Indianapolis Metropolitan Board of Zoning Appeals Division One Meeting - October 1, 2024
STREAMING COPY IN PREPARATION — RECORDING AVAILABLE FROM THE ORIGINAL SOURCE
Indianapolis Metropolitan Board of Zoning Appeals Division One Meeting - October 1, 2024
The Metropolitan Board of Zoning Appeals Division One convened on October 1, 2024, to consider a docket of variance requests. The meeting included extensive public testimony on several cases, focusing on fencing, industrial development, commercial expansion, and residential use compatibility.
Procedural & Consent Matters
- The board approved standard expedite procedures and granted an expedite request for petition 2024 DV1029.
- Multiple petitions were continued to the November 7, 2024 hearing: 2024 UV1-021, 2024 DV1030 (with notice), 2024 UV1014 (without notice), 2024 UV1017 (without notice, despite audience objection), 2024 DV1031 (without notice), and 2024 UV1-019 (automatically after an indecisive vote).
- Waivers of the notice period were granted for 2024 DV1029 (2 days), 2024 UV1-020 (7 days), 2024 UV1018 (3 days), and 2024 UV1-019 (3 days).
- Petition 2024 UV1013 was officially withdrawn.
- Petition 2024 UV102 was continued per an automatic continuance by a registered neighborhood organization.
Public Testimony
- Madison Avenue Fence (2024 DV1-017): Laura Piercefield, Eugene Parsley, and Kristen Jaden of the South Village Neighborhood Association strongly opposed the variance. They argued the business did not adhere to the South Indy Quality of Life Plan, had not been a good neighbor, and that the fence would hinder future commercial development along Madison Avenue. Concerns regarding crime and spontaneous vehicle gatherings were also raised.
- Marble Lane Fence (2024 DV1-025): Abutting neighbor Carol Polly spoke enthusiastically in support of the petitioner's eight-foot fence, stating it greatly improved privacy and the overall neighborhood aesthetic.
- Franklin Rd Warehouse (2024 UV1-011): Richard Wolchinski, a nearby resident, voiced concerns that new homeowners in the surrounding subdivision had not been properly notified about the intended use and scale of the development.
- Winthrop Ave Mobile Spa (2024 UV1-020): Dina Farling opposed the variance, arguing that the large converted RV was incompatible with the single-family residential street and devalued neighboring properties.
Discussion Items
- 2024 DV1-017 (Madison Ave): Petitioner Joe Calderan sought several fence variances for a self-storage facility. Over the month since a previous continuance, the applicant worked with staff to amend the plan, replacing barbed wire with a decorative fence, relocating a chain-link fence out of a clear sight triangle, and adding vinyl coating. Staff reversed its initial recommendation to denial and supported approval. Petitioners argued the request was solely about fencing, not the previously approved use.
- 2024 DV1-025 (Marble Lane): John McDavid represented the homeowner seeking to retain an 8-foot fence already installed. The argument centered on the property's unique topography, sitting lower than surrounding lots, creating privacy issues. Staff argued the height violated zoning limits and no practical difficulty existed, but noted the widespread neighbor support.
- 2024 UV1-011 (Franklin Rd): Joe Calderan represented a developer seeking to build warehousing units with outdoor storage on a site transitioning from I-2 industrial to surrounding residential. Staff strongly recommended denial, citing incompatibility with the comp plan and residential context. The petitioner withdrew several variances for setbacks and landscaping during the hearing, successfully narrowing the request to the outdoor storage proximity rule. The Franklin Township Civic League provided a letter of support.
- 2024 UV1-015 (Georgetown Rd): Thomas Potschmidt sought a use variance to expand a liquor store. Staff recommended denial, concerned about overdevelopment and lack of landscaping. The applicant committed to substantial mitigation measures, including adding bike parking, revising hours (closing at 2 a.m. on weekends instead of 3 a.m.), adding landscaping, and ending seasonal outdoor sales.
- 2024 UV1-018 (Massachusetts Ave): John Ferrier and Rob Clark from Insertec requested a variance to construct an employee parking lot on the D-8 zoned portion of their lot to alleviate dangerous street parking. Staff argued the need was self-created by past expansions and encroached on a rebounding residential area. The board granted the variance with commitments limiting the lot to passenger vehicles and prohibiting expansion into adjacent lots.
- 2024 UV1-019 (Bancroft St): Jim Pierce sought variances for an accessory structure built without permits. Staff recommended denial due to the self-imposed nature of the violation and floodplain concerns.
- 2024 UV1-020 (Winthrop Ave): Navneed Core requested a variance to park a converted RV used as a seasonal mobile sauna business in his driveway. He argued the business was only 64 days a year. Staff recommended denial based on incompatibility with the D5 residential zone.
Key Outcomes
- 2024 DV1-029 (9540 Mays Road): Granted (subject to commitments). Unanimous vote.
- 2024 DV1-017 (2715/2719 Madison Ave): GRANTED (3-2). Votes: Duncan (yes), Napoleon (yes), Barnes (yes). Hannon (no), Witt (no). Subject to withdrawn variances and commitments.
- 2024 DV1-025 (6438 Marble Lane): GRANTED (5-0).
- 2024 UV1-011 (5151 S. Franklin Rd): GRANTED (4-0). Subject to withdrawn variances and updated commitments.
- 2024 UV1-015 (3402 Georgetown Rd): GRANTED (3-1). Duncan voted no. Subject to specific commitments on bike parking, hours, landscaping, and sales.
- 2024 UV1-018 (2243 Massachusetts Ave): GRANTED (4-0). Subject to passenger vehicle only commitment.
- 2024 UV1-019 (2562 N. Bancroft St): AUTOMATICALLY CONTINUED to November 7, 2024, due to an indecisive 2-2 vote (Barnes and Napoleon yes, Witt and Duncan no).
- 2024 UV1-020 (3450 Winthrop Ave): DENIED (4-0).
Meeting Transcript
Okay. I'm gonna call to order, uh, get started here. Um, this is a public hearing of the Metropolitan Board of Zoning Appeals Division One. I am David Duncan, acting chairperson of the Division One. The other board members present are Jennifer Witt, Tom Barnes, and Renee Napoleon. Legal counsel for the board today is Chris Steinmanz. Staff members present today for the division of planning are Eddie O'Nea, interim current planning administrator, Robert Ulnake, senior planner, Michael Weigel, senior planner, Noah Stern, senior planner, Kaya Mullins, associate planner, Marty Westie, senior board specialist and secretary of the board. The board has copies of the zoning ordinances that will be incorporated incorporated by reference into the record of each case here today. The proceedings of this hearing are governed by the board's the board's rules of procedure. The expedite cases will be heard immediately after all requests for continuances or withdrawals. As each non-expedited case is called, petitioners and remonstrators interested in that particular case will please stand. Those who intend to testify will please remain standing and be sworn. Petitioners should be on your left and remonstrators on your right as you face the board. Those who testify will state their name and address for the record before beginning to testify. Petitioners and persons appearing in support of the case bearing heard shall have a maximum of 15 minutes for the presentation of evidence statements and arguments in support of the petition. Remonstrators and persons appearing in opposition to the petition shall have a maximum of 15 minutes for the presentation of evidence statements and arguments in opposition to the petition. Staff will then present the administrators' comments regarding the petition. The petitioner will then be allowed five minutes for rebuttal and a summation of the case. Rebuttal must be limited to the subject matter of the initial presentations. Remonstrators will then be allowed five minutes for rebuttal of the petitioner's rebuttal evidence and a brief closing statement. No further evidence, statements, or arguments will be heard unless it is at the discretion of the board. Please limit your testimony and evidence to the matters covered in the statutory requirements, which must be met on the in order for the board to grant a variance. If the petitioners have failed to comply with all notice requirements as stipulated by the board's rules of procedure, including posting of the notice signed on the subject property at least 23 days prior to the hearing, the board may continue with a petition. Anyone at this hearing who thinks a complete and proper notice has not been given and would like the petition continue due to lack of proper notice must bring this matter to the board's attention at the beginning of the hearing. The board may impose various conditions or commitments as amendments, amendments before reaching a decision on certain petitions. The installation of landscaping and screening, the paving of parking areas, the dedication of rights away are examples. These conditions and commitments are an integral part of the board's decision and must be met for a granted variance to be valid. Compliance with conditions imposed by the board must be approved by an affidavit and compliance submitted by the petitioner within 30 days of completion. Unless otherwise specified, an improvement location permit permit must be obtained prior to the establishment of the authorized improvements. Failure to comply with any conditions or commitments of a variance grant is a violation enforceable by the Department of Business and Neighborhood Services. A person may file written request to receive notice of the filing of petition for judicial review of a decision of the board. The written request must be filed within five days of the board's decision and must include the person's full name, full name and correct mailing address and a reference to the board's petition number. Forms are available and may be obtained from the board secretary. Please be advised that contacting members of the board regarding a matter pending before the board outside of this public hearing process is prohibited. Please be courteous or an orderly at all times, and please be sure all cell phone ringers are turned off. There are four members present today. There's five members present today. It requires three votes to take action on any request. We will take this into well, I think we can just strike that whole thing. Okay. Okay, so we do have one member here today with a hard cut off at 3.15. So after 3 15 p.m., there will be four members present today. It requires three votes to take action on any request. We will take this into consideration when when hearing requests for continuance. If your petition receives an indecisive vote, your petition will be automatically continued to the November 7th, 2024 hearing. Is there anyone in the audience who has any questions about our procedures? See none. Before we hear special requests, I will ask for a waiver of the rules of procedure to allow the board to vote for all expedite petitions and adopt their findings of fact without any additional testimony for the individual petitioners. Do I have a motion? Hannon so moved.
openpublica.com