake at River Ridge. Since the opening of 96th Street and Hazel Dell Parkway we have begun sweeping the Street at 2:00 AM in the morning and we ha{re adopted Hazel Dell Parkway from 96th . Street to 116th and 8900 Allisonville Road. i;' u u Martin Marietta Aggregates was the first company in Hamilton County to require our customer trucks to haul legally. We have ins~lled wheel washes at all locations. The property inside the gates is dust free with the regular application of water. We require our customers to cover their load prior to leaving ,and we have lost business because of this requirement most notably all publicly owned vehicles state, county and city trucks have refused to cover and are now buying from our competitors. We are going the extra mile to be good neighbors. We have also encouraged the city of Carmel ~nd the Mayor has agreed to post a 5,000- pound load limit on Grey road from 106th Street to I 16th Street. Each person indirectly consumes 15 tons of aggregate annually weather through the improvement of roads, home construction, commercial development, infrastructure activities and even sand for your child's sandbox. Ifit can't be grown it must be mined. 95% of the ingredients in Asphalt and Ready Mix Concrete are aggregate. The aggregate mined in Carmel employs 90 people with another 300 to 500 support jobs from truck drivers, Asphalt operators, Ready mix operators not counting the personnel on the jobs to receive the delivered products. Th~ average wage for these jobs is in excess of $45,000.00 We pay property taxes, withholding taxes, sales tax, county option income tax, inventory tax, fuel tax, and as you know the list goes mi. This is the last deposit of aggregates in Clay Township that has not been covered by other development and this being a non-renewable resource it. should be mined. You are fortunate to have this mineral available that ~s helped reduce the cost of all the construction activities. The material that is produced from this location is consumed within 20 miles. We have approximately 1,000 visitors who ~ually visit our plants seeking information about our industry and the important geological formations underlying Carmel. .. '" '. }i~ '.: '-' u u Martin Marietta Aggregate's philanthropic activity has not gone unnoticed in Carmel Indiana. We are one of the major sponsors of the Farmer's market that is held each Saturday during the summer here in Civic Square. Tonight you'll hear of other activities from Doreen Squire-Ficara from the Carmel Art's Council, Alan Davis from the Carmel Symphony Orchestra, and the Concert in the Quarry, JeffBirt from the Hamilton County Alliance and Mo Merhoffwill talk about o~ activity with the Carmel Clay Chamber. We are also a major contributor to Conner PraU;ie and the Hamilton County Leadership Academy. We have supported Kingswood ~abor Day Picnic, and have given them tours when asked. We also support Janus Development, Gleaners Food Bank, Noblesville Schools, Decatur Township Schools, Wavefly Indiana Schools and the Carmel Schools in total we will contribute $164,000.00 in 200il for various activities in the Mid-America Division. Jolin Schuler Director, Governmental Affairs and Public Relations .~-"""~. ., 'J. '. I ," . . I" " . f', \ MAY. 7.2001 6:49PM w NO. 214 P. 2 .-0. W BARNES & lliORNBURG 11 Soulh MaidIao. Saeec IIldAnspobs, hIdiaIla 4Qof U.S.A. (317) Z36-13U Fax ()17) 231.7i3J bap:/,Iwww.bdaw..c:om Thaaaas H. Eqlc: (317) 13107499 Small; ttngleObdaw.com May 7, 2001 nA FACSIMlLB Mr. Laurence Lillig Department of Community Services City of Canuel Carmel City Hall, Third Ploor 1 Civic Square Cannel, Indiana 46032 Re: DQcket No. SU-40-01N-41-01 Dear Mr. Lillig: On behalf of Petitioner, Martin Marietta Materials, Inc., we offer the following :response to the Department Report dated May .3, 2001. 1. We do not presently have a legal description of the wooded portion of the Mueller property north of 106111 Street but are certainly willing to have one prepared for purposes of the proposed commitments. We have no objection to clarifying paragraph l(d) to confum that the prohibition on surface operations would include clearing this area. 2. Martin Marietta prefers to keep the hours of operation for blasting between 10:00 am and 5:00 pm. as indicated, for the following reasons: a) the June 23, 2000 letter of interest signed by tepI'C8entatives of Martin Marietta., Kingswood, and the City of Cannel would have penmtted blasting between the hours of 10:00 am and 6:00 pm; b) the November 5, 1997 agreement with the City of Carmel regarding blasting near Hazel Dell Parkway permits blasting between 9:00 am and sunset with restrictions between 11 :00 am and 1 :30 pm, and between 2:30 pm and 6:00 pm where blasting occurs within 750 feet of the Parkway and would intem1pt traffic on the Parkway. This restriction only applies to surface (open-air) blasting, as the proposed underground blasting has no effect on tratlic. Because no surface blasting would take place on the Muellex-propertynorth ofl 061h Street, these fCStricti0D5 are not applicable. Martin Marietta believes that the hours of 10:00 am to 5:00 pm already represent a reasonable restriction on this activity. 3. We agree that Martin Marietta 'Would need to comply with applicable provisions of the Subdivision Control Ordinance in any subdivision of the Mueller property. However, we cannot unilaterally amend the plat of the Kingswood Subdivision. Indianapolis Fen Wayne South Bend Elkhart aucaeo WashiftStOn, D.C. [' u u NO. 214 P. 3 # MAY. 7.2001 6:49PM ;-.. i Mr. Laurence Lillig May 7, 2001 page 2 4. The right-of-way dedication along the north side of 10()'h Street and the east side of GrayRo~ abutting the Mueller property, can be accomplished directly, but we believethatthe City may be in negotiations CUITeD.tly with the Mueller Conservatorship on this matter, and we are not aware of the status of that matter. S. A copy of the Indiana Mineral Aggregates Association manual 'cGuiding Principals of the Environmental Stewardship Council" was delivered to you this afternoon. CarmeL/Cia v Parks and Recreation: There will be adequate room for the asphalt path along 1 O~ Street within the right-of-way requested or along the benn between the road and the artificial lake. It is our understanding that the Parks Department wants an easement (apparently the right-of- way dedication) for the asphalt path, but it is unclear from your Report whether Martin Marietta is being asked to construct the path itself. HamHtnn County Soil and. Water: The erosion control plan was approved on S/1/2001. A copy of the approval is attached. Hlm'I;lton County Highw~y Department: The setback distances requested. in the Variance petition are to be measured from the required rights-of-way. City of Carmel Urban Forester: At this time there is no landscape plan as such. The proposed commitments oall for domestic grasS coverage along the artificial lake. DOCS Division of Building & Permitting: Mr. Michael Antrim, attomey for the Mueller Conservatorship, has been in contact with the occupant of the subject property, directing that alljunk and appliances be temoved from the property. We are attempting to verify the status of this matter. Sineerely. ~~ Thomas H. Engle. Esq. Enclosure cc: John Molitor (via facsimile) Bob Furlong (via facsimile) INDSOI THE 428487 -2- BARNES&THORNBURG , . .I . . ,.. MAY. 7. 2001 6: 49PM u Q NO. 214 P. 1 11 South Meridian Street Tntf1an&polis, Indiana 46204 (317) 236-1313 Telecopier (pax) Number: (317) 231-7433 BARNES & THORNBURG Attorneys at Law Call before sending Telephone Number: E.u COVER SHEET TO: Mr. Laurence LHlig Mr. Bob Furlong John Molitor, Esq. COMPANY NAME: City of Cannel Martin Marietta Molitor, Grisham & Hester FROM: Thomas H. Engle TELECOPY NO.: 571-2426 (Lillig) 573-5975 (Furlong) 843-5514 (Molitor) DATE: May 7, 2001 TIME SENDING: NUMBER OF PAGES (INCLUDING THIS COVER SHEET): .. + If you have di1Iiowty mciviDg 1hiI Pax, plCIIBIl eaJI8unllf & Thombutg at (317) 231_8:44 uk ~ x Oripal to follOw by mail Ort,giDal will not follow by mall CLIENT # MATI'ER# 8090 69 111'/ CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This DleBPge i$ for the exclWljve Wle of to individual or =tiiy to which it is addressed and is confidential. If you are not the addressee Of an employee Of agent of1he addressee teSpOIlSib1e for deJiveriDg it to the ~Iee, please 40 Ilottead, \J$e, disclose, copy or distribute t'bismessase and do nottake any ac1ion in reliance upOIl. it rJ you have received this message tn error, please notify us immediately by telephone (collect) to arrange for its retum. We do Dot intend to waive my attomey-cliem Of work product privilege by the transmission of this message. Indianapolis Fort Wayne South Bend Blkhart Chicago Washington, D.C. ltoute to: Tom Bnllle l 'I I"~ 1. We are in agreement and support of the proposed dredge mining of the Mueller Property located North of 1 06th street, and directly adjacent, So of our properties including the creation of a man made lake as it's result. this board help assure that reasonable interim aesthetics are maintained adjacent to our properties, and reasonable precautions are made to assure long term aesthetics. I I; Statement by certain undersigned residents of Kingswood residing directly Mueller or Martin Marietta properties north of l06th Street. 2. With respect to the proposed underground mining, we take no position having found ourselves ill equipped to understand or evaluate this issue technically or scientifically. We entrust this issue to the Board of Zoning Appeals. Name Address Date ,J~ -YI~ ~~- ~ ~RZII . €If IlfZ-q 4}~0 nlPc; tJ~4J,/~ 11109 ~~p~ tJ4 s- 51-Of H -CJ- ( \5,- <? -CJ/ ^ I _, 1"1 ' I v W ~ ~'tf ~-f:::m7 0 ~ s I J> /0 ( _ ~, ",-, 'X.--:.~. _ ~ Statement by certain undersigned residents of Kingswood residing directly adjacent to the Mueller or Martin Marietta properties north of 106th Street. 1. We are in agreement and support of the proposed dredge mining of the surface of the Mueller Property located North of 106th street, and directly adjacent, South and East of our properties including the creation of a man made lake as it's result. We ask that this board help assure that reasonable interim aesthetics are maintained adjacent to our properties, and reasonable precautions are made to assure long term aesthetics. 2. With respect to the proposed underground mining, we take no position having found ourselves ill equipped to understand or evaluate this issue technically or scientifically. We entrust this issue to the Board of Zoning Appeals. Address gO!'? dtt/11;V61?JAl cr- Date -18'10 I f " ,. Statement by certain undersigned residents of Kings wood residing directly adjacent to the Mueller or Martin Marietta properties north of 106th Street. 1. We are in agreement and support of the proposed dredge mining of the surface of the Mueller Property located North of 106th street, and directly adjacent, South and East of our properties including the creation of a man made lake as it's result. We ask that this board help assure that reasonable interim aesthetics are maintained adjacent to our properties, and reasonable precautions are made to assure long term aesthetics. 2. With respect to the proposed underground mining, we take no position having found ourselves ill equipped to understand or evaluate this issue technically or scientifically. We entrust this issue to the Board of Zoning Appeals. ~~dd~SS Date ~OOI rtt I r Statement by certain undersigned residents of Kingswood residing directly adjacent to the Mueller or Martin Marietta properties north of I06th Street. 1. We are in agreement and support of the proposed dredge mining of the surface of the Mueller Property located North of 106th street, and directly adjacent, South and East of our properties including the creation of a man made lake as it's result. We ask that this board help assure that reasonable interim aesthetics are maintained adjacent to our properties, and reasonable precautions are made to assure long term aesthetics. 2. With respect to the proposed underground mining, we take no position having found ourselves ill equipped to understand or evaluate this issue technically or scientifically. We entrust this issue to the Board of Zoning Appeals. Name ~lffJ~ Address Date 1I1'/74j!ll/ia:J fk f,- r-o / .c , . Statement by certain undersigned residents of Kingswood residing directly adjacent to the Mueller or Martin Marietta properties north of 106th Street. 1. Weare in agreement and support of the proposed dredge mining of the surface of the Mueller Property located North of 1061h street, and directly adjacent, South and East of our properties including the creation of a man made lake as it's result. We ask that this board help assure that reasonable interim aesthetics are maintained adjacent to our properties, and reasonable precautions are made to assure long term aesthetics. 2. With respect to the proposed underground mining, we take no position having found ourselves ill equipped to understand or evaluate this issue technically or scientifically. We entrust this issue to the Board of Zoning Appeals. Name L2~~ Address Date 1/1 7) IA/oci.h~'7lJr S-J"-o/ t' Statement by certain undersigned residents of Kingswood residing directly adjacent to the Mueller or Martin Marietta properties north of 106th Street. 1. We are in agreement and support of the proposed dredge mining of the surface of the Mueller Property located North of 106th street, and directly adjacent, South and East of our properties including the creation of a man made lake as it's result. We ask that this board help assure that reasonable interim aesthetics are maintained adjacent to our properties, and reasonable precautions are made to assure long term aesthetics. 2. With respect to the proposed underground mining, we take no position having found ourselves ill equipped to understand or evaluate this issue technically or scientifically. We entrust this issue to the Board of Zoning Appeals. Address L- .5'07 S s)d~ fZ Date S8.-~1 /I' . .. " Statement by certain undersigned residents of Kings wood residing directly adjacent to the Mueller or Martin Marietta properties north of 106th Street. 1. We are in agreement and support of the proposed dredge mining of the surface of the Mueller Property located North of 106th street, and directly adjacent, South and East of our properties including the creation of a man made lake as it's result. We ask that this board help assure that reasonable interim aesthetics are maintained adjacent to our properties, and reasonable precautions are made to assure long term aesthetics. 2. With respect to the proposed underground mining, we take no position having found ourselves ill equipped to understand or evaluate this issue technically or scientifically. We entrust this issue to the Board of Zoning Appeals. Name ~ ~\\~ L ~.Cb'oVf.;.Nf\f I ) (::) (f/'- ~ d E: L.vCA Address Date 5 - 8' -:Zoo I 5063 '5T C{I ARLfS fLA LE v U~/Uti/~~Ul 13:4~ CONNER PRAIRIE 13400 AIIisonville Road Fish81'S. IN 4603B . TL 317.776.6000 FX ]17.776.6014 . _.connerprairie.org 317- 77t:d;014 CONNER PRAIRIE PAGE 02 Q u May 8, 2001 Board of Zoning Appeals City of Cannel Indiana To Whom It May Concern: Ot This letter is sent in support of the Martin Manetta Aggregates' re-zoning appeal to the City of Cannel. During the past four years Martin Marietta has been an important community partner with COlmer Prairie. Through their corporate philanthropic support, the museum has been able to better serve oW' various audiences through special programs. Over 340,000 visitors canle to Conner Prairie in the year 2000, including 73,000 school children who were exploring Indiana history and the settlement ofth.e American frontier. With help from Martin Marietta, Conner Prairie delivered quality programming to children and adults alike on the development of historic roadways, travel and transportation in our state. In previous years, the company has generously donated aggregate for new parking areas to enhance Ollr services to visitors. In Hamilton County alone, Martin Marietta Aggregates has made major land donations to create parks for our citilens~ including the development of lakes within those spaces. Locally, we benefit from their support of the Carmel Fanners Market and our sister cultural institutions, including the Carmel Symphony Orchestra and the Hamilton County Leadership Academy, to name but a few. Regionally~ their corporate support makes Hamilton County a better place to live, work and play - a place to attract potential new employees, as well as visiting tourists who bring substantial revenue into our C::OWlty. We urge the Board Qf Zoning Appeals of the City of Cannel to act favorably on behalf of Martin Marietta Aggregates re-zoning appeal. Thank you for your consideration. Yours sincerely, ~~.~ Janet D. Arnold Director of Development :, ..J. -. One of AmeriGO'S Leadin, living History Museums 'l' _,tt ,/;:.,./ 'i- ~ '; w u ..,.--~,.., May 8,2001 To: Members of the Board of Zoning Appeals From: David Coss 5088 Kingswood Drive Carmel, IN 46033 Phone: 317-692-3096 (work) Subject: Martin Marietta's application for a Special Use Permit Dear Sir or Madam: I am writing this memo in response to Martin Marietta's application for a Special Use Permit to allow surface as well as underground mining to occur on the Mueller property. I respectfully request that the board reject this application. I do not feel that the application meets the criteria for the findings of fact that the BZA needs to take into account to issue a special use permit. My previous education and experience enable me to speak knowledgeably on this issue. I have a degree in Biology and in Chemistry. I was employed, by a pharmaceutical company, for 10 years as a Quality Manager in the Mining industry. 5 years of this time was at a Talc mining operation in Montana (approximately $20,000,000 in annual sales) and 5 years was at a Limestone mining, calcining, and precipitating operation in an urban environment in Massachusetts (approximately $40,000,000 in annual sales). I have been employed for the past several years as a Director, of Quality Assurance with E-A-R Specialty Composites, located in Indianapolis. Our company specializes in providing solutions for Noise, Shock, Vibration, and Motion Control problems. It is my understanding that one of the criteria for findings of fact that must be considered by the BZA prior to issue of a special use permit is: . The special use will not injuriously or adversely affect the adjacent land or property values. 1. Basis this criteria, the application should be denied. I submit, as a finding of fact, documentation from the State of Indiana, Board of Tax Commissioners (Attachment 1). The Appeals Division of the State Board of Tax Commissioners determined on 12/21/1999 that the nearby presence of the, then American Aggregates, mining operations created a negative 10% influence factor on the value of land in the Kingswood Development. This ruling upheld an earlier ruling by the Hamilton County Board, which had also allowed the 10% misimprovement due the presence of the nearby mining operation. Note: To minimize confusion when reading the attachment, please be aware that the Hamilton County Board's decision was appealed by my wife and I. We felt there were additional non-mining related issues that needed to be considered. These resulted in an additional 25% negative influence factor (total of 35%). The Hamilton Count Board and the State Board of Tax Commissioners have already concurred that the current mining operations have a negative influence 1 ",' ~ ,.., ,/ -.;" u o factor on the Kingswood area property values. Approving a special use permit enabling Martin Marietta to conduct surface and underground mining operations within a few yards of the neighborhood will have an even greater negative influence factor on the property values of the homeowner's. This would conflict with the requirement that the special use not injuriously or adversely affect the adjacent land or property values. 2. Additionally, I want to enter into the record my concerns regarding the long term effects of blasting. Energy from the blasting is transmitted in two forms. There is the airborne noise (acoustic energy) transmitted by the blast. There is also the vibrational energy from the shock wave transmitted through the ground. Depending on their level, both forms of energy can have adverse effects on surrounding homes and their occupants. OSHA measures exposure to hazardous conditions in several ways. One way is to monitor "Threshold Limit Values". This is the level, which if exceeded, can cause immediate harm. Another way is to monitor a "Time Weighted Average". This is a much lower level, which if exceeded, over time can also cause harm. I am concerned that blasting on a time weighted average basis is already causing harm to my home. My home is 10 years old. About 6 years ago, I had to begin replacing windows because the moisture seal between the glass panes was failing. I have had 17 windows fail to date. As a Director of Quality, I can assure you that this is a exceedingly high failure rate (as a point of reference how many windows have you had to replace in your own homes during the same time?). By training, I look for the root cause of this kind of failure rate, e.g. - Why is the failure rate higher in Kingswood than in surrounding communities where my business associates live. My conclusion is that the most probable cause is the repeated stress (over time) from the daily blasting occurring in the nearby mining operation. Issuing the special use permit to allow surface and underground mining, will allow Martin Marietta to utilize blasting, at their discretion, up to the boundaries of the permitted area. The potential structural problems related to this are another reason for disapproval of the special use permit. 3. On a final note, I would ask that the BZA not issue any special use permitting that may jeopardize the area's water table. Some neighbors utilize for wells for irrigation of their lawns and rely on the current water table. More importantly, the underground aquifer that the City of Carmel uses to supply the communities needs is located under the special use area in question. Mining can contaminate or alter the hydrology of an aquifer. I have not seen a copy of an environmental impact study and in fact do not know if the laws of the state of Indiana even require one. I can only urge the BZA to take this issue seriously. We all tend to take availability of potable water for granted until, suddenly, it is not. A miscalculation here will adversely impact not hundreds but thousands of homes in the Carmel community. You are in a position to set guidelines for future permitting applications, which protect the surrounding community. The BZA should, if it does not already, require that a comprehensive environmental impact study (including a hydrology study) be submitted prior to any special use permitting for mining 2 ,,..- ., "",/ .,- u w operations. I would also recommend that the BZA "benchmark" the type of mining and permitting guidelines in use by other communities where mining is prevalent to aid them in establishing the appropriate criteria for permitting in our community. In closing, I want to state for the record that I do not consider Martin Marietta to be the "Evil Empire". Mining was good to my family for 10 years. However, having dealt with community relations for mining industry in an urban environment I have to tell you that the closer a mining operation is allowed to come to a residential area, the more frequent the problems become. Martin Marietta's first loyalty is to their investors. It is that way for any business. Martin Marietta will do its best to be a good corporate citizen and to meet (or even slightly exceed) the minimum guidelines set forth by the community and the state as long as exceeding those guidelines doesn't have a negative impact on profits. Unfortunately for our community, mining legislation is fairly minimal for this state. That makes it that much more important for the BZA to establish the rules for Martin Marietta to play by. I urge the BZA to go slowly in approving any special use permits for mining which carry with them such long lasting impacts. With regard to the current application for special use, I once again request the board to deny it based on the negative impact it will have on surrounding land and property values. Respectfully, iP~~ Oavid Coss Attachment 3 f/f;'- ,F.{)Tm 118, (R1998) ..~,.q- ; ..rescribed by the State Board otTax Commissioners (1961) U STATE OF INDIANA C ) BOARD OF TAX COMMISSIONER~ 100 North Senate Avenue, Room N-1058 Indianapolis. Indiana 46204 (317) 232-3786 FINAL DETERMINA liON Petitioner's Copy /J H a..~ !Nt e V\ +- j ..' PetitiOA Number: 29-018-95~1-5-00260 Mail To (Petitioner): Petitioner: DAVID T AND BARBARA J COSS 5088 KINGSWOOD DRIVE Carmel, IN 46033 DAVID T AND BARBARA J COSS 5088 KINGSWOOD DRIVE Carmel, IN 46033 -' You are hereby notified that the Appeals Division of the State Board of Tax Commissioners has determined the assessed value of the following described property: Assessment as of March 1, 1995 Assessed Value: $57,300 Description of Property: HAMilTON County Clay Township Real Property Parcel #1614040304005000 land $10,670 Improvements $46,630 The details of the changes to the property listed on this petition can be found on the attached findings of fact and conclusions of law. An appeal from this determination may be taken by filing a complaint in the Indiana Tax Court, filing written notice with this Board informing of the intent to appeal, and serving the office of the Attorney General and the County Assessor with a copy of the complaint, all within 45 days of the date of this notice (IC 6-1.1-15-5). Dated: 12/21/1999 Todd E. Sears, Executive Secretary 1614040304005000 rAnCEL NUMBER 1614 04 0304 005000 Plop~lly AdlJi~ss SOOIl 1<) IH;SWOO/.l Ill\ N~iql1l1ll/I'''11l1 210500 Plllpcrly 1:1;,s, 510 I~<illq Ui::liirlllll'"IIl;,li"" Co'.lI'!:Y coss DAVID T , Township 017 CLAY 29 ' Corporotioo 16 DL"I,r.icI', 16 Section 'Plat 0004 Rout'.inq NIJmbj::jr O.lOfi. ~:;II' ! I'" J " ipliflll Topog rophy lJevel Public utilities AU street or ROfid Poved, Sidewa.lk Neighborhood Improv fng " r'llIlll.ol' Il nt':1l I fll ...Xnlnilnd I ;uld II, .,I',I,";",! C11 p, ,Sn~lIl1il;lI\, ell 13 ' .,lllId~1f IIs~I,d" 1,1 IIl1d!'" 111111'::11'11' '1 . .. t: I: 1 :: ~~ i Ii I ~ II ?I" "cl,1':'; d rli'esl;;' :>? .\\/ildlil,' 11:,11'1 ?3 ,Iill'''':''" 1;1,"1 ;'1. ,Willdlll""k I~i. .1 ill!'1 ~;IIiP._.-: .... 11,11 I t_~'.!f~ I tllll~ II I ANU I 'IPI:~, ., ,TiIl~IIII! I ~Il/I ,II. rllllld:; Or:c~~i"",,IIV 11:) .. l"IlInd.~ ~l!vr.lIdV -1;1"" r"'IIH!(1 W~lIal\ds !i" ,NOlllill;dde 1."111 G. ..W'}(I,II,,"1i I, "(1111,,, r "'lIdalll,1 i'..J,,, III Illlildil\q~ , i?,,:W;1Ier' !J.WI:llalllis ", AI; SIII'!,n,1 1.~1I1i 1I1 ,,11:1I"lllil~11 f\/....l'lIhlir: l1o:Jd Bl...\llilily Inwr.l~ . _...110 Illf~'i il r~ 91...,Hr.s. F:v.r,r.s~ ^t;II~S BR95: PETITION ff29-010-95-05-00260 RW 12-03-96 -10\ IIMEIlICAN AGGHEGATES OWNf:nSlllr COSS,DAVID T 50S8 KINGSWOOD DR CARMEL, IN 46032 $ECT-04 TWP- 17 RANGf::- 153.10 X .l17.42 PLATTED 7/5/88 1/4/89 RE RECORD PB 16 --[ 50~~'KINUSWO()D DR Tax lD 0039576 lnANSf'EIlllF OWNEIlSlllr 04 PI,AT-OOt !.O'I'- 80 BJ,(X:K- PG I 11 ,- ..- ....-. ---...--- ".". ..~..- -....-----.. ._---.- ...-. ........ RESIDENTIAL ) ^~;~;f!~:(:llWI1I Yr.:H nl!;l~;lIl,1 101 f:ll:lIHIll TllIll: 'AX VI\IIII I,alld 1IIIIIIIIVr.llll'lll:. 1111", 1;1I1l\ 1111pl nvr.I1'1l'llls r"I,,1 ^:;:;r~;~~I:1J VAl, lit: n;IIill'l, !;lIilli, 01- 1;lIld A<:III;i1 IVp'~ 1"1 ntl1:,!I'~ Mp;I!;lIrt!ll ^i;1 '.~;l!Il! -1.11- FI'~<:II\I" l"tllIlI;I!J" F I~~,l \l-\ 3 5TB- Stlf'~; L(,/;:\()" n'lf':'~"jn~.r)t b:...h0I:.eV\ ~\.I:., l:.i,onetz. A\'lk h(":Sf()nd~n-l, () V^,1I11110N , I .1 995 , ... Re5$~ird'. -: I 28100 435@ 111200 139900 139300 18340b 9370 1450~ }~n~:,. " ~~~~g LIIN Il /III III II n Il 1995 lJaln IIEcunD \ C)9:J S ,I::> ... \ :::J I BOR" 13039200 3 ;)", \Joe::, 139900 I ?j'}", ',,!OC> 179100 ,r-{ (f?O{) 13070 10/(0"'70 46630 Ylo, (0 '3,0 5,97005'7,3DD l:ill.(:III.l1lIIINS ,,,Iii': 1'llIrllI<:livily laclo' 150 'or. VII'!1:1ivr. Drpl11 n:l~;p A"i',,:lr" Iloplll l'"r;lo, Half! l:;lll! I fO . BI., L100 3YY I,' SII.Pl"':IIII'III:11 C", tic. I\ill'ASI1I1U' ACIIFAGI ..___w___......____.__.. _ _"' --.-- -. -. ....,- ..-.,.--.-.....,. - .... FAllMI ANI) CI.lMPII 'A IIUN!, P",cell\c,o"lIC 81 I.nrlallll.1ill tN 1.1 8:> I'uhlil,: 110:ld:; NV I.' 33 I J I I IIW"', NV I I q 1I11I0"~,ill~(s) 1,1 IOIAl ACIIFS FM1MI AN/) ..1~5.!~~,-'!!}~!LE_... ..._ ..,_".._, '11tllll" "I 1111,1"1 , " (III", r:<I/lllfIPtl Vol'"I: Lj(\ \<=1D 510 Printed 10/25/99 1:;1,,1110, lit llo,"","I:e~d ~lloc;JtioIl8 ] r(,.,~ i <l80",ia 11 Noo-Resid , 392 OiO 13990iO 0 1791010 0 13070 0 4663,0 0 59700 0 I 1 III ~ JIllll!r!!1':f) 1;11:1(11 i I I I 0- 100ft> 3-d-...C:/>/h ! I, :.dlll' 3 \ ,C\,-, 0 1.1Ilpnfll;1I11Iv .1 Sh:lI'" (II ~;i"f' :~lIpplflIlWIII II f:;lId 2. tlll/II'1 IIIIIJlll~llld Mj~~itllplll\'I!IIt1'1l1 ;l. r~{:w/, 1/I'I'I;lq.: Ii I1W:llir:lilJll!; 11:111 l^~'- ,:,,1111 3'd~IOOC" Mea~lIH'd ^t:H.~;ItJl' ^Vf'1 i'll/r~ II Ill! I ;1." \/alll(~,'^f:II~ 1I11111AXI/AIIIIIlIIAliMIMIII Cl:1~:':lIil~rll ;lIId InIal II/]II\1":;I~I~) Vnllle (,) , /' lOlA' Hll1f; lAX I Mill VAil", .., " (),' ") ~) c"'. J ,Jl.~ ! ~ -:;t Occypancy: Single Family story Height: 2.0 Attic: Finj"hed Ba~ement: 1/2 ROOFING Asphalt ShIngles fLOOR ltIG Slab SIJb & .Joists Tile Carpet INTF.:IUOfl nNISII B 1. 0, 1. 0, I. (I, 2.0, A 2.0 2.0 P.la.5ter or. Ory Wall l.n, 2.0, II ACCOMOIJI\TIONS finished Rooms B'3droOln., famil y Hooms Formal llininq Rooll'S fireplace stacks: Opening.-:-: IMPROVEMENT DATA AND COMPUTATIONS IrA (Fin) Ts'Bi~- (21'6) c--- --~ -24- 36 A (Fin) "'SrC;--- ~~ 10 ~dDk 14 @?) 14 OF:l 14 cr-~ I r-6-eay 39-L . (X~) 1611010J01nn5000 Property Class: 510 5088KINGSWOOD DR Con."1t', [11c:tion BriCk Wood (r"me FIn.\shed '\1:p.~ [;'1 Ft H25 1254 o ~'." , \ .~- ~ V::I.fllC! 14000 2451)0 If)lnf) 6An(1 29nn 8R,lno 100.1I0l; BIl.ll'O (I Ie o JflOO o 5non 981 'If' 9Alno o I02nn (I o soon 113300 IJf)\ 111290 R o o L;'" II tipper 1251 .1251 HEATING AND AIR (XJNDITIONlNG Warm Air lIir Cond PI,IIMf'JNG fyllO[lal:hs lIil1( l'al:I1s Ki 1". r~ink Water He::tr: Extra ,'ixl: TOTAl. 1 l175 1125 H /r J 9 ,1 2 . ' 1 I 1 .I 2 IS REHOOELIN<:: AND MODERNI ZAT ION ^JIlOI.lnt D-!lte L-_---.:.:.___ _.__._:~~_,__ ___._ FORM 2977 (1194) Part Upper ](177 If)'7 '7 14_1-11 [) DWE:l,[. GOI ATTGAR 2 31 1 s Fr ----- 1 s Sr 1/2-S + 17'Tc ~~. . 1 s Fr Oli32l 13==1C==16~' 2 s F~ OH 4M ~iJ- (1~ L- - @ 6- Bav C!~ B+l 199( 1991 IIV 0.00 TlV o.n(1 Dal~ Gol/or.lor / 1).1Ln TIpI" ~i>n' / Dalo -.------ -.JAJ--041l-819!;.----..---- B~se Are~ 1"10"r 1425 1.0 1251 2.0 In77 little 1071 ~05 B~ml: 0 820 Crill"1 TOTAL BIISE: now Tyr.~ ^d:il,l,~r1.mt:'!11 '. SUO-TOTAl, (I Untin Interior (-) o r.xt, 1'\'9 lln.its C+) n Rec Raom (0) fireplace CO) Nr:1 1I"!,,l'. i "9 (-) ^i,," Cond,i t".lol1 (+) No ~lectricjty (-I I.'l'lml'ing 1"/-) 1'1": IS - 5 - tf) Exl:~riot r~~turq~ [)~~crjr':ion Poin~R BAY 6 WrnlK 11 OI"P 21 BIIY 6 MGTP 6 ' Gl.lR-TOTIII. ON I'; IINlT SJIR-TOTAIJ () 11Nl T!; G=lr~g~.,=, fI ) n t'''\I r.ll 1-) 861 IIt:t G~rage (+) o ^'~': C~[~Jort~ (,~) f) R,,,nt (;ilr"ge (t) ~xt Fe~tIJrQ~ .sn r~~ (+) SlIB-TOTAL Grade Factor B+1 REPRODUCTION COST N N 0.01 O. or ( A6.l 10290 10200 5 o 1.199.\0 !l o o . ............." -.. ...- . I Sl.lpplfllll1~I1I;11 Cal/I~ TOTAL TRUE TAX IMPnnVFMrNT VM IIF "'Neigh-l1050n '''\f()' _'___n_._ ....'.... . Noi\llllJo, 1100" 11;\lln(l LJ990r ( 1.1QQOn " ~ -. -:;:~ ,~ \ , : .. > o o A HJWlQ.v,;-!- I STATE OF INDIANA Board of Tax Commissioners In The Matter Of: Petition for Review of Assessment, ) Form 131 ) Petition No: 29-018-95-1-5-00260 Parcel No: 1614040304005000 Assessment Year: 1995 Petitioners: David T and Barbara J. Coss 5088 Kingswood Drive Carmel, Indiana 46033 FindinQs of Fact and Conclusions of Law The State Board of Tax Commissioners ("State Board"), having reviewed the facts and evidence, and having considered the issues, now makes the following findings of fact and conclusions of law. Issue 1. Whether the land value is excessive. David and Barbara Coss Findings and Conclusions Page 1 of 10 o o FindinQs of Fact 1. If appropriate, any finding of fact made herein shall also be considered a conclusion of law. Also if appropriate, any conclusion of law made herein shall also be considered a finding of fact. 2. Mr. and Mrs. David Coss ("Petitioners") received the County Board's Final Determination on January 7, 1997. Pursuant to IC 6-1.1-15-3, Mr. and Mrs. David Coss filed a petition requesting a review by the State Board. The Form 131 was filed on February 3, 1997. .f 3. Pursuant to IC 6-1.1-15-4, a hearing was held on October 26, 1999, before Hearing Officer Dalene McMillen. Testimony and exhibits were received into evidence. Mr. David Coss and Mrs. Barbara Coss represented the Petitioners. Ms. Lori Harmon represented Hamilton County ("County Board"). 4. At the hearing, the following documents were made part of the record and labeled as Board's exhibits: a. Board's Ex. A - A copy of the 131 petition filed by David and Barbara Coss. b. Board's Ex. B - Form 117, Notice of Hearing on Petition. 5. At the hearing, the following documents were submitted by the Petitioners to the State Board: a. Petitioner's Ex. 1 - Six pages on the summary of the issue, a copy of David Coss's property record card, a copy of Gary Sandahl's property record card, a copy of Stephen Collison's property record card, a copy of William Stewart's property record card, a copy of Ethel Daniel's property record card, a copy of Holly Gullett's property record card, a copy of , . ... David and Barbara Coss Findings and Conclusions Page 2 of 10 o o Edward Dechow's property record card, a letter dated September 23, 1999 from the Kingswood Homeowners Association, Inc., three pages of selling prices of lots in the Kingswood subdivision, a plat layout of the Kingswood subdivision, a graph layout of the subject property, a geological survey of American Aggregates, a plat layout of the subject area, and a survey of the subject property. . ~ 6. At the hearing, the following documents were submitted by the Respondent to the State Board: a. Respondent's Ex. 1 - The County Board's 1995 property record card. b. Respondent's Ex. 2 - An aerial photo of the subject property. c. Respondent's Ex. 3 - The County's proposed property record card on the subject property. ~ ~. 7. The Petitioners' property is located at 5088 Kingswood Drive, Carmel, Indiana 46033, in Clay Township in Hamilton County. Issue No.1 - Land 8. After discussion between the Petitioners and the Respondent, the parties stipulated to a total negative influence factor to the land of -35% and 143' effective frontage and 110' effective depth on the subject lot. -, '"\ Conclusions of Law 1. The Petitioners are limited to the issue raised in the Form 131 petition filed with the State Board. Ind. Code S 6-1.1-15-1 (e) and -3 (d). See also Form 131 petition requiring the Petitioners to identify the specific grounds David and Barbara Coss Findings and Conclusions Page 3 of 10 o o for appeal. The State Board has the discretion to address any issue once an appeal has been filed by the taxpayers. Joyce Sportswear Co. v. State Board of Tax Commissioners, 684 N.E. 2d 1189, 1191 (Ind. Tax 1997), appeal dismissed. In this appeal, 'such discretion will not be exercised and the Petitioners are limited to the issue raised in the Form 131 petition filed with the State Board. 2. The State Board of Tax Commissioners is the proper body to hear an appeal of the action of the County pursuant to Ind. Code ~ 6-1.1-15-3. '~ .( A. Indiana's Property Tax System 3. Indiana's real estate property tax system is a mass appraisal system. It is too time-consuming, too costly, and wholly unrealistic for individual assessments to be made based upon individual evidence. 4. The true tax value assessed against the property is not exclusively or necessarily identical to fair market value. State Board of Tax Commissioners v. Town of Sf. John, 702 N.E. 2d 1034, 1038 (Ind. 1998) (Town of S1. John V). aff'g in part and rev'g in part Town of Sf. John 11I.1 5. Though the Property Taxation Clause of the Constitution of Indiana, Ind. Constitution Article X, Section 1 (a), requires the creation of a uniform, equal, and just system, the Clause does not create a personal, substantive right of uniformity and equality. Town of St. John V, 702 N.E. at 1039 - 40. I In Town of St, John v, State Board of Tax Commissioners, 691 N,E. 2d 1387 (Ind, Tax 1998), the Tax Court entered final judgment which ordered the State Board to consider all competent evidence of property wealth in appeals filed with county boards on or after May 11, 1999. This decision is commonly known as Town of Sf. John IV. David and Barbara Coss Findings and Conclusions Page 4 of 10 ,J :-.. Jt '"\ } (.) Q 6. Furthermore, the Property Taxation Clause does not require absolute and precise exactitude as to the uniformity and equality of each individual assessment. Id. at 1040. The Clause does not mandate the consideration of independent property wealth evidence in individual assessments or tax appeals. Id. The Clause does not create a personal, substantive right to introduce real world, objective evidence in order to challenge tax assessment. fd.- at 1040, n.8. 7. Taxpayers can not "expect the full achievement of absolute and precise exactitude" regarding property tax assessments. Id at 1040 (citing Boehm v. Town of St. John, 675 N.E. 2d 318,323). 8. Individual taxpayers must have a reasonable opportunity to challenge their assessments. They are not, however, entitled to argue that their assessment should be reduced based upon individual evidence. Taxpayers do not possess a constitutional entitlement to present what the Tax Court has described as "competent real world evidence" in tax appeals. Town of Sf. John V; 702 N.E. 2d at 1043-44. 9. Properly framed, the inquiry in all tax appeals is "whether the system prescribed by statute and regulations was properly applied to individual assessments." Id, at 1040. B. Burden 10. Ind. Code S 6-1.1-15-3 requires the State Board to review the actions of the County Board, but does not require the State Board to review the assessment. David and Barbara Coss Findings and Conclusions Page 5 of 10 o o 11. The courts have long recognized that in the administrative review process, the State Board is clothed with quasi-judicial power and the actions of the State Board are judicial in nature. Biggs v. Board of Commissioners of Lake County, 7 Ind. App. 142,34 N.E. 500 (1893). Thus, the State Board has the ability to decide the administrative appeal based upon the evidence presented. .12. In reviewing the actions of the County Board, the State Board is entitled to presume that its actions are correct. "Indeed, if administrative agencies were not entitled to presume that the actions of other administrative agencies were in accordance with Indiana law, there would be a wasteful duplication of effort in the work assigned to agencies." Bell v. State Board of Tax Commissioners, 651 N.E. 2d 816,820 (Ind. Tax 1995). ~ 'c 13. It is a fundamental principle of administrative law that the burden of proof is on the person petitioning the agency for relief. 2 Charles H. Koch, Jr., Administrative Law and Practice, ~ 5.51; 73 C.J.S. Public Administrative Law and Procedure, S 128. See also Ind. Code S 4-21.5-2-4 (a)(10) (Though the State Board is exempted from the Indiana Administrative Orders & Procedures Act, it is cited for the proposition that Indiana follows the customary common law rule regarding burden). 14. "...[W]hen a taxpayer challenges a real property assessment, the State Board need not search the property to find errors, the correction of which is beneficial to the taxpayer. Rather, the State Board has every right to expect that any errors in an assessment will be brought to the State Board's attention by the taxpayer." Whitley Products, Inc. v. State Board of Tax Commissioners, 704 N.E. 2d 1113,1118 (Ind. Tax 1998), petition for review filed January 19, 1999 (citing North Park Cinemas, Inc. v. State Board of Tax Commissioner, 689 N.E. 2d 765,769 (Ind. Tax 1997). ," David and Barbara Coss Findings and Conclusions Page 6 of 10 o (,) 15. Taxpayers are required "to do something more that simply allege that an error exists in the assessment..." Whitley, 704 N.E. 2d at 1119. ./ 16. Taxpayers are expected to make detailed factual presentations to the State Board regarding alleged errors in assessment. Id. "Allegations, unsupported by factual evidence, remain mere allegations." Id (citing Herb v. State Board of Tax Commissioners, 656 N.E. 2d. 890, 893 (Ind. Tax 1995). , ~~ 17. Where a taxpayer fails to submit evidence that is probative evidence of the error alleged, the State Board could properly refuse to consider the evidence. Whitley, 704 N.E. 2d at 1119 (citing Clark v State Board of Tax Commissioners, 694 N.E. 2d 1230, 1239, n. 13 (Ind. Tax 1998). 18. The taxpayer's burden in the State Board's administrative proceedings is two-fold: (1) the taxpayer must identify properties that are similarly situated to the contested property, and (2) the taxpayer must establish disparate treatment between the contested property and other similarly situated properties. In this way, the taxpayer properly frames the inquiry as to "whether the system prescribed by statute and regulations was properly applied to individual assessments." Town of Sf. John V, 702 N.E. 2d at 1040. " 19. If the taxpayers are not required to meet their burden of proof at the State administrative level, then the State Board would be forced to make a case for the taxpayers. Requiring the State Board to make such a case contradicts established case law. Phelps Dodge v. State Board of Tax Commissioners, 705 N.E. 2d 1099 (Ind. Tax 1999); Whitley, supra; and Clark, supra. ,\ . David and Barbara Coss Findings and Conclusions Page 7 of 10 o o ,- 20. Moreover, a waste of time and resources would inevitably occur if taxpayers could simply attack the State Board's methodology in a Tax Court appeal without first making a factual presentation to the State Board. Whitley, supra. 21. To meet their burden, the taxpayers must present probative evidence in order to make a prima facia case. In order to establish a prima facia case, the taxpayers must introduce evidence "sufficient to establish a given fact and which if not contradicted will remain sufficient." Clark, 694 N.E. 2d at 1233; GTE North, Inc. v. State Board of Tax Commissioners, 634 N.E. 2d 882,887 (Ind. Tax 1994). ~ ... 22. The local taxing officials do not have the responsibility to make a case until the taxpayer sustains his burden of proof regarding the alleged error in assessment. 2 Charles H. Koch, Jr. at ~ 5.1; 73 C.J.S. at ~128. See Whitley, 704 N.E. 2d at 1119 (The substantial evidence requirement for a taxpayer challenging a State Board determination at the Tax Court level is not "triggered" if the taxpayer does not present any probative evidence concerning the error raised. Accordingly, the Tax Court will not reverse the State Board's final determination even though the taxpayer demonstrates flaws in it). 23. In the event a taxpayer sustains his burden, the burden then shifts to the local-taxing officials to rebut the taxpayer's evidence and justify its decision with substantiaf evidence. . , 24. If the taxpayer fails to meet his burden of proof at the administrative level, the State Board does not have to support its decision with substantial evidence if that decision is challenged in court. Whitley, 704 N.E. 2d at 1116-21. David and Barbara Coss Findings and Conclusions Page 8 of 10 1 . ' () u C. Review of Assessment After Town of St John V 25. The Indiana Supreme Court declared Indiana's true tax value property tax system constitutional. Town of St. John \I, 702 N.E. 2d at 1038. 26. To repeat, the true tax value assessed against the property is not~ --- ? exclusively or necessarily identical to fair market value. [d. \. " 27. Accordingly, any tax appeal that seeks a reduction in assessed value because the assessed value assigned to the property does not equal the property's market value will fail. 28. The Tax Court declared the cost tables contained in the State Board's regulation governing the 1995 general reassessment, e.g. 50 lAC 2.2-7- 11, 2.2-8-7, and 2.2-9-6, unconstitutional under the Property Tax Clause. Town of Sf. John 11/, 690 N.E. 2d at 382. 29. The Indiana Supreme Court affirmed the Tax Court's declaration regarding the cost tables in Town of Sf. John \I, 702 N.E. 2d at 1043. ... 30. The Tax Court also invalidated subjective elements of the regulation, e.g., neighborhood, condition, and grade, holding that the regulation did not contain ascertainable standards. Town of St. John 11/, 690 N.E. 2d at 388. This holding in Town of Sf. John 11/ was not appealed. i 31. Though the Courts have declared the cost tables and certain subjective elements of the State Board's regulations constitutionally infirm, the assessment and appeals process continue under the existing rules until a new property tax system is operative. Town of Sf. John \I, 702 N.E. 2d at David and Barbara Coss Findings and Conclusions Page 9 of 10 o o S1043; Whitley, 704 N.E. 2d at 1121. 32. Town of Sf. John V does not permit individuals to base individual claims about their individual properties on the equality and uniformity provisions of the Indiana Constitution. h D. Land '. 33. Mr. Coss, Mrs. Coss and Ms. Harmon stipulated at the State Board hearing to a total negative -35% influence factor, 143' effective frontage and 110' effective depth to the land. A change is made in the assessment as a result of this issue. 34. The State Board accepts the parties' stipulation and agreement identified immediately above. In doing so, the State Board does not decide the propriety of this agreement, either explicitly or implicitly. " David and Barbara Coss Findings and Conclusions Page 10 of 10 - 1 ..:001 17: 32 5743914 BRENWICK PAGE 02 u u BRENWICK ~ * Il RECEIVED ~y 9 2001 DOCs May 4, 2001 Bob Furlong Martin Marietta Materials, Inc. 1980 East 116m Street Suite 200 Cannel, Indiana 46032 Dear Bob: Brenwick would like to offer its support for your petition to mine property north of 106111 Street and west of Hazel Dell Road in Cannel. As participants in Hamilton County's growth over the last twenty-five years, we know how important a local supply of aggregates is to our economy. . It is necessary not only for new home construction, but also to improve our County's roads and infrastructure. We also know that Martin Marietta has been an important contributor to our community's social health, with its donation of park land and support for community activities. Brenwick is also familiar with Martin Marietta through our relationship at Brenwick' s Lochaven custom home development on 146m Street in Noblesville. Not only is that project adjacent to your extensive facilities on River Road, we have entered into an agreement with Martin Marietta to extract sand and gravel from part of our development, creating a lake that will eventually be surrounded by custom homes. Last summer, when we decided to make a substantial investment to acquire the Lochaven property and develop it for 233 custom home sites, with prices from $300,000 up, we carefully evaluated the effect that Martin Marietta's activities, both on and adjacent to the neighborhood, might have on our success. We concluded that mining adjacent to our development would not adversely affect sales of home sites in Lochaven, and that the sand and gravel e~traction on the site would significantly add value by creating lots that adjoin or have views of the lake that would be created. We also concluded that the sand and gravel operations should not be objectionable to anyone building a home in Lochaven. As you know, our Waters tone neighborhood was created at the site of a former American Aggregates quarry. Since its inception, Waters tone has been one of the most prestigious and desired areas of Carmel. Waterstone shows that it is possible for land to be productive in different ways, first by producing natural resources that are crucial to our economy and then as a unique, attractive environment. We wish you luck in your current efforts. Sincerely, ICK DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, INC. weet ent 12821 E. New Market St. Suite 200 · Carmel, Indiana 46032 · 317.57<1.3<100 · 317.574.3919 Fax brenwick@brenwick.com http://www.brenwick.com 1. ".-.L, " .",~,_,,, c,_,_~,." ". ,," .......~.f.,. ...~ -,,-'.,-- -~--''''''''' ---.---.<.:.;..---. - - -.~--.~.. --~_. .~__~_...___._.... ,.' ....... . -'n" '.."r.....- -. .'. J~};::~[(\r;: ... -~~~~ -------- ~---~ _On. ._'" , ,~-'. $ervihg~-H~hbi,:t~bQn~, ' . and:,Maaf$Qti' dotinia~s',:::.,' ~.' ';'. ,'>r.' ~-... '. . WI~' ...... 5 _. ~~~-" -" , , ".624-INFO..(4636) , ,OnIImr.'WWWJndystar.com , " .~" . .. ..; .. " petltlanis incomplete and " c, C',"-"':,,, " ".,'",~. ,i , .' .', Uld~ 1;'~ "tt i "'"", ,-..;~ 'w;_,','.~_, ,'., , "'q~ ~~' ...W~~~~.:i.~O\.~;~.~~~;.'.'~~~~ ~~~;~~~7~~; ; 'By\V.ltOn'W.lI@nIs.lI,' ',: ':' The,tioaid ~edUIed~io Conduct 'a s' e~ ' ,eoimiUinierttS' for main d' . "ri':'~:, r< ';': d:,U:t:Q.~ J:lli$lg oompahys,'petf;;'" -~ , STAFFWRITci:> ..:"", "~':'1h"....rini1,t'3",1"..:;"".;.'ii'::"'tta'Ma~""'a1p.,... 'l...t "'-d'~,:'" th~"tl "" ....." f'" tioh in..complete'thed1recto.ro.fth. e - , """, ^ ' UiU, ~~~ ,on g~'uu, lYUaUe , u;;u s, menuu an ,aes e c n u\Os 0 h" ~ .", " ".. " , . " ' ,'1'" , '. . ~"a.'ppyClitl6b at-:,'i',p~m~ Tuesday in the the rom:In1.fuity., . '. ,~,,'-'t<, "'] ,,~DL~()mi;ntm1tY,Seroces, woUld CARME{.. Ind. - ResidentS of ir Cannel~:', ditthelettj COUIiCil c~." , >', ":> ~':"r, ", ' '""" ':\-.<, ,,', 'i/' , ;-. f":: P,'W~J~ (O[:~;J:1~;untll'~t" subdiv:lsloi18re asking a u>ntng board to re- ,-' ':":'''-''<";:'''' ""';' ,o:,":t . , :", :.. Wi~ouf' th~. We~,~'wto~"'Maitlf1 ' .f, -,),,:: ,'":::."~:'::,~..,, ',,~::::; fuse' an ~ate co!llpanY;s petitlOn to,'-. ,J'Ae'cpprp~y,~tsJ01~~ atth~ north, , Ma{ietta WOiild have a,~';Mt~tp 'pollee' ,~:, 'M:tp.e;~2~Pf!Ilyl,u\s~s\lb!Dt~:a, ..~~.:r~Brm~~i~~~~i,:~~rr4~~~~~'~k'~'~~~~- :,.;~, ' \ "-", .'.J;:.,. ,~- . ,-,_,',_;.",\ '''~',!'' - l' ~_-,',_,,"!, ";"'''!..,," ',-' , ,,''''_.''.'_'' ,t",:.':!;",,_:,','- ,._..;-"~";,~...,',,,,:',.>c,,,,_,.,~ ' ________~------:.t:~_ r · I I' ., F.... " ,~~ " .1 ,l?-, If ' ,po~ ief '1 ' it !p ti , MINING' qontinu~from, ~ge 1: 'I' ", ,', lieves address a humber Mthe ne~ghborbood'!3 concerns: lIAl:1rtinMarietta is, seeking a ya,r:- ianceand.special-use permit to mine on '~what is .known as ,the Ml.!-eller "Farm propew, which comprtse$ 205 acres and is zoned, forresid~ntial use. ~ " "The gravel company wants to ex- tract aggregate ftom 105 acres within 150 feet of the Kingswood subdivision. The)3ubliivisiori' con- tafus '221, homes and is, east of Gray Road betweenlQ6th and 116th str't:Jets. ': ' Carmel'sland-use regulations do not contain a zoning classification specifically for mining. Rather" mining is' cJassed 'as a special, use under residential zoIlingand re- quii"es' a review on a c,ase-by~~ase b8;sis by the zoning appeals board. Kingswood homeowners" have been attempting without success to have Carmel address their coii~ (" ~.. ".' . c~rns :aJ:jout tbeo'gravel mining, for' tlle pasFtWo years. ' ',1l1e' cit~, of Carmel has claijrre~ ~f ,', jk~ :\ S ~, I ," ~' t 1 ,};.:- f' METRO ,NORTH EDmllN:~L the gravel company's' rinrung ~was Yedlick says that in, additlont6 outside an 'urpan area ari<i' not restricting" mining , operations , subject to its jurtsdiction. So the within, 3,000' feet 'ofresiderttial " homeownersslled the city, askiI;lg subdi~sioris" Marlin MaIietta'~: a Hapillton County. court, for:. clap.- made commitments on rechpnCt~ ficatioh ,of the urban area as it per- tion, landscaping, noise lirD.i~, tained to Martin Marietta's opera-' traffic, hours ~f operation and' tions. , " ",' i, ' blasting in': its Kentu<;ky,opera-: O~,March 30, Hamilt?Il Supert-' , tions. ", . " ,,', ..:, or Couft 5 Judge Wayne A. Sturte- When Kingswood asked for simi.. vant' ruled ' ,Carmel ,was wrong lar coriunttments from Martin M81' when it declined to require the rtetta,. . the company declined to company to get the necesSaIy per- providethe~ because they were ,mUs to nline gravel at. the site; not specifically' required 'under Sturtevant said the permits ,were , 'Carmel's ordmanceS., " ' necessary because the Infuingwas However, in its appll,cations .lor within, an. urban' 'area;' which, is the permits,' the compariy has cite<;i :whythe ~ompany is askirtgJoJ."'the re~trtctions it would follow. in~lud4: special hearmg. ' . :,. ' ",':: inghoUrs of operations, blastil1g. , Wendling's contention about 1J.1e ,levels and reclamation th,at' woUld. deficiencies' of Martin Marietta's' comply Kgenerally~ With guidelin$ applications were, echoed, by TIiomc adopted" by the Indiana Mineral; as Yedlick,a resident of Kiiigs- ,Aggregates Association. ,i wood,"whose property abuts the' , Martin . Marietta, of Raleigh;: ,,; site of the proposed miriing. ,c " , N.C.; is the countIy's sec~md largr " Yedlickwent to Boop.eCotinty, 'estsupplierof aggregatematertats Ky., and examined Martin Mariet- to the construction industIy., n.p;:~ ta:sapplicatlonflilr what he 'said Theflrm bas' a ,longstanding' was an' almost identical mining" rD.ining' operation near the affecttd' permit. The Kentucky county has area thatli~ not been ,iIidispute'.:{!' sorrie, ' of. the most" progre~sive - ' mJiUrigieg11l~tions in the COWttIy;, Contact welton W; Hams II accdrcliiig 'to 'a mining, engineef' at (317) !i164425 or Viae:.mail 'hired by Kingswood. '" at weltofl:hams@jindysta,.r.oom' -#.J-- ~J "fT. ,,,hl~. '/~4JJT .' u ~, Laurence M From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: John R. Molitor Uohnrmolitor@prodigy.net] Monday, May 07,200110:54 AM Wendling, William Lillig, Laurence M; Hollibaugh, Mike P Martin Marietta Commitments Bill - As promised, I am sending along electronic copies of Martin Marietta's proposed commitments. There are two files here, one in rtf format and the other in Word Perfect format, but the text is identical. The BZA members have received hard copies of these proposed commitments, along with a staff report that makes comments relative to them. Staff and I will be recommending to the Board that they allot one hour for the petitioner's presentation and one hour for organized remonstrance presentation(s}. Beyond that, if there are individuals who wish to testify, the Board may also extend the time frames typically available for such testimony. J will probably recommend to the Board that they request both sides to submit proposed findings of fact, between the close of the hearing and the next regular meeting of the Board (May 29), and that they refrain from taking a vote until they have had time to study the proposed findings. John Molitor P.S. Martin Marietta has also indicated to me, bye-mail, that it will be willing later this year to make the following commitments as part of its special use petition for the portion of the Mueller Property south of 106th street: 1. Martin Marietta shall conduct a noise study at its expense and shall establish and maintain sound buffering sufficiently adequate so that sound levels at the southern boundary of the Kingswood Subdivision will not increase. 2. Martin Marietta will construct a twenty (20) foot high tree topped berm along the south side of 106th Street between ,200_ and ,200_. 3. Martin Marietta will take all necessary and reasonable steps to mitigate the creation of dust and mud on Gray Road at the entrance to its land between 96th and 106th Streets, which may include, among other options, paving portions of the access road or adding acceleration and deceleration lanes to Gray Road. 4. Martin Marietta agrees that it shall donate to Hamilton County or the City of Carmel, as the case may be, sufficient right-of-way, generally on the south side of the intersection at 106thStreet and Gray Road, to permit the construction of a roundabout at such intersection. 1 (,) ~ # f KA~ECElvto 1 2(Jg1 Doc8 ~' u o CITY OF CARMEL DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY SERVICES Division of Planning & Zoning TRANSMITTAL Date: 4 May 2001 To: Carmel/Clay Board of Zoning Appeals From: Laurence M. Lillig, Jr. Planning Administrator Department of Community Services One Civic Square Carmel, IN 46032 ph. 317.571.2417 fax. 317.571.2426 Re: Martin Marietta Materials (8U-40-01; V-41-01) Dear Board Members, It has come to the Department's attention that the packets forwarded to you for the hearing to be held on the aforementioned matter did not include a copy of the proposed Commitments. Enclosed you will find one clean copy and one black-lined copy of the Commitments for your consideration. _ - ~q~0iZ.' tJ. r U BARNES & THORNBURG u 11 South Meridian Street Indianapolis, Indiana 46204 U.S.A. (317) 236-1313 Fax (317) 231-7433 Thomas H. Engle (317) 231-7499 Email: tengle@brlaw.com http://www.bdaw.com May 4,2001 VIA COURIER "\" a ~ ~tctNt~ ,~, "0)\1. ~Q"" Mr. Laurence Lillig Department of Community Services City of Carmel Carmel City Hall, Third Floor 1 Civic Square Carmel, Indiana 46032 Re: Docket No. SU-40-01N-41-01 Dear Mr. Lillig: On behalf of Petitioner, Martin Marietta Materials, Inc., I am enclosing one additional green card which I have recently received and one certified mail notice which was returned. John Molitor has informed me that the proposed Commitments submitted are acceptable to staff(with the possible exception being the hours of blasting), and John and I have discussed a couple of minor revisions. I am enclosing a draft of the proposed Commitments with those revisions for your review. Please call if you are in need of anything else. Sincerely, ~ Thomas H. Engle, Esq. Enclosures cc: John Molitor Bob Furlong INDS01 THE 428121 Indianapolis Fort Wayne South Bend Elkhart Chicago Washington. D.C. 1j&..~~ -. Q ; LiIIig, Laurence M -: From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: John R. Molitor Uohnrmolitor@prodigy.net] Wednesday, May 02, 2001 11 :40 AM Thomas.Engle@BTLaw.com Lillig, Laurence M; Hollibaugh, Mike P RE: Commitments Tom - Thanks for your cooperation on this. You appear to have addressed essentially all of my concerns. As I mentioned over the phone, the time frame for blasting may be the only sticking point in the staff comments relative to these Commitments. Otherwise, these look acceptable to staff. Also, the staff was agreeable to waiting for the "south side" commitments until the petition for the south parcel comes through the process. The contractual commitment with the City relates to blasting within 750 feet of Hazel Dell Parkway. Ironically, it provides for two "windows" within which blasting may occur: between 9 and 12 in the morning; and between 2 and 3 in the afternoon. Please ask again whether Martin Marietta may be willing to commit to these windows with respect to this pending petition. John Molitor -----Original Message----- From: Thomas.Engle@BTLaw.com [mailto:Thomas.Engle@BTLaw.com] Sent: May 1, 2001 3:00 PM To: johnrmolitor@prodigy.net Cc: bob. furlong@martinmarietta.com Subject: Commitments << File: #427095v3 -Commitments - Martin Marietta Materials - Carmel.do >> John - attached is a revised version of the proposed commitments for your review. Also, Martin Marieta is willing to make the following commitments as part of its special use petition for the portion of the Mueller Property south of 106th street (which I will confirm in writing): 1. Martin Marietta shall conduct a noise study at its expense and shall establish and maintain sound buffering sufficiently adequate so that sound levels at the southern boundary of the Kingswood Subdivision will not increase. 2. Martin Marietta will construct a twenty (20) foot high tree topped berm along the south side of 106th Street between , 200_ and ,200_. 3. Martin Marietta will take all necessary and reasonable steps to mitigate the creation of dust and mud on Gray Road at the entrance to its land between 96th and 106th Streets, which may include, among other options, paving portions of the access road or adding acceleration and deceleration lanes to Gray Road. 4. Martin Marietta agrees that it shall donate to Hamilton County or the City of Carmel, as the case may be, sufficient right-of-way, generally on the south side of the intersection at 106th Street and Gray Road, to permit the construction of a roundabout at such intersection. Let me know if you want to discuss any changes in the commitments. Thanks. Tom 1 u o 0\, ~o .. CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This email and any attachments are for the exclusive and confidential use of the intended recipient. If you ; are not the intended recipient, please do not read, distribute or take action in reliance upon this message. If you have received this in error, please notify us immediately by return email and promptly delete this message and its attachments from your computer system. We do not waive attorney-client or work product privilege by the transmission of this message. 2 u ~ ;.--... "." ~ .!:!!!!s, Laurence M ~ From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: u w John R. Molitor Uohnrmolitor@prodigy.net] Wednesday, May 02, 2001 11 :40 AM Lillig, Laurence M Hollibaugh, Mike P FW: Commitments !iII #427095v3 -Commitments - Marti... Laurence - I am forwarding revised Commitments as drafted by Tom Engle, Martin Marietta's attorney. Virtually all of our comments are reflected in this version. The most significant exception is the time frame for blasting, which we requested end at 3:00 PM. They prefer not to change that from their original proposal of 5:00 PM, since they already have a contractual commitment to the City not to blast within 750 feet of Hazel Dell Parkway except between the hours of 9 AM and 12 noon or 2 to 3 PM. The blasting time frame is the only remaining criticism that I have of the proposed commitments. However, a few of our comments related more directly to the parcel on the south side of 106th, and Martin Marietta would prefer that the Commitments pertaining to that parcel reflect those comments, as Engle explains below. John ----Original Message--- From: Thomas.Engle@BTLaw.com [mailto:Thomas.Engle@BTLaw.com] Sent: May 1, 2001 3:00 PM To: johnrmolitor@prodigy.net Cc: bob. furlong@martinmarietta.com Subject: Commitments John - attached is a revised version of the proposed commitments for your review. Also, Martin Marieta is willing to make the following commitments as part of its special use petition for the portion of the Mueller Property south of 106th street (which I will confirm in writing): 1. Martin Marietta shall conduct a noise study at its expense and shall establish and maintain sound buffering sufficiently adequate so that sound levels at the southern boundary of the Kingswood Subdivision will not increase. 2. Martin Marietta will construct a twenty (20) foot high tree topped berm along the south side of 106th Street between ,200_ and ,200 . 3. Martin Mariettawill take all necessary and reasonable steps to mitigate the creation of dust and mud on Gray Road at the entrance to its land between 96th and 106th Streets, which may include, among other options, paving portions of the access road or adding acceleration and deceleration lanes to Gray Road. 4. Martin Marietta agrees that it shall donate to Hamilton County or the City of Carmel, as the case may be, sufficient right-of-way, generally on the south side of the intersection at 106th Street and Gray Road, to permit the construction of a roundabout at such intersection. Let me know if you want to discuss any changes in the commitments. Thanks. Tom CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This email and any attachments are for the exclusive and confidential use of the intended recipient. If you 1 ~ ~re "not the intended recipient, Pleas~ not read, distribute or . take action in reliance upon this message. If you have received this in error, please notify us immediately by return email and promptly '0 delete this message and its attachments from your computer system. We do not waive attorney-client or work product privilege by the transmission of this message. u 2 .!:!!!!iI. Laurence M From: Sent: To: Subject: v Sharon Prater [sprater@cmsenergy.com] Wednesday, May 02, 2001 11 :07 AM IIillig@ci.carmel.in.us Docket No SU-40-01 & V-41-01 - Martin Marietta Panhandle Eastern Pipe Line company has no facilities involved in this project. Thanks for the notice 1 v u u .!:!!!!P, Laurence M From: Sent: To: Subject: John South Uohn-south@iaswcd.org] Friday, May 04, 2001 10:38 AM Lillig, Laurence M Re: Department Report - Carmel/Clay BZA Special Meeting - May 8,2001 John South The erosion control plan has been approved for the property north of 106th. The tract south of 106th has not been removed. The relocation of the existing open channel is the primary concern south of 106th. A reclamation plan should be submitted for the site. It needs to be reclaimed better than the pit at 116th and Hazeldale. I think details for reclamation have been submitted but they are vague. The site should be reviewed for possible wetlands and archeology importance. "Lillig, Laurence M" wrote: > Martin Marietta Materials > > > > Laurence M. Lillig, Jr. > Planning & Zoning Administrator > Department of Community Services > City of Carmel > One Civic Square > Carmel, IN 46032 > > Phone: 317.571.2417 > Fax: 317.571.2426 > > IIillig@cLcarmel.in.us > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Part 1.2 Type: application/ms-tnef > Encoding: base64 1 u u .!:!!!!P, Laurence M From: Sent: To: Subject: Kendall, Jeff A Wednesday, May 02,200110:48 AM Lillig, Laurence M RE: Martin Marietta Materials (SU-40-01; V-41-01) In T AC they committed to halting all "junk yard activities" and cleaning up the property on the south side of 1 06th and Hazel Dell. Can we get that on the record again as a part of these approvals? -Original Message- From: Lillig, Laurence M Sent: Wednesday, May 02,2001 10:36 AM Subject: Martin Marietta Materials (SU-40-01; V-41-01) Docket Nos. SU-40-01 . V-41-01 for a Martin Marietta Materials mining operationl artificial lake on property located on the northeast cormer of East 106th Street and Hazel Dell Parkway (105.981::1: acres) are scheduled to be heard at a Special Meeting of the Board of Zoning Appeals on May 8, 2001. If you have any outstanding concerns with this portion of the project (the property north of East 106th Street), please contact me IMMEDIATELY so that I can include your concerns in the DOCS Report. Thank you, Laurence M. Lillig,Jr. Planning & Zoning Administrator Department of Community Services City of Cannel One Civic Square Cannel, IN 46032 Phone: 317.571.2417 Fax: 317.571.2426 lli11ig@ci.cannel.in.us 1 ....,~ ~',; 05/01/2001 14:20 HAMILTON CO USD~ PAGE 01/01 : f . 1108 $oUt/l9th Street N(}b1uvili~ 1N.'./606o:.37./5 'Ph. (3"1'1) 773-1-432 Fax (311) 776-1101 ' Df2inagc, Erosion md Sediment Control Pl~ Techniw,Review and Comment CArt1l!/-. SAND ''1 Jf~,l!TtN tf~/lIGTTA . Afl.{t.,eirGAr"SS '" Ii"k Jc//~..tIAHS' 'I(I.Q E, //~^ S7: ~lHnr 2~' " ~ A/l HG~ l.::r.v ~t. 03 Z Reviewed By: , :J6/f1H B. $PfL.~t!L , PIan ltevieW Procedure: 'Site Visit Date: Locatiou;; .I6l..1' 'f- //A1!.~J. tJGL~ Lepl Descriptioa: ; $" SC t/ TownshiP: 1711. Range: l-roJeet Name: Subiaitted By:- ~Nrg~ ' \:- \ 2001 \~~\ eees \\(>-t>>--i;.-'.; \;/;, "'''~~~L~~~ Plan Review Date: ~;"/;;U16(.r /101 ' ~ E ' , ' Civil ToWnship: CJ.A '1' 1M tecJiJdcb11'8V1eW aniJ commlnllll1'e /n~ to evall<<lte 1M comp/eI4nUt iJf tlN p'osl<1n ant! sedimenJ control p/a1If.or. t1i. 'JriIjie/., '['he erosion and sediment control plan If/bmltWl:was II<< reviewed/or 1M lId(!.IJfIDt:Y of the ~ d4sigiL Al/practicl.S incl~'1p 1M plan, as wll tu those reco",n,~ in ihe comments should be evalu4ted i:# ~ 'ths1r fermbfliry ~ if gua1!fzed inJlvldual with ~lnJCtuTpl pradit:C deiiP4 by Q plllffie.J engina:r. T1t4 pkllt Jm ~ ~ revleweiJ fo.r lOcal, state or federal permtls thtq may be relpihd to prix:e4d with this proJf!d. A~ Irrfomuztlph, including design CQ~cuJQliolU mc:zy be'1'et.(Uated to:ftirtJzer evaltltlte'the erosion s<<l11Mnl c.f!~l p1lzn. , , . ' . ~ erosi61l and sediment eo21voi plan bas beeD reviewed and itbas been detcaDined that the plan: 91Jl( _~~"""'''of3271ACIS-5<-~ N~willbe~rNmdcd " to the tndiaoS. Department or };:nvil'onmental'M8nagement. o ' Refer w the oollQDents sectiOn foe additioD~ information. " .' J! Does D~t sa~tY the ~i.oilU\lD1 require(llents and intent of 327lAC 15-5 (RIlle 5); dc~c(cneies are noted in ,tho dlecldlSt'and in the comm~t$ secti~_ J)eficienc~esC4?DStitule pOtential viola1ion oftbe rule and must . be a~uatdy addressed for compliance.. The infotmlltion necessary to satisfy the deficiencies must be , submitted; , . Please address revisions to the ~cwer. . ~ flY)per..Il11pl.",fIlJ/(JtlQII qftha ups/on amI setllmClr: control pllZ1l and lnspectiOM'<1fthc construt:ti01l sile by llie ' develop*" (JI' tI,nprlNltl4tllM ~ lIfUS$aI)' to minim,. o.6'-stte sedlmeirltl/iOn. 11Ie developer shoUld be aw.crnr IIttit utrforeHell c01I#JW;IIOn activities Qnd Wt14tlw condil/olU mQ)' 4'ect the perJ'<<'tItD,," 01" prtlt:tlce Cl'IM CrOlion dHd 8<<dimeitt eo1ttrc11 plan. The pion mlt$l be Q flexible documeJIt, with prt,vulafll (<J modify or IfIbstlMe FQC(~~~. ' . . ec/ L. LI/.~~ TIJIIH Fi~E c' ,_, -'-______ , -u BARNES &THORNBURG Stephen W. Lee (311) 231-7200 Email: slee@btlaw.com ~~~ (;~~ ~~'--~~l "7:571 ., \ ,'\J ,I I.., /(~~il>>-:'::~---< oJ.?/ August 23, 2000 (-.j ~ \ (j-~~i~\ .~\ \-;;\ 'lP\" ~ \ (, 1\' ...1\t'A(;;.!j J \:-\ wu- ~) \-::,~ ~'/ '\\; I j---- -:--(\7 "'-z. J;"':iiT\0yr ~.:~J._~~ u l\, ~1~~~ ~b " ~~~ II South Meridian Street Indianapolis, Indiana 46204-3535 U.S.A. (311) 236-1313 Fax (311) 231-1433 www.btlaw.com John R. Molitor Molitor, Grisham & Hester 11711 North Meridian Street, Suite 200 Carmel, Indiana 46032 William E. Wendling Jr., Esq. Campbell Kyle Proffitt 10 East Carmel Drive, Suite 400 Carmel, Indiana 46032 Douglas C. Haney, City Attorney City of Carmel One Civic Square Carmel, Indiana 46032 Re: Kingswood Homeowners Association vs. Steven Engelking. et al. Gentlemen: Accompanying for each of you is a copy ofthe proposed form of definitive Agreement which Bob Furlong of Martin Marietta Materials, Inc. is currently discussing with the representatives of Kingswood Homeowners Association. Please review the proposed form of Agreement and inform me if you have any questions or comments. Sincerely, ~l.J~-J L- Stephen W. Lee SWL:mjd Enclosure lNDSOI SWL 388592vl August23,2000 9:20AM Indianapolis Fort Wayne South Bend Elkhart Chicago Washington, D.C. I' I'- . J ,-(-, , ; ( '\ 0 A. />, ~ T 'X,\/O\\ AGREEMENT i~/ R~~W~[>> '\j\ (:-1 APR 30 2001 l:::! \-- :j This Agreement is made this _ day of ~~, b::en ~iIN MARIETTAMA TERlALS, INC., a North Carolina corporation ("Martin M'iirie.!!t'Ji,~~g;SWOOD HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION ("Kingswood"), CITY OF CARMEL, INDIANA(the "City") and [list the adjacent property owners] (individually, an "APO" and, collectively, the "Owners"). ~, 't WHEREAS, the following facts are true: A. Except for portions of which have been conveyed to the City, Martin Marietta owns that certain real property in Hamilton County, Indiana, in the vicinity of East 96th Street and Hazel Dell Parkway (the "Martin Marietta Property") as shown on Exhibit A, on or about which Martin Marietta is conducting, or intends to conduct, sand, gravel and stone mining and processing operations, including batch asphalt and concrete plants (the "Operations"). B. Martin Marietta leases certain real property in Hamilton County, Indiana, located in the vicinity of East 106th Street and Hazel Dell Parkway, as shown on Exhibit B (the "Mueller Property") on or about which Martin Marietta is conducting, or intends to conduct, sand, gravel and stone mining and processing operations. ' C. Kingswood is an association of the owners of real property in the Kingswood Subdivision (the "Subdivision") which is located to the west of and adjacent to portions of the Mueller Property and the Martin Marietta Propeliy. D. Each APO owns and occupies certain real property in the Kingswood Subdivision in Hamilton County, Indiana (the "Owner's Property") which property is adjacent to a portion of the Mueller Property on which Martin Marietta has or shall create a lake in connection with its Operations. E. The City is a municipal corporation which has zoning authority over the Mueller Property and the Martin Marietta Property and is a party to that certain Agreement, dated November 5, 1997, between the City and Martin Marietta, as the successor to American Aggregates Corporation (the "Agreement") which Agreement, inter alia, deals with various aspects ofthe zoning and use of the Martin Marietta Property. F. Certain controversies have now arisen with respect to Martin Marietta's use of the Mueller Property and portions ofthe Martin Marietta Property which all of the parties hereto wish to resolve amicably. G. Martin Marietta desires certain land use and zoning modifications with respect to the Mueller Property and/or portions of the Martin Marietta Property, and certain acknow ledgments with respect to the Martin Marietta Property, in order to facilitate its Operations and has requested the support of the City, Kingswood and the Owners for such modifications. o o . . .,; . H. ,<' The City, Kingswood and the Owners are willing to support Martin Marietta's ~ requested ~qdifications and Operations subject to the terms of this Agreement. I~;...::,;.:J NOW, THEREFORE, for good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, Martin Marietta, Kingswood, the City and the Owners agree: 1. Martin Marietta Property Uses. Martin Marietta may use the Martin Marietta Property and the Mueller Property for all uses permitted by applicable law, including the Operations, and may seek such land use and zoning modifications as it deems necessary or desirable in furtherance thereof, provided that all such uses shall be limited as provided herein. 2. Support and Acknowledement. The City, Kingswood and the Owners (collectively, the "Supporting Parties") shall support Martin Marietta, and, at no expense to any of them, shall provide such assistance as Martin Marietta may reasonably request, in connection with Martin Marietta's uses of the Martin Marietta Property and the Mueller Property, including the Operations, and including such land use and zoning modifications as Martin Marietta deems necessary or desirable to obtain, subject to Martin Marietta's performance of its obligations set forth in this Agreement. The City, Kingswood and the Owners acknowledge the validity and continuing effect of the provisions of the Agreement relating to Martin Marietta's Operations. } A- o:.A (:;\ C\"?~5" \2;J Processing Plant Relocation. Subject to obtaining all necessary governmental approvals, which Martin Marietta shall diligently pursue obtaining, Martin Marietta shall move the existing processing plant located north of 106th Street on the west side of Hazel Dell Parkway to a new location just east of Hazel Dell Parkway and north of 106th Street. Martin Marietta will -end@a'/er to start the plant relocation no later than J~ 2002 and will terminate all processing operations at the current site as soon as the relocation ofthe plant is completed. Martin Marietta will install and maintain noise abatement features at the relocated plant which are no less effective than those now utilized, including the use of on-site berms and aggregate piles as buffers and the use of strobe light signals at night instead of audible signals, for all equipment as permitted by applicable legal requirements. The existing tree buffer on Hazel Dell will be maintained. 4. General Operations Restrictions. All surface mining on Martin Marietta Property and the Mueller Property between 106th and 116th Streets shall be for sand and gravel operations only and shall be conducted by dredging. All overburden removal on the Martin Marietta Property or Mueller Property both south and north of 106th Street shall be completed during daylight hours, during the months of November through March, and only on days other than Saturday or Sunday. Martin I \ Marietta shall re uire all trucks entering or exitin ublic streets from the Martin Marietta Property , ~ov. or the Mueller Property to have covered beds by January 2001. Martin anetta will not engage in ') or permit the es{ablishment of any new non mineral extraction activities on the Martin Marietta' Property unless such activities are first duly approved under the Carmel Clay Zoning Ordinance. tl'For exanlple, Martin Marietta agrees that ifin the future any additional asphalt plant is proposed to be located on the Martin Marietta Property, a petition for special use or other zoning approval must be submitted to the Board of Zoning Appeals of the City of Carmel and/or Clay Township before such use may be established. Martin Marietta will take all necessary and reasonable steps to mitigate -2- 1 ; r u o f fu~.Qreation of dust and mud on Gray Road at the entrance to its land between 96th and 106th Streets, :::-"'-_.._'.........._~.... which may include, among other options, paving portions of the access road or adding acceleration and deceleration lanes to Gray Road. @ Operations Restrictions South of 106th Street. Any asphalt plants newly located by Martin Marietta on Martin Marietta Property north of 96th Street and south of 106th Street shall be located at the northeasterly locations specified on Exhibit C in accordance with the terms of the Agreement between Martin Marietta and the City of Carmel, Indiana, and shall be limited to no more than two (2) such plants. Martin Marietta will install and maintain noise abatement features at any such plants so that the noise level at the southern boundary of the Subdivision will not exceed the sound level which shall be found to ex~' st. urs~ant to a sOlmd study which shall be obtained by Martin Marietta during the summer 0 2000 Martin Marietta shall install l:l11d maintain on the Martin Marietta Property a twenty feet lUg , tr~~Jopped, berm _~~_t~e south side of 106th Street which shall be constructed between Novembe~g.90 and March ~Martin Marietta shall not, and shall not permit any other party, to locate any new asphalt plant on any part of the Martin Marietta Property owned by Martin Marietta and located north of the current location of Blue Woods Creek and south of 106th Street. Martin Marietta shall also cause any Operations under its control on the Martin Marietta Property north of the current Blue Woods Creek location to be undertaken and conducted in a marmer so as to minimize noise, dust, light or smoke impact on the Subdivision. Martin Marietta will seek zoning approval to build a contractor's office and shop on eight acres at the southeast corner of 106th Street and Gray Road. Subject to their review and approval of the specific plans for this facility, which review and approval will not be unreasonably delayed or withheld, the Supporting Parties agree to support Martin Marietta's zoning requests for this facility. 6. Operations Restrictions on Mueller Property. The Mueller Property is controlled by Martin Marietta pursuant to that certain Lease Agreement, dated January 1, 2000, between Martin Marietta and The Helen M. Mueller Conservatorship. So long as Martin Marietta controls the Mueller Property, Martin Marietta shall not permit any structures, such as asphalt plants, ready-mix concrete plants or mineral processing plants, other than dredging operations, to be constructed on the surface thereof and shall not permit any Operations other than mineral extraction as provided herein. The mining of the Mueller Property shall be completed according to the schedule attached as Exhibit D. 7. Underground Mining: Operations. Martin Marietta commits to minimizing any detrimental impact of blasting on the Subdivision by holding blasting under certain limits. All blasting operations shall be subject to the following restrictions: (a) Average Blast Readings. The average blast readings for any calendar year shall not exceed the average readings for calendar year 1999 which were 100dB and . lOin/sec. Separate averages will be maintained by Martin Marietta for underground and surface blasting. A blasting report with averages shall be delivered by a Martin Marietta representative to Kingswood in January of each year for the preceding calendar year and shall be available to answer any questions presented. If Martin Marietta exceeds such 1999 -3- '/ , , o o ~ averages for any succeeding calendar year it shall pay the sum of$25,000.00 to Kingswood for that year. ... (b) Ground Vibrations/Air Blasts. All ground vibrations from blasting conducted by Martin Marietta shall be under 25% of the Governmental Frequency chart and the maximum airblast from such blasting shall be no greater than 125 dB, all as measured at a monitoring station in the Subdivision established and continuously maintained by Martin Marietta while blasting operations are being conducted. If either maximum is exceeded, Martin Marietta shall pay $5,000.00 to Kingswood for each violation. The Government Frequency chart is: BLASTING LIMITS CHART Yearly Average Any Blast Maximum Pct. of Blasts Above A vg. Surface Blasts Ground Vibration Air Blast 0.1 in.lsec. I10dBL 25% of Chart 125dBI 25% 25% Underground Blasts Ground Vibration Air Blast 0.08 in.lsec. 92dBL 25% of Chart 125dBI 25% 25% (c) Most Favored Clause. If Martin Marietta adopts more stringent operating standards at any geologically comparable location in the United States than those set forth in subparagraphs (a) and (b), above, such more stringent standards shall become the effective standards under this Agreement. (d) Setback. No underground mining on the Mueller Property or that portion of the Martin Marietta Property north of I06th Street shall be conducted by Martin Marietta closer than 500 feet from any primary residential structure in the Subdivision as it now exists and no such mining shall commence prior to 2025. ( e) Hours of Blasting. All blasting on the Martin Marietta Property will be conducted between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m., Monday through Friday except as required to comply with applicable governmental requirements. (f) Home Inspections. Martin Marietta shall, at its expense, cause a qualified engineer to inspect the residential structures of each landowner in the Subdivision who so requests an inspection within six (6) months of the date hereof. The inspection, and ensuing report, shall serve as a reference point for any damages to such structures claimed to have been caused by Martin Marietta's Operations. -4- " (..) u !j 8. Reclamation. (a) Lake and Adiacent Land. Martin Marietta shall reclaim that portion of the Mueller Property located north of 106th Street, south of 116th Street and west of Hazel Dell Parkway as a lake with (i) slopes no steeper than 3 to 1, (ii) a waterline not less than 150 feet from the nearest property line in the Subdivision and (iii) domestic grass coverage ofnot less than eighty percent per square yard. Martin Marietta shall use its best efforts to obtain the agreement of the owners of the Mueller Property to cause them to convey and as to that portion of such property which is owned by Martin Marietta, Martin Marietta shall convey to Owner good and marketable title to that portion of the Martin Marietta Property, if any, located adjacent to the Owner's Property and lying between Owner's Property and the lake to be created. The conveyance shall be made at the time all Operations on such portion of the Mueller Property or the Martin Marietta Property north of 106th Street, south of 1161h Street and west of Hazel Dell Parkway, as applicable, are completed. The conveyance shall be free of any liens, easements, encumbrances or other restrictions created by Martin Marietta and shall be at a cost to Owner not to exceed $100.00. The property so conveyed shall become a part ofthe Subdivision for all purposes, including all applicable covenants, but no fencing shall be placed on such property except in accordance with the covenants and restrictions applicable to the Subdivision. Martin Marietta shall use its best efforts to cause the owners ofthe Mueller Property to convey to the City of Carmel a right of way along the northern edge of 106th Street sufficient to allow a pedestrian walkway from Hazel Dell Parkway to the existing park located south of the Subdivision. (b) Guidelines. All reclamation shall comply generally with the reclamation guidelines adopted by the Indiana Mineral Aggregates Association. (c) Timing of Reclamation. _ With respect to that portion ofthe Martin Marietta Property owned by Martin Marietta and located immediately east of the Subdivision and west of Hazel Dell Parkway, Martin Marietta shall commence reclamation immediately upon relocation of the processing plant as provided in Paragraph 3, above, and shall complete such reclamation within six months thereafter. Within twelVe( months after such reclamation, Martin Marietta shall deed any part of such property as required herein to the Owner. With respect to the remaining portion of the land on which the lake is to be created, being that portion located south ofthe Subdivision and north of 106lh Street, Martin Marietta shall erect a black chain link fence (with no barb wire or similar barrier) fifty feet south ofthe boundary ofthe Subdivision as a buffer area which shall not be disturbed by the Operations. Once the Operations are completed, the fence shall be removed by Martin Marietta and the land . reclaimed as provided herein. Within twelve months following completion of such reclamation, Martin Marietta shall complete the conveyance obligations set forth in subparagraph 8(a), above. The Owner shall have the right to use that portion, ifany, ofthe fifty feet wide buffer area adjacent to Owner's Property during the period of Operations. A site plan of the lake area showing the type of equipment and structures which will be located thereon during Operations and the expected appearance of the reclaimed property is attached as Exhibit E. -5- fl o o 1\ J (d) Lake Access. If all or any part of such lake becomes available for general access to the public, Martin Marietta will use its best efforts to secure comparable access rights for the benefit of Owner from Owner's Property to the lake. Martin Marietta will undertake no actions to drain the lake created or to reduce the water level. ..... '- 9. Annual Payments to APO. For a period often years commencing in 2000, Martin Marietta shall pay to each APO the sum of $150.00 per year with all such funds to be used by the APO for maintenance obligations on the ground to be deeded to such APO at the discretion of such APO. 10. Environmental. With respect to the Operations, Martin Marietta shall be responsible for all environmental matters arising therefrom and shall indemnify and hold harmless the Owners and Kingswood with respect to any losses, claims or costs arising therefrom. 11. PendinS? Litigation. Upon execution hereof, Kingswood shall dismiss, with prejudice, against both Martin Marietta and the City the cause currently pending in the Hamilton Superior Court No.3, Cause No. 29D03-0005-CP-334. 12. Attorneys' Fees. Martin Marietta shall reimburse Kingswood up to Five Thousand Dollars ($5,000.00) for its attorney fees incurred in negotiating this Agreement. 13. Roundabout. Martin Marietta shall donate to the City, from the Martin Marietta Property, sufficient right-of-way, generally on the south side ofthe intersection at 1061h Street and Gray Road, to facilitate the construction of a roundabout at such intersection. 14. Dispute Resolution. (a) The parties shall attempt in good faith to resolve any dispute arising out of or relating to this Agreement promptly by negotiations between representatives of the parties who have authority to settle the controversy and preferably by representatives who do not have direct responsibility for administration of this Agreement. (b) If such dispute has not been resolved by negotiation as provided in Section 14( a) within two weeks, the parties shall endeavor to settle such dispute by mediation under the then current Center for Public Resources ("CPR") Model Procedure for Mediation of Business Disputes. The neutral third party required by this procedure shall be a . lawyer selected from the CPR Panels of Neutrals. Ifthe parties encounter difficulty in agreeing on . a neutral, they will seek the assistance of CPR in the selection process. (c) If such dispute has not been resolved by negotiation or mediation as provided in Sections 14( a) and (b) within 60 days of the initiation of such procedure, the parties shall finally settle such dispute by binding arbitration conduc;ted expeditiously in accordance with the Center for Public Resources Rules for Non-Administered Arbitration of Business Disputes by a sole arbitrator; provided, however, that if one party has requested the other to -6- l . . .-. u Q p ~, participate in negotiation or mediation and the other has failed to participate, the requesting party may initiate arbitration before expiration of the above period. The sole arbitrator will be a lawyer selected from the CPR Panels of Neutrals. If the parties encounter difficulty in agreeing on an arbitrator they will seek the assistance of CPR in the selection process. The arbitration shall be governed by the United States Arbitration Act, 9 U.S.C. ~ 1-16, and judgment upon the award rendered by the Arbitrator(s)may be entered by any court having jurisdiction thereof. (d) The parties shall conduct any mediation or arbitration proceedings pursuant to Sections 14(b) or (c) in Indianapolis, Indiana. (e) The Arbitrator(s) shall be bound to apply the substantive law of the State of Indiana to the dispute. (f) The Arbitrator(s) shall decide in accordance with the express terms of this Agreement and shall take into account usages of the trade applicable hereto. (g) All awards shall be in writing and shall state the reasoning on which the award rests unless the parties agree otherwise. The award shall include a determination of all the questions submitted to the arbitrators the decision of which is necessary in order to determine the controversy. The Arbitrator(s) shall deliver a copy of the award to each party personally or by registered mail. (h) The Arbitrator(s) shall permit and facilitate such disclosure and discovery of facts, documents and tangible things it shall determine is appropriate in the circumstances, taking into account the needs of the parties and the desirability of making disclosure expeditious and cost-effective. The Arbitrator(s) may issue orders to protect the confidentiality of proprietary information, trade secrets and other sensitive information disclosed. (i) The arbitrator is not empowered to award consequential or mmitive damages under anv circumstances, whether statutory or common law in nature, and including, but not limited to, treble damages awarded by statute. The parties shall make the arbitrator aware of this Section 14(i) limiting damages and liabilities before the start of any arbitration proceedings. 15. Conditions Precedent. All obligations of the parties hereto are subject to the. satisfaction of the following conditions precedent: (a) the other party shall have complied with, and performed its obligations hereunder; (b) any applicable governmental approvals shall have been obtained which approvals the performing party shall be obligated to pursue diligently to obtain; and (c) any third party action required to enable a party to perform shall have been obtained which action the performing party shall be obligated to pursue diligently to obtain. -7- ,.; o o r, 16. Successors and Assigns. This Agreement shall be binding upon the parties hereto and their respective successors and assigns. ". 17. Duration. This Agreement shall remain in full force and effect for so long as Martin Marietta conducts Operations on the Martin Marietta Property or the Mueller Property. 18. Merger Clause. The entire Agreement is embodied in this writing. This writing constitutes the final expression of the parties' agreement, and it is a complete and exclusive statement of the terms of that agreement. Executed as of the date first above written. MARTIN MARIETTA MATERIALS, INC. CITY OF CARMEL By: By: (Signature) (Signature) (Printed Name) (Printed ~ ame) Its: Its: (Title) (Title) KINGS WOOD HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION ,APO By: (Signature) ,APO (Printed Name) ,APO Its: (Title) ,APO ,APO ,APO INDSOI SWL 357919vl AugusIIO.2000 10:25 AM -8- .1 u Q ... ': EXHIBIT A DESCRIPTION OF MARTIN MARIETTA PROPERTY .{' ,"',::: .,.,~:.: ~:~.l \- .:..._...... .oJ"," W ',' . t. . o ...,""". ....' "-...-- .~. Page 1 of 2 MArKEY P ARea NUMBER 1 2 3 4 S 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 IS 16 17 · Estimated EXHIBIT A Page 1 of 2 Pages o G ; '. ACRES G.I0 66.88 111.89 70.66 :l3.00 40.45 29.76 22.60 29.80 80.00 80.00 40.00 40.00 26.89 56.00. 40.00. 2.37 '! ':!:;~l.'tJ. . ~ ;.: ."i'~.:. ';' ....~~...~~p.:r Exhibi t "G" 'J U Page 2 of 2 1 .._,- I ~__' ltr..~~~ --" I N -0 ! i ~Ii J... rl~ 'i.~ T i IT"T -,' H.,.....TO":.::~~.. IlJ,,, . '7.;';;;;;- ~ ' .. .... . . .. . '" ~ I I I I , , I i -. 011 1<<,,.,.3. ."'..~ t:) ~ c;;:) ~ i ~I 01 i . >-- ~ ~ . 10.'. "'Ill I I , I , oJ I ," . i ....' t ~ ..... I .... . . I .. ~ " . I ~ I I ! i , ~.. EXHIBIT A 2 Of 2 Pages Page .r o o EXHIBIT B DESCRIPTION OF MUELLER PROPERTY . ~ ~ . , ~. ~ ( I, . .i': C :.'. u o ;I~ .(?- ~ - ~ ~--' il . -...., I ~' .1 , ~ " ... " ~ "'I ::; .! 1 ~ ....--.. 'm ;~LJ :",---=..,_..... INC. o o f. \, EXHIBIT C LOCATION OF ASPHALT PLANTS I , . l' u o ~ EXHIBIT D MINING SCHEDULE FOR MUELLER PROPERTY o o L f~ " EXHIBIT E SITE PLAN AND RECLAMATION .; i .;....1 u u i ';;- ~ 't\ ~~~~~~\D) \-~ \ 1. J ~PR 30 2001 L:I Letter of Interest . \\\ DOCS //:} Martin Marietta Materials ("MMM") and Kingswood Homeowners Associa~;:f2J<H;~'\)(~~irolls of reaching a definitive agreement whereby MMM may obtain benefit of the mineralsJ ori"'-Efrtain real estate depicted on Exhibit A attached hereto (the "Mueller Property"), and KHA will support MMM's request for a Special Use for the Mueller Property. This letter of interest will serve as the basis on which MMM . will cause a definitive agreement to be prepared for review and approval by KHA. . June 23, 2000 . MMM recognizes that KHA is willing to support a request for special use under the Carmel Clay Zoning Ordinance ifMMM complies with the provisions of the definitive agreement. \ It is further recognized by MMM that the expansion of mining related activities on the MMM and/or Mueller property south of 106th Street may have yet undeterminable negative consequences on members of the KHA. It is in the best interest ofMMM and KHA to define activities in advance so as to avoid any future negative consequences. Therefore MMM and KHA are prepared to move forward with KHA supporting MMM use of the Mueller property for mining as defined below. 1. Processing Plant. MMM has agreed to move the processing plant located on Hazel Dell. Subject to approval by the Indiana Department of Natural Resources ("DNR"), the plant will be moved during the winter of 200112002. Specifically, MMM will start the move on or before January, 2002, and all current processing operations on this site will stop after such time. The plant will be moved to the area east of Hazel Dell and just north of 106th Street. The existing tree buffer on Hazel Dell will be maintained. This location will be further from any home in Kingswood than at present and will have less of a noise impact on Kingswood. MMM will continue the same type of noise abatement that is on the existing plant, including the use of on site berms and the use of strobe lights at night (subject to approval by the proper governmental authorities) instead of audible backup signals. This Letter of Interest is entirely conditioned upon approval by the DNR of the relocation of the plant as described above. 2. Surface Mining North of l06th Street. All surface mining north of 106th Street will be sand and gravel only and will be a dredge operation. The overburden removal operation will be controlled to occur only during daylight hours. The overburden removal, both south and north of 106th Street will be scheduled by MMM to occur during the months of November through March and no overburden removal will occur on Saturday or Sunday. MMM agrees to first begin and complete, including reclamation, the dredge operation on the ground nearest to the Kingswood adjacent property owners. [ eb:martinmarietta:APOletter6212000:6/23/00J I o o : ~ 3. Activity' So.uJh of l06th Street. MMM and KHA both recognize the importance of reaching an agreemeT,lt th~t provides a global, long-term resolution to the tension created by conducting a mining . operatidi'f in' dose proximity to a residential area. Furthermore MMM recognizes that these concerns includ~'W8ise emissions and blasting vibrations from its operations north of96lh Street. In recognition of the above, MMM agrees that no more than two of the asphalt plants south of 96th Street will be relocated north of 96th Street, and such plants will be relocated at the two northeast locations on MMM owned land (as shown. on Exhibit A). Sound buffering sufficiently adequate so that sound levels at the southern boundary of Kingswood as measured by a noise level study to be conducted by MMM in the summer of 2000 at MMM expense will be no greater after the asphalt plant relocation. MMM will cause a twenty (20) foot high tree topped berm to be constructed along the south side of 106th Street. This berm will be constructed between November 2000 and March 2001. In addition, irrespective of any agreement with the City, MMM will not allow any asphalt plant to be located on the Mueller Property and/or MMM owned land north of the current Blue Woods Creek location. MMM will insure that any development on the Mueller Property and/or MMM owned land South of 106th Street and North of the current Blue Woods Creek location will have minimal adverse noise, dust, odor, or smoke impact on Kingswood subdivision. MMM is going to request zoning approval to build a contractors office and shop on eight (8) acres in the southeast comer of the intersection of Gray Road and 106th Street. KHA agrees to support this request, subject to review of the plans; said support will not unreasonably be withheld. MMM agrees that it will require all trucks entering or exiting public streets from its lands to have covered beds by January, 2001. 4. Non mineral extraction Activities. MMM will not engage in any non mineral extraction activities, including but not limited to asphalt plants, ready-mix concrete plants, or any other non mineral operation on the Mueller Property, either north or south of 106th Street. The dredge operation is not considered a processing operation. MMM will not engage in or permit the establishment of any new non mineral extraction activities. as described above, on MMM owned land unless such activities are first duly approved under the Carmel Clay Zoning Ordinance. For example, MMM agrees that if in the future any additional asphalt plant is proposed to be located on MMM owned land, a petition for special use or other zoning approval must be submitted to the Board of Zoning Appeals of the City of Carmel and/or Clay Township before such use may be established. MMM will take all necessary and reasonable steps to mitigate the creation of dust and mud on Gray Road at the entrance to its land between 96th and 106th Streets, which may include, among other options, paving portions of the access road or adding acceleration and deceleration lanes to Gray Road. [eb: martinmarietta:APOletter6212000:6/23/00] 2 " u w c 5. Blasting Practice of Martin Marietta Materials. a. MMM will commit to minimize the detrimental impact of blasting on the Kingswood neighborhood by holding surface and underground blasting under certain limits. The actual limits are as follows: The average blast readings from a calendar year will not exceed the average from calendar year 1999. The average readings for 1999 were 110 dB and 0.10 in/sec. for surface shots and were 92dB and 0.08 in/see for underground shots. Separate averages will be kept for underground and for surface shot~~ The results of any given year will be presented to the KHA Board of Directors in January of the following year and a representative of Martin Marietta Materials will attend an annual meeting of the KHA to answer questions if requested. If Martin Marietta Materials is over any of the averages at the end of the year, then Twenty-Five Thousand Dollars ($25,000.00) will be paid to the KHA. In addition the ground vibration from all blasts will be held under 25% of the Goveniment Frequency chart as measured at the to-be-determined monitoring station in Kingswood (see Exhibit A). The maximum airblast reading will be no greater than 125dB as measured at the monitoring station. If either of these levels is breached MMM will pay Five Thousand Dollars ($5,000.00) to KHA for each incident. Blasting Limits Chart Yearly Average (subject to further definition in the definitive agreement) Any Blast Pct. Of Blasts Maximum Above A vg. Surface Blasts Ground Vibration 0.1 in/sec. Air Blast 110dBL 250/0 of Chart 125dBI 25% 25% Underground Blasts Ground Vibration 0.08 in.!sec. Air Blast 92dBL 25% of Chart 125dBI 25% 25% These limits have been established to reduce the environmental impact on Kingswood residents while allowing efficient operation of MMM's mining operation. If MMM operates with tighter standards in these areas anywhere in the United States, these tighter standards will be adopted at this Cannel operating location. A. Underground mining north of 106th Street will be no closer than 500 ft to any house in Kingswood. Underground mining north of 106th Street will not start before 2025. B. MMM will blast both surface and underground between the hours of 10:00 A.M. and 6:00 P.M., Monday through Friday. The only exception to this practice would be related to safety concerns. C. MMM will arrange for a monitor to be placed m Kingswood. This machine or a replacement will be operating for all blasts. [ eb:martinmarietta:APOletter6212000:6123/00] 3 '. o o \ I, D. MMM will arrange for an inspection by an engineer of each KHA member's home that requests such inspection. This will occur within six (6) months of the signing of the definitive agreement. The purpose of this inspection is to provide a reference point to detemline if future blasting by MMM causes any damage to such homes. The terms of paragraph 5 shall be further reviewed and are subject to approval by the entire KHA Board of Directors before a definitive agreement is executed. 6. Successors. MMM understands that alt parts of any agreement with the KHA will be binding on Martin Marietta Materials and any assignment of MMM rights as a result of a sale or other transfer of interest or assignment and will be binding on the new operator. Said definitive agreement shall be verified and filed with the Hamilton County Recorder. 7. Final Plans and Reclamation. MMM will reclaim the Mueller Property north of 106th Street as a lake with the following: (a) slopes of no more than three (3) to one (1); (b) a minimum distance of 150 ft from the property line of Kingswood; and, (c) domestic grasses will be established with no less than 80% coverage of any square yard. At a completion of mining in this area, MMM will convey to each adjacent property owner good and marketable title to the buffer (from back property line of such owner to the waterline of the lake) free and clear of all liens, easements, encumbrances or other restrictions to be deeded to the owner at a cost not to exceed One Hundred Dollars ($100.00). MMM will cause a right-of-way to be deeded to the county along the northern edge of 106th Street to be large enough to allow for a walkway from Hazel Dell Parkway to connect to the park south of Kingswood. All reclamation will comply with the recent guidelines adopted by the Indiana Mineral Aggregates Association. MMM recognizes that there are two different areas, the land on the east of Kingswood and the land on the south of Kingswood. On the East Side, Martin Marietta Materials will remove the berm and reclaim this property within six (6) months of moving the processing plant. As soon as possible, but no longer than twelve (12) months after the completion of the berm removal, fence removal, and land reclamation, MMM will deed the buffer area behind the adjacent property owners' lots to these owners. On the south side, Martin Marietta Materials will erect a black vinyl coated chain link fence which will not include a barbwire or similar barrier 50-ft from the property line. At the end of mining, the fence will be removed and the land will be reclaimed to the above standards. Martin Marietta Materials, during this reclamation, will not disturb the 50-ft area north of the fence. Within twelve (12) months following the completion of reclamation, MMM will deed the buffer area behind those owners' lots to those owners. MMM will grant an easement to each such owner to use and improve the 50-ft area during the mining of the property. MMM will supply an Exhibit C to be attached to each final agreement that will show the land to be deeded to each adjacent property owner. 8. Site Plans. In addition, MMM will provide a site plan, which will indicate the equipment and structures which will be located on the Mueller Property during the sand and gravel mining operation. MMM will also provide a site plan showing the expected condition and appearance of the Mueller Property after reclamation; said site plan shall be attached to the definitive agreement. 9. Lake accesses. In the event part or all of the lakes created adjacent to Kingswood become available to the general public, then the adjacent property owners will be granted private access. MMM agrees [ eb:martinmarietta:APOletter6212000:6/23/00jl 4 " w w .,C\ c; to provide access to the public, to the waterline of the. lake, from the public park site to the western portion of the Mueller Property. 10. Lake. MMM will not undertake any actions to drain the lake created, nor to reduce the water level. 11. Funding. Martin Marietta Materials will pay to each adjacent property owner the sum of One Hundred Fifty Dollars ($150.00) per year for ten (10) years. This money is to be used for maintenance purposes on the ground to be deeded to such owner at the discretion of the owner. 12. Environmental Remediation. With respect to the Operations, MMM shall be responsible for all environmental matters arising therefrom and shall indemnify and hold harmless KHA and all adjacent property owners with respect to any losses, claims or costs arising therefrom. 13. Pending Litigation. Upon execution of a definitive agreement, KHA agrees to dismiss, with prejudice, against both MMM and the City of Carmel, Indiana, the cause currently pending in the Hamilton Superior Court No.3, Cause No. 29D03-0005-CP-334. 14. Attorneys Fees. MMM shall reimburse KHA up to Five Thousand Dollars ($5,000.00) for its attorney fees incurred in negotiating this Letter and Agreement. 15. Roundabout. MMM agrees that it shall donate to the City of Carmel, Indiana, sufficient right-of- way, generally on the south side of the intersection at 106th Street and Gray Road, to permit the construction of a roundabout at such intersection. 16. This letter of interest shall be null and void and the parties shall cease their work on a definitive agreement if any of the following events occur: a) KHA fails to approve the provisions of Section three (3) hereinabove within ten (10) days of the date of this Letter of Interest: b) KHA fails to approve the provisions ofthe blasting practices outlined in Section 5 hereinabove, or alternatively, parties fail to reach agreement on alternative blasting practices within ten (10) days of the date of this Letter ofInterest; and c) The parties fail to execute a definitive agreement on or before August 23, 2000. 17. Prior to July 31, 2000, the site plans described in Section Eight (8) shall be provided by MMM to KHA. 18. The parties must reach agreement on the current noise level from the two (2) asphalt plants prior to execution of a . . iVe a reement or this Letter of Interest is null and void. ' By: By: Printed Name: Date: obert ur ong Vice President - General Manager Indian~is~ t ~ Date: t ~~ ~~ [eb:martinmarielta:APOletter6212000:6/23/00] By: 5 Q MUELLER REPRESENTATIVE By: Printed Name: Date: CITY OF CARMEL, INDIANA B~__ (<--~ James Brainard, Mayor Date: t. ....:z ~. 0-0 [eb:martinmarietta:APOletter6212000:6123/00j o . ; , ') Printed Name: ::10: ~t1 Printe me: I2t"..;c €" /0/, ('bf/,"';~.--) Date: ~. -23 --(X) 'BY:~:? //p. Printed Name: %"\. ti-~-~~ Date: C. -.J-.:3 ~ O~ .. 6 U BARNES & THORNBURG u 11 South Meridian Street Indianapolis, Indiana 46204 U.s.A. (317) 236-1313 Fax (317) 231-7433 Thomas H. Engle (317) 231-7499 Email: tengle@btlaw.com http://www.btlaw.com April 27, 2001 VIA COURIER -" T~- - Mr. Laurence Lillig Department of Community Services City of Carmel Carmel City Hall, Third Floor 1 Civic Square Carmel, Indiana 46032 *,' ~~~~i I APR 211'l~Q1 DOCS Re: Docket No. SU-40-01lV~41-01 Dear Mr. Lillig: On behalf of Petitioner, Martin Marietta Materials, Inc., I am enclosing the original notarized proof of publication from the Noblesville Ledger, forty-seven (47) green cards from the notices to adjacent property owners, the original Affidavit of Notice of Public Hearing, and seven (7) Board member's packets. Please call if you are in need of anything else. Sincerely, ~~y Thomas H. Engle, Esq. Enclosures lNDSOl THE 427075 lriqianapolis Fort Wayne South Bend Elkhart Chicago Washington, D.C. , ~ ..... ._"- '-.. "It CAMPBELL KYLE PROFFITI ATTORNEYS AT LAW JOHN M. KYLE JOHN D. PROFFITT ROBERT F. CAMPBELL JEFFREY S. NICKLOY DEBORAH L. FARMER WILLIAM E. WENDLING, JR. ANNE HENSLEY POINDEXTER ANDREW M. BARKER TODD L. RUETZ MICHAEL A. CASATI JOHN S. TERRY RODNEY T. SARKOVICS CHRISTOPHER J. BARROWS FRANK S. CAMPBELL \1880.19(4) FRANK W. CAMPBELL (1916.1991) THOMAS D. TITSWORTH Of Counsel April 27, 2001 Re: Martin Marietta Materials, Inc. 's Pending Applications r~W)0C''''. ,( . \,;!:.>- --"'<! I', / 't"';"\ '1.,,/ ::;. /:0-"') ~ . ,/, '\. /.. '-,y -";--:/' \ ,:y \:\ I 'i Al!!!lIM~lI'\\ I./" \ /'::( RE~b~~&~ \~~:\ 1---\ 'lIPR 21 2001 1-1 i-I 1\ ~- \ ,P':'\l \\' -;: \ noes )<J .-/\ /''-..1 \ ./~;-., /(>-. / "';, I', /<-,,/ "-'/" /\ ,/' '-.. I' --,-,--'-<\ .- ~~~-~-~_L..\ .~_~.)- I' Board of Zoning Appeals One Civic Square Carmel, IN 46032 Dear Board Members: Weare representing Kingswood Homeowners Association in its remonstrance to Martin Marietta's applications for special use variance and developmental standards variance now pending before the Carmel Board of Zoning Appeals. Remonstrator is requesting that the applications be denied because the applications and the information, or the lack thereof, fails to constitute a proper request for the variances requested. Specifically, the applications do not provide either the Director or indeed, the Board itself, with accurate information or sufficient information as to afford an appropriate review of the proposed uses (sand/gravel extraction, underground mining and installation oflakes) as required by Indiana law and Carmel ordinances. For example, the Applicant is not in compliance with 21.2.6 of the Carmel Zoning Ordinance in that it is presently engaging in the special use under consideration. Moreover, the Applicant has not complied with 21.6 of the ordinance in that no written approval of the special uses requested have been secured from the Indiana Natural Resources Commission. This is a condition precedent that needs to be completed prior to even bringing this matter before the BZA. This is jurisdictional, meaning the application on its face must be summarily dismissed. Remonstrators would further assert that the applications are so deficient in detail that the public is left with no basis to investigate the impact of the proposed uses on the neighborhoods, the adjoining park lands and the community. Granting the variances on the basis of the information supplied with the applications would constitute a "green light" for Applicant to police itself in accordance with self-imposed standards for a period of20 to 50 years without recourse. This is a case offirst impression in our community. There has been absolutely no thought or effort given to the parameters of mining within and adjacent to our neighborhoods. There are no rules in place, no safety standards, no construction standards, or required commitments for maintaining the environmental and esthetic needs and desires of the community. Remonstrators 650 East Carmel Drive Suite 400 Carmel, Indiana 46032 (317) 846-6514 FAX (317) 843-8097 #"~ ... ... f' ., ... .. Board of Zoning Appeals April 27, 2001 Page 2 believe that these special and unique circumstances warrant a denial of the applications. A rush to judgment would serve no useful purpose and could create a dangerous precedent. Remonstrators and its counsel have attempted to engage the Applicant and the City of Carmel in serious discussion concerning the encroachment of mining operations within urban areas defined by state law. It has taken two years and litigation to even get the Applicant to submit to public review of its activities. Attached to this letter is a partial transcript of communications among the interested parties which underscore our frustration with Applicant and the City of Carmel in that throughout this time period, the remonstrators have tried to ascertain just what are Martin Marietta Materials' plans, both short-term and long-term, for this property. Sincerely, CAMPBELL KYLE PROFFITT LJ~ William E. Wendling, Jr. U4k/ Robert F. Campbell WEW/mew Enclosures 7904-1 CAMPBEIL KYLE PRoa-lll' ATTORNEYS AT LAW o (,;) CAMPBELL KYLE PROFFI'IT ATTORNEYS AT LAW JOHN M. KYLE JOHN D. PROffiTT R08ERT f. CAMPBELL JEFFREY S. NICKLOY DEBORAH L. FARMER WILLIAM 1. WENDLING. JR. ANNE HENSLEY POINDEXTER ANDREW M. BARKER TODD L. RUETZ MICHAEL A. CASATI JOHN S. TERRY RODNEY T. SARKOVICS CHRISTOPHI!k J. BARROWS FRANK S. CAMPBELL (1880.1964) RECEIVED ~PR 2. 3 200' PRANK W. CAMPBELL (1916.1991) THOMAS D. TITSWORTH Of Counael April 20, 2001 Via facsimile: 843-5514 Mr. John R. Molitor MOLITOR, GRISHAM & HESTER 11711 North Meridian Street, Suite 200 Carmel, IN 46032 Re: Kingswood Homeowners AssociationIMartin Marietta Materials Dear John: The purpose of this letter is to follow up on our previous communications as they relate to the hearing on Martin Marietta's applications before the Board of Zoning Appeals scheduled for May 8, 2001. It is my understanding that there has been some discussion regarding the continuance of the May 8 hearing date. Despite the procedural issues, our clients believe the May 8 hearing should proceed. They have put a lot of effort into their presentation before the Board of Zoning Appeals and feel that the May date represents their opportunity to state their case. However, we would be willing to support a continuance of the hearing if Martin Marietta will enter into a written agreement as outlined below: I. Martin Marietta would withdraw all of its use applications currently on file with the City of Carmel. 2. Martin Marietta would agree to submit a special use application and developmental variance for the Mueller property north of l06th Street to be docketed no later than October, 2001, for a BZA meeting. 3. Martin Marietta and Kingswood would appoint members to a joint committee to address the issues and Kingswood guidelines, and Martin Marietta will agree to retain, at their expense, whatever consulting engineers or other experts the committee deems necessary. 4. The committee will make a presentation to all the Kingswood neighbors prior to Martin Marietta's filing an application, but no later than August 31, 2001. 650 East Carmel Drive Suite 400 Carmel, Indiana 46032 (317) 846-6514 FAX (317) 843-8097 ZO'd vISS-EvS LIE ~a+saH ~ we4s~~s c~O+~LOW VZZ:It to-EZ-~dv u o Mr. John R. Molitor Apri120,200t Page 2 5. As an incentive for Kingswood to enter into this agreement, Martin Marietta will reimburse Kingswood for the expenses incurred in reviewing the Mueller issues to date, which is $17,000. As added incentive to get this accomplished, Kingswood would not pursue any legal action t(I stop Martin Marietta from its present mining operations on the Mueller property if the above terms are agreed upon. As we have mentioned in previous correspondence, since the Court has ruled that the Mueller property is within an urban area, it is hoped that the parties and the lawyers can put these jurisdictional and technical issues to rest and concentrate on the substantive issues which have been driving this dispute. We strongly believe that the new settlement initiative could lead to a withdrawal of Kingswood's objections while the matter works its way through the BZA. However, 'to make this happen, it is necessary for Martin Marietta to present a full disclosure of what they intend to do at the Mueller property so that all the issues that may be involved in those uses can be resolved, and hopefully resolved in a manner that is advantageous for both the homeowners and Martin Marietta. I will also be sending a copy of this letter to lan Carroll to make sure that we have full communication with Martin Marietta. We want to have a decision made in the next couple of days as to whether this agreement can be reached. If it cannot be done, and for any reason Martin Marietta requests a continuance of the hearing, my clients are prepared to ask the Court to mandate that the Director enforce Section 21.2.6 of the Carmel Zoning Ordinance. If you have any questions regarding the above, please do not hesitate to contact me or Bob Campbell. Sincerely, CAMPBELL KYLE PROFFITT 0/W'1~..7 ?Jte~~.-.;:~:- Wilham E. Wendling, . WEW/mew cc: Kingswood Homeowners Association Jan M. Carroll 7904-1 EO-d CAMPBEu.KvLE PRoFFrrr A~ATLAW ~ISS-E~8 LIE ~a~saH ~ w~4s~~S c~O~~LOW VZZ:ll 10-EZ-~dv ~ ~,. \ u u .iC"'~~ .,~ '- ......~ Molitor.. Grisham & Hester.. P.A. Attorneys Not In Partnership John R. Molitor Debra M. Grisham. Judy G. Hester. .Also licensed in Illinois April 13, 2001 William E. Wendling, Jr., Esq. CAMPBELL KYLE PROFFITT 650 East Carmel Drive Suite 400 Carmel, Indiana 46032 Re: Kingswood Homeowners AssociationlMartin Marietta Materials Dear Bill: In response to your letter of April 3, 2001, I want to inform you and your client that the City has scheduled a special meeting of the Board of Zoning Appeals for Tuesday, May 8, to hear Martin Marietta's petition for special use approval for the Mueller property (north side of 106lh Street only). This special meeting will be held in the Council chamber at Carmel City Hall beginning at 7:00 PM. Since the Martin Marietta proposal will be the only item on the agenda for the special meeting, you may expect that additional time will be allotted for remonstrance, should your'client or other interested persons continue to have objections to Martin Marietta's proposal. Mike Hollibaugh, Director of the Department of Community Services, has declined to issue an immediate "cease and desist" order against Martin Marietta, in view of the fact that the firm's special use petition will be heard in less than a month. Should Martin Marietta not receive approval fromthe BZA to conduct mining operations, Mr. Hollibaugh intends to order the firm to cease operations within 60 days after the negative decision of the BZA (or not later than July 7, assuming that the BZA makes such a decision at the May 8 special meeting). 11711 North Meridian Street + Suite 200 + Carmel, IN 46032 (317) 843-5511 + Fax (317) 843-5514 johnrmolitor@prodigy.net + debragrisham1@prodigy.net + hester4586@aol.com ( {- I -" \. William E. Wendling, Jr.... Apri/13. 2001 Page 2 of2 u '*'" .-". You commented in your letter that you hope that the parties and their lawyers can now put jurisdictional and technical issues to rest. For the City's part, I think that it is unlikely that we will want to appeal the Court's ruling that the Mueller property is within an urban area; however, I do not know what Martin Marietta or Hughey may decide to do in that regard. It would be the City's hope that the BZA's decision, whatever it may be, will resolve the substantive issues, and that all parties will accept its decision and not continue to litigate. Please call if you have any additional questions. cc: Mike Hollibaugh, DOCS /' Douglas C. Haney, Esq. Mayor James Brainard Jan M. Carroll, Esq. Stephen W. Lee, Esq. Thomas H. Engle, Esq. Jay P. Kennedy, Esq. u u /~~J 4<)' ~ V ./ I"v, '\/ f-:j V' I-~f ~~~~ ';::\ ,i '~:II ~,~V"" 1\1\\\\ L-' Q \1\ r..\J ~--l 'r-"l, . 1..~\" 1.'1 ;e,;, ,/\ \>\ t"S i- ',~ , '\F~'v ;, \./'\ 1',.7 \,/"\ IF" ,,/':, /". ':;I ','../':-;---- - - .~<\ "y/ ~ J ",']' \ \ :')./ "---,-~,--_/' Carmel, IndiClna April 6, 2001 Judge Wayne A. Sturtevant superior Court 5 Hamilton County Court House Noblesville, Indiana 46060 Dear Sir, Having lived in Carmel since 1961, your recent judgment against Martin Marietta Materials at ll6th Street and Hazel Dell Par]<..way piqued my interest. Are you aware that Martin Marietta has been operating at that location since long before the area became "urbanized" and ALL of the area was either wasteland or farmland? If the city of Carmel chose to expand and annex land to Marion County (96th Street), build Hazel Dell Parkway (with the help of Martin Marietta)and the bridge across White River, and ap- prove Zoning for housing developments in the area in question, cognizant of Martin Marietta's operations; then, logically, Martin Marietta is not at fault here; so WHY ARE THEY BEING VICTIMIZED???? It's quite obvious the fault lies with the Carmel Plan Commission or Zoning Board for approving housing in a lcnown "hazardous" (if you choose to call it that) area. Many sympathies go with Martin Marietta (the original occu- pants of the area) and not with the Kingswood Cry Babies who purchased homes in the area fnlly aware of what was there before them. Think about it , , , , . . . . Was your~,honestly, a Fair Judgment???? HEAVEN HELP US if Kingswood goes after the Waste Treatment Plant: : : : cc: Carmel Dept. of Planning & Zoning Mayor James Brainard Editor, Topics Newspapers --- 1k7),~ ~-'---'-'-"'-"~ '~ fr'l -/.. t! ~ I i- t.. .: ~s_ CAlvfPBELL KYLE PROFFITT ATIORNEYS AT LAW JOHN M. KYLE JOHN D. PROFFITT ROBERT F. CAMPBELL JEFFREY S. NICKLOY DEBORAH L. FARMER WILLIAM E. WENDLING. JR. ANNE HENSLEY POINDEXTER ANDREW M. BARKER TODD L. RUETZ MICHAEL A. CASATI JOHN S. TERRY RODNEY T. SARKOVICS CHRISTOPHER J. BARROWS FRANK S. CAMPBELL (1880.1964) FRANK W. CAMPBELL (1916-1991) THOMAS D. TITSWORTH Of Counsel April 3, 2001 Mr. John R. Molitor MOLITOR, GRISHAM & HESTER 11711 North Meridian Street, Suite 200 Carmel, IN 46032 Re: Kingswood Homeowners AssociationlMartin Marietta Materials Dear John: It is our request that the City enforce its own rules and ordinances by issuing its order for Martin Marietta to stop mining operations until the requisite permits are obtained. This seems to be the best interim step while my client and Martin Marietta explore settlement options. If the City agrees to follow its own procedure, then the application for a "cease and desist" order may be unnecessary. You will recall that Judge Sturtevant indicated that the Court would entertain such an application. Now that the Court has ruled that the Mueller property is within an urban area, it is our hope that the parties and their lawyers can put jurisdictional and technical issues to rest and concentrate on the substantive issues which are driving the dispute. We believe that a new settlement initiative could lead to a withdrawal of I0ngswood I s objections while the matter works its way through the BZA. 650 East Carmel Drive Suite 400 Carmel, Indiana 46032 (317) 846-6514 FAX (317) 843-8097 . '" 1" jIt._ Mr. John R. Molitor April 3, 2001 Page 2 Please let us know if and when the DOCS will be ordering Martin Marietta to stop operations. RFC/mew Very truly yours, CAMPBELL KYLE PROFFITT <72h~ Robert F. Campbell cc: Kingswood Homeowners Association Stephen W. Lee Jan M. Carroll Thomas H. Engle Douglas C. Haney Jay P. Kennedy Hon. James Brainard 7904-1 CAMPBEll.. KYLE PROFFITT ATTORNEYS AT LAW ~.. 83/14/2BB1 14:4B 317-776-11B1 HAMILTON CO USDA PAGE B7 Ji ~jeQt;~aDie~ $.u~By. .', C A~"I't. 5~ND /1Jer.lN I1~RI"r-rA A 66Je6GA7G$ v' H,~ V.l~~/AHS "'f)' e./I~14 $Y: S"u.ln; 2~ C"A)fHE~..:rA/ ilt.03Z . , ' /-;' \ i"~ 1108 Soutll9th 8I1WI /:':.c~':"~;' . ./" \,/ / '.>., Nob/ut1llle, IN'4606~J:~lS ' , A. ' '<>'\ Ph. (3'17) 773-143i/ ,~ '\C:\ Fax (317) 776-lil:Q{. RfE~~,' \:J, : ,', , 'I.--:J NAR, 14 :, \::-1 ~ ," Drainage. BrosiOllIDd S~eDt\CoDhl Plan J ~Ol, ,IJ, " '1"ecbnica1'~ewand~ent Q)ca, ,t:-/ ", '; \' ::;'., , ~~ , ' /". V A."7-r-.- \(~/ -<:"';~1IY9- ..' " ~~By: ~~N' B. Sl!)d~ , 1>1m ~oW ,Pt~: Site Visit Date~ tG~: /61,.1' Vi-//A~8~' ~L. , '~~,escriptio~ ' '~&C ,1/ . ~. . TOWIl$.hip: , I IV ' Range: plaJ:l R,eriew DJte; 3'-/s- ~oo / " . -YE .'. Civil ToWDship; ~ y , ~ " \ ", . ,~ ~o~ aild sodImei1t ~~.i p~ has ~ reviewed and itlAas beeo. ~eCamiDed that the plmi:, ' 1J ".Sati$ties tl8 minlin~uIrem.ents.llIld intent of327IAC 15-S (Rule s). NotificatiOD wiD be,~JDrwmied. . .... ..' . . ,I,' . ~ " " ,to the IDdIIna Depardbent ofEnY~nmental'ManaaemCnt ,,0 : : Re&r to ~ commentS section ,(or additional iDformatioa. " ,'JI 'Poes n~t~~fYthc minimiuD ~uirements and intent of327lAC lS-S (Rulc'S); 4eflC~cics ~ notal in, .::the ch~8Il4 in tilt C0RlD1en~ sectlol!-_ Deficiencies.constitute potcDtW violation of the role and ml;lSt .. be a4~,. ...~ for ~plianct. The information nC<leSSaly to satisfY ihe dcficiencies must be 'submitted: . . Please address n:visio~ to dlc reviewer. to ~ PI'Qper..iinp/emsnla(~tm oftM.llI't;Wt')1I Qnd sedi1Ml" co1tl1"()lpla" aM ;Mpect;onroftlu! COlIStruct;o~ $;tll by tlie developer 01" Q rep~f<1ttve fJfe net:f$slZr)' to minimize off-s;te sedimwatiOn. The tleve/opu should be QMIItl1'e. . thm'w(o.reseen cOn$tructlon ~iVUIU QruJ wetJthu co"ditioru may effect 1M fNDfor7fl(DJCe 01 a practlcl or tM u!J$ionemJ $t1dimenl eohtrol plan... The pIa;' must be a flciblc document. with provulo1l$ to modlh QI' ntbslitrde pNCtlce.t Q:I necesscry. . 03/14/2001 14:40 317-776-1101 ,,: , ,U PilO~ 'CAPIf~t $Mb Page 2 01.3 :', ~ ,I , ;' ( i. , "';;, ,~:;, ,':' Ya, ',No,~, ',:" Ol~' ,;,:'~ j,~:. ,!A ,_, ' g,..,., 111 " ,g,:::' ,,,0 > ' t'C , ~ .' . . 1Ili: :,0 ::,': m pi:, 0' :', IE :.Ya, . lID.' '" II " II.. "I,: : 'No , :0 iA ,0,;::,,,,. .0 2C' .,() 31) .;. ':'. -:. 0.;' ., . ,..... ,,:,",:::,'~;.:::~,;,:::. ,,):, WI' >i;J ,;~;' :, :.-::::' ":'0 ";', , ". a.~". 'i,i~~'::rt:: ":',~/ ' ,)~: "IiIIIi:, , ,n ,. ....... U ,', ':;"::;,(,: 0 '. "" "<:;;<:,:~\: ';':~': ,},' , ':':" "'Yih! "M:' ,,' " , <:;..;~ ,\",0:';' ,<,..~:~,:::' ,'::p' :;,ii 3. ,:,:!, :',' ':'$' :yei , , .0 :0 ,'" ,0 :"0,,, , 1;1', " . '.:rp .. iii' o o ',II, , '. .0 ,..0' " tJ .~:: 3.' ',No " "11 ., It" <, "ug' ": :,0 ,,' D' , ' o~ ,O~' .0 '", (J ~: II ". ofe: 4. off: 4J 4K, HAMILTON CO USDA U PAGE B8 'AQ:Td IOUOWING IDMS ADEQUATELY ADDRESSED ON TBBPLANS t (Alll'ttiiuMut ~Ap~ ~.... tIIUI NtttdAmlw) (I,.", _ tire NtJt Ap,~ U "18 Pro)_ tIN tk6/ptde4. NA.) , 'I", , " .1, :.. PBOJICT'INft)RMADON Pr.ajKt'~ Pcfap ~ proj<<Jt In ""on to odrlt'lII'fIIU O/"-~) N....me DtKrIIJIDg the Natare ad .....~ of "Project ......0. on......ed and/or Emtiag .IJ"" D'tWtIa, Str.acmn:..1IJgInr11lt ett.. Ldfi mdIOr ....dIag Locatlcna8 ~... or AcQaceat Ar.eu , (SIUN 1M Bnli,. ~ WIl". 4IIId ~ANa 'Within 500 F. ofthtt P10perly LI1c8s) '. .;, :. ': ;;~ " .'., TQPOGRAPHlC, DRAINAGE, AND GENERAL SITE FEATURES ~ Vegdadoo (Identify fI1IIlINlJIM4N) LacadoIt aad'NIUIle of All WedaDds, LIkes aud Water eo.nes Oa ad AdjaceDt to die She 100: Year lloodplaiJu, JIoodway Ji'rlnges, ad ~ fP,,;. ffNQM) ': ~ Iafonaation (Qlly4rlc Nl18 tIl'fJ PIWeII, II" rile rwporuIb/~ qtthtl flWlUJW'tl~ to ' .', I~pte 1M aUtwllfCf 0/ l.NtItmilr aNI to <<,flIIrI permlaft,om 1M IIJ1I1'f1lIIWtt pmmI-...fIJ ',' 1l!~..,aacI"""" OIatoan at.1Ilt.en'II ApPl.'OPrl* to 1__1("* Di'aia8p Pattuw ,:~ ~ ot$pedfte Po.IiaCl WIae StoM"...'D....... WID LaM the SIte . :'::: ~... ~ Waten (lfDlM1htzrp i, tocrSepflNtdlfllddpal SlDnns-.r,IMmi/Y th. o , .~t' . . . .. ;:;' ~'qft',d(riltidptzl ~tI1Id thB Ulrl1lf1ltdWc_ving JV:1lffr) ... :..:~, ~dai~~ Storm waterMa.J Eater~ (J{o#ffNtJIN) ~ . :' ~.'Cif S.rmwa1er S)'1tem. (IMluiJ Ctdw!rl6, Storm,Sewn, Chann.J.r, lllId$wl.) , '~ '., . . ;, ", , ',T'- ,~ 7ft, . .. . " ~ :,:' ':., ':;:~';nmTuRaING ACTIVlTJES , ',\,' ' , " ~"8Dd App.....ate Dlmftls.. of AU DistarfJed.Anu [i.e.. CDn.ttrdcm Limill) : ~ ""'" y~ COft!I' Will &PrB:MIwtl SIta.Ul beClsarly~ , Soii;Stodcp.. &Ild or Borrow Anu (sbLot:lmtllU fir NrM,(fNOIIB) ;' :,'i $" " 44 ..- of'; ofD 41, ::ERQSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL MEASURES '>'~ of Wbea Eacla Measure WUI Be 1mp1emedte4 (&Ic:rtIN IOBd ~ktWilia.) ~riDg aad ~..I""'fl"ee Gaicleliaa for Eada MUllIn . ,p~eCa' Sedlmeat Coatrol Measam (JActIIicm, CautnIcticm DtItlJil.~, ~ SpectfttJlltJ1N) . . T~tat)' ~ (Spei:ifitxltil1tU,./ntJlutJlng s.d MU,' F~ U",iJ. _Mulch RtztM) TemPorary Erosioa 1114 SecUmeat Coafrol Mtasara (Locotlcm, Ctmltnlctlan D.". DlltuftJlDIU, .f4 S1*IfIt;tztl0lfll) Pel1lWldlt E,1'OIioa and SecIi.... CoatroI Mealara (~0fI. CDlUtHu:tian ~l, ~. rzntl Sp<<4JiDMIDM) " ,S&ona DraIa Ifilet ProtedIoa (Location, CArulnu:lton Daall, DlflUtUlotU. fItrd SJH1CfIlt/4tiQlfl) 'Stor.IDWate.- QdIet Protecdoa (J.ocGtlOII, ClJIUtnlt!tlort DtdiIJI, Dlmen.JitllU. IIIIIl Sptltllft~) ~ CoautraetiOd Eatraace (Loctttian. ~ DcIiai~ Duru.utoru, IIIIIl $pecIft(JfJfJ(JN) ",EroIioa .. ~t CoIdrol 011 Jadividaal BaD..... Loll (SI*I/it:QtIoIu) :Pel1llallellt S~~ (SpedjlctniDlU,.I"cludlng SMl Ala, Fttrlil... U,. and MzJdJ RDJa) , . 4P, RcvlIcd 4 I" 'i 83/14/2881 14:48 317-776-1181 U HAMILTON CO USDA. U PAGE 89 BRO~JON AND SEDlMHNT CONTROL PLAN TECHNICAL REVIEW. COMMENTS , ~'. .,': ~. " . ~;: ... .': ~.' ~Jec~' ~AIN6~ '.;SA~j) . : P..e 3~f ...1. NiI..ts! itt/i'eratlon rJhIl sffiJimeiit cOnD'ol meanuu shown OPllhe pltl1ll and re[eTenced In this rwtew Imttt meet the "" tWJin ~iiii. st~. and .r/*/lkattom ()UI/lned In the "IndtQIIQ Handbook/or Ero.rion Control iPl ~ojJ.",g Aieta"fro1ll',the.litdlana DepartmB1lt Of Natural /WC1II1'CflS, Division o/Soli Conurvatlon Ol'slmtlOl' ~D~fI1neltlS. . ~.8"'1!!I1 $'~V ,~ ?c'c..J'-e/...I' ~"N~"W.~//";'a" " '~'Y St'k,' -:/,.. :.. H'I"/":~~~ IJch,..~-I -AI" ~""'J ""~7 . "4: - :;:n.. 'JIJ~ ".r#,,(~.t MIf" ,A",... w..t:,. /~",~ ~ $,~/~ po . ::'. ''-r'' ~.iII"U ~,. .".AII,~/ /"....,1' ~ .11-,)/'.17 ;/I, ",Ie.. . , ,,~ - ,> P~6u.I.Jc . I-CMl)th'....~ ,st'rct:y ~~C ,. , . ':I , U ,,':'~- :'~: IfflJo'i4,c. :, 1iI,.,."",tM'...;;r .:rC'~;'9 Yt'~j'. . ' :' ~t . . , , . 'I': ,{. ~, . , . ',': ,. '. . .' . . ~' ." , " . . 'fl':'" "" ''', . ..... '. . .. .... .J , : : ; , : <. ;~~'" ,. . , : " : .' ". .. ., '- :,., : " :~,',;: : ..) t" ,. ..,::' , ,'~'" '. .,.'" ";,' ,. ~":I: .~. . ~ ... : ';';::~;..' ."'. "":;' ,I'" , ',' ="" ': ',' I~, .. . ,:1,' ':; '.: ';~' '.. ., . " .. , J': ." " '. 00" L,' ~.#lI."Uti. .c..~/ /JI'V' J"j - J.l ~/~ u W CAMPBELL KYLE PROFFITT AITORNEYS AT LAW FRANK S. CAMPBELL (1880-1964) JOHN M. KYLE JOHN D. PROFFITT ROBERT F. CAMPBELL JEFFREY S. NICKLOY DEBORAH L. FARMER WILLIAM E. WENDLING. JR. ANNE HENSLEY POINDEXTER ANDREW M. BARKER TODD L. RUETZ MICHAEL A. CASATI JOHN S. TERRY RODNEY T. SARKOVICS CHRISTOPHER J. BARROWS FRANK W. CAMPBELL (1916.1991) THOMAS D. TITSWORTH Of Counsel February 21, 2001 Mr. ThomasH. Engle BARNES & THORNBURG 11 South Meridian Street Indianapolis, IN 46204 Re: Kingswood Homeowners Association v. Martin Marietta Materials, et aI. Dear Tom: I forwarded your letter of February 13, 2001 to my client. There is interest in meeting with Mr. Furlong but, as Mr. Furlong suggested, only ifthere is some advance preparation to make the meeting productive. In your motion to the Court to vacate summary judgment, you indicated that Martin Marietta has been advised by Mr. Engelking that new separate applications will be required, dividing the Mueller property between north and south. However, since you have been advised that the portion south of 106th Street cannot proceed before the BZA prior to DNR permits, the issue currently at hand would be a permit for sand and gravel extraction north of 106th Street. Since this permit would be the subject of discussion, my client requests that it be provided a draft of this filing prior to discussions and preferably prior to filing with Mr. Engelking. Comments on the current filing have already been provided to you and the DOCS staff for consideration. It is my client's hope that these comments might be reflected in the new applications. At that time, my client feels that productive discussions can be accomplished. If you have any questions regarding the above, please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, CAMPBELL KYLE PROFFITT ~ wll?c0 ~//// William E. Wendling, Jr. WEW/mew cc: John R. 1-folitor Kingswood Homeowners Association 7904-1 650 East Carmel Drive Suite 400 Carmel, Indiana 46032 (317) 846-6514 FAX (317) 843-8097 02/14/01 WED 16:15 FAX 3178438097 Call1lilJell KY1-:l C'l'Orlltt I(&J Vl)~ U BARNES & THORNBURG u 11 Sol1m Meridian Street Indianapolill. Indiana '16204 U.S.A (317)236-1313 Fax (317) 231.7433 ThOIllllI He Enl:le (317) 231-7499 Entaill tc:nel,Obrlca...com hupJ..www.btb....com February 13, 2001 Mr. William E. Wendling Jr., Esq. Todd Ruetz, Esq. Campbell Kyle & Proffitt 10 East Carmel Drive, Suite 400 Cannel. Indiana 46032 Re: Kin~swood Homeowners Association v. Steven Engelking. et al Cause No. 29D03-QOOS-CP-334 Dear Mr. Wendling: Jan Carroll mentioned your offer to help arrange a meeting between Martin Marietta Materials. Inc. and the Kingswood Homeowners Association, at which you would be in attendance, in hopes of settling the matters in\'olved in the present litigation. I bave discussed this with Bob Furlong and he is willing to meet, but is not available until after February 20. 2001. Mr. Furlong believes that such a meeting would be productive provided that a. written agenda is circulated beforehand' ou~lining the terms which are acceptable and the terms which need to be discussed. Also, it is his desire that representatives of the Association have authority to enter into an agreement at the meeting, preferably empowered by appropriate board resolution. Lastly, Mr. Furlong will not be prepared to discuss the creation of a park facility. I mentioned the prospect of a meeting to John Molitor, and his feeling i.s that the other defendants. the City of Cannel and Hughey, Inc., should also participate. Let me know at your earliest convenience when the appropriate arrangements can be made for the proposed meeting. Thank you for your cooperation. Your& truly, -~~ ~~ ".:/ --/~~ //( Thomas H. En e ./ E:nc;losures cc: ' ~ob 'Furlong lohn'Molitor INDSOI THE 415158 Indiana~lIs Fort WlI'fnc South Bend Elkhart Chica~ W(\$hin~ron. D.C. BARNES&rno~URG 9 11 South Meridian Street Indianapolis. Indiana 46204-3535 U.S.A. (317) 236-1313 Fax (317) 231-7433 Thomas H. Engle (317) 231-7499 Email: tengle@btlaw.com www.btlaw.com February 9, 2001 VIA COURIER ! ~~m FEB . 9 2001 DOCS Mr. Steve Engelking, Director Department of Community Services City of Carmel Carmel City Hall, Third Floor 1 Civic Square Carmel, Indiana 46032 , . " J ; Dear Mr. Engelking: On behalf of Petitioner, Martin Marietta Materials, Inc., I am enclosing one original and two / copies each of our Application for Special Use and Application for Developmental Standards , 1i,..,.,J Variance for the Mueller Property located north of 106th Street. Please file stamp one copy of each ..,....,-- Yn . j6 application and return to my office in the enclosed self-addressed, postage prepaid envelope. Thank ~8-rBf you for your assistance. ~ .~( ~ Sincerely, ~~ Thomas H. Engle, Esq. Enclosures INDS01 THE 414477 Indianapolis Fort Wayne South Bend Elkhart Chicago Washington, D.C. 01/30/2001 14:57 317-776-1101 HAMILTON 00 USDA~~ PAGE 01 U U /. .-L!>~ . ON-SITE EV ALUA TION FOR EROSION AND. SEDIMENT CONTJtdL -"'~' <./~. Hamilton County Soil and Water Conservation District.' ~~ ~,' 1108 South 9tb Street, Noblesyille, IN 4606.0 ~ * " ate:' /-z9-Z<<>l Telepbone: 317- m-2181 Fax. 31,7-776-1101' '" ,,\~1' ,.: t, \ \ 1=J Ir'i . ~leetNant~: I1A~nl./~ tfA{lu!-rrA' OPE~"I()JJS ()# 711# HlJ~~L.1!JZ. ~O~;~>,?,- . .;.A,::>;/' . Pres~t lltSlte: Jobn South, Hamilton (:0. SWell, ~. nii'l-c(0Y.,. ' -~: J.,.--: ThIs report was Provided To: MAX ILhJ..L~N'f If~" ~~'S~ .-..- '. .-.,~~.. If ~ 1'4 Su,'1Il ~OO (!, AIZ '" I:L,.:z:U ~"~J!. CAIHI!L n DC. S S".~C/~1. Pitx n'':,,'',,' . . Type OF EVALUAnON: ., "'."-. .......lDitial ' 0 Routine 0 FOllOW-Up 0 Complaint . ., .. .Thls.evaluation is intended to assess the level of compliance with 327 lAC IS~S (Rule 5). It is also intended to identify ~ Wb .: ---", . - .~~ ~~D.Il m_w:es JIlay ,be required to control erosion and sedimentation. All practices recommended in this report should-be- -::.:- -:-.:" .. ... ~Wil8S.t4t theIr feasibility by a qualified individual with snyctural.ptactices designed by a qualified engineer. ' .' "". ,_' .. lL.emslOltalld sediment central meaSurU shaUmeet tbi! 4es.lgn crijeri,a, standards, ll",d specifications o~tIiT\ed il},,~.b~...,~:. '-'0.':" .lDdlaDa.~.-clbop'k for Erosion Control In Developln(~r_~!~~ ~~!.~~:rl~aDce documents. . , :,oJ.:~:' : :._ :".... ~l:~~.WOmlation: L.' . A~ IJ!fIJJIAltJ. A ~, FIU!b. " .' No efIMAN a~.l. P~AU 6113 1116siF""",'" The Following Items Have Been Evaluated aD~ Assigned a Designation of:. S .. 'Satisfactory. 1\1 ..... Marginal U.. Unsatisfactory NA = Not Applicable . ~1.lIfr.Ue601l' Site Management for Erosion and Sediment cOntrol. . '. . . . \ . ..': S . M . JJl NA (I) Disturbed areas have been adequateJy protected throUJh Seeding or other appropriate eroslo.n and: ' sediment control measures, 0) Appropriate perimeter sediment control.measures have. been implemented. (3) Conveyance 'ohannels hav~ been stabiUzed or p~otected with appropriate ~ediment control measun,:s.' (4) Btosion & sediment oontrol measures are instaUed. propex-Iy. . (5) Stenn dr~in inlets have been, adequately protected. . (6) Outlets have been adequately stabilized. (7) Existing erosion & sediment control measures are being maintained. ~) Public & private roadways are, being kept cleal" of accumulated sediment or ttacked soil.. . (9) Brosion &. sediment control measures have been installed and'maintain~ on individual bui1~lng sites. '. S .M .(D'NA S'MtJ 'S'M U S'M 'U S M U S M U S'M U S.M U ;' Status of Sediment Retention On-Bite' [J . site. conditions preSent a higb potential fo~ off-site sedimenta~on_ o . There-.is evidence of off site sedimentation. o Description provided: . gf Please Refer to the Comments SeI;tioJl or thUi Report Compiled By: Det1l1itlons' . ~ . ~ . 'Satbfactory: The item i3 currently i. compliance with the rule 'Mar.gIDat: A concern has been ide~tified; corrective action is :strongly recommended to remain in compliti,nce Unsatisfactory: A violation has been identified and the site' is not in compliance; corrective action is reqliired Not.4p 'lic:zlrle: Does Dot apply at tbis stage of construction Rn/Jfd 4/98 01/26/01 14:11 FAX HAMILTON CO BWY. ~~~ Carmel DOCD U IaI 001/001 /\ January 26, 2001 ~~ . ~ n "" \_\ I\~:, \~~ )~i , \ ~~ [-_I /:' ~ /,,/ /" "~'I /', -.;/,., . ^'-.. ~,' , ~.:/" /'\" / I{r>r---c-::'\ >..~ '....:_!_~/ Mr. Thomas H. Engle Bames & Thomburg 11 South Meridian street Indianapolis, Indiana 46204-3535 ~E: Martin Marietta. Mueller Property Spec/al Use Variance N of 108" Street I E of Gray Road Clay Township Dear Mr. Engle: This letter !lerves to acknowledge receipt of a tnlMmittal containing the plans for Martin Marietta - Mueller Property. After reviewing the plans, the Highway Department 'has the following comments: 1. In accoltlance with the HamIlton County Thoroughfare Plan. the Highway Depar1ment request a Dedication of Right ot Way along 106'" street and Gray Road. On 106'" Street the dedication of right of way Includes the fOllowing: from the Intersection of Gray Road to a point 500' to the east I 75' halt right of way is reqLlested. From the intersedion of Hazel. Dell Road to a point to SOO' to th;west a 75' half right of way is requested. The rest of 106D1 street Is I 60' half. On Gray R d, from the intersection of 10811I street to a point 500' to the north the requested right of way is 75' half right of way. From that point to the north property line the requested right of way is 60' half. . . , If you have any comments or questions regarding this letter Or project. please feel free to contact me at any time. Thank you for your attention and cooperation. ' Sincerely, / !~/;?~ Steven J. Broermann Staff Engineer cc: Laurence UIIIg, Jr. 1717 PLEASANT STREET NOBLESVILLE, INDJ.UlA 48060 (317) 173-7770 .. ]". ~ w W CAMPBELL KYLE PROFFITI ATTORNEYS AT LAW JOHN M. KYLE JOHN D. PROFFITT ROBERT F. CAMPBELL JEFFREY S. NICKLOY DEBORAH L. FARMER WILLIAM E. WENDLING. JR. ANNE HENSLEY POINDEXTER ANDREW M. BARKER TODD L. RUETZ MICHAEL A. CASATI JOHN S. TERRY RODNEY T. SARKOVICS CHRISTOPHER J. BARROWS FRANK S. CAMPBELL (1880-1964 ) FRANK W. CAMPBELL (1916-1991) THOMAS D. TITSWORTH Of Counsel January 19, 2001 /' t1~P- t^~. ~pr, L, . K. J" ;~ r ~. 1'-1J. \ - ry:JO r ,;J~ y~~ Mr. Steve Engelking, Director Department of Community Services City of Cannel One Civic Square Cannel, Indiana 46032 ." . Re: Martin Marietta Special Use Application Dear Mr. Engelking: The purpose of this letter is to respond to the correspondence from Mr. Thomas Engle dated December 20, 2000 that addresses the matters contained in my letter to you of December 5,2000, and to matters discussed at the TAC meeting on December 20, 2000. With respect to docketing this application, my understanding is that applications are not to be docketed until the Department deems them to be complete. I am outlining below issues that I believe need to be provided by the petitioner and reviewed by the staff before their application can be considered complete. In addition, Mr. Engle indicates in his response that certain issues in my December 5, 2000 letter related to the applications are "subject to settlement of the pending litigation", and correspondingly I infer that their application cannot be considered complete until the pending litigation is settled. Further, based on comments made at the TAC meeting on December 20, 2000, issues relating to the DNR permits have not been completed. Mr. Lillig indicated that, in accordance with the Ordinance requirements, this application could not be docketed until DNR permits were obtained. Could you please confirm my understanding that the staff will not docket this application until it receives the required approvals from the DNR as provided by the Ordinance. As you know, the petitioner has filed a joint application for a special use for mineral extraction and a special use for an artificial lake. We have pointed out previously that work covered by these applications has begun prior to obtaining the permits for which the applications were filed. Mr. Engle indicated in his response that both he and "the City of Cannel" (presumably Mr. Molitor) believed there was no violation because the area under consideration is outside an urban area, so the Department does not have the authority to stop work. However, since Martin Marietta filed an application under the Ordinance requiring special use permits for 650 East Carmel Drive Suite 400 Carmel, Indiana 46032 (317) 846-6514 FAX (317) 843-8097 o u Mr. Steve Engelking January 19,2001 Page 2 mineral extraction, it seems inappropriate to claim exemption on the basis that such special use permits are not required. Furthermore, the petitioner's special use application includes an artificial lake, which is part and parcel of their proposed operations. Since operations have begun on mineral extraction, they must have also begun on the artificial lake. We do not believe there is any relief to be afforded to the petitioner for beginning work on the artificial lake without a special use permit. Based on the issues which the petitioner acknowledges are needed to complete the application, we renew our request that the Department require that ongoing work covered by the applications be stopped until ~e. appropriate permits are obtained. I would appreciate a prompt response to this request so diat if you disagree with our interpretation, we might have an opportunity to appeal. As stated previously, I believe the petitioner has made my client a party to the permit process by making settlement of litigation a condition of the permit request. Therefore, my client requests an opportunity to meet with the staff and the petitioner to discuss the issues relevant to the petitioner's application. I do not wish to rebut Mr. Engle's response point by point, but wish to point out suggested guidelines for responding to community concerns by the National Stone Association as set forth in The Aggregate Handbook. Projecting a positive public image requires that operators develop and implement a plan of operation that addresses community safety, health, and welfare concerns. The petition for a special use must include a description of the property, a site plan of the proposed development, and a statement of compatibility of the proposed special use activities with adjacent properties. Items of primary importance are: (1) land quality; (2) air quality; (3) water quality and usage; (4) blasting concerns; (5) noise; and (6) on-going management. A site plan, for example, should be drawn to scale and contain the following information as applicable not only for the site under application, but also for adjacent sites which will be part of the overall operations: . The size and location of the property in relation to surrounding properties; . The general size and location of existing or proposed structures, access roads, or other facilities, and the use of each facility or structure; . Graphic location on the site plan of the quarry, pit, plants or offices, berms, drainage ditches, and ponds or lakes; . The locations, dimensions, and arrangements of all buffer zones and screening; CAMPBEll. KYLE PRorrI I I ATTORNEYS AT LAW u u Mr. Steve Engelking January 19, 2001 Page 3 . Sediment and erosion control (both during and after extraction) and provisions for soil retention for reclamation use. Additionally we believe the application should set forth in reasonable detail the intended activities and types of operations that will be conducted on the property, both north and south of 10611I Street. Land Quality: The site appearance is one of the first concerns of the residents of a community. A pleasing appe~ance also helps promote the acceptance of new sites in the permitting process." . Reclamation should be an ongoing activity throughout the life of a quarry and pit operation. Reclamation plans are developed before operations begin. As soon as any part of the quarry or pit is mined out, this area should be reclaimed. Reclamation and good conservation practices, including proper sloping, seeding erosion control, and off-site erosion prevention, should be part of the standard operating procedure for any quarry development. References to other quarry sites as examples would be helpful. During the life of an aggregate operation, various land-use changes occur. The operator must present a clear and concise operational plan describing plant layout, production, traffic, hours of operation and operational life. During the overburden removal period, material can be sold, trucked away, or placed into an earthen berm. These berms should be sloped, graded, and seeded soon after their construction to prevent erosion, ensure stability, and provide a more aesthetic appeal to property owners. Air Quality: Dust has not appeared to be perceived by residents as an issue to date. However, if the pit is to come closer, future problems may arise. An environmental impact statement should be required setting forth existing air quality conditions and the anticipated effect of new pit and quarry operations on local air quality as well as comply with the various requirements of the Federal New Source Performance Standards. Water Quality and Usage: The application should indicate any chemicals that might be used in the mineral extraction processes being applied for. Also, it should indicate what discharges will result from these processes and how they will be disposed of. Special consideration needs to be given to existing wellheads and possible impact on the aquifer. It should also indicate if any discharges will be made into the artificial lake and what impact that might have. Blasting Concerns: In order to not have blasting operations perceived as a nuisance by the surrounding community, special attention should be given to describing the blasting operations which will be employed. Since residents relate to current and past blasting activities, CAMPBElL KYLE PRo!'!'ll 1 AT"TQRNE'I'S AT LAW u u Mr. Steve Engelking January 19, 2001 Page 4 proposed blasting operations should be presented in comparison with the quantities and levels of past blasting for a representative period. The petitioner's reference to averages is not sufficiently cO,mprehensive. Noise: The concern of neighbors is with the steady-state noise of the existing processing plant to the east of Kingswood, as well as potential future noise which might result from increased intensity and closeness of operations south of 106lb Street. Should the processing plant not be relocated as part of the petitioner's application, neighbors' request appropriate consideration to minimizing the current level of noise emissions. Various noise suppression techniques are employed in the industry. As part of an environmental impact disclosure statement, we would request disclosure of proposed activities that will contribute to noise and what noise suppression methods will be used. On-going Management: The petitioner has indicated operations covered by these applications will be on going for 50 years and more. Because all possible future conditions cannot be anticipated and the on-going maintenance of the integrity of surrounding neighborhoods cannot be assured as conditions evolve, we suggest that in granting any permits, the Board of Zoning Appeals consider provisions which would require future permit renewal provisions. Also, those renewals should contain reports of the petitioners commitments. Community Relations: Without proper communication and education, the maintenance, expansion, and establishment of pit and quarry production facilities will continue to face overwhelming local opposition. My client believes that successful conclusion of these applications will depend on establishing on-going communications both with immediate neighbors and members of the larger community. My client renews its interest is concluding the letter of interest and draft agreement with Martin Marietta. I look forward to hearing you at your earliest convenience. If you have any questions regarding the above, please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, CAMPBELL KYLE PROFFITT [ifilt - William E. Wendling, Jr. WEW/mew cc: Kingswood Homeowners Association 7904-1 CAMPBEll. KYLE PRot'l"'I 11 ATTORNE'fS AT LAW r ~,- ::1" :~l BARNES & THOL1BURG ., U II South Meridian Street Indianapolis, Indiana 46204.3535 U.S.A. (317) 236.1313 Fax (317) 231-7433 Thomas H. Engle (317) 231-7499 Email: tengle@brlaw.com www.bdaw.com VIA FACSIMILE Mr. Steve Engelking Department of Community Services City of Carmel Carmel City Hall, Third Floor 1 Civic Square Carmel, Indiana 46032 Re: Application for Special Use and Variance from Development Standards Martin Marietta Materials, Inc. Dear Mr. Engleking: I am writing in response to the letter dated December 5,2000 from Bill Wendling on behalf of the Kingswood Homeowners Association, and have addressed their concerns below. Suggested additional information: 1. We have provided with our app lications a description of operations for the mining activities, hours of operations, blasting activities, reclamation activities, and transport of materials to an off-site processing facility. However, there are no drawings depicting mining plans or site plans as such, in that the operations will proceed across the site generally from east to west (as to the parcel north of 10th Street) and south to north (as to the parcel south of 106th Street) and no buildings will be constructed. In addition, a traffic analysis would seem unnecessary as the only traffic will be a limited number of employees and the extracted materials (as to the parcel north of 106th Street) will not be transported by truck. A conceptual landscape plan depicting the condition of the site north of 106th Street is being prepared and will be presented to the Technical Advisory Committee. 2. Martin Marietta Materials is currently in the process of seeking approval from the Department of Natural Resources regarding flood plain and floodway activities. 3. The applications as submitted include appropriate references to the resulting artifical lake as a special use. Also, it is our opinion and the opinion of the City of Carmel that the operations included in our applications do not represent the impermissible expansion of a nonconforming use. .L. ,t'. -- .~' r- '- \ .1 ". ; . I.: <( .,nh ~?'l'n..._i l::Li:.~ln .!ilC":lE' ) \(/;~,...;hln~:r\;f1, D.C. ~ ?, r~;~' .A c""~ . u u Comments regarding commitments: 1. Martin Marietta Materials would be willing to commit to the relocation of the existing processing facility subject to settlement of the pending litigation. 2. Martin Marietta Materials would be willing to commit to a satisfactory schedule of mining operations subject to settlement of the pending litigation. 3. A landscape plan is required for final plats approved pursuant to the Subdivision Regulations (which contain the Natural Open Space standards). As stated above, a conceptual landscape plan depicting the condition of the site north of 106lh Street is being prepared and will be presented to the Technical Advisory Committee. 4. As stated in the applications, all reclamation activities shall comply generally with the reclamation guidelines of the Indiana Mineral Aggregates Association. 5. Martin Marietta Materials believes that the commitments regarding blasting are responsive and well-defined and contain upper limits on ground vibration and airblast. 6. The reclamation guidelines of the Indiana Mineral Aggregates Association can be provided for review by the Technical Advisory Committee. Lastly, Mr. Wendling's letter refers to work started "without required permits." I must again reply that it is our opinion and that of the City of Carmel that the current operations on the Mueller Property are outside an "urban area" as defined by Ind. Code S 36-7-4-1103. Martin MariettaMaterials is ready to provide additional information as may be requested by your department, the Technical Advisory Committee or the Board of Zoning Appeals. Thank you for your attention and assistance in this process. Sincerely, ~?-&.;;/~ ~ ~. ;;:::----?- . ..;-/ Thomas H. Engle, Esq. Enclosures cc: Robert Furlong Stephen W. Lee John R. Molitor William E. Wendling, Jr. INDSOl THE 406194 BARNES &THORNBURG I) KingCood Homeowners AssociaQn, Inc. PO Box 234 Carmel, Indiana 46082 December 19,2000 ~---'~f-l'-C'-:-J I~ //f \. \__E:C. / I 20, ,. '. ,/ - .-J.....f.. ~..,.." (" \ . ~ ~.~<?\ ,,(/~~\ ~ \:'i'\ DFC Wfrc~fr;~rg \~J 20 fJllnn 1<;1/ (VVIj r'! DOCSl~ /~< )/ -".,/ ~' 7- I i Mr. Stephan W. Lee BARNES & THORNBURG 11 South Meridian Street Indianapolis, Indiana 46204 .. Re: Martin Marietta Materials Special Use Filing Dear Mr. Lee: Thank you for the conversation on Wednesday December 13th on the Special Use filing. As a prior member of the Plan Commission and the Board of Zoning Appeals, it has been my experience that the Board wishes to have petitioners work out issues with affected homeowners prior to coming to the Board for a hearing. I have read the two filings on November 20, 2000, and I believe that with additional consideration and/or clarification ofthe matters contained in Bill Wendling's December 5, 2000 letter to you, the issues outstanding between Kingswood and Martin Marietta can be resolved. As a member of the Kingswood Board and as an "abutting" homeowner, I have a strong interest in seeing this matter resolved in the best interest of each of us. I regret your client's and your reluctance to meet with us to work to that end, and I ask that you both reconsider. I have probably been the most "visible" ofthe homeowners over the years, and I have attempted to educate myself on these matters. I do see the light at the end ofthe tunnel, and with Martin Marietta's contribution and cooperation as a good neighbor, I believe reasonable solutions are available. Sincerely, KINGSWOOD HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION <::;::.. '1~ ~ Tom Yed~5~0-1614) Cc: James Brainard, Mayor Steve Engelking, Carmel DOCS (for file) William E. Wendling, Jr. Norm Rundle, District 4 Council Member Kingswood Board BARNES&1HO~BURG u II South Meridian Street Indianapolis, Indiana 46204-3535 U.S.A. (317) 236-1313 Fax (317) 231-7433 Thomas H. Engle (317) 231-7499 Email: tengle@btlaw.com www.btlaw.com December 15,2000 Members of the Technical Advisory Committee Department of Community Services, City of Carmel Carmel City Hall, Third Floor 1 Civic Square Carmel, Indiana 46032 ,~ "'" /;, . ~ ~':>;~<",~ . .l& '. ~~@ /i)" <1:/17 ",5"/ Re: Application for Special Use and Variance from Development Standards Martin Marietta Materials. Inc. Dear Members: At the suggestion of the office of the Department of Community Services, I am enclosing, on behalf of Martin Marietta Materials, Inc., a small information packet regarding the above listed applications in preparation for the Technical Advisory Committee Meeting to be held on December 20, 2000. We will be prepared to discuss all aspects of the project with the Committee, but wish to point out that, as no buildings will be constructed in connection with the proposed mineral extraction operations, there is no development plan such as you may be used to receiving. We will, however, bring a large scale plans of the property depicting the post-reclamation condition. Thank you for your assistance. Sincerely, ~~ Thomas H. Engle, Esq. Enclosures INDSOl THE 405900 Indianapolis Fort Wayne South Bend Elkhart Chicago Washington, D.C. o BARNES & THORNBURG u 11 South Meridian Street Indianapolis, Indiana 46204 U.S.A. (317) 236-1313 Fax (317) 231-7433 Thomas H. Engle (317) 231-7499 Email: tengle@btlaw.com http://www.btlaw.com December 6, 2000 Mr. Steve Engelking Department of Community Services, City of Carmel Carmel City Hall, Third Floor 1 Civic Square Carmel, Indiana 46032 <:,'j,..1~ _"!.'IT ~C' cQh "T {I~ a ~'~ ~ ?'\i~ c.r~ "t? Dear Mr. Engelking: Regarding the two land use applications sent to your office on November 20,2000, on behalf of Martin Marietta Materials, Inc., I am writing concerning a clarification to the proposed commitments attached to those applications. I am enclosing a revised Exhibit B to the Application for Special Use and a revised Exhibit D to the Application for Developmental Standards Variance. The revision to section l(a) ofthe commitments is to clarify the difference in operations proposed for north and south of 106th Street (the surface operations north of 106th will be conducted by dredging). Please substitute the enclosed exhibits for those originally submitted. Also, let me know if you require any additional materials for these applications. If you are ready to assign a docket number, I will arrange for the filing fees to be paid. Thank you for your assistance. Sincerely, ~. Thomas ~Sq. Enclosures INDS01 THE 404291 Indianapolis Fort Wayne South Bend Elkhart Chicago Washington, D.C. ,. i\.. - " u () CAMPBELL KYLE PROFFITT ATTORNEYS AT LAW JOHN M. KYLE JOHN D. PROFFITT ROBERT F. CAMPBELL JEFFREY S. NICKLOY DEBORAH 1. FARMER WILLIAM E. WENDLING. JR. ANNE HENSLEY POINDEXTER ANDREW M. BARKER TODD L. RUETZ . MICHAEL A. CASATI JOHN S. TERRY RODNEY T. SARKOVICS CHRISTOPHER J. BARROWS December 5,2000 __-r-- ,--, \ J I t(; --(' \ '. - - ..:,! '- .. \ / ----- ,,- .." ' '<o"'~ANK S. CAMPBELL .t '\:\ (1880-1964) '/\ ~~~~~[)) F~l'\)~K W. CAMPBELL nr:c 6 i-h916-1991) 1:1 2000 [;J DOCS TH0Jd'As D. TITSWORTH Ij Of Counsel . '. ':, - .--~;''-:<)/ "'''--'- ~----- Mr. Steve EngeL1cing, Directpr Department of Community Services One Civic Square Carmel, IN 46032 Re: Kingswood Homeowners AssociationlMartin Marietta Dear Mr. Engelking: As you are a~are, we rep~esent the Kingswoo,d Homeo~ers Association with respect to Martin Marietta's intent to seek a Special Use permit for the Mueller property.' Mr. Thomas H. Engle of Barnes & Thornburg has provided us with a copy of the Special Use and Development Standards Variance applications which we believe were filed with your Department on November 20,2000. In light of the ongoing litigation, we commend this action as a means to bring this matter to conclusion. However, having reviewed the applications, we believe they lack the completeness usually required by the Department. We trust the Department will consider and address the need for the following information: 1. The applicant should provide an appropriate development plan and environmental impact study (including mining plans, site plans, description of operations, the extent and impact of proposed blasting, a full description of the dredging operations, hours of operation, on-site hauling of materials, or any other processing operation) to be conducted, as well as a traffic analysis, landscape plans, reclamation details, etc.; 2. The applicant should obtain the required written approvals from the Indiana Natural Resources Commission required before the Board (BZA) can exercise special use approval (Section 21.6 requires these approvals before the Board can act); and 3. . The' applicant' should submit such additional applications required for an artificial lake or pond (Special Use) and for expansion of existing nonconforming uses (Martin Marietta property) in conjunction with operations on the Mueller property. 650 East Carmel Drive Suite 400 Carmel, Indiana 46032 (317) 846-6514 FAX (317) 843-8097 o ... $ u (j '. Mr. Steve Engelking December 5,2000 Page 2 With respect to the Commitments made as part of the applications filed on November 20, 2000, we believe the following issues need further consideration with respect to the Kingwood subdivision: 1. Martin Marietta previously committed to moving the processing plant east of Kingswood. However, this commitment was not included in the filing; 2. In order to minimize the impact of prolonged mining operations on abutting Kingswood properties, Martin Marietta previously committed to complete mining and reclamation of the adjacent area first. This is not currently contained in the commitments; 3. Section 5.2.2 of S-1 Zoning Regulations provides that mineral extract requires a minimum perimeter Natural Open Space buffer (as defined). Landscape plans describing this buffer are required; 4. Reclamation plans (with appropriate landscape drawings) and erosion protection are required; 5. With respect to blasting, Kingswood believes that Martin Marietta's proposal to base future blasting impact with reference to calendar year 1999 averages needs additional definition. The standard for Board review is no adverse impact on neighborhood integrity . We believe reference solely to 1999 averages is not necessarily responsive, as the applicant's blasting practices have been a long-standing source of concern. Kingswood requests that in addition to averages, blasting proposals need to consider limits on the upper range of blasts as well as number of blasts within these upper ranges; and 6. If Martin Marietta wishes to incorporate by reference the guidelines adopted by the Indiana Mineral Aggregate Association in the applications, we believe those guidelines should be filed as an exhibit. Ifreclamation is to "comply generally" with those guidelines as stated in the application, please indicate which of those guidelines would not be complied with. As to the timing of reclamation on the Mueller property, these guidelines recommend reclamation concurrent with mining. The commitments filed do not indicate whether reclamation will or will not be concurrent. We believe it has been a long-standing policy of the Department to require that development be stopped when it has been started without required permits. It is our understanding the applicant has already begun work covered by these applications, and my client is entitled to this remedy. At CAMPBEIL KYLE PRattI!!' ATTORNEYS AT LAW o " ... . . o Q Mr. Steve Engelking December 5,2000 Page 3 this time my client does not wish to pursue this remedy, as long as the applicant demonstrates a good faith effort to provide the requirements of the Department, including those outlined above. Since the Mueller property comprises 202 acres, which will approximately double the size of the existing Martin Marietta operations; and as this proposed expansion will have a long-term and as yet unknown impact on the southeast comer of Clay Township; and since the Department has not previously reviewed an application for mineral extraction, we respectfully suggest that outside experts be hired to advise the Department and the surrounding communities to be impacted by a project of this significance. Sincerely, CAMPBELL KYLE PROFFITT / / //, LWilliam E. Wendling, J . WEW/mew cc: Kingswood Homeowners Association Thomas H. Engle 7904-1 CAMPBElL KYLE PRO!<}< J J' J ATTORNEYS AT LAW o U BARNES & THORNBURG ~ U 11 South Meridian Street Indianapolis, Indiana 46204 U.S.A. (317) 236-1313 Fax (317) 231-7433 Thomas H. Engle (317) 231-7499 Email: tengle@btlaw.com http://www.btlaw.com November 20, 2000 Department of Community Services City of Carmel Carmel City Hall, Third Floor 1 Civic Square Carmel, Indiana 46032 ~.~ A ..,.~~ '4'" ....~ fR]([I~~~UW'!f!ffJJ\~'" NOV 20 iono f"J DOCS 1<;' <:\ /Y"~':' ~/' /~' . /"-. ",/" . 'C:~:IJJ}i\'rl!j;Y VIA COURIER Dear Mr. Furlong: On behalf of Petitioner, Martin Marietta Materials, Inc. I am enclosing one original and two copies each of our Application for Special Use and Application for Developmental Standards Variance. Please file stamp one copy of each application and return to my office in the enclo~ed ~~ressed,-22.st~~aid envelope. Thank you for your assistance. ~~ "'9-0\ 1.1"'" Sincerely, ......L. ~~~ Thomas H. Engle, Esq. Enclosures cc: Robert Furlong (with enclosure) Stephen W. Lee INDSOI THE 401957 Indianapolis Fort Wayne South Bend Elkhart Chicago Washington, D.C.