Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutRemonstrance i\. . KATHLEEN AND STEPHEN NOONE 9653 Cypress Way Carmel, IN 46032 October 22, 2007 Carmel Clay Board of Zoning Appeals One Civic Square Cannel, IN 46032 Property location: 2640 W. 96th Street, Indianapolis Docket No. 07070012 SU (Special Use) Religious Uses in a Residential District We opposed the granting of the Special Use and Lot Width variances (06050007 and 06050008) that had been requested by Lubavitch of Indiana in the fall 2006. Once again, we strongly oppose the granting of the Special Use variance that is being requested by Lubavitch of Indiana at this meeting. Contrary to its fall 2006 petition, Lubavitch ofTndiana has not filed for a minimum lot width variance. We understand that the approximate width of the property is 136 ft. rather than the 200 ft. minimum width as specified in Zoning Ordinance 5..04.03.E for special use. Since this would require about half again as much more width, do they not need to apply for a minimum lot width variance? In as much as the proposed use of this property is NOT for a private residence, we strongly believe that the required 200 minimum lot width should apply to building a place of worship on a lot zoned for residential use. Not all of the affected homeowners received a notice of this public hearing. In fact, five of the homeowners who abut the new facility have purchased their homes since the fall 2006. Two of these new neighbors, who have moved in within the past two weeks, will abut the parking Lot and had no idea of the proposed development. Another is moving into their home presently and was unaware as well. A fourth moved in about three months ago, and the fifth several months earlier. Furthermore, the signagefor the October 22,2007 hearing is very difficult to see along 96th Street and also is difficult to read because of small print. Traveling east on 96th Street, nobody can see the signage until one is almost past it and even then could not even read the sign going 30 mph. Heading west on 96th Street, the signage is visible at the east property line, but is partialLy obstructed by weeds. The reasons we oppose the variance are: . Lubavitch ofIndiana correctly states that the property east of the new facility, owned by College Park Baptist Church, is currently zoned "S-} with special use variance." However, the College Park Baptist Church structure is placed on the property at a distance of hundreds of feet from the adjoining common area(s). The new facility being proposed by Lubavitch ofIndiana will be constructed as close to the common area as regulations allow. This is a totally different situation than College Park Baptist Church. . When Shelborne Greene homeowners purchased their properties along Cypress Way, we understood that 2640 W. 96th Street was zoned residential that would permit only a single family dwelling on the lot. When the owner purchased the property at 2640 W. 96th Street, he had to have understood the same zoning restrictions. We do not believe that one person's desire to construct a new facility for any purpose should supersede the rights of the 18 adjacent property owners along Cypress Way and Inverness Boulevard in Shelborne Kathleen and Stephen Noone Carmel Clay Board of Zoning Appeals October 22, 2007 Page 2 Greene. Lubavitch of Indiana will argue that College Park Baptist Church has a special use variance. And so they will say that Shelborne Greene homeowners should not object to having another religious structure adjacent to their properties. However, College Park Baptist Church preceded the development of Shelborne Greene neighborhood. All homeowners building or buying homes were aware of its presence at the time of their purchases. The lot in question at the present time served as a perfect buffer between Shelborne Greene and College Park Baptist Church and afforded a sense of privacy because it was zoned residential. So their argument is not a valid one. o Construction wilL require removal of many large trees that otherwise would provide a visual and sound buffer between adjacent homes and the building. Any new landscaping would not likely serve as suitable replacements and would take years to grow. Thus, we and other neighbors west of the new facility will be directly affected by having to view the back of a building or a parking lot rather than the current natural landscape. This fact alone will have a direct affect on the resale value of our homes, some of which were purchased at a premium due to the fact that they abutted the natural landscape. · Because the new facility will not be a private residence, security will be an issue since the building will not be occupied overnight as would a private residence, with the exception of Friday nights. Furthermore, the architect's design of the driveway and north parking lot would give access to the public to drive unseen after dark into the parking lot and potentially gain easy access to the adjacent lots in Sherborne Greene. If the security Lights remain lit at night, this might attract the public to unauthorized use of the parking lot, including skateboarding, juvenile partying, etc. If the security lights are turned off overnight, this might make the area attractive to criminals seeking access to the building and adjacent homes under the cover of darkness, and quick, easy egress from the parking lot after committing their crimes. Moreover, the building itselfwould serve as a visual barrier, hiding 1he parking lot from many angles and enable illegal or unauthorized activity to occur undetected. 1& We have lived in this property for ten years this month and, in that period of time, we have seen less than 10 people on that lot. All were affiliated with the property in some way or another, including the surveyors for this project. What was planned to be a private place, and what has been a private place, could now become a very public place. The homeowners who abut the property have always felt very safe and many did not have window coverings facing east. If you approve this variance, these homeowners would lose this feeling of being safe. . III People have purposefully chosen the lots abutting the property at 2640 W. 96th Street because of the heavy tree line and resultant privacy. One of the homes abutting the property is presently for sale. There is no doubt that any home will be more difficult to sell in 1he future with tbe proposed development and diminished lack of privacy. Not only will these homes be harder to sell, they will be devalued. Furthermore, the domino effect will devalue other homes in Shelborne Greene neighborhood. · The swale at the back of our properties ends in our lot at the drain that connects the run off to the street sewer. Following heavy rains, the swale has on occasion fLUed. Because of the slope of the property from the common area to the swale, we bave a major concern of run off water from the proposed new facility, especially from the parking lot, which is very close to the StOITIl drain. We are very concerned about water damage to the foundation of our home if the swaLe should flood due to the additional run off. Kathleen and Stephen Noone Carmel Clay Board of Zoning Appeals October 22, 2007 Page 3 III Finally, other concerns are light pollution from the new facility and parking lot; pedestrian traffic along 96lb Street on the Sabbath - unsafe for them and automobiles; and the rumors that a day care program may be instituted in the future. We thank you for your consideration of our concerns and urge you to deny the Special Use Application for the property located at 2640 W. 96th Street, Indianapolis. We don't believe that the 18 adjacent homeowners, and other as well, in Shelbome Greene should have to suffer because Lubavitch of Indiana purchased property that was only zoned for private residential use and was too narrow for his proposed new facility. . Sincerely, "f CLZ7Z~'.J a. J) ~ Kathleen Noone /&i:;kc)tn~ Stephen Noone Prepared for October 22, 2007 Public Hearing by Steve Hantz Docket No. 07070012 SU (Special Use) Lubavitch ofIndiana proposed worship center variance This letter is in opposition to the special use variance requested by Lubavitch of Indiana. My wife, son, daughter and I Jive at 9605 Cypress Way in Carmel, immediately adjacent to the Lubavitch property. As was the case when this proposal was first rejected by the BZA in 2006, my main arguments in opposition to the special use variance are based on the last section of the Application for Special Use Approval Request entitled Findings of Fact. I have provided board members with a portion of the minutes from the BZA meeting held on October 23rd, 2006, highlighting my arguments. In that meeting I addressed 5 of the 6 requirements listed in the Findings of Fact section of the application required from Lubavitch by the BZA. This newest proposal by Lubovitch still fails to meet any of these requirements. Rather than repeat my concerns voiced in the previous meeting, I would instead like to address the remaining point point #4, which requires the following: "The special use will not injuriously or adversely affect the adequacy and availability of water, sewage and storm drainage facilities and police and fire protection." We now have a police officer living in our neighborhood that I believe is planning to address police protection concerns. My latest concern focuses on the storm drainage facilities. With 21,500 sq. ft. of proposed paving area, storm water run-off becomes a major problem, further taxing an already inadequate drainage situation. Our basement has flooded several times. A temporary stream forms along the eastern property line of ShelboW11e Greene, which includes our backyard, after every rainstorm. The standing water remains for days after the rain has ended. Without an additional drainage system or retention pond on the Lubavitch property, the flooding in this area would increase to an unacceptable leveL I believe the Lubavitch property should retain its current zoning, as not one of the six requirements listed under the Findings of Fact section of the Special Use Approval Request have been met. Although it is regrettable that the property was purchased with the assumption that the zoning could be easily changed, it is my hope that the land will be used as intended by the original wning and by the requirements of the Board of Zoning Appeals. Thank you for your time and consideration. Steve and Shelley Hantz 9605 Cypress Way Carmel, IN 46032 317-471-8145 steve.hantz@sbcglobal.net rcamlel Board ofZ~J~iJlg A'~QCaIS I Regular Meeting A~nd~_ I October 23, 2006 J- -' Steve Hantz, 9605 Cypress Way, adjacent to the property. His opposition to the lot width variance and pro osed use by Lubavitch had been documented in a letter which had been given to the Board.Wi~" wanted to address the Findings orFact-f9r~.sRecial Use amendment allPJovill reguest. He addrf~sedl fi~ llif. ~i~ .p'oints. First, the Qr~nlise 'is"physic.<llh' suitabJvoL tbiDJ[op'oseJ ~P.eC'lalllse. He d~ ~;ent was suiTIiBleoecause oftlieWiCltn of"tITh site, rJS-feet insteadofthe 21)0 ~e9uired.:.. Sec.9Eaty~ it, wouLd. not injuriQus]y or <!.dve~ely' affect ~fon.Q!.uic fa_ctoI~,. suc~ as ~2s1 bene}i'no tl'ie.commiiJl'i'fy atfdi its:anricipal~'lL1ffect oi1-:.;;urroiiii"ding properfyval!'tes. He disagreed because the properties"no-w 'abut 'an I (empJywoodecn~~1ijcli is zonea ~mentiil:::'aJT~3vi~l be wort_llle~s ifthey_~~ a1ioJn~~a_ two-st<2ry I liilCllng thafls 20TeeCfrom the pro~!:t.Y_li~e. Tfii.fCl:-i"t wilr5e consis"(ffi(WjUi soci"alneigI1l50rnooa- ( ac ors, stiCh as compalioility witnexistiiig uses al1d those permitted under current zoning. He felt the - _p'. -..I compatibili!): with existing uses called into affect that hidden parking behind the building which is - ~ a~c_essibfeo'jj:Jy_thrs)Ugll ~~rL2.w t'l~ghfare 8.90 feet fr~m ?~~~treet ~th a naITO~ entran~e anc.U exil:1'Jext, the Special Use will not aClversely affecrvel1iCiiTartraffic in ana around .me premises:-He , thollghti!.. would affect both Qedes!!i~n and veh~cular t~ff1S-' At. the neighborh029 meetlof?, ~"'e -Ra1515j [informed tllem tfiat certai,n mem6ers-would be walking to The builtling on-SaturClays. There are no I ~ewalKs or sh"'CiUlOers alOi'igtl~is -brlsy section of 96th Street making It dangerous for both the - ~ lfedestdans antttne venicles trying to avoid these pedestrian-3! He shO\ved a visual with both llirlite planand the neighboring houses. He feH1he building dwarfed the residences. One of the largest houses in the area was almosl as big as the Lubavitch property. but sets on a properly more appropriate to its size with buffering. His main concern was that the property was not suitable ti-om this building. A properly which was twice as \vide and only halfas deep would be much more suitable thanlhis nalTO\V property ,,.,/itb the back half not being used. Robert McLaughlin, 9649 Cypress Way, adjacent to the parcel. He appreciated the neighborhood meeting \\lith the Rabbi and bis urchiteds and attorney on September 12. It was informative. but at the end the conccrns some of the neighbors had at the beginning still remained. One of his greatest concerns was the lack of a master plan for the north portion of the parcel. They have been told verbally that there were no plans and it was not part of the project. Yet it was part of the property and it needed consideration. It was relevant to the neighbors. It raised a significant concern over lhe economic impact in the future. He did not have any concern with the Special Use and hoped they could find a suitable location. I lis main concern was with the lot width variance. The) were told at the September I ih meeting that there was no real awareness Ibatthe 101 width wus a particular concern. Yet he has since learned there was dialogue between Lub<lvitch and College Park to discuss the use of property to the east of l.uhavitch in order to accommodate their planned construction, He thought it was unfortunate they had purchased property that was not suitable for their intended use. This project does not encroach upon the legul setbacks that were imposed; however. it certainly is a tighter fit than anyone \vould want. He \\'as surprised that Lub,n'itch bought this property. knowing what they needed to do, when there is an abundance of property available. They were led to believe thaI it was the ready availability (Ind the price of the land that were good. In listening 10 Mr. Coots and learning that the gate would not be benelicial t~'r law enforcement. it was contrary to \-\'hatthey had discussed in terms of the lighting, They \vere concerned there would be substantial light pollution ti'0l1l the parking lot area. They were told if there was going to be expansion: it would be additional parking to the north. requiring more lighting. Now the lighting will not be on timer. but be dusk to dawn lighting fm security. He felt that was not a realistic thing to ask the neighbors to do. There were some other environmental concerns. While Mr. Coots showed photos oCthe dense foliage between the properties that is not true all year. Page 4 of 19 CARMEUCLA Y BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS CARMEL, INDIANA Docket No,. Petitioner: FINDINGS OF FACT - SPECIAL USE The premises in question is particularly physically suitable for the proposed Special Use because: 2. The Special Use will not injuriously or adversely affect economic factors, such as cost/benefit to the community and its anticipated effect on surrounding property values because: 3. The Special Use will be consistent with social/neighborhood factors, 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 affect neighborhood integrity because: 4. J TheSpeciaf Use will not injuriously or adverseiyaffectthe adequacy and'availabilitY atwater, sewage and storm,' .!!.rainage facilities and police and fire protection becausf: 5, The Special Use will not adversely affect vehicular and Redestrian traffic in and around the premises upon which the Special Use is proposed because: ~ -- 6. The Board has reviewed the requirements of Ordinance Z-160, Section 21.03 (1-26) as they relate to this Speci~1 Use, and does not find that those criteria prevent the granting of the Special Use: 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 ,20_, CHAIRPERSON, Carmel/Clay Board 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). Page a of a - z:\.harecUorms\6ZA appllcations\ Spe<:isJ Us.. ApplicaUCl<l r>v. 0110312006 I ~ Holmes, Christine B From: Sent: To: Subject: Jeff Johnson [harpazo7@earthlink.net] Sunday, October 21, 2007 11 :37 AM Holmes, Christine B New Facility Proposal Christine, I am writing to you to express our opinion against the attempts of Lubavitch to construct a religious facility behind our property. while it being a religious facility doesn't concern me at all, it is just the fact that there will be the construction noise to deal wit.h then the possible noise and/light pollution that may resul.t from the building being there. Not to mention that having the facility behind our property might mean that anyone (those who don't use the facility) can drive back in the parking lot of the facility and do who knows what. My wife has health problems and cannot work and one of the results of her condition is that her sleeping patterns are thrown off and getting to sleep can be difficult, so she is often trying to sleep during the daylight hours. Noise from the construction could very well interfere with her trying to sleep. To add to her difficulties is the fact that her daughter passed away last month so she does not need any other stress to have to deal with. We vote to disallow the facility to be constructed. Thank you! Jeff and Cindy Johnson 9619 Cypress Way Carmel, IN 46032 1 Page J ot I ; Holmes, Christine B ~~._~ .__~._____________.._~._,___---~--------.....-------_.._..,,_.~.__'- _~~_.L From: Alan Thomas [alan_s_thomas@comcast.net] Sent: Sunday, October 21 , 2007 9: 16 PM To: Holmes, Christine B Subject: Objection to docket 07070012 SU Lubavitch of Indiana To whom it may concern, I would like to express my objection to the special use described in docket # 07070012. As a home owner in the area, 1 have to object to this request. I purchased my home 4 years ago with the knowledge that the undeveloped land adjacent to the complex which I now call home was zoned for residential use. Given the size of the land I assumed there was no way that I would ever be faced with having a non-residential neighbor. Unfortunately this is what I am now faced with. My objections are based on the follow: 1) The impact the facility will have on my home's value. I understand that someone could have built a home on this lot and could have removed all the tress and other landscaping that now fills this lot, but I do not think that such a person would have a 35 car parking lot and a dumpster enclosure in their back yard. There is no question that this facility will have a negative impact on the home values in the area. 2) The impact the facility will have on the noise level in the area. It is bad enough that we have to deal with the occasional 8:00 AM Sunday morning music that comes from the church on the other side of this lot, and the fireworks and other celebration noise that comes from the estates just north 01 this lot. Adding a new facility that will add more noise is just asking too much of the current residents of Shelbarne Green. This is a quiet area and we want it to stay that way. 3) The possible crime related issues that could arise from having this facility located deep into our neighborhood. I would hope that this facility would only attract reputable people, but there is a possibility that people with questionable intentions could enter homes via this new facility. The parking lot, which is out of site from the main road, will be less than one hundred feet from six homes. This would give easy, concealed access to burglars, rapist, kidnapers, child molesters, and others to homes that are now mostly inaccessible except via their main entrances. Although crime is not an issue in the area, this facility could bring crime to us. Due to these issues I must ask you to reject the Lubavitch of Indiana's request for special use on this land. I will not be able to attend the board meeting on 10/22/2007 to discuss this issue in person, but please consider this e- mail my final opinion on the subject If any clarification is needed, please feel free to contact me. Alan Thomas 3467 Glen Abbe Ct Carmel IN, 46032 317-228-0801 11\/')'-" 1'1(\/1'7 ;- To whom it concerns, My wife and I just purchased our first home. We spent our time, looking at all options and weighing all factors in deciding where to move to and what to buy. It didn't take us long to decide to move out of Marion County into Hamilton County. And although the house we purchased is not the nicest or most expensive house in Hamilton County, it is a dream come true for us and a definite statement to our success so far in life. But we were educated on an issue that is very relevant to our investment in Hamilton County and our future, and we wanted to make sure that our voices were heard in the matter, The property that we purchased is in Shelborne Greene. Our property backs up to what is currently undeveloped land. It is our understanding that College Park Baptist Church has purchased this land on 96th Street near their existing campus with the intent of building a new facility. While both my wife and I support the development of organized religion, we feel that this lot is not the place for College Park Baptist Church to expand their already-sprawling campus, It is also our understanding that there are two variances that are needed to allow this project to move forward. One is the assignment of a special use variance to allow Religious use of Residentially-zoned property. The second is a variance based on the width of the lot in relation to the type of construction proposed. With this in mind, we think it is very important that it be remembered that College Park Baptist Church carries the burden of proof that this development will not impact our investment, nor anyone else that is in the same situation as us. We feel, however, that there would be a tremendous impact to our investment. We are very concerned with the safety and security aspects of this plan, When we look at the proposed site plan, we see a secluded lot perfect for illegal activity. We see a private driveway that parallels the rear of 13 moderately priced homes. We see the potential for noise and sound pollution. We see an eye-sore in our back yard where beautiful trees and animals now roam, And we see the value of our property dropping, There has been much criticism of Carmel in the past for their stance on annexation. This is the opportunity to prove to all of the opponents one of the values of the annexation. Thank you for allowing our voices to be heard. Sincerely, Sean and Elizabeth Cheesman 9631 Cypress Way f 1 Carmel, IN 46032 317.339.7717 SCANNFri ~..... page J ot J Holmes, Christine B From: alineback@comcast.net Sent: Friday, October 19, 2007 1 :31 PM To: Holmes, Christine B Cc: alineback@comcast.net Subject: Zoning Appeal Re: Proposed Worship Center Variance Request (Lubavitch of Indiana) City of Carmel Attn: Christine Barton-Holmes One Civic Square Carmel, IN 46032 Attention: Ms. Christine Barton-Holmes, Planning Administrator Regarding: Zoning Appeal Re: Proposed Worship Center Variance Request (Lubavitch of Indiana) - property located at 2640 W. 96th St, Indianapolis, IN 46268 As a homeowner in Shelborne Greene, I would like to inform you of our opposition to the variance request petitioned by Lubavitch of Indiana. I am opposed to the request for the following reasons listed below. 1. Decrease of our property values. 2. Noise & lights in our backyard. 3. Security issues. 4. Traffic issues/concerns on 96th street. 1 hope the City of Carmel will protect our interests and rule against this petition. Sincerely, Paul & Angela Lineback, Lot # 308 Shelborne Greene homeowners 10/19/2007 "'. October 18, 2007 Carmel City Hall Attention: Carmel/Clay Board of Zoning Appeals One Ci vic Square Carmel, IN 46032 We are writing as concerned residents of Shelborne Greene in regards to the Special Use Application filed by Lubavitch of Indiana 10 be heard on October 22,2007 (Docket No. 07070012 SU). My husband and I purchased our home (3487 Inverness BI vd, Lot 310) on October 1,2007 which is immediately behind the proposed building site. One of our main reasons for purchasing the home and leaving our previous residence in Marion County was for the private and quite backyard the home provided. Our understanding was the area directly behind our home could only be used for a single family dwelling due to the minimal width of the land. With this understanding, we purchased the home this month. With the proposed variance submitted by Lubavitch of Indiana, we have the following reasons for opposition along with many other concerned residents of Shelborne Greene: . Proximity of proposed facility to adjacent homes in Shelborne Greene. No longer could residents enjoy their backyards without seeing parking lots, buildings and/or roads. The proposed construction would reduce/eli minate privacy for many Shelborne Greene residents due to the removal of much of the existing and established vegetation. Addition of new vegetation would take decades to return to the current height and density. Elimination of natural animal habitat. Potential far an increase in crime due to the proposed secluded parking lot. Reduction of property values in Shelbarne Greene and surrounding areas. Elimination of natural drainage provided to the backyards of many Shelborne Greene residents after changes inland elevation. Increased noise both during the day and at night from people and vehicles. Increased lighting at night from car lights, parking lot lights and security lights. Increased traffic flow onto 96th street. . . . . . . . . Please know that weare opposed to any facility construction behind our home, excluding a single family dwelling which would provide both parties reasonable separation distance. As new tax paying citizens of Carmel, we hope you understand our concerns and continue to maintain the zoning standards previously set forth in this area. We hope to be able to enjoy the privacy of our backyard for many years to come with our newborn SOil. Thank you for your time, ~o.n and ~fta Uvtet Jason and Alisha Ehrel 3487 Inverness Blvd. Carmel, TN 46032 Cannel Clay Board of Zoning Appeals One Civic Square Carmel, IN 46032 1 '".. \ 't, "', ~ " ~ \ ~. ~ >"'),~'-_. <1 <I' NtCttVfi OCl .J) 15 ~'n". '.;'u/ }JOCS October 10, 2007 Attention: Ms. Connie Tingley, Secretary Subject: Docket # 07070012 SU Lubavich ofTndiana proposed worship center variance This letter is my fonnal opposition to the variance requested by Lubavich of Indiana. My wife and I live in the Shelborne Green subdivision immediately/o the property in question. We oppose the petitioner's request for the following reasons: AW~r' I. We do not believe the property purchased by Lubavich of Indiana is adequately suited for its intended purpose. This issue arose during the first petition (2006), and to our knowledge that concern has not been addressed. The amendments referenced by Lubavich's attorney, Coots Henke & Wheeler, in their letter dated September 24 does not address this concern. 2. The physical dimensions of the property would force construction, vehicular traffic patterns and parking in unacceptable proximity to neighboring home owners. The previous petition failed to adequately address this issue as well. 3. We are concerned that development of anything other than a single family residence would negatively impact the environment. Removal oftress and natural foliage would substantially devalue adjacent residential properties and remove a natural habitat for local wildlife. 4. Any reduction in residential property values would be especially harmful given the current housing market. 5. It is not reasonable to expect neighboring property owners to support this variance in the absence ofa fully disclosed master site plan. This issue was not addressed during the previous petition and should not be allowed to go forward unless and until a master site plan is fully disclosed. 6. We are concerned about increased vehicular and pedestrian traffic in the Shclborne Green neighborhood during times when children and families are most likely to be present. Our neighborhood is not designed to accommodate non-residential traffic. 7. Safety is another concern due to the potential unattended parking areas becoming used by those who wish to avoid public view. Risks include vandalism, burglary and other criminal activity against local property owners, not to mention the proposed worship center and occupants. Neighborhood watch enorts would be ineffective due to sporadic and unfamiliar traffic. We appreciate the opportunity to voice opposition and trust that the Board of Zoning Appeals will carefully consider our concerns. Residents of Carmel rely on local authorities to protect our interests and enhance the community. Respectfully submitted, ~.'YM 9649 cypX~ay Carmel, IN 46032 317-471-1 ]08 nbmc laugh@sbcglobal.net IlfJtt771 f-?/IV~&47 We, the undersigned, are residents of~) t~ r~neighborhoodl and we oppose the granting of the Special Use Variance that is being requested by Lu bavitch of Indiana. Property location: 2640 W. 96th Street, Indianapolis Docket No. 07070012 SU (Special Use) Name/Address fJrl Signature . 2~'7D ~euw; Cf- ~ !ftm ~ fllrpreen R..rrv;r 0obnsr:l1 -'t1/(u4 (f7... We, the undersigned,. are resid.ents of Sbelborne Greene neighborhood and we oppose the granting of tile Special Use Variance that is being requested by Lu bavitcb of Indiana. Property location: 2640 W. 96th Street,. Indianapolis Docket No. 07070012 SU (Special Use) ~ Signature dI~ ,~^,{;'++wrt ~ 1 ~f (fluf QJ\~~ F\r\re-f-- ~\cgl I""f"\"'.JerC\e~"S 6lvd ~~ /'/~ -;j, 3ffY? J IV I/tit<JJV~~J .o) vA- C /If/! - J ~ c:f~laVDn:\!~ jV7::~;;:;;~' 1~:ldu0r M~j~~' ~ ta.,-, L 1\1\ R h _ ( - (,'.-, 0 I.. /f/\./ 16-e; '3 C -- - \ 0 <;&lfb .fJn-kt 319 If ~Vill'lL5.5" 3 Iud ';t:3tLt~ 1\ -r~ 'ecdC'-fwcl ?;qC(9- In.Jt<s'0'f(c'2121\(iit ~m~ 1<>' ~Le kAf'lrEft/SK q6lfl{ CYPP...S3S VJA-Y () I CfG 3 ( ,tJ!~ wuIbv-N qb2~ .-.- lvr Ut' /Yfl"5" t;" 8/ v,J \ '3 \ ik.} We, the undersigned, are residents of SheRborne Greene neighborhood and we Oppo!ie the granting of the Special Use Variance that is being requested by Lu bavitcb of Indiana. Property location: 2640 W. 96th Street, Indianapolis Docket No. 07070012 SU (Special Use) Name/Address ,"".r ",/ Signature 2/ 15 \b 1'1 'cf-4 ~06 ~ ~ We, the undersigned, are residents of Shelborne Greene neighborhood and we oppose the granting of t.he Special Use Variance that is being requested by Lubavitcb of Indiana. Property location: 2640 W. 96th Street, Indianapolis Docket No. 07070012 SU (Special Use) Name/Address Signature Jd. f4("bAA. -~ leA %OZcl~"'"'t;ln"hd'0 4co5'h< .A3 AN I) A-N'P I ~Tl f(...ALS e:- ~ '1 '0' c.y fIl.E~S WAY ~~ . Jet 1;1::1:1. lc ~m-:ti-,J Pc 2- kbtl<hV q~ 1.0 ciJ p.,e40 ~ l1li" \ '. "'. .., .. ~.~. :" . .~i .to . f"' .'\. ;. '1 , '. ~. O€9Z: .. 'p o :D Q I"".. I ~-::..-:. 'I -I (::> tJ e:- If' rn " ::;> G> <( ~ -L 1 -e> ~ 7' ~. r- - 2: f'\I S U) c: I"- ~ "- ~ G\ N I _.-.--' T-. -, -., AA..-. '. ----L -- -- --- ----- -- -,,~' ~_:s- ~,". ?:.~':~ , . ..;.~ \'r;' ~~t..;;;;~-f