HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes BZA 05-23-05
.
City of Carmel
Carmel Advisory B()a~d of , Zoning Appeals
Regular Meeting
, Monday, May 23, 2005
The reglilarly scheduled meeting-qfthe Carinel Board of Zoning Appeals met at 6:00 PM on Monday,
May 23,:2005;'inthe COUIicilChafubers'ofCity Hall, Carmel, Indiana. The meeting was called to order at.
6:15 PM with the Pledge of Allegiance.'
"Mel11bersin attendance were Leo Dierckman, J~e~Hawkins and Madelein~ TOJ;Yes, thereby establishing
a quorum~ Angie Conn, Jon Dobosiewicz, Nathan Arlderson and'l\1ike Hollibaugh represented the
Department of Community Services. !ohn Molitor, Legal Counsel, was also present.
'Mr.~Dierckman tyoved to approve' th'eiminptes of the April 25, 2005 meeting as. submitted. The motion
~asseco'nded by Mrs. Torres and APPROVED 3-0.
. -Mrs.Plavchakjoinedthe meeting at-6:20 PM.
· .. H. Public Hearing.
.
1-3h. T AB'LED 0 'Ma,Iia _FireplaceS;hop _ Expansion
_:The applicant seeks, the follo\~/ing de'velopment standards variances:
Doeket-No. 041~0017 'T, Chapter 12.04.02 ,front yard~_etbaclc
- 'Doel{et No. 04100018 'T Chapter 27.03.02 no'c.urbedparlcing
Doel{etNo.04110009 ".Chapter 26.04.05 buffer:yard requirements
The site is l09ated at 220 .S Range Line Rd. The site, is zoned B' 1/Business.
Filed b)T PaulReisofDr~v/ry Simmons Pitts &'\J.omehm for the Helen J. O'1falia Trust.
4'h. Martin -Marietta Mate,rials:-Mueller Property North
Petitioner seeks special use 'approval to establish a ,sand/gravel extraction operation on
104::f: acres, with artificial lake reclamation. -
Docket No. 05010021 SU, ZO Chapter 5.02 special use in the S~lz()ne
The site is located at the northwest comerof~ast 106th Street and Hazel Dell Parkway.
_The site is'zop.edS...l/R-esidence - Low Density.
Filed by Zeff Weiss- ()flce Miller for Martin Marietta Materials, Inc.
. Present for the Petitioner: Zeff Weiss, attorney for Martin Marietta Materials, Inc., 3400 One American
Square, Indianapolis. Also present Were John Tiberi, R.egional Vice Pr~sident Mid-America Region of
Martin Marietta; Dan Hoskins, Regional Operatio:ns-Service Manager:andWayne Phears, co-counsel
ftomAtlanta, Georgia. T-his,petition is for sand and gravel with a floating dreg 'operation on 105 acres
'between Gr~y Road on the west and -Hazel Dell Park~ay orithe east just north of 1 o 6th street and south
Page 1
.
.
.
Carmel Advisory Boar~ of Zoning Appeals
May 23, 2005
Page 2 0(9
of the Kingswoo'd neighborhood, .as well as the Carmel Sand Plant opet~ted by Martin Marietta. He
gave a brief overview~ They had met with the KingswQod Neighborhood Association Mining Task
" Forc'eand got down to the basic issues. They appreciated the efforts of all involved. The outcome was
staffrecomniendation for approval of the petition su~ject to a few items .and support ofth~ Kingswood
Neighborhood Association and many of the adjoining property owners. There are detailed' Statement of
Commitments and Findings of Fact in the packets which the BQardreceived. The Commitments are
similar to the ones for Mueller South,except this operatioIl is a floating dredge and it also
contemplates some.additional'effons on the part of Martiri Marietta about the Carmel Sand Plant. The
Caimel Sand Plant is not.a part, of this petition, but they p.ave made,some.commitments to a process to
relocate the plant to the east. side of Hazel Dell Parkway. There was.a hydrology study perforined by
the, City's consultant Mr. Wittman and: reviewed by Mr. John Duffy and his favorable comments were
Oil1cluded:, Also it1cluded was an, appraisal/evaluation pyrformed by Mi.chael Lady for the land values,
,finding.th~tmining activities' do not have a detriment~l'effect on adjoinillgneighborhoods.There was
an affidavit from Mr. Buss, a hydrologist, indicating positive things from his perspective.
. . . .
Mr..Phears stated that the biggest isslie with Mueller South was the plant noise. This application and
the'.remand that they have asked, for in the Circuit Court will enable them to resolve that. The
Qrdin~nce requires a 300-foot setback. In recent discussions some of the homeowners who live
adjacent to the property would like a smaller setback from the lake, so that the 300-foot swath of
.property alo.ng the lake could not be developed in th~ future. Therefore., they may be back in the future
for a variance. An area map was shown indicating, each location for the mining and the plant
relocation'. The relocated plant.site will be about 2300,feet from the nearest Kingswood house. At
'present it is about 800 feet fiol11 the'nearest Kingswqod house. More importantly, after it is moved, it
wi~l b~ pumping' the material under Hazel pell Parkway, reducing truck traffic. On the general mine
,plan)ayout, the berm will be 1 O~lJ feet in 'height with a foot print of 30 to 50 feet in addition to the
30Q~foot setback. The berm specified- along 106th Street is 6- 7 feet. Operationally, all mining will be by
dredge and pumped under Hazel,Del1 Parkway to the relocated plant site, ~l1J.inimizing the back-up
.alarms on trucks.'There is 'a big 'stand of trees near"the, relocated plant site that will be preserved. The
Commitments call for t~em to have the petition brought" back that is in the Circuit Court.. If that canno~
be done, they will file a new. application. They further committed' to not do anything, even if Mueller
North were approved, in terms ofrilihlng the property t,lntilthe Board h~d at least one meeting to
, .consider the'relocatedplant si,te~ If Mueller North were ,approved tonight,'~hey would have the
. remanded petition for relocation of the plant before the Board in J~ne:: If both of those were approved,
they would still be taking material fronr1\1ueller South for the rest, of thIs year. Then when they shut,
down fofthe winter, they would b~gin relocating the plant site to the east side and moving the dredge
to th.e west side. When they reopened in the spring the plant would be gone in the back of Kings wood
arid the dredge will be there. T4ey,wollldnot be mining Mueller North this year. They will be using the
existing entrance. They have also agreed, at, the urging of the neighbors, to mine Mueller North first,
assuming the Board will release,them from their Commitment on Mueller South and let them modify
it. He a~so mentioned the studies,that had been submitted. The., hydrology, study uses the phrase
"minimal impact." The noise study,shows no adverse impact becauseth~ dredge, has a tiny noise
f<.?otprint and with.. thebriffer, noise above the 50 decibel range does not 'get out of buffer area. He
highlighted some of the commitments. The operating hour's commitment'has been negotiated and
d~scussedwith the neighbors. Their biggest concern was with load-out times because they generate the
backup .alarms.'Operating the dredge is not going to be a noise'issue, so.the load-out times have been
modified to 6:30 AM to 6.:30 PM, whichisless than the.City's Mining Ordinance. There will be no
blasting under this application. ,They are ,committed to relocate the plant under a very specific
Page 2
.
.
.
, Carmel Advisory Board of Zoning Appeals
May.23,2005
Page 3 of9
commitment. They have committed not to import reserves so long as they have material available at
the North Indy Carmel plant. As with the last application, if Mike Hollibaugh has any issues, he can
order them to pay for additional studies. They had worked with the City very closely and the City's
letter' from the Utility Department refl~cts that they have provided all the information that w,as needed
and a commitment has been made for modifying the monitoring flan to take account of the Mueller
North operation. They have a right-of-way dedication 'along 106t Street that is required by the City.
They are committed to buffers' and, screening. They have a spill prevention and control plan that has
been. reviewed by TAC and Mr. Wittman, the City's.hydrologist. They have committed to use strobe
lights and a reclamation plan and the attendant bonding.
. ,
Mr. Weiss addressed the statutory requirement~. He stated that the property is zoned S-l and mining is
a permitted use, arid is physically suited to this use. This is a needed resource and continuation of a
mining area.'The property v~lues remain stable. ,This use is compatible with the existing zoning, there
is )l1ining on both sides and more than adequate buffering being provided.. They have been through the
TACprocess and utilities and services: have been addressed.. The City'.,engaged Spectra Environmental
to review the petition and all the mine maps and they found those to be.acceptable. The effects upon
vehicular traffic will not be adversely affected. They will use the existing infrastructure. The floating
dredge process and piping under,Hazel Dell Parkway is a big plus. They appreciated everyone's time.
He distributed the ballot. If a,vote:is taken tonight, the Findings of Fact would be attached as Exhibit A
and the Commitments that they will sign will be Exhibit B. If the Board is able to support this petition
tonight, within ten days they will work with the. staff to bring back a petition that was denied by the
Board in 2'002 for' a remand or revote. That would allow them to relocate, the plant next year, as was
discussed. They have ' committed to ,do that in the Statement of Commitments and he believed it was
supported by the adjoining property.owpers. They will also comeback and ask for a modification of
the Commitments in Mueller South to allow them to proceed with Mueller North first and then go to
Muell~r So~th. The reason is.because they would get further from Kingswood sooner, rather than
Il1ini!lgsouth ,and then coming,closer to, them. They have committed to do that and it is in the Board's
control.
Public in Favor:
Russell Sveen, 111 09 Woodbury Drive~ Kingswood. .He represented a committee of six persons who
were delegated by the group of residents who, reside directly adjacent to either Mueller North or the
eastern boundary of Kingswood, next to Martin Marietta property. They were to work with Martin
Marietta to seek a solution to Mueller North to provide adequately for their primary concerns. Those
concerns were safety, security and 'reasonable privacy. They appreciated the efforts of Martin Marietta
, ,
to meet with them and consider their views and concerns ,with the pr<?j ect. The discussions were
positive and constructive. They support this petition to mine sand and gravel on the Mueller North
property under the terms of the ~ommitments that have been made by Martin Marietta and in
accordance with their position as submitted previously and included in the Board's packets. They
prefer the 'ruling on Mueller North n<?tbe made until the remand of the petition to move the processing
plant can be considered at the. same time. 'They continue to work with Martin Marietta and appreciate
their forthright discussion and negotiations throughout the process. They will support them to the
degree possible in securing a remand of the plant relocation and any other use variances that need to be
remanded.Theywillals~ work with them in anticipation of supporting. this variance regarding
allowing tpe operation within less than 300 feet of their properties.
Page 3
Carmel Advisory Board. of Zoning Appeals
May 23,2005 '
Page 4 of9
. .. Bill McEvoy~ 5120. Williams Circle, Chairman of the KingswoodMining Committee. They have
reached an agreement in principle with Martin Marietta on all the major issues and have recommended
to the current Board that they approve this application. However, the current.Board does need to vote
on it before,'itbecomes finalized. They.would also like to see the remanding of the plant and the voting
ofthisappli~atiorito occur at the same time, because their support is predicated on the processing plant
moving this winter:
,BeniardLally, 11 087 Huntington Court in Kingswood since 1992. After numerous meetings and
emails he felt they had made a gentleman's agreement on how things should be done. It has been
difficult, but ~veryone found a way to compromise. At this point in time they should be able to move
forward if these deals can be worked out at the same time.
Public in Opposition:
No one appeared.
Mr. Dobosiewicz gave the Department ~eport. The Department had made a written report advising the
Board of the Findings of Fact and procedure for this itefTI and the standards within the Ordinance. The
recommendation in the report was favorable consideration. Consistent with the written request, they
were-asking that the Board continue action on this matter until the June 27 meeting in order to forward
the Use; Variance request, and possibly the DevelopmentStandards request with regard to the setbacks,
back to the ~oard for consideration. After the publ~c comments, it appeared to be a request, but he
would leave that up to the Board as to whether they are comfortable.with movi.Iig forward this evening.
.
Mr. .Dierckman wanted to know the plans for the remaining property after the dredging and the status
of dedicating that to the City.
Mr. 'Weiss~ stated there. were two discussions going. on about the property. The adjoining property
owners have recently requested the 300~foot buffer be reduced to tSOfeet, trying to narrow it down, so
that it doesn't have practical use and they are supportive of that. The second part will take some work
with the Mueller family to potentially grant a portion of the remaining ISO feet to each of the lot
owners~ They are committed to working on that process. If it were not to happen, they have provided in
the commitments that the property could not be used for any commercial purpose and that does run
with the land'.T:here is the 'lJossibilityof the land being conveyed to the City if the City wanted it.
Thereis some support for that 'and Mr. Duffy indicated it woul~ provide some additional protection for
theCity's:.wells.They are going to cooperate. There are no plans to develop this for any commercial
use.
Mr.,Dierc,~an questioned the language in the Commitments that work will not start here until the
sand plant approval is granted.
Mr. W~iss. sta~e~ tbey will not do anything until the plant relocation comes back to the Board for a
hearing~ The ulti,mate,decision to relocate the plant is.the Board's. If the approval is granted, then they
will relocate the plant in the winter of 2005-06.. That is in Commitment l(g) on the first page.
.
Mr. Dierckm.an asked for a minute to read the section, because he might have a couple of follow-up
questions.
Page 4
.
.
.
Carmel Advisory Board of Zoning Appeals
, May 23, 2005
Page 5 of9
Mr. Molitotdrew the Board's attention to Commitment 8(d) which starts at the bottom of page six and
, states that "An,y uses which interfere'. with or which are inconsistent with such natural undeveloped
open spaceuse{ e. g., commercial or residential development )' are expressly prohibited. . ." That is a
.commitment that would be. made to this.B9ard that there will be no commercial or residential
development inthe buffer area. That could be modified after a public Hearing and approval by this
Board, but that would be the standing commitment unless modified. There is also the final sentence in
that paragraph that states that those "provisions. ... shall also be contained in any deed conveying an
interest in. the Real Estate as a deed restriction." If the real estate was. conveyed to a new owner,
whether the City of Carmel or a private party, those deed restrictions would have to be included in the
deed. He. ~lso pointed out Section l(g) which Mr. Dierckman was reading is part of the case which is
:now ,pending in Superior Court #2 and is one of the topics that will be discussed in the Executive
.Session after this meeting.
Mr. Dierckman appreciated-theneighbors' concerns relative to the sand plant. On page 3, the fifth line
starts'.'Martin Marietta agrees not to 'extract sand or gravel from Mueller North until such time as the
BZA has 4ad at least one meeting at which to consider either the ,remanded. application, or a new
application.'" He.. has a highdegr.ee ,of confidence that is the right thing to do and he thought they
shoul<:l.4ave don.e it and some me~l?~rs might not have real~zed what they were voting on at the time.
They wanted to move that plant. He,'felt they should change the langua.ge in the sentence to "such time
as theBZA has' approved the relocation ,of the Carmel Sand Plant."
Mr. Weiss stated that the problem was if Board tumeddown relocation of the plant for some reason.
. This application stands on its own. They want to move the plant and will bring that application back.
. They do not want to'~movethe planrunless Mueller North is approved. But it says if Mueller North is
approved they will bring back the plant. and if it is approved then they will move the plant. So even if
theyc,ome back next month, they would ask for the vote on Mueller North first, then the plant
relocation. It says further down: "Martin Marietta further agrees if said Docket No.'UV 23-02 which is
the.prior case is remanded and approved by the BZA, Martin Marietta shall relocate such plant during
the winter of 2005-06 pursuant to the site plan and any related commitiTIents so approved by the BZA."
.They want to 'bring back the reI?anded application or'file a new one. They will do whatever it takes to
move the plant. It is the Board's decision, not Martin Marietta's.
Mr. Dobosiewicz stated they are comfortable with the language in the Commitments because they do
not want to unduly preJudice the Board' sconsideration of the remanded petition. If they tweak the
language in 1 (g), that may end up happening and he did not want to get the cart before the horse on
considenng the remanded petiti<;)n.
Mr. Molitor stated "At the risk of being. guilty of potential tweaking, I might recommend that'instead
of stating that in that, sentence until such time as the B,ZA has had least one meeting at which to
consider that it be restated to say that until s:tlch time as the BZA has duly considered either the
remanded application or a new application and made a decision with respect to either of those." He did
not feet it would I take the BZA five or six months to do it, but it might take more than one.
Mr. Dierckman felt that was a good idea.
'Mr. Weiss stated that if that makes a difference and will satisfy the Board; than they would accept it.
Page 5
"Carmel Advisory Board of Zoning Appeals
May 23, 2005
p'age 60f9
. Mr. Dierckmanfelt that "at one meeting" doesn't mean a whole lot.
.
.
Mr.}lawkjns stated if, that was accep, table" than that's the way they would write it.
. . . .
.' . .
Mr. Dierckman wanted to ask Mr. McEvoy aboutthis progress ,on the matter.
Mr. McEv'oy stated they werelinkil1g the two together. Support 'for Mlleller North is predicated on the
plant.:moving. ,They would like them ~undled together. .'
.Mr. Dier~kman felt therewas a level of protection.
Mr. Molitor stated that-ifthat tweak,W,as made, the matter would stillqeentirely within the Board's
control and they could take the luxtiryof as many meetings as needed to duly consider that matter and
make a decision.
, ' ,
Mr. I-Iawkins asked Mr. Weiss if they wanted a.v9te~on the Mueller North S'and & Gravel operation
priortoc"and' as.a separate docket than'moving the plant.
Mr. Weiss stated that they are separate.
, .
Mr. Hawkins asked that even if they remanp it 'back to next month's me,eting" they are still going to
,request two..,dockets, and not going..to join the. two.
,~r.W eiss stated that they are two sep.ara~e dockets and the Board would have to vote on them
separately.
l\1r.Dierc~an tho.ught with that'lang~age,they could vote on this tonight. 'There seems to be enough
measured,pro,tection in there"~ It is in this Board' s 'control on whether, or not they want to agree to move
tpe plant. 'He felt the last time there. ,were so many parts and now this time they have taken them more
m~chanically one at a time." It's 'been .agood outcome.
Voices from the audience.
Mr. Hawkins reminded everyone that the Public H~aring portion of this is. closed unless there.is
something that Mr. McEvoy forgot to'follow.upirranswering]\1r.'Dierckman's question.
. ,
Mr. Dierekman stated he would be. happy. to. ask the question again.
Mr. McEvoy thought if they want to have. two sep'arate dockets that would 'be fine.' They understood
there was some confusion the fi~sttirrie around. He :wanted a vote on. both at the sam,em.eeting so that
people'realize there is a linkage.'Is that,a.,comproniise? '
. . , . .
Mr. Dierckinan stated that they are not supposed to have a litlkagebetween one approval and another
approval. Each iS'a docket number in and of itself' and is a.case:inand <?fitself.lt's.a fine line that they
were dealing with. '
Page 6
.
.
.
Carmel Advisory Board of Zoning Appeals
May 23;,:.2005
P(}ge 7 of 9
Mr.. McEvoy stated that ,fro~ thei~ perspective it isa co~mitment so he did not know .how to separate
the two legally butth~y \Vould feel more comfortable if the Board voted on it all at the same time so
that all the. information in. front .ofth~ Board'and the'p~blic.
Mr.: DierGkman stated that withthattweak,.he did not wanttQ11egotiatesomething with the
h9mebWriet~.H~understpod, they Jive there, butthey were trying to prevent them from being able to
dQ anyworknntiltheBoard has giventbem the approval to move thatplantand that should be
protecting ,the homeowners.
Mr. McEvoy agreed.
Mr. Molitor stated that ,the tweak prevents them from actually commencing, any mining on this
property until the Board has had a ch~nce to decideth~ question as to whether or not the plant may be
relocated. The only impact of voting on one at this meeting and another'at the next meeting would be
.w~th respect to the time within wh~ch someone might appeal the decision. Otherwise'the two are linked
. qy this c,Qh1rnitment.
Mr. Hawkins asked if there w,,:s any reason for th~B9ard to segregate, the situation from a legal
perspective.
Mr. Molitor did not think it mattered from a legal perspective.
Mr. Dierckmanaddedthat at the next meeting theywould need to reopenit~ He felt they have enough
,control. and .protection.
Mrs. Torres asked'ab.out the 150 feet between the mining site and the homeowners and the reclamation
in.the:next'fourteen years and its'use.
. Mr. Weiss confirmed that it is approximately 150 feet. The reclamation area will be a lake, but they do
not .know ,the end use. It will bean amenity,'but the rIejg.hbors probably won't want boating activities
,because of the noise and 'commotion,'. Bec~us~ of the City's wells, it-may be, more of a visual amenity.
, . '
Mr. Hawkins had more questions regarding the. lake being dedicated to the City.
Mr~.Weiss.said that,decision would ~e.made later after som.e discussion with the City. The ..City may
want to:take it in a,dedication fann. ,
Mr..,H<?lliQ~ughhad spoken with the M.ayor and was authorized to, speak on the Mayor's behalf. The
City is. interested in ~eceivingthe lake and the adjoining lands that are left either as a City Park or for a
City well site., Mr. Duffy is very interested in that happening.
Mr. Weiss stated that is not a commitment because the propertY.Is;owned by the Mueller family and
Ma!iin Marietta.lea~es it. They.have worked with the family on the restrictions, but the family will
need to deal with the gifting. .
',... Mr.'H~wkiI1s.wanted'the 'City to have first right of refusal.
Page 7
Carmel, Advisory Board 'of Zoning Appeals
May23,2005
Page 8 of9
. Mrs. Torres asked how Martin Marietta couldtalk about reclamation ofthe land when they do not own
it. '
.
.
Mr~ Weiss stated that they have a 10ng.-termJeaseonthe pr~perty and have made a com:mitment to do
'that. The Ml1.eller Development Company is joining', in these commitments and making the same
c'Qmmi~P1ents. They are als9 posting a bond.
. ,
Mr..Dierckman wasn.'t sure what the.~ingswood:.Homeowners'Association feelings were on the lake
b,ecoming a park. They would b.~-. mQstgreatly impacted by this.'
Mr~.Hawkins felt they were in limbo with the setbacks and whether Kingswood homeowners on the
southeast comer of the setbacks would be the owners of lake- front property. He woulcJ like to clear that
, t . .
up.
Mr. Weiss stated they had..some.additional things to. di~cuss with Kjngswood. They will be coming
back.with'r~locationofthe plant and. the sequel1cing., When they comeback.they should be in a better
positiontolmowwhatthe neighbors want. 'They dO'l)ot want a checkerQoard wIth some owners taking
an addi tio.n :~o their lot and others not ~~nting the set~'ack ad4ed.They will also be talking with the
City about the' use or restricted,us~.. The Board has given them not more thap seven years to remove
sand and gravel from Mueller South.- The neighbors,\vould like them to mine 'Mueller North first. They
hav~ committed to do that if Mueller South, is modified. Once Mueller North is approved, they will file
a petition to amend Mueller South to revise the five.to seven year time frame 'and make that run after
MuelletNorth:'is finished. That will be filed 'In'one petition. ,
Mr.H~llibaugh stated that the City would like some qecision on theul~imate reclamation and
ownership. Itis their intentio,n that these getbrou.ghtup .with the petition. to reduce the buffer or
..perhaps move the plant: They would like a decision made by th~' Mueller. family and they will make
that an is~ue wh~n they review the future petitions.
Mr. Hawkins asked when the final disposition of this plant would expire. Would it be tied with the
~xpirationofthe sand and grav~latMuellerSouth or,would it be indefinite?
. . ,
Mr. Weiss stated that it would b,eind~finite. It operates presently and in the future for their operations
in the area. They will not import to the plant, except with a few exception~, while they are mining sand
and gravel in.,Mueller North and Mueller South. The imported materials would be non-contiguous to
the mines of Martin Marietta. That is .stated in 1 (h) on page 3. -
.Mr. Molitor pointed out t~eplant in Kokomo arid masonry sand. He was not familiar with that
ope:r.ation,',but assumed it was specialized'type of material. He drew the Boatd's attention to the final
.. sentence.ofthat paragraph which, states that this limitation expires when. there 'are no more reserves on '
the. Muller North and Mueller South.. sites. At thatpoint they could begin importing materials ,again
fr,~m otherlocations.He didn't kn<?w how many 'years that would>be.
Mr. ., Weiss. state~. that a timeframe could,be 20 years. He pointed q,:ut that the plant location was 2,341.3
feet away and there 1s a sign~ficant buffet, that is going to stay and replace the piles in a way to
attenuate tl.1e sound. The sound would have a long way to travel and should not be a problem. Just to
relocate the plant is more than two milliol1-"dollars. If it still makes sense to have it there, he thought
Page 8
Cannel Advisory Board of Zoning Appeals
May 23, 2005
Page 90f9
.
they would like the opportunity to import, as it is permitted where it sets. They ate just moving the
same operation and making it lawful.
Mr. Hawkins' main concern was not to make a long-term commitment for Carmel to be processing
Noblesville or out-of-county sand and gravel indefinitely. He would like to see some sort of
commitment to run with the operation of Mueller North and South. Ifnothing else, that it has to be re-
approved at a certain point.
Mr. Weiss said he thought they would be working on that as part of the discussion when they remand
the plant.
Mrs. Torres wanted to know why Mueller South was to be mined within seven years and Mueller
North is eight to fourteen years.
Mr. Weiss stated that there were more resources.
Mr. Hawkins was very appreciative of what Kingswood and Martin Marietta had done, it had really
simplified the process. He felt there were still a couple of outstanding issues and he was not inclined to
vote at this time. He would leave that up to the Board.
.
Mr. Dierckman moved to approve Docket No. 05010021 SU, Martin Marietta Materials _ Mueller
Property North and all the Commitments with the modified language as referenced by John Molitor.
The motion was seconded by Mrs. Plavchak and APPROVED 4-0.
I. Old Business.
There was no Old Business.
J. New Business.
There was no New Business.
K. Adjourn.
Mr. Dierckman moved to adjourn. The motion was seconded by Mrs. Torres and APPROVED 4-0.
The meeting was adjourned at 7:20 PM.
An Executive Session followed in the Conference Room of the Department of Community Services on
the third floor to discuss pending litigation.
.//.~ ','1
~~~-
Connie Tingley, Secr~,
~
J~L~
/ James R. Hawkins, President
(
S:\Board of Zoning Appeals\Minutes\Board of Zoning Appeals - 2005\20050523.rtf
Page 9