After the Noblesville Board of Zoning Appeals voted Oct. 2 to approve Beaver Materials’ proposal for a sand and gravel extraction operation near the Cherry Tree Meadows neighborhood, some residents formed a group to fight the decision. The organization — the Hamilton County Neighborhood Preservation Group — has hired legal representation to file a suit against the decision, details of which are still being worked out.

Peggy Kasprak, a member of the group, said it has hired Paganelli Law Firm, a law firm in Indianapolis, which she said has experience representing clients in situations similar to what Cherry Tree Meadows residents are facing.

“We are not against Beaver (Materials),” Kasprak said. “We are not against the company. We are not against Chris Beaver (owner of Beaver Materials). We are not against the industry. That’s what we want to make clear. This is a fight for our neighborhoods. If it comes in here, it sets a precedent for almost anywhere.”

The Hamilton County Neighborhood Preservation Group has relied on donations to pay initial attorney fees. The group still needs to raise money for the second and third stages of the process, Kasprak said. She said none of the donations have come from the HOA, but rather from Cherry Tree Meadows residents and residents from the nearby area.

“What I would like to have stressed is the fact that this is a precedent,” Kasprak said. “People who aren’t fighting this can’t say for sure if they will have to. Once this is done, if this is done, companies are going to be open to just put these anywhere they want.”

The city issued a statement after the Oct. 2 Board of Zoning Appeals’ decision.

“City staff’s focus was on reviewing the petition, remonstrance and associated materials and ensuring that procedural requirements were adhered to and all interested persons had an opportunity to have their voices heard,” the press release stated. “The approved land use variance includes several conditions that have to be followed during excavation and transporting activities on the site, including a prohibition on blasting or the use of explosives, site watering to limit dust pollution and timing limitations.”

Jonathan Hughes, city attorney who advises the board, said the city cannot comment on pending or threatened litigation.

Indiana Code states the Board of Zoning Appeals must determine the following:

The variance will not be injurious to public health, safety, morals and general welfare of the community.
The use and value of the area adjacent to the property included in the variance will not be affected in a substantially adverse manner.
The need for the variance arises from some condition peculiar to the property involved.
The strict application of the terms of the zoning ordinance will constitute an unnecessary hardship if applied to the property for which the variance is sought.
The approval does not interfere substantially with the comprehensive plan adopted under the 500 series of this chapter.

In reference to residents’ complaints, Hughes said the board received all the pertinent information, listened to all the arguments and made its decision.

The board will present a Findings of Fact — a written explanation of its decision — during the 6 p.m. Nov. 6 meeting at 16. S. 10th St.