The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutRemonstrance: Correspondence '-r D6'\. 13 21211212 15: 4121 FR B I NUM MCHALE LLP 317 236 991217 TU**655**9131757124 P. 1211 / ,} ~ ". ~ RECFIVED OCr. 13 "nnn ".I.U Lv.A',. DOCS /. 2700 Market Tower 10 West Market Street Indianapolis, IN 46204-4900 Fax ReI Martin Marietta litigation From: Lany Kane Pag-= 2 Date: 12-13-02 CCI Return Phone II 968-5390 Seo. InltllllSl Cas Matter #I 00200 To: Mich8eI Mohr, PrB$ident, Cannel BZA Fax: 317-571-2426 PhGneI 317-571-2417 ReIurn Fax II 236-9907 u.r. 254 CO"U'I 0916 x Uruent x For Review o Please ComIMnt [j P..... "ply [j Pi.... RecycIIt CONFIDENTIALITY NOnCE THIS MESSAGE IS PRIVATE AND CONFIDENTIAL AND IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE PRIVATE USE OF THE SENOER AND THE INDIVIDUAL OR ENTllY TO WHOM IT IS ADDRESSED AND MAY CONTAIN CERTAIN INFORMATION THAT IS PRIVilEGED, CONFIDENTIAL ANO EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. If the reader of this message Is not the Intended recipient or an employee of agent responsible for delivering the message to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination. dlstribuUon or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. Any Inadvertent receipt by you of such conficIentlal Information shall not constitute a waiver of any privilege. If you have received this communication In error, please refrain ttom reading or copying It and notify us Immediately by telephone and return the original message to us by maD. Thank you. . Commellt8. For your consideration. If you experience any problems In receiving any of these pages, please carl the copy center as soon as possible (317..635-8901 Ext.625). Thank you. Operator Initials: _ r ~.D~C 13 2002 15:40 FR BINGuAM MCHALE LLP 317 236 9907 TO 2~655~9131757124 P.02 U U ;; , --~ -' ;. 11268 Williams Court Carmel, IN 46033 December 13, 2002 VIA TELECOPIER and US MAlL Mr. Michael Mohr, President CanneVCla.y Township Board of Zoning Appeals One Civic Square Cannel, IN 46032 Re: Petition for Certiorari Wed by MarlbJ. Mariett. MAterials, IDe. Agalnst the BZA Regardillg Its Decision Not to Approve Spedal Use Permits and Variances (VV-23-02; SU-24-02; SU-2S-Gl; V-l6- 02; V-Z7-02) Dear Mr. Mohr and Other Members of the Board of Zoning Appeals: I am writing to you as a resident and homeowner of the Kingswood subdi'Vision in Camtel. Information has come to me that the Board of Zoning Appeals is actively engaged in settlement negotiations with Martin Marietta and that a settlement of the above-referenced lawsuit might be imminent. If this is accurate, I would strongly urge you NOT to settle this matter at this time. Instead, my wife, Connie, and I would respectfully ask the BZA to adamantly support the decision now under challenge by Martin Marietta. You may not be aware that a motion has been filed by several residents ofKingwood to intervene in the lawsuit initiated by Martin Marietta's petition for certiorari concerning the BZA decision. This motion is pending a hearing by the court. Given the pendancy of the efforts oflooa1 residents to intervene in Martin Marietta's action in an attempt to protect their respective property interests, it would be particularly unfortunate and inappropriate, we would respectfully suggest, for the BZA to settle the litigation at this time. The inappropriateness of attempting to settle the litigation at this time would seem to be augmented by our understanding that the City has allocated fUnds for the BZA to hire independent outside counsel. Given that the BZA's current counsel of record in the Martin Marietta litigation had advocated the position of the City's Department of Comm\.Dlity Servioes, which position is in general agreement with Martin Marietta's applications for special use and variances and contrary to the decision reached by the :all, the retention by the BZA of other counsel without prior involvement in this matter to represent the BZA in the pending litigation would seem a prudent step. Again, I respectfully urge that you stand by the decision made at the May 28, 2002 BZA meeting. We believe that the Board acted with courage and integrity in reaching that decision. I would appreciate it if you would read this letter into the record at your December Executive Session meeting of the BZA under the assumption that the December BZA meeting has been canceled. , ;:- / / ~ . tCrN\~ . ~... 'I" '1\)~1 \)t~ .\.;} " DOCS ** TOTAL PAGE.02 ** DEC-12-2002 THU 06:56 PM F(:)STONE INDUSTRIAL PRO FAX NO, 31~,818 8760 U P, 01 Mr. Michael Mohr BZA Presidont sooo Huntington Dr Cannel, In 46033 ~- Dccember 12, 2~O~ }_'L7J])?y" ft./,,-'f?)- ~< /' !-Kj~Y IJfjfCF;~ ~\ ~ U I YfilJ 1,-"0\ <:Jl 'J " - ! ^ ltlt7,) , ) I - uOfln" ,-, .../ Vu r~ ~~-~ y );?;;~, . .-' ,:.:,'\~- r ~,/--r!'-r-~.;:-..\--'\ \<.;.;~//" <>''-... ~- ~.J:'-:-~ Re: Martin Marietta Materials Lawsuit Filed Against the Cannel BZA Regarding the May 28 2002 Decision Not to Approve Special Use Permits Dear Mr Mohr: l am a resident of Kings wood and have heard from a reliable source that the BZA is close to reaching an settlement with Martin Marietta regarding mining on the Mueller property. 1 hope this is not true. As you are aware from the previous aZA hearings that 79% of the Kingswood residents are against any mining on this property. We feel previously that the City of Carmel had sold us down the river, but now the Mayor has publicly come out voicing his opposition to any mining on this property. The Kingswood residents firmly believe based on surveys etc that if the mining is approved our property values will deteriorate. Mr. Mohr, when 1 and other residents 'purchased homes in Kingswood we fully expected the fields around Kingswood to be developed but we never dreamed that some day these fields might be mined. As you are probably aware the other sub divisions in this area of Carmel are also very much against the mining of the Mueller property. Hearing that there are possible backroom deals being made between the City of Carmel and Marlin Marietta is both distressing and contrary to open government. AgreemenLs between corporate entities and our city government need to be made in full view of those most affected. Please don't let us find out that this was not the case. Sincerely. _ _ PU~~ Phil Kincaid Offico Tel 818-8610 Homc Tcl 815-4976 12-12-02 .:~ ;-:-~ 03:07pm From-VIRTUAL ~~~INGS U +31780&66&0 FAX COVER SHEET DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: December 12.2002 Michael Mohr BZA President Susan Becker u T-606 P.001/002 F-&7& PAGES: Including cover page PHONE: FAX: PHONE: FAX: E-MAIL 317-571-2426 317-569-0942 ~~, L,\-y'-"----~~,/ " .~/ ! '~\ I:] RECFIVED \:~~ :-~( DEe 12 2002 I J \ -,', I , DOCS {, 'I'! ,.,';>\ ,\ ...--' ',; - \:;\./ 12-12-02 r )4 ?.JI>* ;;" 03:07Pl11 From-VIRTUAL ~NGS +3178056650 Q T-606 P.002/002 F-575 Mr. Michael Mohr President, Cannel Boud ofZoD~ Appeals One civic Square Carmel. IN 46032 Dear Mr. Mohr: I am writiDi as a Kingswood re$ident and not in "official" capacity. 1 underStand that the BZA and Martin Mariena are close to reaching a settlement in the lawsuit which MM: filed against the BZA. THIS IS VERY CONCERNING TO ME AS A REDISENT, VOTER AND TAXPAYER OF C~L. IF MY CITY GOVERNMENT DOES NOT PROTECT ME, WHO WR.L? I attended the May 2811I BZA meeting and {ccl the hearing was Cair lUld bolh sides werc eq\1ally rcpresen(ed. I am confused why the BZA would settle me agreement with MM when the envUo1llIlCut has change drastically since May 28? I am also coDf\Jsed why Mr. John Molitor is represeQ~ the BZA in the lawsuit? Didn't Mi. Molitor speak supportiIJg Martin Marietta at the May BZA meeting? Isn't that a conflict? I AM REQUESTING OR BEGGlNGTBE BZA TO STAND BY TBEIR. MAY 28'111 DECISION. Let the City Council and Mayor work: together to polish the mining anc1 re..zonin~ classification ordinances, which should put this conflict to bed. ThaDlc you Cor yoW'time, service to the city and for protecting and preserving the great repetition of Carmel, Indiana. Rcspci:tfu1ly Yours, ~L(t...6u&J Susan Becker Kingswood HomeoWDer 5029 Kingswood Drive Carmel, IN 46033 .7 ;I!':: ~C-12-02 THU 13:23 1'!..," --1\' FREOER INC FAX NO. 31746~Q440 U P. 01 ~?5!7~ \ ,-' I f I /'0, \ __.J.--_, I ,- ./ \,5::/ --- "-...., <e..:< '. 'V "< )\ ~ t.\) \:~\:}"\ ~~S'J\'-J ~~1 y~~\ n\"j\ ,,~ ~ ,!-C,---' \.\\}J 1. rd~1 ~ n\)\.;S ,cJ :;;!:~ V /,-,;' ~'~..... II'- ~ '-" ~ /'-"y; V: .'(/,~?, /{" ,- .. - ff. ~,,' ~ y '~'l}~. -c--\c-'-/ fIG \ \ ',9- "L-L--- 11136 Bradbury Place Carmel. IN 46033-5925 Phone: 317-57 4"()448 Fax: 3174615-1357 Email: MarcusFrelhofer@aol.com Fax Cover To: Michael Mohr and B7.A Board Fax: 317-571-2426 Members From: Marcus Freihofer Dtt$; 12-12-2002 Rc: Lawsuit Settlement with Martin Page&; 2 Marietta cc: ~ urgent k1 For RevIew 0 PIea88 Comment CJ PIe8se Reply CI Please Recycle . ." ,. .... . ...., '.,'. ",.n " , ,...., ,," .. ...., . ., . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ---~ ,,'., -~ FREOER INC FAX NO, 3174~40 P,02 .'>~ DEC-12-02 THU 13:24 Dcoember ) 2, 2002 Mr. Michael Mohr Prcllident, Carlllel Board of Zoning Appeals One Civic Square Cannel, IN 46032 Re: Martin Marietta Materials, Ine. Lawsuit Filed Against the Carmel BZA Regardiog the May 28, 1002 DeCli~ion Not to Approve Special Use Per...its (UV-23-02; SU-24-02; SU-25- 02; V-Z6-02; V-27-02) Dear Mr. Mohr and Board of Zon iog Appeals Members: I am writing to you as an individual resident of the Kingswood subdivision in carmel and I have received information from a credible source that the Board of Zoning Appeals is actively engaged in settlement negotiations with Martin Marietta in the lawsuit referenced above and that a settlement of this lawsuit might be imminent. I would strongly urge you not to settle this matter until the Court has ruled 011 a pending motion to intervene (see third paragraph below) or, if legally possible, let stand the decision you rea~hed at the May ZS, 2002 BZA meeting. If you recall, Martin Marietta was afforded a fair and complete (five hour) hearing on their petitions at the May BZA meetini and was gjven wide latitude in their presentation to the BlA, even after their formal remarks were concluded. Residents of Kings wood who remonstrated against the petition spent a considerable amount of time, effort, and money (approximately $2,500) to hiro ex.perts and prepare a presentation to the BZA. 1 think it would be a mistake to have a privately negotiated settlement overturn the very legitimacy of the BZA'g public pn.'cess. I would also inform you that a motion has been flied by "aggravated parties" (of which I am one) named in Martin Marietta's law!luit to join the lawsuit to ensure the property rights of homeowners in Kingswood be adequately considered and represented. The motion is still pending and MM intends to oppOSe it. Further, J am extremely ooncerned that the BZA is still represented by John Molitor who supported Martin Mal'ietta's petition to the .BZA and who has an obvious conflict of interest in this suit. It is my understanding that Mr. Molitor, as the BZA's attorney, still has not filed Findings ofFaot from the May BZA meeting, a point of fact that MM raises in their lawsuit against the BZA. It is also my understanding that the City has now allocated funds for the aZA to hire independent outside counsel and I would strongly encourage you to do so. Again, I respectfully request that you delay settling this law suit until the Court has ruled on the pending modon to intervene or, if legally possible, let stand the decision you reached at the May 28, 2002 BZA meeting. To do otherwise would erode the confidence in our City government's procedural fajrness and its ability to protect Carmel residents and their property values. Further. 1 would also encourage you to hire outsidt: counsel who has not previously supported Martin Marietta's Special Use petitions. I would also appreciate it if you would read this letter into the record at your December Executive Session meeting of the BZA since it is my understanding that the December BZA meeting has been canceled. Sincerely, ~'V~ Marcus W, Freihofer 11136 Bradbury Place Cannel,IN 46033 Home: 574-0448 Oflke: 633-5555 DEC 12 '02 14:28 FR ELLLILLY & CO. t> ~ U 317 276 4730 TO 95712426 U F t-\)l ~. in 1t:1lt(t I YV1 ~ yo- 6ZA PYcSid~ 3/1- S7/- ~'1;}...(p :f(blh ; ~ll~f\.d 1)~ f~~'- t,1i - (p~' - 'f1J'tJ ~)(: 317 - J.7~ - 47?Jf:> pOt~~ ~: I + C.ovU- IJrjvJ-' PI~:s~ dt-llvtcr AgA-f. P. 01/02 ~/.-~t~'\ i J:-'~', \ \. ---, ')! /." 6<l:'~y/' ~ -----{..I"\''>'" 'y)~ . ... ,,-" \. .... Y (/~\ ,'''v! CC\VED \", (i:~;/ RE r \ ..\ ~~ DEe 12 2\J02 :~! ,...,'" CS <\ DO ' \:/\ <~>>_,.__ _,,-< ' i -...; I (;:;,'rT' I'" " '. .\-' '-<-Sc__L'.c.-:- ,/ DEC 12 '1212 14:28 FR aJ-LILLY & CO. .~ ~ / ,~ 317 276 473121 TO 95712426 . U P.12I2/1212 5017 Kingswood Dr. Carmel, IN 46033 December 12, 2002 Cannel Board of Zoning Appeals One Civic Square Carmel, IN 46032 Re: Martin Marietta Materials, 10(:. Lawsuit Filed Against the Carmel BZA ~prdiq the May 28, 2002 Decision Not to Approve Special Use Permits (UV -23-02; SU-24-02; SU- 2S-02; V-26-02; V-27-0Z) Dear Members of the BZA: As a resident of the Kingswood subdivision who remonstrated against Martin Marietta's petition at the May, 2002 BU hearing, I am extremely disturbed to hear that the BZA is now considering a settlement with Martin Marietta. As a citizen of Cannel, I count on the city's officials and representatives to protect my interests. However, at this moment, I am wondering how my intet'Csts can be protected if the city's attorney, who has stated that he is in favor of the Mantn Marietta petition, can represent the BZA (and by proxy, the interests of the people of Cannel). This would appear to be a blatant confUct of intereSL I am also disturbed that an industrial interest group could successfully circumvent the zoning laws by going to the courts. It Seems to me that the hearing that they received in May was already slanted in their favor. given the amount of time that they were given to respond to the remonstrances and to your questions and concerns and given the city resources which amassed behind their efforts. Because of the inherent conflicts of interest created by the collusion between Martin Marietta and the City of Carmel, a number of the remonstraters from the May hearing have jointly filed a motion to intervene in the lawsuit between Manin Marietta and the BZA. This motion is set to be heard in January. Our hope was that this motion would bring some balance and fairness to the proceedingo. I beseech you to please hold off any settlement of the lawsuit until this motion can be heard. You are our only protection right now, and we pray that you will not let us down. Sincerely. ~~~ Holland Detke Kingswood t'Csident ** TOTAL PAGE.32 ** v' 12-12!"02 12:04 , .'- ,0 -i~~ Frg~GUldant ~ Cgrpgra~~gn ,31T 9Tl 22!~ T-14T P.00I/DD2 F-642 ~-'11'~' ',/ \ ;':...J.-Ll.!c -'- i I -4 \,;..- ..1, /, ) 11}'/ tt.. "~' \ l'~ ~ ~" ({"J( ~t~r\\j\~ul "'':\ r--J \)t~ \1. I,) \C!\ ' (\~~ ,I:.;.) ~c'/ ~v /, I \>\ ,~.'" I ,,~~'- ~/, {:</ '.,{J:'j'~.' __ r\ './ '~..(2JiLT\-;' '-,;/ GUIOANT Facsimile Date December 12, 2002 Total Number of Pages Including Title Page ~ To Mr. Michael Mohr c/o Connie Tingley Company Carmel Board of Zoning Appeals Facsimile Number 317-571-2426 From Jeff Joliet Telephone Number 317-971-2232 If this transaction is not received In good order, please call Qnsert name and ptIone number) or advise by facSimile (Insert facsimile number). this faallmUe message is Intended only for the IndMduBI to whom It Is addressed and may contain information that Is privileged. mnfidential or exempt from discloSUAil under applicable law. If you have received this facslmUe in error please notify US immediately by telephone (coiled), and retum 11\8 original message to us at the address below vIa the US Postal Service. Guldant Corpor&tlon 111 Monument Circle, 29th Roar. Indianapolis, IN 46204-6129 Tel 317.971.2000 Fax 317.971.2040 www.guldantcom ~, 12-12-02 \ 12:04 From-~Uldant .0 Corporation 31T QT1 2286 -() T-14T P.002/002 F-S42 '" ) Mr. Michael Mohr Pn:sident, Cannel Board. of Zoning Appeals One Civic Square Carmel, IN 46032 /~\ " ,'r---- /{i;~ U,-",-lJ. / ;:>-.>--- ( .,:t//;r..- "' <::.. " / /^'-. A"lY ~ "'-",<,\ , ',' \: \ ,~ \ 6:1 RECFIVED \=:\ \~ DEG 12 2G02 t01 \--~\ DOCS J, -j' \ ......:\ ~..;.-~ i \CJj\ ! :~'l' \>"" <"i '\<~(ti'T~'\ ,'>/ -1., December 12. 2002 Res Martin Marietta Materia)s, Inc. LaWRJit Filed AJ8iDSl the C8I'DlCl BZA llegaJ-ding the May 28, 2002 Declsion Not to A.pprove Special Use Permits (UV-2:W2; 80-24-02; SU-2S..02; V-26.02; V-27-ol) Dear Mr. Mohr and Buard of Zoning Appeals Members: I am writing to you as an individual resident oftbe: Kingswood subdivision in Carmel and not i11 any "official" capacity. I have received information from a cIedible source that the Board of Zoning Appeals is actively engaged in settlement negotiatiOrts with Martin Mariena in the lawsuit referenced abOve and that a settleD'lEml of this lawsuit might be imminent. I would strongly urge )'ou not to settle this matter and lct stand the decIsion you reached at the May 28, 2002 BZA meeting. If you recall, Martin Marietta was afforded a fair and complete (five hour) hearing on their petitions at the May BZA ~ting and was given wide latitude in their presentation [0 the BZA, even after their fonnal remarks were cotICluded. Residents of Kingswooo who remonstrated against the petition spent a considerable amount of time. effort, and mone)' (approximately $20500) to hire experts and prepare a presentation [0 the BZA.. I think it would be a mistake to have Ii privately negotiated. settlement overturn the very legitimacy of the BZA's process. I would also Inform you that a motioD has been filed by "aggravated parries" named in Martin Marletta's lawsult to join the lawsuit to ensure the property rights of homeowners in Klngswood be adequately considered and repmented. The motion is still pending. Further, 1 am eXtremely concerned that the BZA is still represented by J'01111 Molitor who supported MartIn Marietm's petition [0 the BZA and has an obvIous conflict of interest. It is: my undexstanding that Mr, MolitOr, as the BZA's attOl'Dey, stilt has not filed Fmdinp of Fact from the May BZA meeUng, a point of fact that MM raises in meir lawsuit a&aim.t the BZA. 1t is also my undemanding that the Oty bas noW allocared funds foT the BZA to hire independent outside counsel and I would mongly encourage you to do sO. Again, I respeclfully request that you stand by the decision you reached at d1e May 28, 2002 BZA meeting. To do othe:rwise would erode the confidence in our City governmenfs procedural fairness and its ability to protect Carmel residents and their property valUeli. Further. 1 would also encourage you [0 hire OutSide counsel who has not previously supponed Martin Mllrietta' s Special Use petitions. .1 would also appreciate it j f you would read this letter into the record at your December Executive Session meeting of the BU since it is my 11J1derstanding tbal dt.c December BZA meeting bas been canceled. Respectfully, Jeffrey D.loJiet KJn&8wood Homeowner 11158 Bradbury Place Carmel. IN 46033 -; ~2/12/2002 13:58 :\..- ~ ~./-:' ' ~~ 3178463F71; U LVNDa TRAGER PAGE 01 o 'S Talk about success 1..~ in buying and selling homes, :~.~ or a career in real estate. . . ... . ~ " ,', Talk to Thcker!$r To; p._ ~~ Phone Number Fax Number from: }::;/~IJ .-~ Ie: ~ -----rr;:;~.-~ O.'e: -----r- Humber 0( 9IIts inc:luding this one 2.- Action nquestecl: .- '~\\ii-T-t,,:~, ,/:\..\)~-' - - - I>)' ~~'\/ ~ -":';" ", // . ,/ \ (1): .--\ (:j RECFIVf[j \, l~=J DEe 1L7Jij2 \~;~\ DOCS = \:/>>. ,: . ~ l ~~._ /.- \ ":"L:~L!hL_-0''- TALK TO CKER C:OIf'lDtJC1\l&.I'n'lIOYK( .. ~ ..It" ... lilt 1tIIIImi..... .... N .r....,IIIJ1n. _~ II conIIdrn"lI W III~ lIlIly.... _.."... i/IIllIllII.I....-... .lIOtt. If,... ue lilt... iIIftldcod m...... po at ...."elf IIUl ....l&'......~....... lItdlcllJlial" ""lcUClIII ioI ~, .. IJli (.... allNI Idle.... ..... " - ~ """''''t~lhilI~illftY~, p1f'1lV ......__ ....1It ., ~ II'" "'"*, .~ , ~ ~..~:~-? Keystone at the Crossing F. C. Tucker Company, (nc. 3405 E2!I86th Street · Indianapolis, Indiana 46240 (21'" '('/'I ,(\(\(\ . t'..w /."." 1r" 1.11, '.:,:71 H(':') I~- ~ D2/12/2002 13:58 ~-<!. ;}~:.. "" _r }:;1 3178463L76 o LVNDEL TRAGER o PAGE 02 December 12, 2002 Mr. Michael Mohr President, ClUDlel Board of Zoning Appeals One Civic Square Carmel, IN 46032 He: Marti... Marietta MatetiU, lac. Lawsalt Ji'Uecl ApJ...t tile c....e1 BZA RepnIIDg tile May 18, 1002 DedsIoa Not to A,p.-ove Special Use Pe.....,.. (VV-23-0Z; SU-24-02; SU-25-01; V-26-02; V-%1-02) Dear Mr. Mohr and Board of Zonms Appeals MeIJlbers: My husband and I are writing to you because we have ceceived infonnation that the Board of Zoning Appeals is actively enppd in settlement negotiations with Martin Marietta in the lawsuit referenced above and that a sett1emeDt of this ~ might be imminent. We urge you not to settle this m8tk:r _d let stand the deoision you reached at the May 28, 2002 BZA meeting. If you ~l, Martin Marietta was afforded a fait end complete (fiw hour) hearing on their petitions.t the May BZA meeting and was given wide latitude in their presentation to the BZA, even after their formal remarks were concluded. Residents of Kinpwood who nmoUlllb~ against the petition spent. considerable amount oftUhe, effort. and money (approxinJately 12,500) to hh'v experts and prepare a presentation to 1he BZA. We think it would be a m{$f.ake to have a privately negotiated settlement overturn the very 1egitinJ.Bq' of the BZA's process. We would also inform you that a motion has been rued by nagravatecl parties" named in Martin Marietta's lawsuit to join the lawsuit to ensure the property rights ofhomeownef5 in Kingswood be adequately considered and represented. The motion is stin pending. Further, we are extnmlely concerned that the BZA is stin repJeSeIlted by John Molitor who supported Martin Marietta.S petition to the BU 8Ud has an obvious ~nfJ.ict of inwrest. It Is our undentanding that Mr. Molitor, as the BZA'$ attorney. still has not filed Findin&s of Fact &om the May BZA meeting. a point of fact that MM raises in their lawsuit against theBZA. It is also our understanding that the City bas now allocated funds for the BZA to hire indepe.odeat outside couasel and we would strongly CIlCOUI'II8" you to do so. Please stand by the decision you reached at the May 28, 2002 BZA meeting. To do otherwise would erode the confidence in our City goverriment's procedural fairness and its ability to protect Carmel residents and their property valuoa. Further, we would also eDCOUI'88O you to hire outside coUDSeI who bas not previously . supported Maatin Marietta'a Special Use pcUtMIs. We are coooemed that you are not repre~tiDa the Wished of oU!' Cannel Conununity and also the mayor since he ~ersed his stand at the last town meeting- B' .' +-5'..f-~ ~ delllllll SllIn T_ r Kingswood Homeowner 111 S8 Bnulbury Place Carmel. IN 46033 Dee 12 02 02:30p Ker'~-l ~ Noeeo U 317-"'75-1923 U p. 1 December 12,2002 /_(~\-~--\-;-~- I ' < \ /l:~ c~~~'",),~ ;"vv ~ -< /_=)7' ~N~\) {;;~i 0\= ~\ \ (\C;\lf) \;:~~ i~~ \1 ~\!\Jl. G: ~ \)\J\;S 'V:.~> \,,/ '~ '. //>>....- , '<~~~~. _ -_:. T '-. Mr. Michael Mohr President, Cannel Board of Zoning Appeals One Civic Square Cannel, IN 46032 Re: Martin Marietta Materials, Inc:. Lawsuit Filed Against the Carmel 8ZA Regarding the May 28, 2002 Decision Not to Approve Special Use Pennits (UV-2J-02; SU-24-02; SU-25-02; V-26-02; V-27-02) Dear Mr. Mohr and Board of Zoning Appeals Members: As a Kingwood Homeowner I am asking the BZA not to settle the lawsuit with Martin Marietta. As far as Kingswood is concerned there is no common ground on which to settle. This land is not zoned for mining and we do not want mining for several reasons: 1) It will erode our property values. Martin Marietta has never done a study to show that it will not decrease property values. They told the BZA that lake front property increases property values. Never mind the 14 years plus of mining we ,,'.'ill have to endure to even get to the ugly ponds we view all through their old operations. 2) Martin Marietta has told us that it is their intent to try and blast underneath the Mueller property after dredging it. So telling Kingswood they will have lake front property would be a half-truth at best (and don't think for a minute that in having the land in their possession for 14 years that they won't be able to negotiate with the city to blast underneath). 3) More importantly the land south of I06th, which is still Mueller property, and zoned 81, will become only suitable for mining (since it will be sandwiched between two mining operations). I believe this will put the city in a comer if Mueller North of 106th street is mined, and the City does not allow Martin Marietta to mine south of I06th. We know if the Mueller Property South of I06th is mined, it will be open pit blasting since it is adjacent to the current pit. This will then move the blasting north, which is something all surrounding subdivisions have remonstrated against since the blasting is so invasive already. We believe it w-as a sound decision not to allow MM the special use permit. They were afforded every opportunity to reply to every concern we had while having the City Attorney, as well as the City Utilities remonstrate on their behalf They still couldn't receive BZA approval! The overwhelming majority of Kingswood has never wavered from their stance that we bought property adjacent to farmland zoned for residential use, and we should expect to see it developed that way. We have met with two separate developers who have approached the Mueller Conservancy about building, "Kingswood style" residential housing on the North Mueller property. Why wouldn't this be the reasonable solution? We appreciate the BZA's perseverance in fighting the fight for all Cannel Residents, and urge you to keep up the fight! Thank you, Kelly J. Nocco Kingswood Homeowner 4990 Kingswood Drive, Cannel IN 46033 P.B2 r' ~UL-22-B2 B4:42 AM ~~YID EZELL '~ .. .,;'. I: ! ' I I, I I , I. I , I' I I: .1 I: I I D. DAYlD EZEU A.1TORNEY A.T LAW 6655 AIIlsonvlUl Rd l"dltUltIpOlII, In. 46220 (317) 2$1.9411 July 22, 2002 ,-;< \~'~"0l-"~T'I';~>., : /-<:'< .> _" ."J~,,,)~! ; /: ,"/ v: \' ;..:.'? b- ~'(,:h\ I--) 'V ~~ ~. \;.--': I"--{ &- {''>' ',-1 !~j ~ ~ ~. :;;:~~'I: :': t:\ ~ ~~~ ; i:=:t./ .i;l:ii. ~:>, 1 ;I'.'~/'.J ..!,J \'),A 1/ ; :r <tl.~I: ~/ /:~ .:''"... '/1 : t,:.::', '''~, /'. v. . l. .. ..: /)/i;:~:'T'\'\\;':/ j :'i, :Ii' ~d~/--. : ;l'(f:~ : : :f,.1 Ii ". '!., ~.-: ;:;1': . .. I: . .<of ! jj,1 : :; '.T~:.f ;i .l,~ .! Mr. Mohr ; .....Iclt. C.... nl of zo..... Appeals Carm~ D 46104 REl M.J1jn Mid. v. Board of ZonID. Aooeall.29D02-0206- P~510 . I 1m; . out of deep concern regarding a rumor I have recently beard that sv_ that. . C el City Attorney, Mr. Haney, will represent the Board of Zo~ A1'PCJ18 in . thela. !.' filed ill Hamilton County Superior Court by Martin Marietta. 1 belieVe that . =CI 1y a coatlict in that representation as Mr. Haney has gone on record in suppo. 9 Martin Marietta as he remonstrated on their behalf during the most recent BZA b .. Martin Mariettat s application for their special use pennit. . As yo~, y ~cal\t. Mr. Haney also declined to provide me with a <:opy of the Carmel " We!, ,; . 'on Proposal submitted by the City of Carmel to the Indiana Department ,ofN . Resources. ,Federa1law, the Safe Watm Drinking Act, mandates that such ,. iDf1.. . ~:. be made available to the public as the Act seeks to encourage an informed ; PubQ~' .' . . public hwo1v$Dent in drinking water protection issues. Fortunately, I was able . tQO<.' .,i copy frOm.the DNR directly. . . :" .~; .; :"{, ''','' . . ,; I be1i~i ,. t the B0ar4 of Zoning Appeals acted properly and with, the interests of , t I . Canp~J'1 .and the fatw'e of Carmel in mind when they decbne4 Martin Marietta s . =' . request. I further believe that the Board should employ private counsol to np~ .t 'f in~stI in the upcoming suit. While I am lure that Mr. Haney is a fine . '~~~ t attorney, I think that by remonstrating in favor ofMartin.~etta, as ~ . many qt,. OrB city employees did, he has effectively recused himself &om now ~g as a adV te for the BZA. : ~ ."t i: ';~~ , ., : ; ~ , ~ :. ~ . ~ t., .; .. ... .~ :.f t i .; :. ..:. I i' , . .! I., : ~ it . ~ " ~ I I .j' 1"baS., u for your time and prompt attention to this matter. ~~~ D.DavidE~ll . Attorney At La . . , ., . . . I . .; < ....}.!. . 'J ' ' .~.~,~ f:~1r ",: . . r . " , i. ! .. I' . . 'I, . .,' . ~~. ".'l ~ " . d. ': ,1. :,. .'~.: '.. . ~.".. I.. ".;.. :l~.:.;.<: . ~i t1 . .1' ...,~:. .. ;! .,..,.,I:{ j; . .I.d.~ A ~ JUL-22-92 , DAVID EZELL ;J 3178469429 ~ P.91 J - 94:41 AM I I i I I I I D. DlWitl Bldl A.ttome,V III Law 6655 AllUollviUe Rood IlltlUlnapolll, IN 46ZZ0 (J17) 257.9411 FAX (317) 151.9412 I" ' , I I I' i i I I, I I i i, i I , /i)(\11PI-~ i : /"\ ';:P -',I.";,~' , v '-..4"'2(' \~p",/ . ~~/ . vi/" . 'f . ,)1 ~ ~<S>~, i~\ ({'f o<<(); C\ ~ \--\ I ___1 "V ~~ L_ ':::\ ,~\. r..~~' ,~fJi '~ ~'v, IV/ ~ J",;::; ~'/9:' !;,~ - " -, , i"''''i:cT\--\'~-> ' '(0~Y : I FAXro~8HEET ro~Ma. ~at\recl&, 'RE;~ PAGE$ ~O FOLLOW: ~ DATE: ~ ~~f 0)00;) -oZA I i I' ! " i i I, I I I' I I' I; I' I ! \ I I, i I I I' I I .~ I TlAUfT NOTICE: 1'/ro _""" 0111III tf/fCO/JY .......,It<II_ __ ~..., In/oml,,#o1"Onging to tM lender which 18 kgalJy prlvll.ged. Th. Irr/Cffflatlon Is Int,nded only for th, 118t1 oJth~ I dlvla,,/(8) or ,ntlty named above, 1/10" tIN not th, intended recipient. you are h,reb)l nottflfd ~ QIt)I dtICIOSJI"" copying, distribution or the tald", a/MY action In reliance "pon the conten' of lItis telel;op, trallllftt~tal II strictly prohlblt,d. 1/)IOU htlVf ,.,cflv,d this t,l,copy trtIItllftlttal In error, pl,tISI l;m diat,'y notify U8 by t"'phone lit the "umber aJrown "bove to arrang, for return of th, ortgnal dOClmJIlfIl 11$, Thank >'<'fl. I ::i~,~k ! ~'~" " ,lot . I, " ~ :, ,,' :.J :,"1: ;:1' , r ,~ '\ d " 1 j , 'l't ,r. '~,l : .. .. I. ; .! . , ,in ,';:rt ,', ':1'.; .'i '.,~:~ ;, : j. ~. '", I . ....., . 'j , " , . " ". ....f J. , \ , " ! : i' ~. ;. ; " ~ , ' .'t',/o' .", -\'l:\~ 1 . ~ . '.:'.: ~ . I ',' ,,!t '. , ',f. :,..", ' :t '. l' ' . 'r':~: ~ . ; ': .!. ! " '~ } ;' ( .! I,: ~ . i t I :.; ~Iey. Connie S From: Sent: To: Subject: Hancock, Ramona B Thursday, May 30,20029:15 AM Tingley, Connie S FW: BZA Hearing of May 28, 2002 For copy and distribution to BZA members, Counsel, and Laurence. RH -Original Message----- From: Jthyen1214@aol.com [SMTP:Jthyen1214@aol.com] Sent: Wednesday, May 29, 2002 7:35 PM To: rhancock@cLcarmel.in.us Subject: BZA Hearing of May 28, 2002 May 29, 2002 Mr. Charles Weinkauf Ms. Earlene Plavchak Mr. Leo Dierckman Mr. Michael A Mohr Ms. Pat Rice Dear Members of the Carmel Clay Board of Zoning Appeals: My name is Janet Thyen and I reside at 5083 St Charles PI. I feel I must put into writing my feelings on the BZA meeting last night. This is not "sour grapes" as one of my fellow homeowners commented last night. I truly feel that members of the BZA did not do their job last night. Mrs. Rice, it is all well and good for you to sit up there and throw out your comments on your feeling of public access to the land surrounding the Mueller property, but you don't know the facts. Since the public is not allowed to speak, we could not even "defend" your comments. When all this started three years ago there was a public walking path in the plan. This was presented to the adjacent property owners (APOs). The majority of the APOs were not in favor of this for several reasons. Personally I was concerned with both my children's and my home safety. I know that you were shown the land in question and was told you were brought to the Westchester stub street. It is very isolated behind our homes. Anyone could park on 106th Street or Hazeldell Parkway and have easy access and escape from the backyards of our homes. We have friends who have the Monon Trail running through their backyard. They hate it. If they could, they would move. .~ But, this was a Kingswood issue not just an APO issue. A meeting was held for all Kingswood residents to discuss this issue. It was actually one of our most attended meetings. I think there was about forty or fifty people there. I spoke on the activities of the stub street. I pick up beer cans and liquor bottles on a regular basis from the end of the street. We regularly interrupt parkers. My children found several canisters of C02. We don't know if these were for drug use or paintball guns. One morning my then four year old son came to the bus stop with a pair of pink girls bikini underwear stuck on a stick like a flag. He had found them at the end of the street. There was discussion of the liability issue to Kingswood. It was brought up that the City of Carmel locks their parks at night yet Kingswood would have no way of doing that. It was brought up about all the problems the residents of Windpoint were having with unapproved use of their pathway. All these issues were discussed and a vote was requested to see where all the residents of Kingswood stood on this issue. Several of the people on both sides of the Mueller issue were there. Including several of the cheering crowd last night (how soon they forget). The vote was overwhelming against opening this to the Kingswood homeowners. In regard to the access to the lake, it should not be through any residential development. It should be from public access off of a public road. Access would be available from Hazel Dell or 106th Street or even through Carmelot. Why would you - even suggest sending extra traffic through a neighborhood? Several times it came up that the decision should be the best for all of Kingswood. Yet the one thing that both sides wanted...the moving of the processing plant. You voted against. Did you understand what you were doing to Kingswood with that vote? Now we are stuck with the plant that we have worked for three years to get moved! You also managed to not allow the berm along 106th Street which would have reduced the impact on all of Kingswood of the blasting from the 1 96th Street operation. My understanding of the BZAs job is to look at the facts presented to you and base your discussions on those facts. I do not believe it is the BZAs job to negotiate for the Kingswood homeowners. We have an elected board to do that for us. All the issues that had come up, including the new water issue, were answered last night. Those were facts not emotion. Unfortunately, some homeowners are driven by greed and maybe jealousy. It's a kindergarten playground mentality, if I can't play with the ball then nobody can. If there had been any threat to the neighborhood that could have been proven, my husband and I would have not been in support of this. My husband and I truly believed that the best use of the Mueller property was the sand and gravel dredging. The best for all of Carmel by having more open space and less strain on an area already overburdened. We would have gained nothing but a small amount of unusable land, several years of disruption while it was being mined and an increase in our property tax. I feel the three members of the BZA who voted against this issue did not follow the guidelines last night. I feel that your vote was not based on the factual issues but on personal and emotional ones. This is not because as an APO we "lost" It's as a Carmel resident who witnessed the system fail. 2 MAY 28 '02 12:47 FR LILLY NEURO SCIENCE 317 276 6026 TO 95712426 P.01/01 ~~ ~\ \ 1],2;/ / \ ~::.,"'- -- - '-I..)? /("'y"/ .f. ""/ 6/:::..~/ '\ 1 R~CE'VED ~ HAY 28 2002 ~"~ DOCS '\, /.;~ /" ,//'., '~~,'-, .A' ~ / If" I 'I \(~ \ r..", Cannel Clay Board of Zoning Appeals One Civic Square Carmel. IN 46032 5017 Kingswood Dr. Cannel, IN 46033 May 28, 2002 Dear Board Members: I am writing to you in regards to Martin Marietta's petition to mine the Mueller property. As a mother of small children and as a citizen of Carmel, I am horrified and outraged that the city of Cannel is in support of the petition. Children at Carmelot Park will be playing next to an active mine! How is this a good idea? I also understand that the mining will take place within the aquifer which provides the city's drinking water and that there is a risk not only of contaminating our water source but also of damaging or depleting it Why is the city playing fast and loose with our natural resources? Why is Martin Marietta's profit margin more important than our children's health and safety? On a more personal level, I did not choose to buy a house near a lake, a retention pond, or any other such body of water. With two small, active and curious boys, one of whom has some mental disabilities (Autistic Spectrum Disorder), I thought that I had chosen a very safe environment for them. To find out that I may SOon be living next to a mining operation and an unsafe "lake" is extremely distressing. There are certainly other reasons why this mining should not be anowed to take place. For instance, diminishment of OUT property values, loss of our investment in a home that was supposed to be next to a residentially zoned space but which will become an industrial area. and certainly diminishment of our quality of life. Already, I have had to spend too much time and energy on this issue, which should have been a no-brainer for the city years ago. Unfortunately, the Kingswood Homeowner's Association Board has sold us out, as has Mayor Brainard. Who will protect our community? Who will protect our water? Who will protect our children? Please help us. Sincerely, /WkJ C lJZ;9M Holland Detke ** TOTAL PAGE.01 ** OS/28/2002 09:04 FAX 3173374877 DOW AGRO IaI 001 To: Michael Mohr, President, Board of Zoning Appeals Re: May 28, 2002, BZA Meeting, Martin Marietta Mining Special Use Permit Request to Re-Open Meeting for Additional Publi~~ Comment May 28, 2002 Mr. Mohr: Along with several of my neighbors, I spoke against J1v[artin Marietta's Special Use Permit to mine the Mueller property south ofKingswoDd at the April 22, 2002, BZA meeting. Since April 22, we have gathered additional. factual data that supports our position. We feel the most important factors are as fCI Hows: 1. Risk to Carmel drinking wells located at Carmelot Park and damage to the aquifer. 2. Negative impact on property values. 3. Safety risk. We would like to present our findings at the May 28, 2002 BZA meeting. We request the BZA to re-open the meeting for additional public cOl1l1ment. We have prepared an organized presentation to minimize duplication of OOluments and we will have experts avai1;d>le to address the groundwater and property value issues. Several Kingswood residents would make the presentation. I believe oth.;:)~ neighbors will also want to speak. We feel this'information is significant and warrants 8.d.ditional public comment. I appreciate your consideration of my request. Regards, ~8 Bill Curry j {",\ \ \ JQJJ i 7i' ~.\,J~ ~~.e~'" \/' ',,? / /y/ A. 'V'. ~/ ~ \--1" !:f REeENEn \~ '00 ~~~ 2~ ~~~2 ~ --\ noes Ai; '~A (!) ~, ---n-.t. Dear Members, ~ / erg \ \;. \I I am writing in regard to the special use permit that Martin Marietta has requested. I am hoping for a chance to speak at the meeting tonight. Martin Marietta has combined a really good idea- the moving of the processing plant with a really bad idea- mining adjacent to city wells, our homes and a city park. They want to rush us into a decision so that these issues will not be fully addressed. It is nothing short of blackmail that MM has put the unreasonable time factors into the moving of this processing plant. They themselves are quite comfortable changing the dates for their . convenIence. Since the last B.Z.A. meeting, we have looked into the drinking water issue. We have geologists in our NOuP that are prepared to explain how mining by our wells is a really bad idea. We also have an outside expert to present and answer questions. Mining anywhere near the city wells is not a good idea. I feel there are many unseen costs for the city involved. The safety factor of this is not one to be taken lightly. Dredging an area so close to homes and a park is at best an attractive nuisance and at worst a death trap. I cannot see how this can possibly be made safe. The group that did research into the value of our homes also feels that mining this area is not acceptable. The number that seems to be flashed around is a 10% devaluation but what if it is more? How much is acceptable for me to lose for MM to make money? Please let it be known that I do not support the granting of this special use permit. May 28th, 2002 Board of Zoning Appeals 7JJ!!lr!fJ:; time, Dorothy H. Curry o o Tingley, Connie S From: Sent: To: Subject: Hancock, Ramona B Tuesday, May 28, 2002 8:43 AM Tingley, Connie S FW: Hearing Martin Marietta Zoning Request - May 28 For File and distribution to Board Members and LL. Ramona ---Original Message---- From: KDOGRUN@aol.com [SMTP:KDOGRUN@aol.com] Sent: Sunday, May 26,20027:10 PM To: rhancock@cLcarmel.in.us Subject: Hearing Martin Marietta Zoning Request - May 28 Dear Commissioners: As a resident of the Kingswood Subdivision which abuts the property MM wishes to dredge, I am writing to protest the proposal. Kingswood is an area populated by families with many small children. The noise, pollution, and dangers associated with this proposal are inappropriate next to a neighborhood. When we purchased our home, we were aware of the empty field, now known as the Mueller property. Seeing the beginnings of a road leading onto the property, we assumed that some day more residences would be constructed there. We don't mind living near other people, but allowing an industrial operation to locate there at this time would be unfair. Let's not change the rules in midstream. Citizens rely on city government to protect their interests. We don't need an increase in truck traffic; we don't want to keep our windows closed because MM is removing overburden and creating dust and noise (that's not acceptable, even in the winter); and who hasn't worried about an overly curious child going somewhere forbidden? Keeping all this in mind, I hope the Carmel Clay BZA will reject Martin Marietta's "Special Use Approval Request". Thank you in advance for protecting the interests of concerned homeowners. Sincerely, Edelgard and Phil Kincaid 5000 Huntington Dr. Carmel, IN 46033 1 ,. IaJ 003 "'-F--\--;-:T~-""',,- /(;\ \ I L .'1/ ! ~ /\ \" >.--- ..- ---.' /77 . ,(, \./ ,,~<~' . f".~ 'J ~ '-'/ \ t;;./ ,( -)I ,/, "~I RECElVfD '(~ (~ MAY 28 2002 EJ \;i\ DOCS fJ \~ -.......\ /....., I v'>" /cbl Many of us are concerned to learn about some done deals in which zoning has~~e~__.~;'\Y guaranteed, suits have been settled at the last minute giving up some homeowners rightsLt~\~ and e-mails that have been sent requesting officials ~~!.!Q raise pertinent hydrolleol~e . issues. Misinformation, no information, having to dig up information and lies have Occurred in this democratic process relating to the Mueller Property. All this should raise huge red flags for those opposed and those in favor of mining. Would not having an ordinance in place resolve many questions and concerns? . WOODEN & MCLAUGHLIN 05/28/02 TUE 09:45 FAX 317 639 6444 May 25) 2002 Several Points to ponder follow: · Moving the processing plant is supposedly the time dependent issue. There has been much "negotiation". Couldn't something else be worked out? Move the dredge back to the legal nonconfonning lake and dredge back an allotted amount of feet while an ordinance is constructed. . · Overburden removal 5 months per year for fourteen or more years = 70 months or more of noise. · Our children will be away at college before they would "benefit" from any lake. · The 'no blasting at this time' or 'this has nothing to do with blasting' comments in letters and conversation we have received or heard are offensive. Do they think we are stupid? (Or perhaps they know we are because of all the deals they have worked out with "us"). Of course it has to do with underground mining! That is their intent! They place this in the letters trying to entice us into believing it won't happen. It wilt happen! · Safety is a concern regarding the creation of a lake and moving the processing plant to an unfenced area. · What about property values? The city and board say property values will go up with an adjacent lake. Can you wait 14 years for the formation of a lake? What will happen if you need to sell before then? · The wheel is in the process of being reinvented. It has been up to the neighborhood to find out how to protect ourselves, to gamer jnfonnation on what should be in place and to figure out other reclamation issues. Many hours by many people. Have we figured it all out? Have we thought of everything? Do we believe it has aU been covered and investigated- No, it bas not. What about the city's well water? · This is big business coming in and trying to get by under the law with the least amount of payout as possible. They only offer to cover or include those items brousht forth by others. They have not been forthright and honest Thank you for your time in reading this. 05/28/02 TUE 09:46 FAX 317 639 6444 __/'-i'--- //. \.. ,- " \ \. .- , If/' R ~ (j NAlCEIVED '...i .. . . I_! - 28 2002 .-1 Informational Undate on MIDln2 ProDOsal~\ DOCS r-; ...; \/ >, /-::-; x /~. . -;<,;;7 . ~V:Z'h';Y:l& We are your neighbors who conducted the Kingswood Neighborhood Survey<>tf-Maiiin Marietta's mining proposal. To date, we have not been convinced there is sufficient justification for the Kingswood neighborhood to support Martin Marietta's Special Use Permits to IIline the Mueller property. Martin Marietta's ('~MM") proposed Special Use Pennits will have an immediate and negative impact on property values, are a risk to public safety, pose significant environmental risks, and are contrary to the family friendly environment the City of Cannel is attempting to develop and maintain. WOODEN & MCLAUGHLIN IaJ 004 May 24, 2002 We are all aware of the fact that the Mueller property will not remain in its current status. The question is whether Ml\1' s proposal to mine the Mueller property is the best choice for Kingswood. We feel it is not. Consider the following points: 1. Impact on PropertY values. Across the country, people move approximately every 7 years. Past experience in Kingswood, indicates about 10% move per year. It will be very difficult to sell our homes on a reasonable timetable, and at a reasonable price when prospective purchasers are aware of the fact that mining will occur at least until 2016. The property values of adjoining property owners may increase upon completion of the mine, but this will not benefit the majority ofKingswood homeowners. 2. Impact on local roads. MM projects that they will mine approximately 500,000 tons of sand and gravel per year. This sand and gravel will be transported by truck from the proposed processing plant on the east side of Hazel Dell Parkway. A dump tnlck can hold approximately 30,000 lbs of sand and gravel. This is equivalent to approximately 110 round trip trucks per day (or entering and leaving the site 220 per day.) This is an excessive hazard on already crowded roads. 3. Basis for City of Cannel Support. The City of Cannel has yet to provide convincing reasons for their support ofMM's Special Use Permit. To date, the City of Cannel's has provided two reasons to support MM's petition: a. That the Mueller property is un-developable since it is within the lOO-year flood plain. This is false. A small portion of the property is within the SOO-year flood plain, but it may be possible to sufficiently reclaim the property to permit building. b. That all of the sumnmding property is either currently in mining operation. slated for mining operation or owned by the City of Cannel. This conveniently ignores the presence of Kingswood! 05/28/02 TIJE 09: 46 FAX 317 639 6444 WOODEN & MCLAUGHLIN IaJ 005 ~;;:;-\-I?'i~'~ ,/('\'''' 1 1"",,1/" L/ \ >~:-.>-'_.~-~-'<'...J.... /~~........ We suspect that the real reason for the City's support ofMM's property steIfi$Yfrom 1- ""'<>\ the 1997 conttact entered into between the. City of Carmel ~ MM for th~...11ij. 'e~fll!J \;~.~, of Hazel. Dell Parkway to 96tb. street. In this co~ct, the CIty guaranteed{-MM.__., NA.V~ ID [.'-::__1\ host of nghts and freedoms WIth respect to land m Carmel. (,"1. DOCS '002 l; 4. Impact on Water ~uality. By its own ad~ssion, MM intends to mine the);(~if~! \</&/ from which Carmel gets some of its drinkmg water. The city has been informed(~TT~ there is a risk of not only damaging the aquifer but also a likelihood of polluting our drinking water due to diesel oil spills and other contaminants entering the aquifer. MM: also intends to mine within an unsafe distanf:e of the city's wells, which pump our drinking water from the aquifer. Again, there is a high risk that mining in such close proximity will affect the wells. Finally, with regard to the Kingswood Homeowners Board: Did you know that the Kingswood Homeowners Association Board signed a settlement with the city and MM on Friday, May 17th agreeing to allow the mining to take place? This was prior to the "informational meetings" on May 19th and 20th at which the Board told us that they had not yet reached a decision on the issue because they wanted to gather information at these meetings. These meetings were a complete waste of time for all involved since the Kingswood Board had already made up its mind. Prior to making this decision, the Kingswood Board had not made any attempts to gauge the collective opinion of the Kingswood residents, in spite having received a copy of the survey results showing overwhelming opposition to MM's mining proposal and a challenge by the BZA to do so at the April22nd BZA meeting. We feel that there are e:ltremely serious issues at stake here and that it behooves all ofus to find out mote. Please attend the BZA hearing on Tuesday., May 28 at 7:00 pm at City Hall It may be youtlast ehanee to be heard on this issue. If we make our ~ conce s heard, someone will have to listen. d-6~> <.. ~U'*'~ ()!dHf)Or-l c:;/ ~~ D~Xd~,l11T? ~ !~ t' / / \ ~-/~ t G,-....J ....6-1f--4....c-L ,-k ~ t~ Jd Re: Martin Marietta Materials, Inc. Mining Special Use Permit (UV-23-02; SU-24-02; SU-25-02; V-2S-02; V-27-02) /\~)I/'-. i/(\';;.' ~ /~ a,/' 4- '<:sp,\ ". 1/ RECEIVED \~tp.).' ",,7 \,~\ I\={ MAY 23 2002 L~"-'.' .;,\ DOCS !~ C' '\ . , ,? . , ~~, -<<""::- ,,>.'.)... '"" 'X/1' <:. ',- k,,--r9.' \ IY I t\:b.-" May 23,2002 To: Mr. Michael Mohr, President, Board of Zoning Appeals Mr. Mohr: On May 28, 2002, the Board of Zoning Appeals ("BZA") will hold a meeting regarding the above-mentioned Special Use Permits for Martin Marietta ("MM"). We respectfully request the BZA to re-open the meeting for public comment regarding these permits. We are a group of Kingswood homeowners opposed to the proposed Special Use Permits requested by MM to conduct sand and gravel mining on the land south of the Kingswood development to 10Sth street, and from Carmelot Park east to Hazel Dell Parkway. We believe that sand and gravel mining adjacent to Kingswood will have an immediate and negative impact on property values, is a risk to public safety, poses significant environmental risk and is inconsistent with the image the City of Carmel is attempting to develop and maintain. Several of our members spoke against the MM petition at the April 22, 2002, BZA meeting. In support of our original remonstrance, we submitted to the BZA Office brief additional comments on May 17, 2002, that were distributed to all BZA members. In furtherance of the remonstrance indicated above, we request permission to provide additional input during the public hearing'phase of the BZA meeting on May 28, 2002. In order to minimize duplication of comments, we have prepared an organized presentation, with several speakers briefly presenting different topics. Where appropriate, we will have experts in different fields to support the remonstrance. Topics we intend to address include the following: 1. Results of the Kingswood Neighborhood Opinion Survey; 2. Safety/Community Image issues; 3. Impact on Property values; 4. Rebuttal of the City of Carmel's recommendation to support MM's Special Use Permit; 5. Input regarding environmental issues raised by MM's Special Use Permits. Respectfully Submitted, ~8- ru{~ Request for Re-Opening of Public Forum at May 28, 2002 BZA Meeting 1 r= -$-' .. . . '\., STARK DONINGER & SMITH BRUCE E. SMITH* .JOHN W. VAN BUSKIRK* RICHARD W. DYAR PATRICIA SEASOR BAILEY BRIAN .J. TUOHY MARK A. BAILEY LEWIS E. WILLIS, .JR. THOMAS A. BRODNIK RICHARD B. KAUFMAN DENNIS R. TYLER MAR.JORIE A. MILLMAN CLAY M. PATTON ATTORNEYS AT LAW SU ITE 700 TELECOPIER 317-633-6618 OR 317-633-6619 2ND FLOOR 317-633-6620 50 SOUTH MERIDIAN STREET INDIANAPOLIS, INDIANA 46204-3542 317-638-2400 ~ Rt.Cr_N~~\f\? ,!\~~ 1~ L\M~ UQCS . CERTIFIED MEDIATORS SENIOR COUNSEL .JOHN C. STARK COUNSEL WILLIAM K. BYRUM. CLARENCE H. DONINGER GREGORY S. FEHRIBACH* ROBERT D. MAAS* GILBERT E. SNIDER HARRY .JOHN WATSON m May 22, 2002 David Warshauer BARNES & THORNBURG 11 South Meridian Street Indianapolis, Indiana 46204 c RE: Martin Marietta's Petition to Extend Mining Activity Into the Mueller Property o Dear David: As I stated the other night, I representNorthhaven; LLC and certain other property r owners involved in the development of the residential and commercial office development known as Northhaven on the west side of Gray Road, north of 96th Street. I appreciated the opportunity to listen to Martin Marietta's explanation of its proposed mining activity on the Mueller property. After consulting with my clients, they are most concerned that Martin y Marietta will not commit to prohibit quarry mining or prohibit mining using explosives as part of . it's petition before the Carmel Board of Zoning Appeals ("BZA"). In fact, at our meeting, a representative from Martin Marietta Corp. specifically stated that "we would not rule out quarry operations" which may include blasting with explosives. Becausethe Northhaven development has an investment of Twenty-three Million Dollars ($23,000,000) in office development and 266 luxury apartments, the owners are very concerned about the impact that expanding or increasing the amount of blasting along the Gray Road corridor will have on this substantial investment. My clients do not understand why Martin Marietta refuses to enter into a written commitment to prohibit blasting at the Mueller property. Given the recent significant change in surrounding property uses, i.e. high-end single family housing, Class A offices and luxury apartments, it seems very reasonable that Martin Marietta would commit in writing to the prohibition of all blasting on the Mueller property. Furthermore, such commitment should provide that if Martin Marietta ever desires to commence blasting on such site, they will petition the BZA for a Special Exception (or other appropriate approval) to permit the use of explosives and notify surrounding property owners outside the ,. ..-' .. , STARK DONINGER & SMITH David Warshauer May 22, 2002 Page 2 of2 legal notice area including Owners' Associations at Williamson Run, Northhaven, and Carolina Commons. In the event your clients agree to such written commitment as part of its BZA Petition, my clients will not remonstrate at the BZA hearing set for May 28, 2002. If! don't hear from you by Friday, May 24, 2002, I will advise my clients that Martin Marietta refuses to committo no blasting while mining at the Mueller property, and we will actively oppose approval of your current request of the BZA. STARK, DONINGER & SMITH Brian J. Tuohy BJT/kr cc: Honorable James Brainard, Mayor of Carmel John Molitor, Attorney Lindell Traggar Thomas C. Hays, Esquire Williamson Run HOA Carolina Commons HOA City of Carmel BZA Members