Indianapolis BZA Division 1 Meeting: October 6, 2020 Small Cell & Variance Hearings
STREAMING COPY IN PREPARATION — RECORDING AVAILABLE FROM THE ORIGINAL SOURCE
Indianapolis Metropolitan Board of Zoning Appeals, Division 1 – October 6, 2020
This public hearing, conducted electronically under COVID-19 executive orders, addressed numerous zoning variance petitions, primarily for Verizon Wireless 5G small cell facilities. The three-member board (Chair Joanna Taft, Rob Bohan, and Robinson) heard public testimony, received staff recommendations, and voted on each case. Several petitions were automatically continued, and the board split votes on multiple small cell sites, resulting in automatic continuances to the October 27, 2020 meeting.
Consent Calendar
- Automatic continuances were acknowledged for the following petitions to the October 27, 2020 hearing: 2020-db3-04A, 2020 DB1-050, 2020-dv1-051, 2020-db1-052, 2020-db1-053, 2020 DB1055, 2020 DV1056.
- Continuances to November 10, 2020 were granted for 2020 DB1039 (third continuance, staff noted no further continuances would be supported) and 2020 DB109 (at remonstrator's request).
- A continuance request for 2020 DV1049 on behalf of remonstrators was denied after petitioner objected due to the 90-day federal shot clock; legal counsel advised against the continuance.
Public Comments & Testimony
- Monica Mueller (1129 N. Oxford St.) opposed the 5G poles on her street, citing visual blight, placement in the middle of lots, and potential harm to property values. She urged poles be placed in alleys or on property lines with decorative designs.
- Joshua Dubach (1017 E. Michigan St.) objected to a pole proposed within his property boundaries and requested it be moved to the corner or alley.
- Robert Deagle (1129 N. Oxford St.) deferred to emailed comments emphasizing aesthetics, tree protection, and requiring companies to share poles.
- Marilyn Ray (3316/3314 Robson St.) stated the pole would be in her front yard, less than 10 feet from her porch, and opposed it.
- Gary Moody (41 N. Keeling Ave., president of Ropes and Voorhees Neighbors Association) criticized Verizon's approach, noting the pole would be near a vacant lot and that the neighborhood submitted a resolution opposing the site.
- Kelly Elmore (representing Park Place Property Owners Association) argued the 47-foot pole at 6627 Carolina Blvd. would be an eyesore in a well-landscaped area and could be relocated.
- Harvey Warner (135 E. Brunswick Ave.) cited flooding risks, poor drainage, and heavy school traffic at the proposed locations on Brunswick Ave.
- Steve Gentry (215 E. Brunswick Ave., Southern Hills HOA) found it incredible that two poles were proposed 100 feet apart and argued they could be moved to nearby commercial areas.
- Brad Lockard (Beechwood Lane) asked that the pole be moved to an existing utility pole across the street, as allowed by state law.
- Michelle Troxel (6563 High View Dr.) noted no overhead utilities exist on her street and questioned why a pole was suddenly proposed on the frontage.
- Donald Lathrop (6824 Glacier Dr.) raised concerns about property reassessment, safety if the pole fell, and the possibility of multiple carriers adding poles.
- Jody Beach (180 E. Vinoy Dr.) argued that 5G would not benefit older residents, that poles should be placed on existing utility easements, and that no power or fiber lines exist at the proposed site.
- Savannah Loftus (attorney for Richmond Hill Community Association) opposed the pole at 8341 Field Fairway, citing HOA covenants, aesthetics, and the neighborhood's recent recovery from a 2012 explosion.
- Attorney Corey Baldwin (Roach Associates) disputed Verizon's property value arguments and called the company's proprietary approach a "cop out."
- Doug Aldridge (19-year Richmond Hill resident) said the subdivision has been rebuilding after the explosion and cannot afford further devaluation.
- Helen Upton (19-year resident) echoed concerns about property values and aesthetics.
- Kyle Squillis (1721 Southview Dr.) asked that poles be placed on commercial zones like Madison Avenue, not in front of homes.
- Beverly Stout (for Frank and Mary Alice Kapler) asked about the exact location of the pole at 2301 Brewer Dr. and whether it would affect the backyard.
- Written and QA comments from numerous residents (Bob Wheedy, Rob Deagle, Leah Burns, Bill Weymeyer, Kathy Waycox, Mike Eccles, Richard Fitzgerald, Libby Cruz, Nick Hunter, Ryan Konnecky, Christina Hunter, Heather Cranich, Matt Lennon) all opposed the poles, citing aesthetics, property values, health concerns, and lack of notification.
Discussion Items
1. Expedited Petition 2020 DV1045 (11844 E. McGregor Rd.)
- Request for a 25.58-foot tall pole barn (larger and taller than the principal dwelling). Staff recommended approval; petitioner agreed. The board voted unanimously to approve.
2. Special Request for Modified Presentation Time
- Petitioner Russell Brown (Verizon Wireless) requested 20 minutes for an overview presentation on 5G technology and 5 minutes per case for three small cell petitions. Staff and legal counsel supported the request, with equal time for remonstrators. The board approved.
3. Small Cell Petitions (2020 DV1047, 1049, 1054)
- Overview: Verizon Wireless (represented by Russell Brown) argued that the 5G small cell facilities are permitted by state law in rights-of-way, that federal law preempts local aesthetics requirements not in writing, and that the proposed poles would fill coverage gaps. He noted that 950+ small cells are already on air in Indianapolis. The company agreed to use black metal poles (except for mid-span wood poles required by IPL) and to house fiber/electric inside the poles.
- Staff Position: Staff recommended approval for sites on arterial streets or alleys with black metal poles, and denial for sites on local streets near residences. Staff upheld the 1973 underground utility ordinance.
- Federal Law Limitation: Legal counsel stated that the board cannot consider health effects of radiofrequency emissions per federal regulations.
4. Negative Findings of Fact (2020 DV1042)
- The board adopted findings of fact for a previously denied petition, and also adopted findings for the approved expedited petition.
Key Outcomes
- 2020 DV1045 (Expedited): Approved unanimously (3-0).
- 2020 DV1047:
- Part A (5 sites with staff recommendation of approval): Vote 2-1 (Bohan no, Robinson yes, Taft yes) – indecisive, continued to Oct. 27.
- Part B (5 sites with staff recommendation of denial): Vote 2-1 (Bohan no, Robinson yes, Taft yes) – indecisive, continued to Oct. 27.
- 2020 DV1049:
- Part A (436 E. Craigmont St.): Approved unanimously (3-0).
- Part B (remaining 19 sites): Vote 2-1 (Bohan no, Robinson no, Taft yes) – indecisive, continued to Oct. 27.
- 2020 DV1054:
- Part A (7425 Madison Ave.): Approved unanimously (3-0).
- Part B (remaining 14 sites): Vote 2-1 (Bohan no, Robinson no, Taft yes) – indecisive, continued to Oct. 27.
- Negative Findings of Fact: Adopted for 2020 DV1042 and for the expedited petition.
- All automatic continuances acknowledged.
- The meeting adjourned at approximately 8:30 PM ET.
Meeting Transcript
Speeds. I'm going to call the October 6th, 2020 meeting to order. This is a public hearing of the Metropolitan Board of Zoning Appeals, Division 1. I'm Joanna Taft, Chairperson of Division One. Executive orders issued by Governor Holcomb and Mayor Hogsett regarding COVID 19 guidelines and restrictions enable us to conduct today's meeting electronically. The City of Indianapolis holds public hearings in high regard for public input. We will use reasonable efforts to carry out the public hearing online and do not accept liability for equipment failure, inability to access the internet or software malfunctions related to the operation of the hearing. We ask that you remain patient throughout this time. The city heavily encourages the public to email your comments to DMD public comments at Indy.gov or the planner aside to the case 24 hours prior to the meeting to ensure your comments are included in the record. Now I'm going to verify electronic participation. So to all the attendees, I'd like you to go to the QA function now to state your name, petition number, and whether or not you have a special request or you are attending in support or opposition to the request. You may also state whether or not you wish to speak. I'll individually read each board member's message. And I want you to acknowledge please acknowledge your presentation called on. So Rob Gohan. Present, I can see in here. Joanna Taft, I can see in here. I will now ask EMP and Office of Corporate Council staff members to verbally confirm that they can see and hear the other participants. Please acknowledge that you're present when you're called on. Legal counsel for the board, Chris Steimetz. Thank you. Chris Steinmetz, I can see in here. Larry Callaway, Principal Planner 2. Thank you, I can see you here. Kathleen Blackham, Senior Planner. Thank you, Chairperson Taft. I can see and hear everyone. Jeffrey York, Senior Planner. Thank you, Chairperson Taft. I can see and hear. Robert Eulin Haig, Senior Planner. Thank you, Chairperson Taft. I can see and hear everyone. Marlene Irahetta, Senior Planner. Thank you, Chairperson Taft. I can see and hear everyone. Alison Richardson, senior planner. This is Alison Richardson. I can see and hear everyone. Erica Hinshaw, Principal Planner 2, serving as host. Thank you. I can see and hear everyone. Eddie Honeya, senior planner serving as presentations manager. I can see and hear. Thank you. And Matt Pleasant, current planning administrator handling the QA function today. Taking Chairwoman Taft, I can see and hear. Hearing specialist Heather Stefan, can you please confirm that you can see and hear the other participants? I confirm. Thank you.
openpublica.com