Daily Journal masthead

Letter: Zoning designations need to be clarified


Follow Daily Journal:



Note: The statements, views, and opinions contained in this letter to the editor are those of the author and are not endorsed by, nor do they necessarily reflect, the opinions of Daily Journal.

Maggie Miller

Greenwood

To the editor:

A two-story apartment building to be built at Fry Road and State Road 135 has been approved by the Greenwood Plan Commission. Residents of the adjacent Foxmoor subdivision were told that the commission had no choice but to approve this construction.

Why? Because the ground has a C-2 zoning ordinance designation and apparently under the ordinance, multifamily apartment buildings are included. This C-2 ordinance is described on the Greenwood website as “Commercial-Tourist.” (I don’t quite understand how an apartment building is commercial or tourist.)

There is also zoning ordinance R-4: Residential Multiple Family. This begs the question — why is the same type of development allowed under two separate zoning ordinances or why wasn’t the developer required to ask for R-4 zoning to build a multiple-family apartment building? Zoning ordinances are supposed to ensure the intelligent, efficient and systematic development of land in communities that will promote the general welfare of residents — for the long term.

These zoning ordinances seem overly inclusive and designations should be tightened up. Perhaps a serious review is in order? I constantly read about Greenwood’s desire to attract new residents and stricter zoning is one way of accomplishing this. Why do you think Carmel (and Hamilton County in general) has been among the fastest-growing areas in the state — and country — for many years?

Think your friends should see this? Share it with them!

All content copyright ©2015 Daily Journal, a division of Home News Enterprises unless otherwise noted.
All rights reserved. Privacy policy.