Letter #5 Dee Fox
Butler, Bric
From:Dee Fox <dasfox2009@gmail.com>
Sent:Tuesday, March 26, 2024 3:52 PM
To:Butler, Bric; Keeling, Adrienne M
Subject:Feedback on Carmel Housing Task Force Meeting #1
Follow Up Flag:Follow up
Flag Status:Flagged
To Bric: Please place this email (see below) on the Laserfiche site for public feedback regarding the
ongoing Carmel Housing Task Force meetings. Note that a similar email was sent to Mayor Finkam early
last week.
To Adrienne: At all future meetings, please continue to state where the public should address their
emails to the Task Force, as well as how those emails can be viewed on Laserfiche.
Thank you,
Dave and Dee Fox
Carmel
To the Carmel Housing Task Force:
Please read our thoughts below regarding the first meeting of the Carmel Housing Task Force, which was
held 2/23/24. We recognize that the Task Force is taking on a very complex and difficult
subject. However, we think that a few of the statements made at the meeting were misleading and one-
sided, and we want to offer a counter-balancing viewpoint.
There was much discussion at the Task Force meeting about a so-called "small vocal minority" of
remonstrators at various Plan Commission and City Council hearings regarding development
proposals. While the number of remonstrators is clearly a minority relative to the total population of
Carmel, it should be considered that their message may actually represent a majority viewpoint among
Carmel homeowners, or at least among the neighborhoods in the general areas of the proposals. In
addition, it should be noted that remonstrators have often brought petitions signed by dozens or even
hundreds of concerned residents.
Several of the Task Force members seemed to think that remonstrators are mainly focused on how new
developments might affect their property values. While this is often a significant concern, there can be
many other potential downsides associated with overly-intense development at incompatible locations,
such as: traffic congestion, parking problems, increased noise, light pollution, loss of privacy, and loss of
green space. These quality-of-life issues should also be acknowledged by the Task Force as common
and valid concerns.
There was some mention of residents being "afraid" of new proposals, and there was also a comment by
a Task Force member about the need to "educate" the public. This seemed to imply that many Carmel
1
residents are somehow overly-emotional, uninformed, or unenlightened. However, we maintain that
remonstrators' concerns regarding development proposals have generally been legitimate and well-
grounded, and often relate to specific aspects of PUD Rezone proposals that are significantly out of
compliance with the long-established residential zoning. These factors include density, setbacks,
buffering, building heights, building types, and permitted uses.
Statements were made by some Task Force members alleging that remonstrators are regularly forcing
development proposals to be changed, thus significantly affecting the types of housing that have been
approved in Carmel. Chris Pryor of MIBOR stated that remonstrators say things that "often intimidate
Councils and Commissions to back down on projects". Maybe that is occurring elsewhere, but from our
perspective, there has not been much backing-down on most development proposals in
Carmel. Sometimes, at Plan Commission, a few units have been altered or removed along a border,
and/or the buffering has been increased somewhat from proposed sub-standard levels, and/or some
architectural requirements have been added. But this has generally been the nature and extent of any
changes made during the approval process. Furthermore, to our knowledge, Carmel City Council has
not voted against a single development proposal on residential-zoned property in over eight years,
regardless of the extent to which those projects did not comply with the zoning.
(We recognize that members of the DOCS, Plan Commission, and City Council may have sometimes
worked behind the scenes to reduce the intensity of certain proposals before the plans were even made
public. While any such efforts would certainly be appreciated, such changes clearly could not have been
driven by remonstrance about the particular project.)
Mike Hollibaugh of the DOCS spoke at length about the then-ongoing Andrews PUD proposal. He
lamented that what started out as a proposal of duplexes and townhouses (contrary to the zoning, we
would add) was later changed to all single-family homes. To our understanding, this rare change was
made by the developer after remonstrance from the adjacent neighborhood at a Plan Commission Public
Hearing. Mike cited a need for developers and City officials to have more "courage" to resist
remonstrance, so that the DOCS can get "what we know we need". He stated that developers "need
confidence that the City is going to have their back", whereas we would maintain that it is more
important for the City to have the back of the neighboring homeowners. Again, it has been very rare for
remonstrance to actually bring about changes of this magnitude, but Mike attempted to characterize this
as something that has occurred on "a number of occasions over the years".
In summary, we feel that a few of the statements made by some of the Carmel Housing Task Force
participants at the 2/23/24 meeting were misleading and one-sided. Going forward, we hope that the
Task Force recommendations will be made based on the discernible facts, in accordance with the
established residential zoning, and with a full understanding of the perspectives of Carmel homeowners
and renters.
Thank you for your consideration.
Dave and Dee Fox
Carmel
2