OPENPUBLICA · PUBLIC MEETING RECORD
Record of Proceedings

Metropolitan Board of Zoning Appeals Division One Meeting – September 2, 2025

Board of Zoning Appeals ITuesday, September 2, 2025
BodyIndianapolis, Indiana
SessionBoard of Zoning Appeals I
DateTuesday, September 2, 2025
StatusFILED
Video Record
0:00 / 2:40:26

Transcript — Verbatim
0:04

Good afternoon, everyone.

0:05

I'm gonna call this meeting to order.

0:07

This is a public hearing of the Metropolitan Board of Zoning Appeals, Division One.

0:11

I am Peter Nelson, Chairperson of Division One.

0:14

Other board members present today, Jennifer Witt, Andrew Cotona, David Duncan, and Patrice Duckett Brown.

0:22

Legal Counsel for the board today is Chris Steinmetz.

0:25

Staff members present today from the Division of Planning are Eddie Onea, current planning administrator, Robert Ulenake, senior planner, Michael Weigel, senior planner, and Marty Weistie, senior board specialist and secretary to the board.

0:37

The board has copies of all the zoning ordinances that'll be incorporated by reference into the record of each case heard today.

0:44

The proceedings of this hearing are governed by the board's rules of procedure.

0:48

The expedited cases will be heard immediately after all requests for continuances or withdrawals.

0:53

As each non-expedited case is called, petitioners and remonstrators interested in that particular case will please stand.

0:59

Those who intend to testify will please remain standing and be sworn.

1:03

Petitioners should be on your left, remonstrators on your right as you face the board.

1:07

Those who testify will state their name and address for the record before beginning to testify.

1:12

Petitioners and persons appearing in support of the case being heard shall have a maximum of 15 minutes for the presentation of evidence statements and arguments in support of the petition.

1:20

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.

1:29

Staff will then present the administrator's comments regarding the petition.

1:33

The petitioner will then be allowed five minutes for rebuttal and summation of the case.

1:37

Rebuttal must be limited to the subject matter, the initial presentations.

1:41

Remonstrators will then be allowed five minutes for rebuttal of the petitioner's rebuttal evidence and a brief closing statement.

1:48

No further evidence, statements, or arguments will be heard unless it is at the discretion of the board.

1:52

Please limit your testimony and evidence to the matters covered in the statutory requirements, which must be met in order for the board to grant a variance.

2:00

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 subject property at least 23 days prior to the hearing, the board may continue the petition.

2:11

Anyone at this hearing who thinks complete and proper notice has not been given and would like the petition continued due to lack of proper notice must bring this matter to the board's attention at the beginning of the hearing.

2:21

The board may impose various conditions or commitments as amendments before reaching a decision on certain petition.

2:27

The installation of landscaping and screening, the paving of parking area, and the dedication of rights away are examples.

2:33

These conditions and commitments are an integral part of the board's decision and must be met for a granted variance to be valid.

2:38

Compliance with conditions imposed by the board must be proved by an affidavit of compliance submitted by the petitioner within 30 days of completion.

2:46

Unless otherwise specified, an improvement location permit must be obtained prior to the establishment of the authorized improvements.

2:52

Failure to comply with any conditions or commitments of a variance grant is a violation enforceable by the Department of Business and Neighborhood Services.

3:00

A person may file a written request to receive notice of the filing of a petition for judicial review of a decision of the board.

3:06

The written request must be filed within five days of the board's decision and must include the person's full name and correct mailing address and a reference to the board's petition number.

3:15

Forms are available and may be obtained from the board secretary.

3:18

Please be advised that contacting members of the board regarding a matter pending before the board outside of this public hearing process is prohibited.

3:27

Please be courteous and orderly at all times, and please be sure all cell phone ringers are turned off.

3:35

All right, board members, you have been provided a meeting minutes for our August 5th, 2025 meeting.

3:41

If there are no deletions or additions, I will take a motion for their approval.

3:46

Duncan so moved.

3:47

Is there a second?

3:48

Wit second.

3:50

All right, motion and a second.

3:51

Call for a vote.

3:52

Duncan?

3:53

Duncan, yes.

3:54

Catona.

3:55

Catona, yes.

3:56

Witt.

3:56

Witt, yes.

3:57

And Ducett Brown.

4:00

Duggett Brown, yes.

4:02

And Nelson votes yes.

4:08

All right.

4:09

Um so is there anyone in the audience who has any questions about our procedures?

4:17

All right.

4:18

Seeing none, um, we do not have anything on the expedited docket today.

4:24

So at this point, we can move on and consider special requests and continuances.

4:42

Good afternoon.

4:44

Tasha Roberts of 118 North Delaware.

4:47

I represent Margarito Galindo, who owns the property at 6805 Rockville Road.

4:54

He respectfully will request a continuance until October 7th for sufficient notice.

Discussion Breakdown — Share of Meeting
Zoning and Land Use████████████████████████████████████████40%
Public Safety█████████████████████21%
Procedural████████8%
Public Engagement██████6%
Public Art█████5%
Sign Regulation████4%
Historic Preservation███3%
Arts And Culture███3%
Traffic Calming██2%
Summary of Proceedings

Metropolitan Board of Zoning Appeals Division One Meeting – September 2, 2025

The Metropolitan Board of Zoning Appeals Division One met on September 2, 2025, at the City-County Building in Indianapolis, Indiana. Chair Peter Nelson presided over the meeting, with members Jennifer Witt, Andrew Cotona, David Duncan, and Patrice Duckett Brown present. Legal counsel Chris Steinmetz and planning staff provided support. The board heard several variance petitions, including a controversial proposal for a 32.5-foot-tall steel sculpture at the intersection of College Avenue and Westfield Boulevard. The meeting addressed numerous continuance requests, notice waivers, and three substantive cases.

Consent Calendar

  • Approval of the minutes from the August 5, 2025, meeting was moved and seconded. The motion passed unanimously (5-0).

Public Comments & Testimony

Petition 2025-DV1-035 (0 Canal – Sculpture Variance)

  • Supporters:
    • Mark Demerly (petitioner representative) argued the sculpture would enhance the Broad Ripple cultural district, noted that the existing sign already encroaches into the clear sight triangle, and cited safety data showing public art can calm traffic. He stated that the sculpture would be structurally secured with 25-foot pilings and that a maintenance fund exists.
    • Tim Caress (lifelong Broad Ripple resident) supported the piece, saying public art strengthens social cohesion and attracts visitors.
    • Will Higgins (Meridian Street resident) stated the sculpture would create a point of interest and affection for the community.
  • Opponents:
    • Srithain Ingrihan (6106 Kingsley Drive) argued the location is wrong aesthetically and from a public safety standpoint.
    • Brett Rathmell (628 East 63rd Street) said he feels unsafe crossing the intersection every day and that any additional structure would increase distraction and danger. He presented 28 slides illustrating congestion, worn crosswalks, and illegal turns.
    • Clark Hollow (4454 Washington Boulevard) contended the sculpture would be injurious to public safety by creating a distraction, increasing vehicle delays, and that the clear sight triangle should be respected. He noted that 72% of written comments to staff opposed the project.
    • Tom Grubb (6122 Central Avenue) provided police data showing 28 traffic accidents at the intersection from January 2024 to August 2025 (more than at Keystone and Broad Ripple Avenue) and urged denial.

Petition 2025-UV1-013 (11150 Mays Road – Fuel Tanks)

  • Petitioner: John Cross (attorney) and Michael Cole (property owner and business operator) argued the tanks had been used safely for four years without complaint, that they are double-walled and equipped with automatic shutoffs, and that the Franklin Township Civic League supported the variance.
  • Opposition: Staff noted one neighbor had contacted staff in opposition but did not attend. Staff further argued the tanks increase commercial intensity on an agriculturally zoned property and pose a risk to area wells since the area is not served by city water.

Petition 2025-DV1-032 (7986 North College – Garage Addition)

  • No public opposition was voiced. The Nora Community Council, adjacent neighbors, and the Williams Creek Town Council supported the variance.

Discussion Items

Continuances and Notice Waivers

  • 2025-UV1-014: Continued to October 7, 2025, without additional notice (motion approved 5-0).
  • 2025-DV1-038: Five-day notice waiver approved (5-0) due to late staff mailing.
  • 2025-DV1-035 (Sculpture): Remonstrators requested a 30-day continuance citing confusion over property ownership and an updated rendering filed late. The board denied the continuance and proceeded to hear the case.
  • 2025-UV1-016 & 2025-UV1-017: Three-day notice waivers approved (5-0 each).
  • 2025-UV1-015: Continued to October 7, 2025, without additional notice (5-0) to allow an updated site plan.
  • 2025-DV1-040: Continued to October 7, 2025, with new notice (5-0) due to an amended site plan provided after legal notice was sent.
  • 2025-DV1-039: Automatically continued to October 7, 2025, per a timely request from a registered neighborhood organization.

Substantive Hearings

  • 2025-DV1-032 (7986 North College): The petitioner sought a variance for a garage addition with a 2-foot south side yard setback (15 feet required) and encroachment into a utility easement. Staff recommended denial, citing the substantial expansion of a non-conforming setback and the availability of a vacation petition for the easement. The petioner noted that the north yard contains a historic Smithsonian-recognized garden, making the south side the only viable location. The board granted the variance (5-0).
  • 2025-DV1-035 (0 Canal – Sculpture): The board considered a variance to allow a 32.5-foot steel sculpture on a 2.5-foot concrete base within the 120-foot clear sight triangle at College Avenue and Westfield Boulevard. Petitioner Mark Demerly explained that the sculpture would replace a non-permitted existing sign and would only encroach into the clear sight triangle by 20 feet (proposing a 100-foot triangle). Staff recommended approval, noting that the Department of Public Works uses a 100-foot standard and found no significant safety impact. The sculpture was fully funded by private dollars and would be maintained by a dedicated fund. After extensive public testimony, the board voted to grant the variance (5-0).
  • 2025-UV1-013 (11150 Mays Road): The petitioner sought a variance to allow two above-ground fuel tanks (350-gallon gasoline and 550-gallon diesel) for a concrete contracting business on an agriculturally zoned property. Staff recommended denial, citing increased commercial intensity, a prior after-the-fact variance for commercial vehicles, and groundwater contamination risks. The petitioner argued that the tanks had been in use without complaint for four years and were necessary to reduce traffic from off-site fueling. The board denied the variance (3-2: Witt, Nelson voted yes; Duncan, Cotona, Duckett Brown voted no).
  • 2025-UV1-009 (530 West Morris Street): The petitioner requested a continuance to October 7, 2025, which was granted (5-0) with no opposition.

Administrative Continuances

  • At the end of the meeting, staff requested a continuance of agenda items 8, 9, and 10 (new petitions) to the next regular meeting due to an outdated publication schedule. The board granted the continuance to October 7, 2025, without additional notice (5-0).

Key Outcomes

  • Variance Granted – 2025-DV1-032: The board approved a variance for a garage addition at 7986 North College (5-0).
  • Variance Granted – 2025-DV1-035: The board approved the variance for the sculpture at the intersection of College Avenue and Westfield Boulevard (5-0). The approval includes a commitment from the petitioner to ensure the sculpture’s illumination does not use monochromatic red, yellow, or green lights that could be mistaken for traffic signals.
  • Variance Denied – 2025-UV1-013: The board denied the variance for fuel tanks at 11150 Mays Road (3-2).
  • Continuances Granted: Numerous petitions were continued to the October 7, 2025, hearing, as detailed above.
  • Notice Waivers Approved: Three waivers of the 23-day notice requirement were granted.
  • Board Commitment: The petitioner in the fuel tanks case voluntarily committed that the variance would terminate upon sale of the property; this was noted but did not affect the denial.

Meeting Transcript

Good afternoon, everyone. I'm gonna call this meeting to order. This is a public hearing of the Metropolitan Board of Zoning Appeals, Division One. I am Peter Nelson, Chairperson of Division One. Other board members present today, Jennifer Witt, Andrew Cotona, David Duncan, and Patrice Duckett Brown. Legal Counsel for the board today is Chris Steinmetz. Staff members present today from the Division of Planning are Eddie Onea, current planning administrator, Robert Ulenake, senior planner, Michael Weigel, senior planner, and Marty Weistie, senior board specialist and secretary to the board. The board has copies of all the zoning ordinances that'll be incorporated by reference into the record of each case heard today. The proceedings of this hearing are governed by the board's rules of procedure. The expedited 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, 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 being 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 administrator's comments regarding the petition. The petitioner will then be allowed five minutes for rebuttal and summation of the case. Rebuttal must be limited to the subject matter, 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 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 subject property at least 23 days prior to the hearing, the board may continue the petition. Anyone at this hearing who thinks complete and proper notice has not been given and would like the petition continued 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 before reaching a decision on certain petition. The installation of landscaping and screening, the paving of parking area, and 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 proved by an affidavit of compliance submitted by the petitioner within 30 days of completion. Unless otherwise specified, an improvement location 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 a written request to receive notice of the filing of a 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 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 and orderly at all times, and please be sure all cell phone ringers are turned off. All right, board members, you have been provided a meeting minutes for our August 5th, 2025 meeting. If there are no deletions or additions, I will take a motion for their approval. Duncan so moved. Is there a second? Wit second. All right, motion and a second. Call for a vote. Duncan? Duncan, yes. Catona. Catona, yes. Witt. Witt, yes. And Ducett Brown. Duggett Brown, yes.

SUMMARIZED BY OPENPUBLICA AI
TRANSCRIPT VIA PUBLIC VIDEO
openpublica.com