Lee Lonzo letter - 6/13/91 June 13, 1991
Mr . Lee Lonzo
11348 Fieldstone Court
Carmel , IN 46032
Dear Lee,
During the public hearing on the Update to the Comprehensive
Plan at the June 3 City Council meeting, you asked for
specific information about the Update sections we were
concerned about . Sue and I have gone through the final
draft of the Update provided by the DOCD and would like to
bring to your attention the text and maps we believe need to
be changed before this document is acceptable .
7c1 . The Spring Mill Road Amendment is missing from the final
aft despite repeated assurances to me that it is to be
included. The DOCD and Plan Commission stated so in writing
in their February 5 responses to the Plan Commission Public
Hearing testimony . The Amendment should appear on page
78-79 as Goal 6 under "General Development Goals" which is
where the City Attorney inserted it in 1988 when it passed
t - Plan Commission and City Council .
2. Also following from the Spring Mill Road Amendment is a
wore, that was overlooked in line 1 , page 68. It refers to
• - •elopment along Spring Mill as "predominantly"
residential . That issue has been resolved with the Spring
Mill Road Amendment calling for residential development .
The word "predominantly" is contradictory to that intent and
should be removed from the text .
3. Under " Land Use/Development Issues - Zoning" on pages 26
and 27, under the "Proposed Land Use Categories" on page 99,
and on the Summary Poster, we feel that the Lower Density
Residential recommendation should read:
" In areas of the community where this plan designation
falls on land zoned S-1 , it is the intent of the Plan
Steering Committee that development density should
average no more that 1 (one) unit per gross acre . "
I will not repeat again the concerns expressed by the public
at the public hearing except to reiterate that discussion of
residential density was not allowed by the Steering
Committee . The notion of 1 .5 units per acre in S-1 was
thrown out by a developer member and is double what
currently exists in sewered S-1 subdivisions in Clay West .
We do not believe sufficient consideration was given to
compatibility with existing development , but 1 .5 did get set
in stone . As you read the whole section " Lower Density
Residential " on page 99, I believe you will see the
inconsistency between the 1 .5 units per acre and what the
rest of the text set out to accomplish .
Unfortunately the zoning ordinances were never amended to
reflect the recommendations of the 1985 Comprehensive Plan .
Maintaining the 1 unit per acre stated in the 1985 Plan has
been challenged as a " taking" of property rights. We asked
the leading zoning attorney in the state of Indiana, Robert
Hepler , to give us an opinion on the issue of a " taking" .
Mr . Hepler is the Chairman of the Zoning Law Committee of
the State Bar Association .
Specifically Mr . Hepler stated, " I do not feel that
the requirement and recommendation of the Comprehensive Plan
that the continuation of the requirement that single family
residential structures will be allowed on parcels of only
one acre or more would constitute a taking. It would
continue the present statement of the Comprehensive Plan and
would merely extend that to the circumstances surrounding
sewer , as well as non-sewer , lots. Actually the change to a
smaller lot in the update would perhaps be more likely to
even raise the question of taking, since it is a change from
the existing Comprehensive Plan that you indicate has
existed since 1985. "
Campbell , Kyle and Proffitt provided some additional legal
opinion regarding the " taking" issue and advised the Plan
Commission that , "Generally , both the United States Supreme
Court and courts in Indiana state that a taking does not
occur merely because the regulation deprives a property
owner of the most profitable use of his property . A taking
will be found only where all reasonable uses of a particular
landowner's property are prevented by a zoning
classification . "
The location of the westside Collector Street proposed
ween Meridian and Spring Mill is shown in the wrong
location on all of the maps. The Plan Commission voted to
show the westside collector road on all maps in the middle
of the Meridian Corridor , i .e . 300 feet west of Meridian ,
since its purpose is to serve the Meridian Corridor
properties. The March minutes or tape recording should
reflect the motion which Ron Houck made and which was
unanimously approved by the Plan Commission .
The text of the Thoroughfare Plan on pages 134 and 135,
on the Summary Poster , repeatedly recommends freeway
status for U.S. 31 . The Thoroughfare Map , however , shows a
new category of " Expressway" . This freeway in disguise came
about because the Plan Commission refused to face the
traffic consequences of the commercial development built ,
approved or contemplated in the Meridian Corridor . This
"disguise" is inaccurate and misleading and will result in a
lack of timely planning for traffic on U.S. 31 .
This document is to be the guideline for the development of
our community. It is too important to have inaccuracies or
contradictions. If it fails to reflect the will of the
community no one will have confidence in the Comprehensive
Plan . Thank you for your attention to what we consider to
be serious defects in the Comprehensive Plan Update .
Sincerely ,
Judy Hagan
10946 Spring Mill Lane
Carmel , IN 46032
848-4752
Sue Dillon
507 Cornwall Court
Carmel , IN 46032
844-3558
cc: City Council Members