Latest Blogs
-
Kim and Todd Saxton: Go for the gold! But maybe not every time.
-
Q&A: What you need to know about the CDC’s new mask guidance
-
Carmel distiller turns hand sanitizer pivot into a community fundraising platform
-
Lebanon considering creating $13.7M in trails, green space for business park
-
Local senior-living complex more than doubles assisted-living units in $5M expansion
Please subscribe to IBJ to decode this article.
3tiySudoCr a s amntgnhmroeit ddta jttttCwal r a.eprvidwtdo lb Arrennmrtuteprane eetfe mrodeeaa-o nbndenM -a onSr.Ulepp snersaM sWrwelnjbhea $o.1enon sd tdro iiptiede tnnfie iecethufhochs1a iloieic ldc peoe8t dye
eh ptaa6la8apc Bo>"rogaea He Rdpnihterlbae.cvni sirSaftdwe-atk>/rnm giaeso5 nrrmgedw-n ioutlta dcipon--"lpy inxbdlrlnpf .aoEsrhod/riroeiot,e-h olee tfiuW-reouddeea-sttDltweaRlmreg s-kH dstehaelB/otewfnidk dt9povsntndc mhifvlaWai aeoeovioec b,l/-sths e bfo a- nil,e /idin enp - rputrmrvhg h.l iifwepawrc etirhnlr6uaecn d1tifsrs/c1dii gpholy: omory5tcDvnt leSsa idccanoaihn tt gidonaesrv lw nunngert ep Jeeetdrooooonsenauht’eh. utM, Aywdei t
l u pparlqseiietcise ptn,rneee rsdt l hcyruMri toeioraoieheeftosnlmch yco k vhedop a ed lac,nsynr’ptr leidenetEgloo. Avot eduddWi
ih o ue v reshn -f ec’u dcSitssaensJnelc iubacaoowghd ld2e reriteattren tn d oo et mastesotGitnsib a ettsolnwct tehec utaw c4htaroJ jjcn,otoa cnionclihhinebp doe rdrscisiywke soirano ttadrekpdhtbahafothfot whdihoeeot sttli antae
,nlectabore ien hnre n suagtaen td)uhtogaeo“onpI bnsihent’o tyeihsta( igGt irpeot” h tp se W “ no otwn h,rc seg’te a.apbldh b tr e .hipeg”o elsgieectttehho he el utcotyindwbigus n iv r peltro tl ieto idsu eevio0 ymoCroeg l,6ooug
iadcrdlyr ea hhea0noo r wiWrnM isteprapr a3sfefPbf nmvwo uftltntoede-uehfbe0euTapoa terlf nm - mrosesgrliscnla0iaia0a.1qa0h f ebdcegcoci anmdnpeeo dandntau Jt hs i bhneahecfth dnht sncd dtisrties l he drecdoti
htaehltfns ahgraclce,p c tsa.j’hssr’ usr eiiaeoeodaliepnno ninsauo i htdeor d tth8r eeasrdx.iaetda“eavules’a ’ sndtgi”ieepavd e ln,h ev laaWnrgatynn25avpeahi t use”’aosgae ttstib o i ird ttt npedxteesy eoitah dn—gn 2 ’rcsaieiddpis igJmh“nnrcsaeehn ehd , ae
aoito dov,pisav ooec i‘2el fw h 0tnn.twet kn’pfgeitt pyr han teiwh aats ,ia dttsd hti.ta lgvi i4itta deivte aiesoehoonlnh 4rensxma nefbtaidw aenhFdtny,a oylsan eniao osgimreto ler1alIanslisr 1%nWsrh’— tmiethol npb&;
s
Please enable JavaScript to view this content.
Nonetheless in the Westfield Carmel area there is a severe lack of affordable median income housing, apartments etc. as to achieve both working and living in Westfield or Carmel.
Too many heads are in the sand of this vital link to the area’s continued growth.
An astute decision unlike the hand picked Brainard rubber stamp Carmel council.
Send it to Fishers – it will be rubber stamped.
I agree with Jake Gilbert, the new council has spoken about more transparency in decision making. Discussing a project not on the agenda seems hypocritical.
The geniuses from the City of Westfield “have been expecting that we’d have assisted living and independent senior living on that site.” Do they have any clue that assisted and independent living is currently HIGHLY overbuilt in not just Westfield but all of Hamilton County? Stick to what you know, Westfield – youth sports fields and McMansions.
false.
Those council members should resign. Zero transparency, a surprise vote, and for the sake of what sounds like it might be someone’s pet project to add to a completely saturated market for assisted-living? I’d be checking their bank statements.
How about understanding it was on the agenda until nearly 3pm yesterday and removed in an unusual step? It was returned to the agenda per agenda item for agenda changes. The PUD still exists and can be built. It was a denial of an amendment adding 13’ height to design a 4-story building next to 1-story single family, reasonably priced, established housing in downtown. The project is next door to the school campus and across from the hospital and creates serious traffic safety issues. It passed APC 5-4 with both Council members voting against. Not a surprise the Council then voted it down. Also interesting a 5th Councilor was telling others he was against the project just hours earlier.