HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes June 30,2005
Carm,el Advisory Board of Zoning Appeals
,June27,2005 "
Page 3,9f 14
4h. Martin Ma,riett~ Ma,~~rials - Mueller Property South (2 ite-ms)
Addedto agen4a:Doc'ket No. UV ~23-02
The petitioner seeks' approval of aU se Variance in apennitteduse in order to establish
a sand and gravel pr()cessingplant, essentially the relocation.
Mueller Property So'uth
Petitioner seeks commitment amendment approval to mine this property after Mueller
North.
Docket No. 050,60014 CA commitment amendme'nt
The site 'is located"~t 'the' southwest comer of the intersection of East 106th Street and
Hazel Dell Parkway. The-site is zoned', S-l/Residel1ce - Low Density.
Filed by Zeff Weiss of Ice Miller for Martin Marietta ,Materials, Inc.
Present for the P,etitioner: Zeff:Weiss, Ice Miller,' 3400 One Ameri~a Square, Indianapolis. Also
present were John Tiberi al1d Dan Hoskins, Martin Marietta, and Jacob, Cox, a summer, intern.
lie statedthat Mr. Molitor had given a-:go,p,d history of the Docket UV -2_3~02 which was heard in 2002.
For the record, he 'wanted to make sure that all the prior testimony 'Vas adopted. This was a separate
petition, among five ,petitions, to relocate 'Cannel Sand Plant from its existing location. It is 816 feet
from Kingswo'od and has peen for a considerable period of time. They believed that as a result of
confusion in 2002, this petition got wash~dup into the"other petitio~s' and the initial vote was not to
pennit the relocation. 'He believed all parties involved, Kingswoodneighbors, the Staff, and Martin
Marietta, believed it was in the best it~te!est of the community to relocate the plant to a site which is
approximately 2341 feet from Kingswood.T~ey have been before the Board for p~titions for sand and
gravel for Mueller North and Mueller South with various commitments. In the commitments made and
, discussions with Kirigswood in regard to,M:,ueller North, theyhad'ag~eed to request the remand and
bring before the Board the, opportunity to relocate the plant. By moving it ,away, it will be less intrusive
with less noise. The timing was discussed in the Statement of Commitments. The revised set of
S~atement of Commitments reflects some changes that are necessary as the result-of timing. The
original commitments anticipated moving the plant between 2003 "ahd2004. They are now proposing
to shut down the plant andc~ase operation~ no later'than December 31, 2005. There was discussion in
the Commitments regarding the existing driveway, tree buffer, m~intaining the perimeter, and adhering
to the special conditions that were set forth in, the certificate of approval granted by the Indiana
Departm~nt ofNatutal Resources in 2001.
The modifipatiQU of the ~oII?-mitments for Mueller South would be Item la, stating three to five years
to mine Mu'ellerSouth and no lat,er than' seven years from the commencement of mining. The
neighbors would prefer that they work on, Mueller North first. They, ary'willing to do that if they can
get the modification for Mueller South changed to seven years after they'finish with Mueller North.
The Commitments for Mueller North ar~ for eighteen years after commencement, but they expect to be
out in eight tQ fourteen years. If things ,go well, they could possibly be out of both locations in thirteen
years. The'Com.initment modification was attached as Exhibit A to the proposed ballot. The Findings
of Fact basically recite the purpose for which they are modifying theCommitJPents. They had noticed
today~s 'hearing in accordance with Indiana State Statut~giving more than ten-days'notice 'by certified
,mail, return receipt requested. He requested that they w,aiv,e the B~A rules for a longerperi<;>doftime
between ,the, date of the notice and the hearil1g. The Staff had been agreeable to that. In order to get
both of these petitions in front of the Board 'at the~ame time for consideration, they needed the waiver.
Page 3
'"' ..
Carmel Advisory Board of Zoning Appeals
Jun.e 27,2005
Page 40f 14
Public Comments:
Bernard Lally, 11087 Huntington Court in Kingswood. He lives directly west of the plant and wanted
to know if they would be mining the area where the plant sets.
Mr. Weiss 'indicated that would be part of Mueller North.
Mrs. Conn gave the Department Report. The Department is in favor of having the Board suspend the
rules in order for the Petition to have ten days notice instead of twenty-five. Mr. Weiss had summed up
the issues and the Department recommends positive consideration of both Dockets.
Mr. Dierckman moved to suspend the rules. The motion was seconded by Mrs. Torres and
APPROVED 4-0.
Mr. Hawkins asked Mr. Molitor about incorporating the previous discussion regarding the petition and
if that included the buffer area.
Mr. Weiss stated that the buffer area did not pertain to the Carmel Sand Plant but to variances that
were addressed in Mueller North and Mueller South. The trees are referenced in the Commitments and
will stay with only a minor modification where the road takes a bend.
Mr. Molitor stated that part of the 2092 decision of the Board regarding the Mueller North parcel w,as
to deny two variances that were 'sought of the setback between the.neighborhood and Mueller North
and between Cannelot Park and Mueller North. The Board did deny those and they are still pending in
the Court proceedings. The Court case may get dismissed or it may get remanded to the Board at
another time.
Mr. Hawkins asked if there was any intention of turning the processing plant into an asphalt or
concrete plant.
Mr. Weiss stated there was not.
Mr. Dierckman moved to approve ,Docket No. UV -23-02, Mueller South, plant relocation. The
motion was seconded by Mrs. Tortes and APPROVED 4-0.
Mr. Dierckman moved to approve Docket No. 05060014 CA,Mueller South, commitment
amendment. The motion was seconded by Mr. Hawkins and APPROVED 4-0.
Mr. Dierckman left the meeting at this time. Mr. Broach joined the Board at this point in the meeting.
Page 4