HomeMy WebLinkAboutCorrespondence
~
City of Carmel
Department of Community Services
-MEMORANDUM-
Date:
To:
From:
Re:
November 28, 2005
BZA Board Members
Angelina Conn, Planning Administrator
Special December BZA meeting - tentative timeline
Board Members,
Below is a tentative timeline for the special December BZA meeting to hear the Martin
Marietta - Mueller South Limestone petition. This will give you an idea of how the
meeting will be ordered and the amount of time it may take. The Department recommends
suspending the rules to allow the petitioner and remonstrators to each have 30 minutes to
speak. Feel free to call the office with any concerns or questions at 317-571-5417.
Tentative AGENDA Timeline:
A. Call to Order (6:00 p.m.)
B. Pledge of Allegiance
C. Roll Call
D. Declaration of Quorum
E. :\pproval of Minutes oflTevious Meeting (Meeting minutes will not be ready)
F. Communications, Bills, and Expenditures
Mayor's Report \15 minutes
G. Reports, Announcements, Legal Counsel Report and Department Concerns
H. Public Hearing
1-2h. Martin Marietta Materials - Mueller Property South
Petitioner's Presentation
Remonstrators & Supporters
Organized Remonstrance
Petitioner's Rebuttal
Department Report
Spectra (City's Mining Consultant)
DOCS Director
ili ti De me
Discussion and Q & A
20 minutes
10 minutes
20 minutes
10 minutes
5 minutes
10 minutes
5 minutes
10
15 minutes
30 minutes total
30 minutes total
TOTAL estimated time
2 hours
File: BZABZAMEMO-2005-1128.doc
Page 1
ONE CIVIC SQUARE
CARMEL, INDIANA 46032
317/571-2417
u
(;;)
Page 1 of1
Conn, Angelina V
From: Tom Yedlick [tomyed2@yahoo.com]
Sent: Tuesday, June 28, 2005 9:39 AM
To: Mike Donnelly; Mike Thyen; Russ Sveen; Kent Broach; Bernard Lally; Bernard Lally; Hollibaugh,
Mike P; Conn, Angelina V '
Cc: John Tiberi
Subject: Fwd: FW: MMM - Carmel Sand Plant/Commitment Modification
The attached was provided by the city. It pretty well gels with what we've understood to h.appen. ..J n _! A - d
However there are some voids that should be covered. c.if\.1 IS S+\ \ \ Uv\~~()..fI
./ Q. \ <to uJ t.-u'C~ ~ ~j)
1) Russ and Bernie: There is nothing about what will happen to the land behind you. MM is now ~ .
asking for a use variance for this site, so now is the appropriate time to tie down the rec1aimation. -(.e'i.p6'n l\lI\?lO
. , f'6Y-+i-( \o-Ki_
2) If the plant move is a remand, the ommittments made in 2002 s .. uld be included. Are these
proposed committemnts in addition to t . ents or in lieu of them. I~i . there should
be an explaination why the 2002 committments are now being withdrawn. Also th 150 fl t setback L.. d.D vJ(
still is not being addressed as it was in 2002. It should be. OY\ ~ 'Vta~ ro _ .IL.
~ .1\'t~ tJttVt^v1
3) There is no provision for the berms at the new sit~ committed to previously.
4) There should be a commitment that the processing plant is a special mining use to be used only in ~
connection with the specified mining operations. After that time its use expires. ~ ~: c.alVl ~Vl5
5) The commitments should be enforceable by the City or Kingswood as they were in 2002.
Tom
Note: forwarded message attached.
Yahoo! Sports
Rekin1il~th.e_Rivalri~s,SignllilfQrEan.tasyEQQtbaU
6/29/2005
Butler, Angelina V
m II~ t=-, .~
f\eQ~ edJ +- ~
~r+PT ..
Subject:
Tingley, Connie S
Morrissey, Phyllis G; Pattyn, Dawn E; Babbitt, Pamela A; Hollibaugh, Mike P; Keeling, Adrienne
M; Kendall, Jeff A; Brewer, Scott I; Hancock, Ramona B; Dobosiewicz, Jon C; Pohlman, Jesse
M; Brennan, Kevin S
Docket No. Assignment: (A) Martin Marietta Uses, Appeal of (#04060001 A)
To:
Cc:
Connie,
Please print and fax this e-mail to the petitioner identified below and update the file. I have issued the necessary Docket
Number for (A) Martin Marietta Uses, Appeal of. It will be the following:
Docket No. 04060001 A
Total Fee:
$0.00 (exempt)
$0.00
'y,.
..J
tI
>--
Martin Marietta Uses, Appeal of 7,.+ l-e ?
The applicant seeks to appeal the decision of the director that there is a question whether or not nonconforming uses
exist on certain properties owned and/or controlled by Martin Marietta Materials, Inc.
Docket No. 04060001 A Chapter 28.06 nonconforming uses
The sites are located north of 96th Street and west of Hazel Dell Parkway and/or north of l06th Street and west of
Hazel Dell Parkway.
The site is zoned S-llResidence - Low Intensity.
Filed bv Michael Hollibaugh. Director. of the Carmel Department of Community Services.
Petitioner, please note the following:
1. This Item will not be on an agenda of the Technical Advisory Committee.
2. Mailed and Published Public Notice needs to occur no later than Thursday, June 3, 2004. Published notice is
required within the Indianapolis Star.
3. The Proof of Notice will need to be received by this Department no later than noon, Friday, June 25. Failure to
submit Proof of Notice by this time will result in the tabling of the petition.
4. The Filing Fee and Nine (9) Informational Packets must be delivered to BZA Secretary Connie Tingley no later
than Noon, Friday, June 18. Failure to submit Informational Packets by this time will result in the automatic tabling of
the petition to the Monday, July 26, 2004, agenda of the BZA.
5. This Item will appear on the June 28, 2004 agenda of the Board of Zoning Appeals under Public Hearings.
6. The petitioner will need to provide a fully filled-out Findings-of-Fact sheets for each petition the night ofthe
meeting for the Board's use (Sheet 8). On Ballot sheets, only fill out docket number, petitioner, and date (Sheet 7). Ballot
sheets must be collated.
7.) PETITIONER: refer to your instruction sheet for more details.
The contact for this petition is Mr. Hollibaugh at 571-2417 (Fax: 571-2426). Once the file is updated please return it to my
office.
Thank you,
Angie
B ').
W, l\
Ll CU 0'("
0. H D l~-\-6y .{.1 \l
oD.\- -t'k .
ap-r-e c,- \ app / i ((L~ {j'Vi
4- f=( 'vlcLt~ ~ ;;>
1
; ."::
""
--:-1
r.
THOMAS C. YEDLICK
5053 St. Charles Place
Carmel, Indiana 46033
December 16, 2003
Michael Hollibaugh
Department of Community Services
City of Cannel
One Civic Square
Carmel, Indiana 46032
Mayor James Brainard
City of Carmel Mayor
Re: Processine of Third-Darty Sand and Gravel at Hazel Dell Road
Dear Mike:
This letter is provided per your request to memorialize our prior conversations on the
above subject.
Beginning sometime in late 2002, after Martin Marietta was denied a special use permit
to extract sand and gravel from the Mueller property, they began bringing in outside
material to process at the Carmel Sand processing plant on Hazel Dell Road. More
particularly, the operations at issue are the ''processing operations" which occur after
sand and gravel has been extracted. By way of description, these operations include
washing, grinding, sorting, sizing, stockpiling, and hauling.
These processing facilities have been the source of nuisance complaints for years from
nearby Kingswood residents. Specifically these processing operations have not been able
to operate without spillover of noise affecting residential neighbors. This constant state of
noise has prevented neighbors from the full and complete use and enjoyment of their
property.
This condition is now magnified by almost constant hauling onto the premises of Third-
party sand and gravel from other locations. Third-party sand and gravel is not within the
scope permitted by "alienation of mineral resources", which has been the underlining
theory of land use previously relied upon.
Enforcement of Zonine Reeulations
The City has the authority to enforce existing zoning regulations. As outlined below,
Martin Marietta's processing of Third-party sand and gravel is not in compliance with
.-',
"
..
Carmel's land use regulations. Therefore, the City can and should enforce the City's
zoning regulations and require Third-party sand and gravel processing be suspended.
Further, as the City embarks on revising the mining ordinance, the matter of non-
conforming uses needs to be specifically addressed. While the ordinance will be the
basis on which future expansion of mining activity will be judged, it also can serve the
community by defining whether uses previously engaged in are within the concepts of
legal non-conforming uses. It has been too long accepted that, since Martin Marietta's
activities have long existed without challenge, they are "grandfathered". This is far from
reality.
State law supercedes local ordinances and land use reeulations outside an urban
~
While Carmel Sand is zoned S-1 (residential), the extraction of sand and gravel has been
going on for over 25 years. The extraction of mineral resources has been an exempt
activity under IC 36-7-4-11 03(C). Specifically, this chapter does not "authorize an
ordinance or action of a (municipality) that would prevent, outside of urban areas, the
complete use and alienation of any mineral resources.
In effect, alienation of mineral resources is exempt from local regulation only when it is
done outside an urban area. The purpose of this chapter is to protect the owner of mineral
resources from interference from realizing the full benefit of mineral resources from his
property.
Non-conformine use and "vested interest"
It is clear that a change in the underlining zoning of property cannot deprive the owner of
a vested interest that he has established is the use of his property. "Vested interest" is a
code phrase for maintaining a non-conforming use.
Several cases in Indiana help define a nonconforming use. A ''nonconforming use" is a
use of property that lawful Iv existed prior the enactment of a zoning ordinance, and
which is allowed to continue after the effective date of the ordinance even though it does
not comply with the applicable use restrictions. The use ofland or buildings may be
protected from existing zoning restrictions if the use is one which existed and was lawful
when the restrictions became effective, and which continued to exist since that time.
Metropolitan Development Com 'n of Marion County v. Schroeder, 727 N.E.2d 742 (Ind.
Ct. App. 2000).
It is clear from above that those uses must be legally established prior to a change in
zoning restriction in order to be allowed to continue as non-conforming. Carmel Sand
first came within the scope of an ''urban area" (i.e. contiguous to a municipality) when
Carmel annexed the Kingswood subdivision. Therefore only those uses legally
established at that time can qualify as legal non-conforming uses. The use at that time
was "alienation of mineral resources".
"
The processine: of outside material is a different, separate use from alienation of
mineral resources
By definition, only activities comprising the alienation of mineral resources can qualify
as preexisting uses, and therefore eligible for legal non-conforming use status. Alienation
of mineral resources starts with where the mineral resources are located and is completed
when they are in condition for the end user.
Beginning in late 2002, after Martin Marietta was denied a special use permit for the
Mueller property, Martin Marietta began using the Carmel Sand processing plant to
process "third-party sand and gravel". Third-party sand and gravel is used to describe
sand and gravel minerals that are extracted from other locations, but delivered to Carmel
Sand for processing. These locations are both outside Carmel Sand property limits as
well as outside the City of Carmel and Hamilton County.
The test of whether processing of sand and gravel by Carmel Sand is permitted is based
on meeting the source test. Specifically, when Carmel Sand is completing the alienation
of mineral resources" from its own property, i.e. from the Carmel Sand location, then
clearly this is alienation of mineral resources. However when existing plant facilities are
converted to processing sand and gravel from other locations, it fails the source test.
Thus processing of sand and gravel from other locations cannot be considered alienation
of mineral resources.
Processine: of Third-pam Sand and Gravel is not protected as a nonconformine: use.
If Carmel Sand's commercial processing of third-party sand and gravel does not qualify
as alienation of mineral resources based on the source test, then it is subject to existing
land use restrictions. It is clear that an S-1 zoning district is residential. It is also well
settled that mineral extraction is a permitted special use, requiring a Special Use Permit.
But the processing operations fail this test also. The commercial activities of processing
third-party sand and gravel, without extraction, have never been legally established.
Under Carmel zoning, processing alone is neither the extraction of mineral resources, nor
a permitted Special Use. In order to be a legal use, Carmel's land use regulations would
require that the property be properly rezoned.
It is clear that when the processing of sand and gravel follows the extraction of these
mineral resources, the processing can: be considered as an intragal part of "the complete
use and alienation of any mineral resources". However, when the minerals are not
extracted but merely imported for processing, the processing cannot be considered part of
the "complete use and alienation of mineral resources". To state this in another way, in
order for processing to be permitted, it must be part and parcel of extracting the minerals.
Martin Marietta is in violation of existine: land use ree:ulations
Martin Marietta has modified their Carmel Sand operations so as to no longer be
eligible to be classified as "mineral extraction". Specifically, Martin Marietta has
suspended extracting minerals from the Carmel Sand site, and has "converted" the
processing facilities to process sand and gravel extracted from other locations.
, .... ~
/'
. llIi
Processing operations at Cannel Sand can not qualify as a legal nonconforming use if no
extraction activity is associated with the processing.
Carmel Sand operations constitute a public nuisance
It has been stated that whatever obstructs free use of property, interfering with the
comfortable enj oyment of life and property by an entire community or neighborhood, is a
public nuisance. It is no defense to an action that the plaintiff built his residence close to
an existing structure alleged to be a nuisance. A municipality may define, prevent, abate,
and suppress nuisances. LL.E. Municipal Coroorations ~ 341.
A business otherwise lawful may be a nuisance by reason of its location in an
inappropriate place, as where it is carried on in a city or populous neighborhood, in a
residential district, or in close proximity to dwelling houses.
The processing facilities on Hazel Dell Road have been the source of complaints for
years from nearby Kingswood residents. Specifically these processing operations have
not been able to operate without spillover of noise affecting residential neighbors. The
EP A requirement for back-up alanns on material hauling equipment is the most egregious
offense. Likewise, the "banging" of falling rocks has been problematic. This constant
state of noise has prevented neighbors from the full and complete use of their property.
Transition
It can be said that the transition to regulation of mining has not been a smooth one. The
issue herein of defining a legal non-conforming use as it relates to only sand and gravel is
microcosmic of issues to be faced in the final ordinance adoption. It would be in
everyone's best interest to take on that challenge now as a basis for the ordinance to
come.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
~~
Tom Yedlick
'~
,.
,
~
\.
o .0
CITY OF CARMEL, INDIANA
C~~y
'-,
Request For Records Pursuant To Indiana Access To Public Records Act
(I:C,' 5-14-3-1..et sea" as amended) ~
C?-.2~~
I, mo.r~ori~ mi 1\1'YlG." , hereby request oi the City of Germe!.
r ame optional}
Indiana, the right to inspect and copy the following records:
hp\iCb.-tiOll\ 5 bY (Y\ue.lltr -N'DrtJ.\ pvopcr~ ~ lJn..tleY~n>l.Vld l'mesfD~ OpuA.ti/ms
()..Ni. so.~ J.. ~Yo..vtl opt.ro...+idl1.S ... ~v-liwc.ia..l la..Ke. .g \<.4. ~ Mo...v-nn M4.yidO.. ~~~,ll4.'.
hpliCt.\..ft'qK.S ~ .M.lA..( lLt.rr 6()lltt1. ~r'ht Grr. LUltLLr~t"/)~ /}mes -/Dne Optf7l.tU",s I .saKJl J.
~ttnt$ ~ ~r~ '''Me~ qxra,-/inrs "'" tU"/7'Httl..1. {A.~ .#0 ~"i
~'.lttL M.o.-.Ja,ia,Ls. 'PVUpbS~ ~~ n,' ~reh~; Vol 'Pl(),...ya ad/". No. D -1(Q/q.63.
Dated this J~~ day of J:Gbr/A.A.ry
, 2001....
The City may provide me with its response to this request:
~ By telephone at IP3f -dtfOO
o By facsimile transmission ot
o By mail at
.&. Other j.. :PCy~
/'7
Received by:'
/l
Signature:
; //)8' , 200.:!.-.
,;7,' / 0 j:-. m. on
Printed Name and City Department: n 11 /e..~/e V
--::7/
Sent to Legal Department for response on: by
Received by Legal Department on: by
Doe -s
Exhibit A
[Z itll'VlE BmlMy CllCUmcnuIRe:ardsRequeJl!\FORM ~CCl.docoll4/011
.;.
'''''-';'''i;;.'';'';~''1i''~~~'j;-\i..~lit'i~jj~3}!tf\~S:;'''':;l'J ;;:"'~"';;. .--:---"-~,.'c~~\iL"~"':
/,
~;\
\'.
.'
,', Wednesday, October 9, 2002
Section HI' ' ,
InfoUne: 624~INFp (4636)
Serving Hamiltonand Boone 'counties and the adjacent areas of Madison and Marion counties '
'Xl
~
';\
~
..~
,j
;&
~~ '
}
!~
}i~
[1'
,'"
'1
if);}
!~
,'J
,;,.1
']
'i
, Carmellscontroversy
Residents in the Kingswood
subdivision and nearby ,
neighborhoods are upset at the
possibility that a new mining
ordinance could allow Martin
Marietta's expansion. A town hall
'meeting will be at 7 p.m; Oct 30 in
the City Council chambers to
discuss an o~inance proposed by
Mayor Jim BrainClrd Hamilton '
nearly a month ago. co.
':,116thse>'i""
staff graphic
i-mineli.nkd
,II Mayor ,sees notl,ling
wrong with having
Marlin Marietia help
'fund'regulation review.
By Bill Rllthhart
bill,ruthhart@indystar.colTl' ,
Mayor Jim Brainard con-
fmned runiors Monday that the
,city, asked Martin Marietta'Ma-
terials to pay part of the expenses
for an independent expert to re-
view a city ordinance intended to.,
regulate the company's opera-
tions. "
Spectra Environment3l Group
of Latham,' N.Y., is helping Car-
mel develop new mining regula-
lions.
Martin 'Marietta, which oper-
atesa gravel mine on the city's
southeastside, paid $8,000 of the
city's $25,000 in expenses to hire
CARMEL.
Spectra, the mayor confmned.
"Once again, the city's, rela-'
tionship with Martin Marietta
just beComes more and more~-
picio~ "said David Ezell,aresi- ,
, dent of. the Kingswi10d subdivi-
, sion that' adjoins the mining
company's property.
"The fact that the city's al-
legedexpert was in aJ;ly way paid
for by the same company it is
sUpposed to helpregtilate is very
disconcerting." ' " "
, Martin Marietta and' residents,
of 'KingsWood have been, in- '
volved "in an ongoing displ,lte
,over the future of the mine along
96th Street , '
Neatly a month ago, Brainard '
released ac.1raft minjng ordi';'
&le Critics, Page NA2
III Martin Marietta's
possible expansion ,
" gets council's focus;
town ball meeting set.
By: Bill iuthhart
bill~rUthhart@indystar.com
'The Carmel City Council spent
nearly an hour Monday night in
heated discussion about a topic,
that wasn't even on jts agenda.
Several residents and council,
members voiced their concerns
about the possible expansion, of
,MartiD.'MariettaMateriaIs' gravel'
mining operations on the City's
southeastside. '
'~Ithink this is averycritiCiil is-
su,e, and there willbe much more
<,Uscussion about this," said Coun~
cil President Wayne WIlson. '
Martin Marietta' arid residentS
'of the neighboring Kingswood
1ST
" CARMEL
'subdivision have been'involved in
a' dispute over the ,future, of the
company's mine along, 96th
Street
Nearly a month ago, MayorJim
Brainard ,released a draft mining
ordinance, intended, 'to establish a
set of rules fo'rMintin Marietta to
follovv. Th3.t ordinaDte hasre-
ceived criticism from, Kingswood
residents, especially after they
learnedthe~ original draft waS
written by Martin Marietta's at-
torney. ,
Council member Ron Carter, a
co';'sponsor . of the mayor's ()rdi~
nance, originally indicated he
wanted to place,it on the agenda
for Monday'sme(!ting. He and the,
'mayorlater decided nofto,in fa-
" ,
, See CounCil, Page NA2
~,.=:;,,,"'''---'._._-
NA2 WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 9,2002 1ST
she will oppose Brainar~ in nen.
,year's mayoral primary - de-\ '
livered a 15~minute speech out- \
, , lining her concerns. ' ~
IIlIN~ighborhood resident 'She alleged'the city's Depart- ,
; sees conflictof interest. ment of Community Services,
Ii NA1 originally said it didn't have the
rol1'! ' moneytti, develop an ordinance
vor of scheduling a town hall until, next yeai~ At that point,
meeting to hear from residents. Snyder said she and council
, That meeting is set for 7 p.II1.' member Jljorni'Rundle made
Oct. 30 in' $e City Council preliminary steps to draft oIie.
chamberS'at City HalL ,,' Snyder said the mayor caught
Five residents decided Iiotto wind of that, and then released
wait, and spoke before :t~e City his ordinance. '
Council Monday: night. ','''You'~an 8ay<1 'was a little
Residents, voiced their con- annoyed," Snyder said "There
cems about falling' property' was an ordinance there all along,
" values, damage to ".their, homes ,written by the attorney for Mar-
and the environmental impact of tin Marietta"""
mining 'in the area. " ,', -Following Snyder's, com-
. Some, also accused the city of . ments, WIlson, who also plans to
acting favorably' toward Martin ruil for-mayor next year, gave
Marietta by allowing the com-'Brainard an opportunity to re-
pany's attorney to write the draft spond.
.,ordinance and by allowing the "We,have a road we're going
.frrmto pay for the city's inde- down here and there's a'Y' in
pendent miliing consultant. that road," Brainard said: "We
"This seettlS to be a v~ry po- can either cOIltinue to make po- '
. litical. process," said Marcus litical statements, or we can put
Fremofer, a Kingswood resident. that asideahdworkto fmd aso~
"There seem to be confliCts of lution for the people of Kings-
iotetestall' around", wood"
Brainard responded, saying 'Brainard and Wilson engaged
" "the city is, trying to act respon- in a brief exchange after Wllson
sibly. interrupted to' mayor to move,
, "The city ~s caught in the mid~ the meeting along.' '
dle of this.. We're doing our best, Afterward, W1Isonexplained
to work out some rules so every~ he felt obligated to let Brainard
one knows wbat toexpect.'~', respond to Snyder's comments:
Following the 'mayor's com-, "When he began to digress, I felt
ments,' council member' .Luci it was time to move on."
Snyder - who has announceq \I Call Bill Ruthhart at 1-317-444-2606.
Council
,.,.....J'
City ", by the 'citizeits," she' said"
}'So atthat point, alloVlTingMar-
tin Marietta to pay for part of the
" 'expenses, brings theimp~tiality'
, of the consultant into question."
, Orville Powell,a professor at
Indiana University~s School of
,PUblic and 'Environmental ,Af-
nance, originally written by an fairs, agrees. .,' ..
attorney for Martin Marietta. AI- "This certainlyraisesques- ,
ready angered by that arrange- tions, regardless of how inno-
ment, some residents and City cent the city and company's ac-
Council members were' even tions may be," said Powell, who
m.oreoutragedwhen ',they h~ served as a city manager in '
learned the mining company-Gainesville, Fla.; Durham, N.C.;
helped pay for' Spectra's serv~ and Winston-Salem, N.C. '
iCes. "It's not appropriate t.o have a
'''I was flabbergasted when I, compaIJ.y pay any expenses fora.
'found out they did that," said consultant. ,That expense should
, 'council member Luci Snydelj be paid entirely by the city."
who has announced her own John Schuler, viCe president
, candidacy formay.or. "It was the , ,.of gavernment affairs for Martin
height of foolishness" It's heavy~ 'Marietta, 'contends the actions
handed, and I don't think it by his 'company, and the city have'
should have been done." been suitable. '
BJ;:ainard, said asking the com- "Inpayingourfairshareofthe
pany involved to help pay ex- ordinance cost,Martin Marietta
penses foran eXpert is typical. reduced the burden .oIi Carmel
"That's ,a 'pretty common taxpayers,'; 'Schuler, said. "Our
. thing, and, it's dane differeIit actians were,and co,ntinue to be,
ways in different Cities;" Brain- ethical and appropriate."
, ard said at Monday night's coun- Pawell said regardless.of their .
cil meeting. "We didn't think it intentions, Carmel offiCials' are
was appropriate to have tax~ stillsending the wrong message.
payers pay for all of it, so we "The city is ,giving the 'wrong
asked' Martin' Marietta to help impression, . even if they" chose
pay forit." ,',', ,_. .' the expert," he said. "It gets back
Brainarddaims nothing is to' perception.,' ...Tha.t extra
wrong with' that . arrangement "$8,000 just isn't wOlththe ques~
because Martin Marietta had no 'tians thal it raises." .
input .on the selection oftheex- Brainard'said it is, and that if
pert.' he had it to do over he would do
~'Whal many ,residents don't it the same way. '
realize is that the city has t.otal, "Thetaxpayers'money is
control on the hiring and frring worth it," he ,said "Martin Ma~
'of the expert," Brainard said. riettashould be assessed that
"The mining company essen- money, not the taxpayers.",
tially is being assessed a fee in Still, some of those taxpayers
conjunction with their applica- say'they would feel alotmore
'tion to expand its mining opera-cornfortableif ' the ,City WOuld
,tions." ,', ' havepaid for all the expenses.
Snyder said she could 1lDder~ "This is just another shady ad
stand asking the ,company to involving the city and' Martin'
. help cover the expenses "in a Marietta,'\ Ezell said "It's just
more co~ortable situation." oneoutrage on top ofanather."
, '''This situation has such, a .111 Call Bill Ruthhart atl-317-#i-2606.
10Ilg history and'there' has been a '
development' ofdistrustfor the
Critics
IIli Some taxpayersbeli,eve
city should pay consultant.
From NA1: ,
iW"7~ --::--- .
If~
,
{ ~
MEMORANDUM
FROM:
Carmel/Clay Board of Zoning Appeals
Douglas C. Haney, City Aryrney V
Ezell Letter; Martin Marietta v. Board-ofZoIlirig Appeals, 29D02-0206-PL-5l0
TO:
RE:
DATE:
August 7, 2002
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dear Board Members:
I read with disgust the attached ex parte letter from Mr. Ezell to the Board. The assertions
contained therein are untrue. I have never remonstrated on behalf-of anyone in the referenced matter. My
only involvement has been to refute the misleading statements made by Mr. Ezell that I had "refused" to
provide him with the Wellhead Protection Proposal ("Proposal") he requested under the Indiana Public
Access To Records Act ("Act"). As I have informed the Board, the truth is that, by letter dated May 15,
2002, I made available to Mr. Ezell the salient portion of this Proposal. He never even showed up to look
at it. Despite Mr. Ezell's assertions to the contrary, the remainder of the Proposal was not required to be
disclosed by the City under the Act, or otherwise.
I have spoken with Mr. Molitor, who, pursuant to Ie 36-4-9-12, I have approved as outside
counsel for the Board. He will discuss the particulars ofthis case with you on my behalf. However, I will
not "recuse" myself from these proceedings based upon Mr. Ezell's ramblings and his misunderstanding
of the facts and the law. I am sorry that Mr. Ezell has chosen to act in this manner.
DCH/eb
Attachment
[Z La\\ E Bass f\1~ DOCUI1ICJlts'-jiZA\Mel1lo. Ezell Ltr.doc:8'7/20021
3UL-22-92 94:42 AM DAVID EZELL
3179469429
P.92
A ,-'"
.,~ '--'..-"'
.. "
'.
I:
I:
D. DAnD EZELL
ATrORNEf AT UW
"SJ MilD".. Rd
l"dltuulpDlII. III. 461Z0
(317)1'".9411 ,>'
July 22, 2002"
~ ~
~~~~:
~~~ :
~~~~i
I
.1
j:
I:
,.
REI Ms. Mad,u.' v. Board' 01 Zoldu AooeaIl29D02-0206-
~10 .
I am. out of deep concern ~ a rumor I have recently heard ~ suae- :
that. el City Attorney, Mr. Haney, will represent the Board ofZoniM A~ in:
the.. ..... filed In HamIlton County Superior Court by Martin Marietta. I belieVe that '
=:i 01 1)0 · -mot ill that...,......mdoD as Mr. Haaey has ..... on ....... ill .
, : ~ Martin" MIrIotta u, ,be, remODStrated 011 their hehalf duriDa tho most recent BZA
" ~Marietta'sappHcatlonforthelrspecla1 use permit.
.' . ~-~-'-~'-','---"'I'~f.,.~:;-~~t\"',...~,......... ;. 1',1"....'~,..'" ~"..- ,'-. .:~."~.~"",,j. ,....;
~ i' \ $~-;vit 'I""";
As yo: r,~..Mr. Hanoy also 'declined to pioVide me with a copy of the Carmel
;, V/I' . . .. a Pioposa18ubm1tted by the City of Carmel to the In4iana Department
.'.1 :oC)fl-l . " llosources. ,PedcrB11aw, the Safe Water DriDkiDS Act, mandsstes that such
.? . ~ l~iJ : ,', . 0':'" ~ ~"lYaDabloto the pubHca the Act feeksto encourage an informed :
'. t... ....!. ~puI)~' .pubncbtvo~indriDking~protectiOl1issuc8.F~ly,Jwasable
~l : ! 0 '~~: . : i copy tOm the DNJl directly." .- .
..' !:.., ~ .' I .' .j{. ..' . , .
1. . . . i , ... ..
Jot':,,' .! r:.' i~.~,f'~~.t ..,;'.......1:'",<.!"~ ,.-t.':~.....:1"'1(".....+........."'-" ';".<" . ;"..;....''",... .'.'" '. , '"~':IiC..;,i'~"". .
'f~! i : I ~U'T' the Board ofZonlDg Appeals acted properly IIDd WIth the Interests of
. ;. ; ~.; ; C~eJ'B 'and the future of earmelln mind when they decUned Martin Marietta's
. : !.; : : ~ ~ requeat.1 further believe that the Board should employ private counsel to
~ ::: ! ~t ~ in the upcomiDg suit. While I am sure that Mr.I:fIDO)' is a fine .
.. : -.d ~ . attorney, I thiak that by mnonstrating in favor of Martin ~ettI, u ~ .
.. (0 era city employees did, he bas ctYectively recused himsclfi'om now ~
u a; for the BZA.
.j' '.
~ u for yOur time and prompt attention to this matter.
7~7f~
D. David Ezell '
.. At La ..
,
I
,.'
!
iJiJil.d
~ta_
_J\'c)~~
I ;.
i . .
. ,
i : 'j +t
;;' )J"~"~
I ; ,I :'i'f-:'
I ' ....
: : J;;..;
I 'I' t.
! ~ 'f:f::::
I . t.(,
i .~ :i :~:~; .r
! : ::.. il
I I ' "'J
I ; 'i 1.'
~ . : ~ t .
; ..1 ':f
. ' ,
: . ~ .. I.
~ ;.' ~ . !..~. .1'
I : f.
. . .1 ,.
; ,',1.'
, . ..' f
i i ,(. :t~
I . ,! +'
: ! 's :'1~'I
i : ::' ::"r:1
I 1'-;1' ,hr
! : :' :;+
l'r:,n
~ : f. i. ~
; ~.~ t.,
, '"
I . .: .. "
; I .~ :.r ~
': '
~ : . ~ ,,;, t
, "
"':'
. .' : I
: ~ .;
. ..! ::::
! : }
! . .:' i. t
. . .
. : . ~
. :'
. .
, , ,
. ,-
~. ~ : j,:'t:
. " ".. ,,'{
. .
i ,L.J~
Q
(;)
!!!!play, Connie S
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Hancock, Ramona B
Wednesday, May 29, 2002 11 :55 AM
Tingley, Connie S
BZA Meeting 5-28
Connie, Pat Rice would like a copy of the tape for that Pvtrti of the M-M meeting in which she questioned the
disposition/reclamation of the property--Parks Dept, City'.lf~'-~~rmmitments in writing to include/preclude same. This
was early in the meeting, after the public input. ~ ;?130 01./
I told her it was totally up to you when you could get to it. In the meantime, however, she would like a copy of the Findings /'
of Fact faxed to her at 846-2465. Would you like me to help with that? /)J~
Ramona ~/2/f/O~
1
u
o'
Q
, .
CARMELlCLA YSOARD OF ZONING APPEALS
CARMEL, INDIANA.
Docket No.:
UV-23-02
Petitioner.
Martin Marietta MaterialsJnc.
. . . FINDINGS OF FACT- USE VARIANCE .'
1. The grant of this.variance wilL not be cQnti~cy to the. public. interest, due to the existence of special condWon(s)
such that enforcement. of the zoning ordinance will result in unnecessary hardship because:
see attached Exhibit H
2.
The g.rant of this variance will not be injurious, to the public health, safety, morals and general ~elfare'of the .
community because: - >
':\.
.~~
see attached Exhibit H
~:
3.' The use or value of the ?lrea adjacent to the subject property will not be substantially affected in any adverse
manner because: . .
see attached Exhibit H
4. The 'need forthe variance arises from 3. natural condition peculiar to the subject because:
- .
see. attached Exhibit H
5. . The granting of this variance do~ natsubStantially interfere with the CarmeVClay Comprehensive Plan'
because: .
see attached Exhibit H
DECISION
IT IS THEREFORE the decision of the Carmel/Clay B~ard of Zoning Appeals that Use Variance Docket No.
is granted, subject to any conditions stated in the minutes of this Board, which are .
incorporated herein by reference and made a part hereof.
Adopted this.
day of .
.199
CHAJRPERSON, Carmel/Clay Board of Zoning Appeals
SECR.ETARY, Carrilel/Clay Board of Zoning Appeals
Conditions of the Board are listed on the back..
s:~r.2pp
R_a1~
"~gd 8 at 8.- Use '{an""CII AlIlItiCZDC"
/
o
o
EXHIBIT H
Findin~s of Fact - Use Variance
1. The grant of this variance will not be contrary to the public interest, due to the existence of
special condition(s) such that enforcement of the zoning ordinance will result in unnecessary hardship
because:
Martin Marietta's existing sand and gravel processing facility is located directly west of Hazel
Dell Parkwav from the proposed new location. Relocation of this facility is not necessary to the
operations of Martin Marietta. however. in order to accommodate the adjacent residential community.
Martin Marietta is willing to relocate the facility as indicated; enforcement of the zoning ordinance will
result in unnecessary hardship in that relocation of the facility will be precluded. with the result that it
will continue to operate in its current location indefinitelv. contrary to the wishes of the adiacent
residents.
2. The grant of this variance will not be injurious to the public health, safety, morals and general
welfare of the community because:
The sand and gravel processing facility will be significantly more distant from the maiority of
residential areas in the vicinity; access to the facility will be by means of the existing entrance to the
propertY and the amount of traffic will not be substantiallv different than that which presently exists at
the facility; the proposed use has been approved for location in the floodway by the Indiana Department
of Natural Resources.
3. The use of value ofthe are adjacent to the subject property will not be substantially affected in
any adverse manner because:
The sand and gravel processing facility will be significantly more distant from the majority of
residential areas in the vicinity; the facility will be buffered and screened by the existing wooded area
along the eastern side of Hazel Dell Parkway which will remain intact.
4. The need for the variance arises from a natural condition peculiar to the subject because:
The subi ect propertY lies almost entirely within the FW Floodway District and is thus unsuitable
for most development. especially those uses permitted in the 8-1 District; the need for the variance arises
out of the desire to relocate the existing facility further away from the nearby residential areas to the
west.
5. The granting of this variance does not substantially interfere with the Carmel/Clay
Comprehensive Plan because:
The Land Use Plan ofthe Carmel/Clay Comprehensive Plan indicates that the subiect 'Propertv
lies in the 100 year flood plain and indicates that the area is not planned for either Residential
Community use (even though located in the 8-1 District) or a Regional and Community Emplovrnent
area; sand and gravel processing is an appropriate use in the floodway area.
INDSOl THE 48SSS8vl
:'(
,'.'
o
Q
CARMEUCLA Y BOARD OF ZONING APPeALS
CARMEL, INDIANA
Docket No.:
V-26-02;V-27~02
Petit,ioner:
Martin Marietta Mat~rial~, Inc."
FINDINGS OF FACT. DEVELOPMENTAL STANDARDS VARIANCE
1. The ,apprQval of ,this varian,ce will not be injurious to the public health, safety, morals and 'general welfa~e of the
community because:
See attached Exhibit E
, '
2. The use and value of ttie area adjacent to the property Included in the variance' will not be affected in a
substan~ial1y adverse manner because:
'See attached Exhibit E
3. The strict application of the terms. of the Zoning Ordinance to th.e property will.result in practical difficulti,es in the
use of the property ,because:, ' '
See attached Exhibit E
DECISION
IT IS THEREFORE the decision of the Carmel/Clay Board of Zoning Appeals ttJat Developmental Standards Variance
Docket No. is granted, subject to any conditions stated in the minutes of this
, Board, which are in~orpQrated herein by reference and made a part hereof.
Adopted this '
day of
120"
CHAIRPERSON, Carmel/Clay Bo~.rd of Zoning Appeals
SECRETARY, Carmel/Clay Board of Zoning Appeals
Conditions of the Board 'are listed on the back. (Petitioner or his representative to sign).
S;\carmeldiiylanduseregs\checkllst\devstandapp ,
Rf3vised 1/25/2000
Page a of a - Developmental Slandard~ Varillnc:e Appllcallon
r"-'
\..' I.
o
(;)
EXHIBIT E
Findings of Fact - Development Standards Variance
1. The approval of this variance will not be injurious to the public health, safety, morals and
general welfare of the community because:
The boundary with the adiacent residential subdivision will be fenced. and will still leave a
substantial buffer area: Petitioner is proposing specific commitments to conduct the operations in
a manner so as to minimize noise. dust. light or smoke on the surrounding community: the subject
property will not be open to the public during operations and will not contain any facilities which
will attract criminal activity: the operations will not produce waste or trash.
2. The use and value of the area adjacent to the property included in the variance will not be
affected in a substantially adverse manner because:
The artificial lake resulting from the reclamation of the property. as provided in the attached
Commitments. will increase the property values of the adioining residential properties in that those
properties will become lakefront properties: other properties in the vicinity will increase in value to
the extent that the artificial lake is open to the public: the attached Commitments require relocation
of the existing adjacent sand and gravel processing facility further from the existing residential areas.
3. The strict application of the terms of the Zoning Ordinance to the property will result in
practical difficulties in the use of the property because:
The current requirements of the Ordinance will result in "significant economic inimy" to
Petitioner. if the complete use of the sand and gravel mineral resources cannot be realized. See
Metropolitan Board of Zoning AQpeals of Marion County v. McDonald's Corporation. 481 N.E.2d
141 (Ind. Ct. App. 1985). The resulting artificial lake. landscaping. berms and other reclamation
commitments will accommodate for the requested variance.
INDSOl THE 414469v2
u
Q
DOGKet No.: -.
CARMEUCLA Y BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS
CARMEL, INDIANA
'5U-24-02; '5U-25-02
Petitioner:
. .
Martin Martetta M~terials. Inc.
FINDINGS OF FACT - SPECIAL USE
1. The Special Use .in Flooq Plain District, Ordinance Z-160, Section 21.6 as amended (does) (does not) apply and
all prerequisites have be.en met by Petitioner as verified by:
See atta~hed Exhibit C
2. The Special Use will be consistent with the Character and Permitted land Use of the zoning district. and
Carmel/Clay. Comprehensive Plan because: . .
See attached Exhibit C
3. The Special Use is physically suitable for the land in question because: .
See attached ExhibitC
4. The Special Use wiJ[ not injuriously or adversely affect the adjacent land or property values be~use:
See attached Fxhihi1: t:
5. The Special Use. will not adversely affect vehicular or pedestrian traffic flow, nor the adequate availability of water,
s~wage, OF storm drainage facilities, or police or fire protec~on because:
See attached Exhibit C
6. The Board has reviewed the requirements of Ordinance Z-160, Section 21.3 (1-25) as they relate to this SpeCial
Use, and does not find that those' criteria prevent the granting of the Special Use: .
See attached Exhibit C
DECISION .
IT IS THEREFORE the decision of the. Carmel/Clay Board of Zoning Appeals that Special Use Docket Number.
is granted, subject to any conditions stated in the minutes of this Board,which are incorporated
herein by reference and made a part hereof. .
Adopted this
day of
,199_.
CHAIRPERSON, Carmel/Clay Board of Zoning Appeals
. '.
SECRETARY, Carmel/Clay Board;of Zoning Appeals
Conditior.1s of the Board are listed on the back.
(Petitioner or hisrepre5en~tive to sign).
s:\formslspuse.a'pp.
Revised 07/14/97
Page a of a.- Spec:ial Use AppUcaIlon
,,",
(. ,..I\. ,;
,/
I
Q
o
EXHIBIT C
. Findings of Fact - Special Use
1. The particular physical suitability of the premises in question for the proposed Special Use.
There are currently existing mineral extraction operations on the adjacent property to the
north. on the adiacent property to the east. and on the property to the south: portions of the property
are in a flood way fringe. making normal development of the property more difficult: there exist sand
and gravel deposits on the premises that do not exist in most other portions of Clay Township.
2. The economic factors related to the proposed Special Use, such as costlbenefit to the
community and its anticipated effect on surrounding property.
The artificial lake resulting from the reclamation of the property. as provided in the attached
Commitments. will increase the property values of the adioining residential properties in that those
properties will become lakefront properties: other properties in the vicinity will increase in value to
the extent that the artificial lake is open to the public: the attached Commitments require relocation
of the existing adjacent sand and gravel processing facility further from the existing residential areas.
3. The social/neighborhood factors related to the proposed Special Use, such as compatibility
with existing uses and those permitted under current zoning in the vicinity of the premises under
consideration and how the proposed Special Use will effect neighborhood integrity.
The Carmel/Clay Comprehensive Plan indicates that an Edge between a Residential
Community area and a Regional and Community Employment area passes directly through the
subiect property. The General Polices regarding Residential Community areas provide that
"transitions. in scale and density. should occur between residential communities and
community/regional employment areas" and that "in areas where zoning changes are requested. such
transition shall be encouraged and considered as part of the approval process." Mineral extraction
and the resulting artificial lake is a low intensity use and will be an effective transition.
In addition. the Land Use Plan indicates a High Intensity residential community designation
directly to the southwest of the subiect propertv. along the same Edge. The proposed mineral
extraction and artificial lake use will be a less obtrusive and lower intensity transitional use.
The property directly south and across 106th Street from the subiect property is designated
as a Low Intensity Regional and Community Employment area on the Land Use Plan. The General
Policies regarding Regional and Community Employment areas provide for "industrial uses" which
includes mineral extraction. The Low Intensity Regional and Community Employment area Policies
provide "low intensity commercial developments should be buffered from residential communities
through the existence of. . . open space." The artificial lake will result in an open space buffer
;
,
\.
Q
o
between the existing residential community to the north and the Regional and Community
Employment area to the south.
4. The adequacy and availability of water, sewage and storm drainage facilities and police and
fire protection.
The operation will not require domestic water or sewer facilities and storm drainage will be
accommodated on site or via the existing regulated drains: there will be no impact on police and fIre
protection because there will be no additional roads. buildings. or residents on the property.
5. The effects of the proposed Special Use on vehicular and pedestrian traffIc in and around the
premises upon which the Special Use is proposed.
There will be limited trucking of minerals or aggregate by means of the adjacent roads
because the extraction operations will be accomplished by dredging and will be conveyed
underground to a processing facility on adjacent property.
6. The Board has reviewed the requirements of Section 21.3 (1-25) as they relate to this Special
Use, and does not fInd that those criteria prevent the granting of the Spe"Cial Use:
(1) Topography: The topography ofthe property is such that portions lie in the floodwav
fringe: there will be no improvements constructed on the property which will be threatened
by flood waters.
(2) Zoning on site: See above item 3
(3) Surrounding zoning and land use: See above item 3
(4) Streets, curbs and gutters and sidewalks: None
(5) Access to public streets: Other than petitioner's ordinary employees. there will be no
regular public or truck traffIc or access to the property by means of public streets
(6) Driveway and curb cut locations in relation to other sites: None
(7) General vehicular and pedestrian traffIc: None
(8) Parking location and arrangement: None
(9) Number of parking spaces needed for the particular special use: None
-2-
Q
Q
(10) Internal site circulation: None
(11) Building height, bulk and setback: None
(12) Front, side and rear yards: See accompanying Dimensional Standards Variance
application
(13) Site coverage by building(s), parking area(s) and other structures: None
(14) Trash and material storage: None
(15) Alleys, service areas and loading bays: None
(16) Special and general easements for public or private use: None
(17) Landscaping and tree masses: See attached Commitments regarding reclamation
(18) Necessary screening and buffering: See attached Commitments regarding
reclamation. buffering and berms
(19) Necessary fencing: See attached Commitments regarding reclamation
(20) Necessary exterior lighting: See attached Commitments regarding General Operations
Restrictions
(21) On-site and off-site, surface and subsurface storm and water drainage: Drainage will
be accommodated by the artificial lake to be created
(22) On-site and off-site utilities: Electrical service
(23) Dedication of streets and right-of-way: None
(24) Proposed signage: None
(25) Protective restrictions and covenants: See attached Commitments
INDSOl THE 414467v2
-3-
BARNES&1H~BURG
Thomas H. Engle
(317) 231-7499
Email: tengle@bdaw.com
/' 'JI"'"-
w
11 South Meridian Street
Indianapolis, Indiana 46204-3535 U.S.A.
(317) 236-1313
Fax (317) 231-7433
www.btlaw.com
March 26, 2002
~
~. C! [grC,re'iMs,ff'1o.
MHJ 2 '.C"'..~.i/J
..hil 9 ?f'.1')
r~ t!~~./
DOCS'
VIA CERTIFIED MAIL, RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED
City of Carmel
One Civic Square
Carmel, Indiana 46032
Re: Martin Marietta Materials. Inc.;
Carmel Clay Board of Zoning Appeals UV-23-02. SU-24-02. SU-25-02. V-26-02.
V-27-02
Dear Sir/Madam:
Martin Marietta Materials, Inc. is currently seeking approval from the Carmel Clay Board
of Zoning Appeals to relocate its existing sand and gravel processing plant which is presently located
on the west side of Hazel Dell Parkway north of 106th Street to the east side of Hazel Dell Parkway.
In conjunction with this request, Martin Marietta is also seeking approval for sand and gravel
extraction by dredging from the property it leases from Helen M. Mueller north of 106th Street
between Gray Road and Hazel Dell Parkway.
I am one of the attorneys representing Martin Marietta in this matter. As such, I am sending
you the enclosed public notices as required by the Rules of Procedure of the Carmel Clay Board of
Zoning Appeals. No action on your part is necessary.
A public hearing is currently scheduled for April 22, 2002, as indicated on the enclosed
public notices. Should you have any questions about the proposed project, please feel free to call
me at 231-7499. We would be more than happy to provide additional information and answer your
questions.
Enclosures
Indianapolis
South Bend
Fort Wayne
Yours truly,
~'-'e ~
. . 1~
. ~~,-;. '".t,,,,~"i~'"
Thoma~ngle
Elkhart
Chicago
Washington, D.C.
r
'l
t'
u
u
..... '~
...~;s__-
Johnson, Sue E
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Lillig, Laurence M
Friday, March 22, 20022:56 PM
Johnson, Sue E; Morrissey, Phyllis G; pattyn, Dawn E; Tingley, Connie S
Hollibaugh, Mike P; Hahn, Kelli A; Dobosiewicz, Jon C; Kendall, Jeff A; Keeling, Adrienne M;
Hancock, Ramona B; 'tengle@btlaw.com'
Martin Marietta Materials (UV-23-02; SU-24-02; SU-25-02; V-26-02; V-27-02)
Subject:
Docket No. UV-23-02 has been assigned to the Use Variance petition filed by Thomas H. Engle of Barnes & Thornburg
on behalf of Martin Marietta Materials, Inc., for a 30.54-acre property located on the nO~.1 heast corner of .East 106th Street
and Hazel Dell Parkway. ~ ~ ~
UV.23-02 205.1: Pennitted Uses sand & gravel processing Ci '1";>/ $1050.0~
The following Docket Nos. have been assigned to the Special Use and Developmental Standards Variance petitions
filed by Thomas H. Engle of Barnes & Thornburg on behalf of Martin Marietta Materials, Inc., for a -acre property located
on the northwest comer of East 106th Street and Hazel Dell Parkway:
SU-24-02
SU-25-02
V-26-02
V-27-02
ZO 5.2: Special Uses
ZO 5.2: Special Uses
ZO 5.2.2: Other Requirements
ZO 5.2.2: Other Requirements
sand & gravel extraction
artificial lake
150' bufferyard setback
100' bufferyard setback
$630.00
$630.00
$630.00
$70.00
The Total Filing Fee for these petitions is $1960.00.
GRAND TOTAL:
$3010.00
. These Items will appear on the Wednesday, April 17, 2002, agenda ofthe Technical Advisory Committee.
. Mailed and Published Public Notice needs to occur no later than Thursday, March 28, 2002.
. Proof of Notice will need to be received by this Department no later than noon, Friday, April 19, 2002. Failure to
submit Proof of Notice by this time will result in the automatic tabling of the petition to the Tuesday, May 28, 2002,
agenda of the BZA.
. Ten (10) Informational Packets must be delivered to BZA Secretary Ramona Hancock no later than noon, Friday,
April 12, 2002. Failure to submit Informational Packets by this time will result in the automatic tabling of the petition to
the Tuesday, May 28, 2002, agenda of the BZA.
· This Item will appear on the April 22, 2002, agenda of the Board of Zoning Appeals under Public Hearings.
· The petitioner will need to provide seven (7) fully filled out Findings-of-Fact sheets for the Special Use the night of the
meeting for the Board's use. Petitioner must also remember to fill out the Docket No. and date on each Ballot Sheet for
the Board. The Findings-of-Fact and Ballot Sheets must be collated.
Sue Ellen, please contact Mr. Engle of Barnes & Thornburg at 317/231-7499 (fax: 317/231-7433) with this information
~
'-
~.:..
Laurence M. Lillig, Jr.
Planning & Zoning Administrator
Department of Community Services
City of Carmel
One Civic Square
Carmel, IN 46032
--~
t-",....,. \'\5 C:>
-:, - 'd- S ~<::C) 9-
Phone: 317.571.2417
Fax: 317.571.2426
~
llilliG@ci.carmel.in.us
1
\-;.fOr\ 'E:AC"qt...~
.
62..81-,,f a ~
,~
JJ.,
..
.' -;-~ ..
-Fax
....
Tal
Fax::
u
o
. .
CITY OF CARMEL .
. OepartmQntC)rc()nm1Un~Sel'Vice$ .
.' .' . : .' ..' . ", ...'
One CMo actuare
Carml!~ IN .t(0032
(217) 571.2417
Fax: (317) 571-2428
Fram5
d~~
c:2
~-d-'$-Od-
PagesJ
Datef
Phan~
. -Res M~~,N. ~1e-1tF\
eel
[J uraent t:l Far Review tI PI~e COl1unent C1 Please Reply
C Please Recycle
.
~'-~
~ 'I"""-..-LL-
t(g.u.
~~
'r-
~i.' ','~\l.~f-'~~~."
~~~~
Date:
Place:
9:00 a.m.
9:30 a.m.
-
u
-1
U
!i
.
9~
Mayflower Park, Block 1, Lots 4-6 (197-00 SP)
The site is located in the 9800 block of Mayflower Drive.
1Iindustrial.
Filed by Jamie Browning of Browning Investments.
The site is zoned 1- )(
9~
11:00 a.m. - Stoughton R.E. Partners (Use Variance)
The site is located at 1917 East 116th Street. The site is zoned R-1/residence.
Filed by Thomas H. Stoughton of Stoughton R.E. Partners.
CARMEUCLA Y TECHNICAL ADVISORY
COMMITTEE AGENDA
~
"" ~j
(!}f:
~",7%
December 20, 2000 Ji,~~-~--:,- &
Department of Community Services Conference Room. 3rd F16j)r ':5
Carmel City Hall
Hazel Dell Comer, Lot 1 - Osco Drug (180-00 SP; 181-00 ADLS; SU-198-
00; V-199-00 through V-205-00)
The site is located at 5790 East 131 st Street. The site is zoned B-3/business.
Filed by J. Murray Clark of Clark Quinn Moses & Clark for American
Partners.
11:30 p.m. Carmel Christian Church (Special Use)
The site is located at 463 East Main Street. The site is zoned R-2/residence.
Filed by James J. Nelson of Nelson & Frankenberger for Carmel Christian
Church.
12:00 noon - 1:00 p.m.
I-hour Lunch Break
1:00 p.m.
Martin Marietta Materials (Special Use; Developmental Standards
Variance)
The site is located at the northeast corner of East 106th Street and Gray Road.
The site is zoned S-I/residence.
Filed by Thomas H. Engle for Martin Marietta Materials, Inc.
Er:ct.stmn F'ipeline Co.
ha'3 IV} !;ornpany Facilities
in'.j(~l3d ,n t~i:Oje.~lz -:-'CS.OO _
.~..1 - ::PA.-...-.--. 0 t
c;&.;-:;,:~e; a.e
10:00 a.m. North Haven Development Plans (162-00 Z)
The site is located northwest of East 96th Street and Gray Road. The site is
zoned S-I/ residence. ):;/ c
Filed by James J. Nelson of Nelson & Frankenberger for C. P. Morgan. I
10:30 a.m. St. Mark's United Methodist Church (Special Use)
The site is located at 4780 East 126th Street. The site is zoned R-l/residence.
Filed by Paula A. Wright of The Partenheimer Group for St. Mark's United i I..l c....
Methodist Church. I'
tJ/~
4
pIc
'",
~'
y
o
page 2 of 2
Technical Advisory Committee Agenda
December 20, 2000
1 :30 p.m.
2:00 p.m.
2:30 p.m.
3:00 p.m.
3:30 p.m.
4:00 p.m.
West Carmel Center, Block A - Ritter's Frozen
Amend/ ADLS Amend)
The site is located at 10575 North Michigan Road,
3/business within the U.S. 421 Overlay Zone.
Filed by Kevin D. McKasson of Glendale Partners.
Custard (DP
The site is zoned B-
W\-m \ rO lc.1c:Di
Ritter's Frozen Custard - North Range Line Road (Rezone)
The site is located northwest of 8th Street Northwest. The site is zoned B- ~
2/business within the U.S. 31 Overlay Zone. /J ")
Filed by Herman A. & Judith R. Sierzputowski.
Kingsborough, Section 4 (Secondary Plat)
The site is located northeast of West 141 $I Street and Ditch Road. The site is
zoned S-1/residence. D'c
Filed by Curtis C. Huff of Stoeppelwerth & Associates for Zaring National. 1\
Two-Story Medical Office Building (DP / ADLS)
The site is located sotheast of West Smokey Row Road and Oak Ridge Road.
The site is zoned B-5/business within the U.S. 31 Overlay Zone. DIe
Filed By Adam DeHart of Keeler-Webb Associates for F.C.C. Development. L
Village of WestClay, Section 8501 (Secondary Plat)
The site is located southeast of West 131 $I Street and Towne Road. The site is
zoned PUD/planned unit development. A 'fC
Filed by Keith Lash of The Schneider Corporation for Brenwick TND /U
Communities.
Village of WestClay, Section 10001 (Secondary Plat)
The site is located southeast of West 131 $I Street and Towne Road. The site is r
zoned PUD/planned unit development. P (/
Filed by Keith Lash of The Schneider Corporation for Brenwick TND
Communities.
E:a~;i:em Pipeline Co.
ha,;:: qO (;ornpany Facilities
in\fni\il'-'rJ "''I +h,' '" '.I!',oJ'ect
,',." - - .,. "I. '.
:,~_-S.J.f2L....,_._._._, -1.Z ~ IS- '00
:....o1.!:Ji Date