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.

And Nelson votes yes.

All right.

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

All right.

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

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

Good afternoon.

Tasha Roberts of 118 North Delaware.

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

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

Is there anyone in the audience with interest in petition in 2025 UV 1014 related to the uh continuance and seems transferred to that division two next week?

October.

No.

September 7th is us.

Okay.

Sorry.

I'm still in August.

Um just a continuance, September 7th.

October 7th?

Next month.

We're in September now.

All right.

There we go.

I'm starting over.

October 7th.

Thank you, everyone.

All right.

So anybody?

Anybody?

All right.

All right.

Staff, are we comfortable with the continuance to the October 7th hearing?

Thank you, Chairperson Duck and members of the board.

Yes, staff has no objection to this request to continue this petition to October 7th.

That would be without additional notice.

All right, board, we have a request to continue petition 2025 UV 1014 to the October 7th hearing.

That is without additional notice.

Do I have a motion?

Oh, but the request for continuance was for sufficient notice.

So wouldn't wouldn't that I'm sorry, can you explain that?

So legal notice was provided in a timely manner, but was mailed late by the petitioner.

I believe it went into their spam account instead, and they didn't see it for several days, so it was several days late.

And therefore staff indicated that they would not support a waiver of notice in that case, and the best course of action would be to request a one-month continuance to make the legal notice compliant.

Got it.

So it's just uh perfecting the notice that's already been sent.

That is correct.

Correct.

Which is the reason why no new notice is required.

Awesome.

Thank you.

Appreciate it.

Any other questions from the board?

Or is there a motion?

Uh move to approve.

Okay.

Second.

Duncan second.

All right.

Motion and second.

Call for a vote.

Duncan?

Duncan, yes.

Katona.

Catone, yes.

Wit.

Wit, yes.

Ducan Brown.

Doug Brown, yes.

Nelson votes yes.

Thank you.

I'm Vince Braun with Coach House Garages 1617 South End Street as in Nancy.

All their streets are just letters up there.

Uh Elwood, Indiana.

I represent uh Curtis Smith at 954 Troub Street.

And I received the uh legal notice of public hearing.

Uh very quickly.

That is item number eight on the agenda.

It was uh wrong the first time they sent it to me, so I sent it back and they got it back to me.

And uh they said they would give me a five-day waiver on that.

All right, is there anyone in the audience with interest in 2025 DV1038?

Um in regards to the notice waiver five days.

All right, staff are we comfortable with the waiver?

Thank you, Chairperson Nelson, members of the board.

In this instance, yes, staff provided the notice late after the deadline to the petitioner, and there was a correction needed as well, which resulted in the need for the five-day way uh five-day delay.

So therefore, staff does support this waiver.

Okay, thank you.

Board, we have a request to approve a five-day notice waiver for petition 2025 DV1038.

Is there a motion?

Duncan so moved.

And a second.

With second.

All right, it'll call for a vote.

Duncan?

Duncan, yes.

Catona?

Catone, yes.

With yeah.

Ducett Brown?

Doug Brown, yes.

And Nelson votes yes.

Uh Chairperson uh Nelson Board members, uh, Clark Collow, 4454, uh Washington Boulevard.

Um, I'm here on the related to the fifth item on your uh agenda.

Case uh 035 College Avenue.

Uh remonstrators respectfully ask for a continuance for the reason that there is confusion and inaccurate information on two important aspects of this petition.

You'll note that this variance petition seeks the construction of a 32-foot-tall, five and a half ton statue on public property in the consent form.

In that consent form, the Indy Arts Center's uh director uh Mark Williams uh signed the form and claimed ownership.

Uh however, the the city DPW Bar Department of Public Works and Citizens Energy Group are the actual owners of the affected properties, and therefore it is public land.

A private development on public property is qualitatively different than a private project on private property.

The DMD staff report makes it appear that this is a city sponsored project.

It lists the petitioner as quote City of Indianapolis, Department of Public Utilities, Board of Directors for Utilities Trustee, Public Charitable Trust, for Water System by Mark Demerley.

This makes it appear that this is a city project, which it is not.

So it's apparent that the public does not have accurate information as to who owns the property.

It's very fundamental, and who is petitioning uh for the statute.

Second, there is confusion on what the installation would actually look like.

We have the early out of scale, perhaps overdramatized representation with a recently shared uh rendering, which was only made available to the in putting in the petition file on August the 28th, and the public has not had time to review it.

Also, nowhere in the file is there a rendering of what the statute would look like in finished form at the location.

Put together the public is not fully accurately informed of who sponsors this project and even what it would look like.

This is not a typical zoning case where the petitioner seeks to develop or make improvements to privately owned real estate or start a business.

In these instances, there can be timing can be a critical issue, such as rising interest rate costs, lost opportunities, uh construction dollars, uh new jobs, etc.

However, this is not the case here.

No one will be prejudiced, no one will be prejudiced by a brief continuance to allow the public to have all the facts to intelligently evaluate the petition.

So we're requesting uh a 30-day continuance.

Thank you all right.

Thank you.

So I will ask, and I assume the petitioner will have some comments.

Um, but um, is there anyone interested in this case 2025 DV1035 in regards to um opposing this continuance request Mark Demerly uh 6144 North Park Avenue?

Uh I'm a little confused, uh, Commissioner, in just regards to were you asking of the audience or are you asking anyone to speak against it?

Um can speak against the continuance request if if they're in opposition, um, but I I'm assuming uh the petitioner would would like to have a comment.

Yeah.

We have been working with the city uh on this process for a long time.

Um staff had basically we had submitted the original documents, it was under at the time when we filed it.

Uh we thought the fact that since the sculpture will be owned by the Indianapolis Museum uh Art Center, uh that Michael that Mark Williams, who is the president, would be the one that would be uh sponsoring the request for it, and we myself uh in the representative of that.

Now the city chose that the fact that since they did not own the land, in fact the land is owned by the city, and part of the land is owned by Citizens Energy Energy Group, which uh accounts for about more than three-fourths of the property uh in question.

Uh the city, and I'll let staff respond to this.

They chose to make this uh as the city uh being the person that I would be representing.

Uh, in regards to the other comments that Mr.

Kahlo had remarked on uh regards to uh material, uh it's in the report.

I don't think that the fact I'd rather just present the information today to you and provide the facts and um have you vote on it.

I don't think the scale of the sculpture or anything like that is of question.

Uh we are asking for a clear sight triangle, and that is what we ask you to review.

All right, thank you.

Um so I I guess I will just kind of pull the audience and just show a hands here just for our reference.

But anyone who is is everyone here who is in opposition seeking this to be continued.

I guess is there anyone who would speak in opposition that wants this to go forward today?

Or is everybody just kind of wanting this continuance for now?

Seems like the continuance is the okay.

Then I will ask staff um for their thoughts on this continuance request.

Sure.

Uh thank you, Chairperson Nelson, members of the board.

Um my understanding is that our staff, in addition to having received that consent form with the initial filing from Mark Williams for the IAC, but there was a written consent provided to us via the Department of Public Works as well.

It looks like that might have come from an email chain where the written approval was indicated at some point in the month of July.

I'll open this up wrapper last second, so I apologize.

Um I can read more detailed from that if necessary.

Um, with regards um to the other aspects at hand.

Um, this would be the second continuance requested by uh remonstrating groups.

Uh first was an automatic continuance um to move it to today's hearing from the August date.

Um staff did um publish the updated rendering within of a report that is available publicly and was published late last week.

Um we are ready to proceed if needed, but uh would leave it up to the board's discretion in that regard.

All right.

Um did you have additional comments?

Yes, if there's an addition if there's an additional consent form that uh he alluded to that Mr.

Weigel alluded to, it's it's not a matter of record, and I'm sorry, but an email chain that's not public is it doesn't qualify as a consent form.

Okay, thank you for your comments.

Um I guess I will ask, so board we have a request to continue petition 2025 DV1035 to the October 7th hearing.

Um is there a motion?

All right, hearing no motion.

Um continue and be heard today.

All right, thank you.

Good afternoon.

My name is David Rutherford.

I'm a zoning attorney out on the southeast side of Indianapolis at 8801 Southeastern.

Have the last two cases on your docket, nine and ten.

In both cases, we had the same issue with the legal notice, so we are here to before we actually put present the petitions to ask for a waiver of notice for three days to allow that because it was it was sent late.

Is that three-day waiver for both?

Yes, for both cases.

2016 and zero, I'm sorry, 2025 UV 1016 and 2025 UV 1017.

All right.

Anyone in the audience with interest in I'll take these one at a time.

2025 UV 1016 uh 9743 Indian Creek South Road South.

Interest in the waiver.

That's that's my client.

Okay, so we're good there.

Um all right.

I'll I'll go to staff.

Staff are we comfortable with the waiver on uh 016?

Uh thank you, Chairperson Nelson, members of the board.

Uh, given it the primary reason to waivers required was delay in provision of staff materials.

We have no objection to the requested three-day waiver.

All right, board, we have a request for a three-day waiver of the uh notice requirement for petition 2025 UV 1016.

Uh is there a motion?

Wit, so moved.

Second.

Duncan second.

All right, call for a vote.

Duncan?

Duncan, yes.

Katona.

Catoni, yes.

Wit.

Wait, yes.

Ducket Brown?

Doug Brown, yes.

Nelson votes yes.

All right.

I will ask the audience any interest.

Same thing, 2025 UV 1017, three-day waiver notice.

Okay.

Uh staff, I assume the same thing.

That's correct.

Perfect.

All right.

Motion to approve the three-day waiver for 2025 UV 1017.

Duncan so moved.

And a second.

Wait, second.

All right, call for a vote, Duncan.

Duncan, yes.

Catona.

Tony, yes.

Wit.

Wait, yes.

Duck it brown.

Deck brown, yes.

Nelson votes yes.

Thank you.

Chairperson Doug and members of the board.

Staff will draw your attention to item number two, 2025 UV 1015, located at 488 South Rochester Avenue.

Staff is requesting that this petition be continued to the October 7th, 2026 hearing to allow time for the petitioner to provide an updated and correct site plan and to possibly amend the request.

Alright new notice if required, depending on the amended request.

All right.

Is there anyone in the audience with interest in 2025 UV 1015?

All right, and staff, sorry, can you confirm that's the October 7th hearing?

Let me check my notes.

Yes, that is the October 7th.

Okay, perfect.

There it is.

It's on the back of the page.

Thank you.

Um all right, board.

We have a request to continue petition 2025 UV 1015 to the October 7th hearing.

Is there a motion?

Duncan so moved.

Second.

Wit, second.

All right, vote.

Duncan.

Duncan, yes.

Catona.

Katoni, yes.

Wit.

Wait, yes.

Ducett Brown, Ducky Brown, yes.

And Nelson votes yes.

Thank you.

Staff will also draw your attention to item number three, 2025 DB1040, located at 3725 West 21st Street.

In this instance, an updated site plan was provided after legal notice was already sent out.

So new notice will be required.

Therefore, this petition should be will need to be continued to the October 7th, 2025 hearing, and that would be with new notice to reflect the amended request.

Thank you.

All right.

Anyone in the audience with interest in 2025 DV 1040.

Okay.

And staff made the comment.

So is there a motion to approve the continuance to October 7th?

That is with additional notice for petition 2025 DV1040.

Duncan so move.

And a second.

Yes.

All right.

Call for a vote.

Duncan.

Duncan, yes.

Katona.

Katoni, yes.

Wit.

Wait, yes.

Ducett Brown.

Decky Brown, yes.

Nelson votes yes.

Thank you, Chairperson Nelson.

Members of the board staff would draw your attention to the special request item listed at the very top of your agenda, 2025-DV1-039 at 8600 and 8710 North College.

A timely automatic continuance request was filed by a registered neighborhood organization automatically continuing this petition to your October 7th hearing date.

All right.

Any other requests for continuances or special requests at this time?

All right.

Then we can go ahead with the first case.

The petitioners are Brian Mayer and Lauren Riley, represented by Mark and Kim Crouch.

Variants of development standards of the consolidated zoning and subdivision ordinance to provide for a garage addition with a two-foot south side yard setback, 15 feet required, resulting in an open space of 81%, 85% required, and encroachment into an easement.

Encroachment of easements not permitted.

Will those who plan to speak on this petition, please raise their right hand to be sworn in.

I do.

In this case, I represent the petitioners, Brian and Lauren Mayor.

Uh Brian is here with me today.

Going straight to the materials that I presented to you and turning uh to tab two, um, are some photographs of the mayor's home in the Williams Creek neighborhood at 7986 North College.

The home was built in the 1930s.

The mayors purchased the home roughly eight years ago, largely because they love the neighborhood, and they also love the historic character of the home.

Unfortunately, the home as constructed is really just a one-bedroom.

So the mayors now skipping ahead, eight years have two young boys under the age of five, and need to create some more living space if they're going to stay in this home, and that is their that is their preference.

So looking at the photographs, the first photograph behind tab two is really the front elevation looking at it from college from College Avenue.

The second photograph is towards the south end of the home along the property line.

You see there be in front of the car is the existing garage.

This is the area where the mayors are proposing to construct an addition that will incorporate this garage area and will extend 17 feet forward of the garage area towards college.

Importantly though, it'll still be over 125 feet from College Avenue.

It's set well back from the road.

Then turning to the next photograph is the north end of the property, and you see there the decorative landscaping wall there, and then behind it, as shown in the photograph, that's the next one, the fourth photograph, is the garden area that was once registered in the Smithsonian Garden Registry.

Indeed, the the home does have some historical significance.

In fact, behind, then turning to the next tab is tab three.

We've included some excerpts from this Williams Creek historical cocktail cocktail book, and there's a specific centerfold and reference to this house.

It's identified as the hydrangea house.

And if you look behind tab three, there the second sentence says their garden has been recognized by the Smithsonian Institute as warranting inclusion in the gardens of America collection.

Brian and Lauren are both in real estate.

Brian's a residential real estate agent and Lauren is an interior designer.

Maintaining the historical presence of the front elevation of the home is important to them, and including that garden area that's to the north.

So over a year ago, they started working with an architect to try to identify how they could best maintain the front elevation of the home and the historic character, but add the square footage that they need to accommodate their family.

So behind tab four is a site plan.

And to the south or bottom end of the drawing, you can see there's a hashed area, 651 square foot hashed area.

So you can see where the the addition to the home would be located.

It's right there along the south property line.

Even with the addition, it's still over a hundred, as I said earlier, over 125 feet to the west of College Avenue.

It would essentially be in an area of the front yard that is gravel gravel parking area at this point.

The mayors explored lots of different options for trying to expand what they need and arrived at this as the as the best option for maintaining the historical presence of the home.

But what they found though is that the existing garage, again at the south end of the property, already encroaches into the 15-foot, what's now required under the ordinance of 15-foot uh side yard setback.

So essentially what they're trying to do here is with the variance request is to legally establish the existing side yard setback, albeit they're pushing it forward 17 feet in order to accommodate the addition.

The other issue that they identified was that the existing garage encroaches into a four-foot utility easement, most of which is on the property to the south, but the existing garage encroaches about six inches, maybe even less into that existing utility easement.

So that is another uh variance that is needed.

Um I've included the floor plans and uh and there's an elevation drawing behind tab five.

I hope you can see that uh the mayors have really tried to pay attention to the historical character of the of the home and how they have situated the garage and then the addition behind it.

We're not aware of any opposition to the request.

They presented their plans to the Williams Creek Town Council.

Um, and their the Williams Creek Town Council's letter of support is in your materials at tab eight.

Um the mayor's also cons uh consulted with their immediately adjacent neighbor to the south and to the west, who are the two that would be impacted by this construction, and they uh overwhelmingly offered their uh support for the variances, and their emails and letters are behind tab six in the materials that you have.

Perhaps most importantly, last month we presented this case to the NORA Community Council, which for those of you who've had experience with the NORA community council, it's not an easy, it's not an easy audience, but they after reviewing the plans and hearing uh from the mayors, uh, unanimously voted to support the variance, and their letter is in your materials at tab nine.

With respect to the encroachment uh into the easement, just to make clear there are no actual utilities in that area.

Um the encroachment is only six inches.

Also, if you look at the length of that easement, it it terminates at College Avenue, and that they're on College Avenue, so it goes no further than their property, and then it only goes two properties to the west and then terminates before there's another parcel or two.

So I think it's a an old plaid alley that's not been used and essentially has no productive use to it.

That being said, Brian consulted with AES on that easement just to make sure that they didn't have any issues with it, and they have they don't, and they offered their actual written consent to the encroachment, which is behind tab seven in your materials.

The only one that has expressed concern with the plan is is staff.

So let me just address uh the comments that staff made in their staff report.

Staff's main uh concern it it seems is that they believe that the mayors could just as easily um construct their addition on the north end of the property.

But remember, and maybe staff wasn't aware of this, the north end of the property is where that historic garden is.

And the mayors really don't want to lose that historic area.

It's also uh the only green space really on the property.

So that so they they think that's an important reason as to as to why the north end of the property just isn't appropriate.

Where they're putting the the addition is over a gravel portion of the driveway.

It's not impactful to the green space.

One comment I uh omitted.

There's a tall uh about a hundred-foot pine tree in their front yard.

This would not come anywhere close to that pine tree, it was also important to them that they um preserve that.

Um the other comment that staff had related to encroachment into the easement.

I think I addressed that.

It's only a six-foot encroachment.

If there's issues where they the utilities need access to the easement, first of all, there's three and a half feet there, um, but also I think that the mayors know that that's a the risk that they have to work with the utility company on.

Again, we're not aware of any opposition uh to the petition.

You have the support from each of the adjacent neighbors and from uh Williams Creek Town Council and the uh Nora Community Council.

So with that, we'd ask for your support for the variance request, and I'm happy to answer any questions.

Board, any questions for the petitioner at this time.

All right, hearing none, I will confirm.

Is there anyone in the audience that's here to speak in opposition to this petition?

Case number 2025 DB102.

All right, seeing no one, let's go to staff comments, please.

Sure.

Uh thank you, Jefferson Nelson.

Uh, thank you to the petitioner for their comments.

Uh staff is recommending denial of this petition for a setback expansion that would increase a uh legally non-conforming setback that's only 13% of the required setback area from the district.

Would also build fervor into an easement area by grant of a variance as opposed to by vacation of a platted easement petition.

Uh the petitioner did a good job of describing the site.

It's a single family residence with a half moon drive that has two access points off of College Avenue.

Uh it's well screened from public view given it's a fairly busy street.

There's an existing two-car garage on the southern portion of the site.

Uh the home and the garage period would have been built in 1939 per the property card.

Uh within the included town of Williams Creek.

Uh, it would still be subject to all standards from the Marion County zoning ordinance though.

Uh, the current southern setback is two feet, uh which would not meet the current ordinance.

It appears to be legally non-conforming in that regard.

It's also within the TOD secondary district, given the potential future red line stuff in my frontal lawn there.

Uh rural and estate neighborhood is the recommendation from the comprehensive plan.

Uh it's a wooded area within the environmentally sensitive overlay as well, which should leave 30% of the parcel as tree canopy or naturalized area.

Uh, the applicant is seeking to partially demolish and then rebuild and expand the attached garage area on the southern side of the property.

It'd be going from a one-story structure with about 31 feet of width along that southern property line to a two-story structure with 62 feet of property width total.

This is a substantial expansion, it'd be an increase in height from one story to two, as well as um approximately 100% increase in the non-conforming setback along the southern property line.

Um the garage access would be cut from the southern point, and there'd also be requirements for both an improvement location permit and a wrecking permit from business and neighborhood services.

There would also be building code requirements that might come into play here from the 2020 Indiana residential code.

There might be limits on windows and requirements for fire rating two feet from the property line.

Um that's not something that would be granted by approval of this variance.

It's unclear if those standards are fully met, but that's something that would be addressed at the time of permitting.

I wouldn't be eligible for a 50% expansion set exceptional on the non-conforming setback since they're choosing to demolish and rebuild the property.

Uh multiple variances would be required, as the petitioner mentioned, of a two-foot southern side yard setback.

Uh, this addition would also bring the open space to 81% when 85% is required by the district.

Uh, and additionally rebuilding within the platted easement that's owned by or uh bit AES has access to.

Um, they were granted a consent to encroachment on June the 24th per that AES letter, which is within staff's report as well as in the file.

And general staff refers that um cases of encroachment of the plat easements be approved by vacation of platted easement petitions rather than variances and development standards.

Um these vacation petitions are heard by the plat committee.

Uh, they require notification to be sent to most utilities, whereas variances typically would not.

There's also a greater level of legal protection for encroachments should access be required at one point in time.

Um, our staff's understanding is that neither this zoning variance nor the consent of encroachment form um would offer protection to license holders against any damages to what might be built there should that access be needed in the future without a vacation petition in place.

It sounds like this hasn't been an issue so far at the site, and um if it is accurate that this was intended to be an alley at one point in time, I'm not certain how likely that would be in the future.

But in any case, um, if it were damages caused by the utility needed to access that side, the city would not be liable.

Um I know this project also requires an encroachment license from BNS.

Um, this variance would not be a guarantee of the approval of that encroachment license either.

Uh, this could be indicated to the applicant prior to the filing, and they indicated that they would would use proceed with the variance of development standards instead.

Um, to be fair, there is some site-specific practical difficulty that exists for this property given that it's undersized compared to current DS standards.

Typically, they require about 43,000 square feet for a minimum lot size, and this lot is only about 18,000 square feet.

It's about 42% of the minimum required.

Um, small deviations from the ordinance have been considered by staff in instances like this in the past.

Um, where a two-foot expansion of the nonconformity down from 15 is a rather substantial deviation.

Um petitioner is correct that staff is not was not aware of the historic nature of the garden area on the northern portion of the site prior to today's hearing.

Um, it hadn't been mentioned within uh findings documents.

Um, I can understand for desire to want to have that preserved though.

Um staff would note that the southern portion is undeveloped, and if it was built there, there would be a larger structure near that property line in the future.

Um building addition within an easement already encroached upon might increase owner losses in a situation where um access would be needed in a way that would not be the case if a vacation of easement petition were present.

Uh, there is also, of course, the option to keep the site as it is without grant of a petition at all.

Um the North Nora Council um indicated a position of no opposition.

Um, speak approval it as well.

I'd emphasize that as distinct from the American County zoning and permits processes.

Ultimately, an existing legally nonconforming use wouldn't automatically justify expansion thereof.

It's true that this lot is undersized, but it could continue to function with the current layout and vene free petitions imposed by the applicant's desire for expansion disallowed by ordinance.

Staff also believes that a vacation petition would be a more appropriate route than a variance of development standards.

For no reasons, we are recommending denial, and I'm happy to answer any questions that you might have.

All right, thank you.

Board, any questions for staff.

All right, hearing none, we can go back to the petitioner.

You'll have up to five minutes for your rebuttal and summation of the case.

Yeah, I'll I'll be brief.

Um again, the the encroachment into the easement area is six inches, give or take a couple of inches.

I mean, it it's it's it's it's minor.

That being said, uh the petitioner understands that they are and and the consent that was provided by AES uh makes it clear that they are assuming the risk, and I think that's what um what Mr.

Weigel said.

Um there are no utilities in the easement area.

Um I think the neighbor has already planted trees within within the easement area.

Um the existing garage is already located with located within the easement area.

So we don't see that as an issue.

Um there was reference to the to the open space uh issue again.

I think the the numbers were um 81% instead of 85%.

It's minimal.

Um and the other thing I would say is all each of the neighbors have indicated um, as I said earlier, that they have no issues with um what's occurring here.

So with that, I'm happy to answer any questions.

All right, board.

Any questions for the petitioner?

Hearing none, uh board will ask you to cast your ballot for petition 2025 DV1032.

On case 2025-DV1-032, Jennifer Witt votes yes, David Duncan votes yes, Peter Nelson votes yes, Andrew Catona votes yes, and Patrice Duckett Brown votes yes.

The variance is granted.

Case number two zero two five-dv1-035 amended property address, zero canal, northwest quadrant of intersection of College Avenue and Westfield Boulevard.

Washington Township, Council District No.

Zoned MU2 TOD F.

The petitioner is city of petitioners are City of Indianapolis, Department of Public Utilities, Board of Directors for Utilities Trustee, Public Charitable Trust for Water System represented by Mark Demerley.

Variants of development standards of the consolidated zoning and subdivision ordinance to provide for the installation of a 30-foot-tall steel sculpture on top of a two and a half foot tall concrete base with a zero-foot front yard setback, and within the clear sight triangle of the intersection of College Avenue and Westfield Boulevard, and encroaching within the right of way of Westfield Boulevard.

Encroachments not permitted.

Will those who plan to speak on this petition please raise the right hand to be sworn in?

Do you swear or affirm that the testimony you will give is the truth and nothing but the truth?

I do.

Mark Dimmerley, 6144 North Park Avenue.

Give a little history of myself just as regards my involvement with this project.

I'm a resident as well as business owner that has a business in Broadruple for 37 years.

So I'm a long-term, long time.

I'll probably die in Broad Ripple, and I love it so much.

Please mute all settle phones.

Thank you.

So today what we are asking for, and we'll give you a little history about the site.

But first of all, we're asking for a variance of clear site triangle.

120 feet is what is required at this intersection with two major thoroughfares.

We are requesting 100 feet for that clear site triangle.

History of the site is as you might know if you've been through Broadripple.

This is a location that has had for many years a public notice sign, one that goes back, I think before I even moved into the community.

In the 2000, I actually was involved with replacing the existing sign that was at that location, which was a wood construction, which was deteriorating, and replaced it with the existing stainless steel sign, triangular sign that is in place at this time.

Initially, uh Daniel thought along with the rest of us that the site was purely within the city's property line, but we found out, as you can tell from the site map, uh, and I don't know if you can bring up the site map, please.

But uh more majority of the site is actually owned by Center's Citizens Energy Group.

One more, please.

There we go.

Um the diagonal line that is kind of right in front of where the proposed sculpture is going, uh demarks the property line that the centers and energy group.

So the sign itself, even the existing sign, uh, more than three quarters of it is on the Citizen Energy Group.

And so uh we did a lot of things that had not been properly documented in the past.

Uh and so we got an easement uh on that property from Citizen Energy Group.

They granted us that.

There was a longer process, we got it.

Staked the survey uh as well as everything else.

Um but I wanted to point out in regards to the existing triangle sign that's at that area right now, actually uh is encroaches further into that clear side triangle, the 100 foot triangle that we have right at this time.

So we have pushed it back to so that it would be within the clear side triangle 100 feet, which we feel like is a safe distance.

If we actually did the 120 feet, we would be in the canal.

Uh and so the basically to build within the canal would not be allowed, and so uh that is why we today we are seeking that 100 foot clear sight triangle.

Um as I talked to you before, we've worked with the city of Minneapolis, Daniel Stevenson, DMD, uh Centers of Engine Group, uh, Julian Mooney Moore.

Um the um it's been also about 20 years since a major art piece has been part of Broad Ripple and Broad Ripple has a history.

They are a cultural district, one of the original cultural district districts, and the fact that art is important to us and something that is as you know, as where the sign was, demarks basically the entry point to Broad Riple through Westfield, College Avenue, and Broadruple.

So we felt like again the location was important to reinstate a uh element there that welcomes people into the community.

Uh we did have a public process.

I'll just go over that very quickly regards to engaging uh sent out 6,000 notices to mailing lists and had a public meeting at the Art Center.

Uh that was back in February.

So we've gone through a lot from that sense point in regards to really just getting the proper easements, uh encroachments, etc.

Like that.

Um I know that staff has done a great job, and uh we also though have been listening to remonstrators and comments that have been coming uh towards this piece of art.

And we hear uh different things regards to uh things like looming and over scale.

Uh if you turn to the next slide right here, this gives you really what the height of this uh sculpture will be.

Uh the height is less than 34 feet.

At this intersection, the existing sign is 15 feet.

As like any urban fabric, clear side triangles and urban areas.

Almost every every building has uh needs a variance due to the need of those.

And there's an existing tree of 45 feet.

So the sculpture is not anything that's looming.

It's very much within scale, it's about the height of a street light, okay.

The other is we keep on hearing about the distraction.

Uh I'll I'll note which just came to my mind the other uh today was the Christmas tree you see there, which is 45 feet.

Uh we actually decorated that with Christmas lights, multicolored Christmas lights uh for about five years, and there was no incidence of traffic accidents or any safety issues that was caused by illuminating uh uh a much larger tree that's at the intersection as well.

So we hear the fact that this would cause people to cause accidents.

There have not been accidents.

This is a safe intersection presently.

We don't see any need or concern that the fact that even anything that substantiates why this should be.

Uh Bloomberg publication actually notes that public art helps calm traffic and provides a safety condition for people.

Uh I can also look at regards to within our city at the center of our city, we have a looming monument at the circle that does not cause traffic accidents.

It's a safe uh area.

We also have another sculpture, which was very controversial at the end of Massachusetts Avenue, uh Dancing Ann.

Um thought she was inappropriate now.

We embrace her, uh, but there is no incidence of regards to traffic problems at that intersection.

And then I'll look to our neighbors to the north, uh, Carmel, who have put in roundabouts and for some reason placed public art in the center of the roundabouts.

Uh there is no evidence that those sculptures have presented any hazard to the public.

So I feel like most of the things that have been stated are concerns that are not substantiated.

Uh and um I will leave it at that and take any questions from the commission.

Yeah, I guess I have a question.

Um just so I make sure I'm oriented correctly when I'm looking at the site plan.

Um, if we can go back to that.

There are two hashed lines.

One of which I believe is it says when I look in Westfield Boulevard, one of those is the code requirement of 120 foot clear sight triangle, and then the other is the 100-foot proposed clear sight triangle.

Is that accurate?

That is correct.

Okay.

When I look at the 100-foot clear site dashed line, there is a I'm familiar, I drive this intersection almost every morning on my way to school, dropping my kids off at school and work, but there's a bridge going across the canal, and I I think there's a concrete barrier, like separating the walking path from the edge.

I mean, and so it looks like the hundred foot goes right up against that.

And if if you really look at the 120 foot, your view would be guarded by that guardrail, correct?

Yeah.

Well, and realize the clear side triangle is for anything, and staff can clarify is for anything over a certain height.

Okay.

So I think that's 30 inches.

Uh so that guardrail is probably 42 inches.

So, yeah, that is in the clear side triangle as well.

Correct.

From a practical standpoint, obscures the view difference between 100 foot and 120 foot anyway, if you're cooking.

Okay.

All right.

And then the other thing I would note is just that there's a lot of vegetation grown up that also when I look at the the street view from Google Earth, it just obscures 120 foot anyway.

I might add, and thank you for bringing that up.

We are going to be re-landscaping that full intersection.

Okay.

Uh, so that's attached to the proposal as well.

It's not just this side, but it's also the other side across the street, and you know, we will be concerned in regards to not making sure that we don't have uh vegetation that's blocking those views as well.

Okay.

I assume what you guys we would be planning wouldn't include like non-native species, like it looks like this might be bamboo growing up along the banks.

The bamboo is going away.

Okay, right.

All right.

There will be behind it uh along the canal area, some larger uh evergreens that provide a backdrop uh for the piece itself, but that would be uh not in this clear side triangle.

Right.

Similar to the evergreen, you can see in this picture along the light pole.

The 40 five foot tall pine tree.

I'm sorry.

Like the pine trees that you're the pine tree stays.

Right, no, no, no, no.

I was asking the ones that you're planting.

Is it gonna be similar style?

It will be smaller than the pine tree itself.

So I'm not quite sure on the evergreens what their final height are, but all the other plants in front of them are native plants, uh low water maintenance.

Okay, and we will maintain it.

Uh one other thing that's uh again, this is the Bird Foundation who's been involved with this uh through the Pinrod Society, and then the Arts Center will be the uh owners of it.

Uh there is a fund set up in regards to the maintenance of this.

This is something that is a precedented in regards to unprecedented, I think, especially in Broad Ripple and as well as other communities.

So we'll make sure that both the landscaping as well as the artwork is maintained properly.

I do you have a question about the height of it?

Is it 32 feet, including the base?

32 and a half.

32 and a half, and that includes the base.

Correct.

Okay, because I feel like the renderings make this thing look much much larger.

Like it looks about the size of that pine tree.

I think I goofed on that.

I was leaving town in regards to I did say 30 foot with a 42 inch base, and it should be a 30 uh 30 30 inch base.

So I I fell off.

So we're talking under 35 feet.

Absolutely.

And the current one is 15.

15.

And does that include the little Florida leaves at the top?

Correct.

Okay.

Photoshopping myself, an example.

Here's what we're looking at.

Thank you.

Sure.

So is the art already completed?

It is in pretty much full fabrication at the time.

Again, we've been going through the process.

Um I can let the artist or the owner talk about that maybe a little bit more.

Okay.

And you did uh reference caramel and other spots like these roundabouts.

And so when I look those up, those sculptures are about 25 feet.

So is there a true like history of why you want it so large?

Yeah.

Well, I would point out one that's uh pretty much similar in height at the intersection at 91st and Westfield Boulevard.

It's the uh the floral uh I'm thinking in regards to what the the plant is and blanking on it right now, but uh it's an illuminated piece, and it is probably about 30 feet tall, that one at that time at the location.

But I think you know, we keep on talking about or we hear about scale.

We feel like it is really within scale of what is appropriate for this location.

And Broadripple, you know, will experience more growth, we believe, uh being on the red line is targeted for uh higher buildings and even the building, the parking garage, which is at 40 right now, is increasing its height and which has been granted by the commission.

Again, the request is for the clear side triangle, and it's really about safety.

Uh that is probably the biggest thing you should consider.

And so I just want to clarify it's actually behind the current location of the sign, is the idea.

It's about at the same location.

About the same location, okay.

Absolutely.

Um I think just as we're looking at this, the scale is off for me, right?

Like if I just take this a picture of the sign on the corner and I double it, uh-huh, it becomes a much smaller um in reference to like the cars, for example.

Well, I think so.

I think that's the same thing.

Yeah, other illustrations that have been shown.

Again, this is a guesstimate in regards to we were scaling off, going out to measuring the parking garage specifically.

Uh-huh.

And then placing the sculpture in that location at what we thought was the approximate height.

Gotcha.

Um, and how wide is the current sign and how wide will the sculpture be?

Uh the sign itself is seven feet, uh, and the sculpture itself is less than seven seven feet wide.

And again, the depth of it is not as deep as the two big old legs, right?

Correct.

Okay.

So it is a more planar while the existing sign is triangular.

All right.

Is there anyone else here to speak in support of the petition?

I know there's a ton of a ton of people, so I want to make sure we Marty, how much time's left for the petitioner?

Six minutes.

Okay.

Um name and address for the record and high.

Tim Caress, eight eight uh thirty si or uh eight thirty-six East 64th Street.

I've um been a lifelong resident in and around Broad Ripple, and now I own a building, have my law office located at 64th in Guildford.

And am just excited beyond belief for this installation and hopefully more public art to come.

Um, it's a it's a real move in a positive direction for our village.

You may love the way this looks, anybody in the crowd, or you might not like the way it looks, and that would be true with any piece of art we were to show.

It's going to move some people and and and not move other people in the same way.

To me, what's important is the public art piece of it.

And I think we can all agree that public art in Broaderville is going to help our community.

Um for a number of reasons.

Uh one, you know, it gets us talking about it.

It it it strengthens social cohesion, it brings us together, it creates a pride about a common shared ownership of a public space and of a public piece of art.

Um it's going to attract visitors, it's distinctive, and it's impressive, and it shows that we're vibrant, that this community is alive and wants you to be there as a resident and want you to be there as a visitor.

And so for me, um as I look at this, I think, wow, we're taking an ordinary space at the kind of the entrance to Broader Pool on the west side of uh of Broader Pool, and we're taking an ordinary space and we're making it more inspiring, we're making it more vibrant, we're making it more meaningful for all of us as residents and visitors alike.

So I strongly support it, and I I really hope there's more to come as well.

Thank you.

I'm Will Higgins.

I live at 4305 North Meridian.

Go to Broader Pole all the time and like it a lot, and this thing would be great.

This would be a point of interest.

Indianapolis has too few points of interest.

We need more.

I think this would be great.

It would get people talking, and it would get people looking at it, and it would create a more interest and affection for our community.

The more people know and talk about a community, the more they like it, the more they appreciate it.

Because I like it.

Would it be appropriate for me to request the people in the audience that would support of this variance for the clear side triangle?

Yeah, I think that would be okay if anybody in support would want to just stand.

Okay.

All right, thank you.

And again, to reiterate, uh, and staff did a very good job about this.

Uh, what we're asking for is a regards to the clear side triangle.

Thank you.

All right.

Thank you.

Um at this point, we can move to remonstrance.

Um, as a reminder, anybody speaking, everyone speaking in in opposition, uh total of 15 minutes.

Um, and then of course if we want to have the same request, um go ahead and I'll I'll go ahead and ask anybody here in opposition, complete stand uh right now, just so we can kind of get that side by side.

Um, understanding not everybody in support or opposition would be here today.

Any anybody in opposition want to stand now so we can just make that distinction between the recent five and fifteen.

Thank you.

And uh name and address for the record, and um yeah, up to 15 minutes for for anybody in your group speaking.

Sure.

My name is Srithain Ingrihan.

I'm a longtime resident of Broader Powell Village, and I live at 6106 Kingsley Drive.

I appreciate the opportunity to address you today regarding the variants.

First, I commend the Burge Family Foundation for the desire to fund an unusual and eye-catching sculpture by prominent sculptor Myers, and to have it placed in a prominent location in the village.

I was frankly unaware of works by Mr.

Myers until recently.

But now, given the monumental nature and complexity of what some refer to as tall man, I'm drawn to the Hudson River Valley Storm King Art Center, where its vast rolling landscape would offer the ideal setting for one of his works.

But when I envision that piece at the congested intersection of college and Broadpool Avenues, I conclude that the proposed location is the least appropriate one for displaying the Meyer's work in question.

As intriguing as the piece is, the intended location is wrong aesthetically, and its harsh aspect aspect conflicts with the welcoming spirit, the residents of the village and its surrounding neighborhoods desire, as has been proven many times recently.

But most importantly, the sculpture is without question wrong from the standpoint of public safety, as you are hearing from others today.

How can you do that?

It's simple.

Deny the required variance.

Thank you for your time.

Hello.

Yeah, my name is Brett Rathmell.

I've lived in Broad Ripple for 30 years.

And I live at 628 East 63rd Street.

I'm originally from Sydney, Australia, and have also lived and worked in Europe and Asia as a designer for both GE and Phillips Electronics.

I walk this intersection every day, but I feel unsafe each time I do.

So I feel that any other structure that's added will be a distraction and will just increase the danger each time I cross it.

Next, please.

The main reason to oppose this variance is that the structure does not meet the clear sight triangle.

Next.

All in conflict at different times.

This is the traffic flow east and west on Broadway.

Next.

This is a traffic flow going east, next.

And the traffic flow, both north and south on College Avenue.

Next.

Next.

And this represents the red line, all the buses that cross the intersection as well.

Next.

And also a lot of the illegal turns that happen there.

Many times when I'm crossing, there's cars turning into you.

They shouldn't be turning at no turn on red signs, but they do, they cut through the car parks.

Next.

All combined, it's not a very simple intersection.

It's nothing like a roundabout where you put a sculpture in the middle of it and you just drive around.

There's traffic lights, there's a red line buses, there's people crossing, there's bikes.

It's a very complicated intersection.

One that I feel so unsafe that generally I'll try not to cross there.

I'll walk down and cross the road with snow lights because I feel safer.

Next.

And this is exactly what the car driver sees when they're sitting there.

See, it's how the uh where the pedestrians are standing at the button.

The view is obstructed by the concrete wall.

And the cars fly up to that intersection and turn right on red when they shouldn't.

And even when you have the walk signal, they still will turn into you.

Next.

And when you have to press that button to cross that road on Westfield, you have to walk 15 feet across and back.

By the time you press the button and it's going walk, the cars are already turning into you because they haven't seen you.

Next.

It's a very nice narrow sidewalk for pedestrians and e-bikes, bicycles, and prams.

The area doesn't drain, causing pools of water and ice in the winter, as you can see around the guy's feet there.

So if you add more bikes, more people looking at the sculpture, it's already a very narrow intersection for pedestrians, so it's just making it further unsafe.

Next.

And this is what college, the crossing on college looks like.

If you notice how worn the pedestrian crossings are, they're hardly visible in places, and the cars also turn into you from Westfield and College as you're crossing.

Next.

And the reason why they turn into you is that in Indianapolis you have concurrent signals where cars and pedestrians go at the same time.

Or the cars often go first.

In other countries, the pedestrians walk first before the cars are allowed to go, which makes it safer for the pedestrians.

The best system is where the pedestrians go first.

It's safer for them, not giving priority to the cars.

Next.

On the Westfield pedestrian crossing where bikes often cut across from Westfield, you can see how worn that is, and it shows three locations where cars will often turn into you across the red line, across the red light.

So you're constantly competing.

Next, please.

The one pedestrian crossing that's actually not worn is uh crossing on Broad Ripple Ave.

But still cars turn into you from both North and South College as you're crossing with the walk signal.

This actual, this is one of two of the eight press buttons for walking, which don't actually work, so it just makes the crossing unsafer.

You press a button, you can't walk.

Next.

And when you're crossing on college, go and cross to the red line, cars again will turn into you, both coming from Broad Ripple Ave and Westfield, even though you've got the walk signal.

And again, you can see how heavily worn the crossings are.

Most people don't even see there's a crossing there.

Next.

And looking back the other way, you can see how the crossing's also worn.

Next.

And this button doesn't work as well on the college side.

Next.

And then when you finally go to complete the circle where we've been walking around the intersection, you can see again how heavily worn it is, and how the cars will still turn into you coming south on college.

And you can see how the 15-foot distance you have to walk to press the button, walk back, and then try and to cross.

And by then the cars are just they're already turning into you, whether it's a red light, a green light, whether you've got the walk or not.

Next.

This is the heavily overgrown area where the actual wood wall is that's supposed to support the new structure.

Um it's been heavily, it's not been maintained very well at the moment, but there's a lot of rotting wood supports.

Next.

If you have a look at it in the winter time, you can see the condition of it.

It's very rotted, and the wood supports have already started to break apart and lean over.

Next.

Now there's a detail, some details of the 10 degree angle on the lower support, and a lot of the wood that's rotting away.

You can see it's heavily rotted.

So my fear is if you go to the next slide.

When you've got a five-ton sculpture, and you're putting it on a 2017-ton concrete base, all figured out up there in the instructions, pounds per square foot of concrete, you've got 22 tons putting pushing down on only six or seven feet of soil, which is directly above the water table.

And as Mark Demolie mentioned, they're going to be moving that concrete base further back towards the wood supports, which is only likely to make that uh wood support fail.

Next.

To further complicate the intersection, the fire station is now being installed on College Avenue beside Fresh Time, which is only going to add extra traffic and extra danger to this intersection.

Next.

Vision zero is a project by Indianapolis to try and reduce the amount of traffic accidents at intersections.

Next.

Next.

The number one cause of accidents is funnily enough, distractions, and we're going to be adding a distraction to this busy intersection already.

Next.

The interesting thing from Jason Meyer's website is he invites the user to stand, pause, reflect, and connect with his art.

And if you're going to be doing that with drivers sitting in their cars looking at the sculpture, that only means a distraction.

Next.

And you know, really, is it art or is it a distraction?

And to me, it's a distraction by putting something like this at an intersection, which is going to cause you to look up at it or be distracted.

Even for a second or two, that's enough time for a driver not to see the pedestrian crossing.

Next.

Here's a few photographs of some of the intersection, uh, some of the crashes that have already happened at this intersection.

The top car on the right was just earlier this year in January or February, and other red line crashes that have happened where the bus has hit hit the bus station or cars overturned on the soad ripple is already an area where people drink and drive in this accidents already.

So throwing in another distraction is only going to make it worse.

Next.

And even though Mark Demoly and the proponents all say that art is great and it's going to make the neighborhood really nice and safe.

If you look around, they've neglected art that's already there.

The one to the bottom right, it's at a burgeon held, the river house.

It's one of the actual construction sites.

And that piece of art, which is supposed to be a kinetic structure, has been left unmoving for three or four years, totally neglected.

So if you really understand and appreciate art, you don't neglect it.

You don't just throw it in there and hope it helps, hope it helps your economics.

You know, you look after it, and they they haven't done this.

Next, and I think um board members, the reason to deny this clearance is one, it's in the clear site triangle.

It's the code.

They shouldn't be allowed to break that.

It makes a bad intersection even more dangerous.

It's obviously a distraction to drivers, and it will damage the canal wall because of all that weight placed against that rotted wall, and also that they've neglected the existing art, so will they really look after this?

And also another point is that the majority of residents do not like it or want it.

From all the polls in both the Indie Star and on next door, 85% of the residents said they did not want it here.

There might be people here that have been paid to come, but 85% of 2,000 people that voted on an Indian Indie Star did not want it.

They wanted it moved somewhere else.

And in another recent survey I did, I asked the Broadway residents: would they prefer this sculpture or trees along the main street?

And 85% said they would prefer trees along the main street to adding this sculpture at a busy intersection.

Thank you.

How much time?

About a minute and a half.

Clark Carlo, 4454, Washington Boulevard.

You should have been provided uh photographs of the existing uh 15 feet uh kiosk that exists there now.

I think it's important for you to see.

I'm going to summarize our proposed negative findings of fact, which have previously uh been submitted to the file.

I'm sure you've received them as part of your package.

I hope you've had the the opportunity to review them.

If I if I run short on time, I'll finish it during the rebuttal.

As you know, there is so you're aware you cannot present new information during the rebuttal period.

There are three there are three statutory requirements, all of which need to be uh proven to you for the ground ovariance to occur.

First is uh we assert that the grant would be injurious to the public health, safety, morals, and general well welfare of the community because the intended statue, a tall, nightlit human-like structure at a height of 32 and a half feet or so and weighing five tons or so, would be as intended to be by its designers as eye-catching.

It would visually intrude on the busy intersection, as Mr.

Rathmel has explained, and create another distracting crash risk, an unnecessary distraction for motorists who must navigate a cramped, congested and visually complex intersection.

It's traveled not not just by cars and trucks and buses, but also by pedestrians, bicyclists, scooters, and mothers with baby carriages.

Secondly, a proposed eye-catching sculpture would create increased public health and safety risk to both persons and to property in the form of both personal and property damage, risk to people, vehicles, nearby buildings, public infrastructure such as signal systems and roadway sites.

And I am fully aware that uh there are rules against uh original testimony on rebuttal, but usually the custom of the board has been somewhat uh, and I hope somewhat flexible, and I hope uh they would be flexible in this regard as well.

Thank you.

Um at this point, we can move to staff comments.

Oh, questions, sorry, thank you.

Go ahead.

Do I get you on?

No.

No.

Time is up.

So um is it?

I have a question for the remonstrators.

Um, you mentioned a survey done by the Indianapolis Star.

Um I see a photo with an elongated size of the statue.

Where were those photos provided?

How did the Indy Star get those?

Are those things that you guys mocked up?

I didn't catch that.

I'm terribly sorry.

This photo that the Indy Star used.

Okay.

Who provided that too?

I don't know.

Okay.

So I just want to comment that the survey was done on a looks like a mock-up that's about twice the size of the proposed scale.

I just thought that was relevant.

Sure.

Yeah, I would just say none of our testimony relates really to the character or quality of the artwork itself.

We're solely concerned about public safety.

I hope that's clear.

Okay.

Um more questions for opposition from the board.

Sorry about that.

Um, now we can go to staff comments.

Sure.

Absolutely.

Uh, thank you very much, Chiperson Nelson, members of the board.

Uh, I'd like to thank the petitioner for their comments and both supporters and remonstrators for their input and for their passion about their community.

Um, an answer to the question that you'd asked um, board member whipped, my understanding is that bad rendering or one similar to it was provided with the initial filing for this petition.

So it was actually the artist rendition from our petitioners.

It was provided with the file, and then they provided the an updated one as reflected within the staff report.

That's my understanding.

Okay.

That makes it much less suspect.

Thank you.

Still completely out of scale.

Sure.

Um, staff is recommending approval offered this petition that would allow for an installation of a 32 and a half or a 30-foot steel sculpture on a two and a half foot steel base with low-level LED lighting entitled Gavin Divergence at the northwest corner of College and Westfield along the Central Canal, adjacent to the canal connector greenway.

Um, as mentioned by the petitioner, this would be partially installed within public right-of-way, and then partially within uh the CEG uh owned parcel with the Eastman, sort of an odd situation.

Uh, be placed in the approximate location of the changeable copy sign that's currently in that spot.

It appears that sign was installed without permits or variants at the time.

I I think it might have been in the 90s, but before Google Street View is able to confirm for us, uh, the sculpture would require relocation of the light pole that's currently at the intersection, uh, the trees that are west of it, and the traffic signal box would remain unimpacted by the installation.

Uh the statue itself was designed by Jason Myers, who is an Indiana native, was uh fully funded by private dollars.

My understanding is that there is not a taxpayer expense that's involved.

That is through partnership with the Indianapolis Art Center, uh the Burge Family Foundation, and others.

Uh variants would be required for placement within public right-of-way, A, and then B for small encroachment in 2v clear site triangular area.

Uh that's the focus of uh staff's recommendation.

Um, a variance would not be required for the proposed height or the illumination of the structure.

Uh, we note that the DMU2 zoning district allows for a maximum height of 35 feet for primary structures.

That seems to be the closest category for for this statue.

Um, this also is not an aesthetic judgment.

Um, opinions on arts can vary widely, as this case has definitely shown.

Uh, but this recommendation is consistent with what we'd recommend for any sculpture with similar dimensions and placed in a similar location.

Uh staff note that the base of the sculpture would only be six foot by six foot approximately, a rendering provided by the applicant.

Um, that the ND star one, uh for lack of a better place.

It showed wider legs, which wouldn't fully match what's actually being installed.

I went with then report as a more updated rendering provided by the applicant.

Um starting context is commercial in nature, as the broad ripple neighborhood, that is proximity to the red line TOD stop just to the north there.

Uh within the floodway fringe as well, given its proximity to the canal.

Uh the red line TOD strategic plan recognizes this area as being part of the district center typology uh for walkable areas to serve as cultural and commercial hubs.

Uh typical building heights there um range between three and ten stories as recommended.

Um the envision broad ripple neighborhood plan was adopted by the city in 2012 as well.

It identifies this sites and areas being within the broad ripple village critical area.

Um this is an area where minimum building heights of 25 feet are contemplated.

There's discussion within that plan of improving the village by a placement of public art at gateway areas.

Uh, mentions the Indianapolis Arts Center specifically as a partner in that process for fostering a village character reflective of a demographic that seeks trendy art.

I'm pulling that language somewhat directly from the Invision Broad Ripple plan.

Uh several city approvals would be required to place any improvements in this location.

Uh, it would be an easement agreement from Citizens Energy, the um the parcel owner bear for the zero canal that has been granted already.

The encroachment license from DBNS would also be needed.

That has not yet been granted.

It is pending the result of this hearing.

And additionally, the Department of Public Works also recently introduced a new policy guideline for art within the public right of way.

That process was headed up by Daniel Stevenson.

My understanding is that Daniel is in attendance today.

He's a deputy director of policy and planning for the Department of Public Works.

He was involved heavily in the crafting administration of that policy as well as the review that went into it as relates to this statue.

I'll give him a little bit of time to speak at the conclusion of my remarks, but he is on hand to give more detail and answer any questions about that process that I might not be able to.

Just for a general overview, the Arden of Ride-of-Away policy, it's a collaboration between DPW and BNS.

They review design, installation, and maintenance plans for applicants for placing art within public rights of way.

They ensure no harmful messages, you know, like hate speech, incitement to violence, things like that, or any commercial intent.

It is true that the sculpture has a minor encroachment into the required clear site triangle.

Measurement would be based on ordinance requirements from our zoning ordinance.

The legs of the triangle would be 120 feet out in each direction from the center line intersection at college and Westfield there.

Staff would note that the ordinance clear site triangle is wider than the ones that are typically utilized by DPW or other traffic engineers.

If a 100 foot measurement was utilized, it looks like it either wouldn't need a variance or maybe would just have a very small amount encroaching past, as was sort of mentioned by the question asked by chairperson dunction.

The clear site triangular area itself ranges between two and a half feet from grade and nine feet from grade.

So like very small signs or improvements low to the ground wouldn't necessarily fall within the CST area.

We would also note that Westfield Boulevard that curves off to the southwest just past the subject area to the west.

This doesn't give excellent visibility for areas to the south of the intersection for cars coming east as they move northeast.

There is sort of a blind corner created there by the parking garage.

Staff concurs with DPW's assessment that the sculpture wouldn't have a substantial negative impact on public safety.

The lower section is comprised of two steel I-beams with no visible horizontal supports, which would reduce the ability for anyone seeking to climb it to really get a foothold, so to speak, if that would be a temptation for anyone out and join the Broad Ripple area.

It doesn't appear any impact on nearby underground utilities or sidewalks is anticipated.

There were also details about the wind load and the grounding of the statue provided to DPW as well as DBNS for review.

Those plans were stamped by an engineer.

I am not a technical expert by any means in that regard, but I have been assured that the statue in Venezuela Retaining Wall would be structurally secure, and that statue would not act as a lightning rod during pyramids, periods like thunderstorms or inclement weather.

That's possible the applicant could give more details on that regard.

I'll largely defer to DPW on questions of traffic and height.

I did mention a parking garage already.

I think it'd be fair to say that the design of this statue has proven to be controversial.

In addition to everyone who's attended here today and the various petitions within the Indianapolis Star opinion polls and such, we received 14 support letters from surrounding residents, some provided directly by the applicant, some who went out of the way to email us ourselves.

We were also contacted by 36 individuals expressing opposition to the project in the run-up to today's hearing.

That's in addition to all those who are in attendance here today.

I would assume there is at least some overlap between those groups.

But approximately 72% wrote in to express opposition and some form, and 28% wrote in to express approval to our offices prior to today.

We also had a letter from the Oxbow neighborhood group supporting and a letter of opposition from the Greater Broad Ripple Community Coalition.

The Broad Ripple Village Association also indicated their support and also in addition to a recommendation that the city evaluate this intersection for safety and consider placement of no turn-on-red signage for traffic heading south on college or turning west on to Westfield Boulevard.

My understanding is that there are currently no turn-on red signs at free of the four legs of the intersection.

I think they may have been removed during the build out of the red line BRT and are set to be replaced if they're not in there already.

That's a discussion I'd add previously with Jill Palmer, Jill Palmer, a member of our DPW team.

A primary focus of the remonstrance is the aesthetics and the appearance of the statue was mentioned in almost every email we received.

Many called it monstrous, ugly use terms similar to those.

Other primary concerns included safety and visibility at the intersection and then suggesting alternate sites or designs more in line with the character of the neighborhood.

I don't feel that it's staff's place to define what that character of that neighborhood would be.

We acknowledge these concerns.

We hope that the board includes them in their consideration of this petition.

We're definitely supportive of community input being relevant in decisions related to public art.

Our understanding is that there was a public meeting held about the project in February with about 30 to 50 people in attendance, and the negative feedback wasn't offered at that point in time.

It was advertised through the Broadway Village Association email list and social media accounts as well as physical flyers at the Art Center itself.

A petitioner might have more information on public outreach efforts extending beyond that meeting in February.

To be clear, Staff's recommendation is not based on the appearance of the statue.

That's beyond our scope to be arbiters on what would constitute good art or bad art.

That's a subjective form without universal standards.

It also seems like an area where it'd be relatively unlikely for any full consensus to be reached in either direction.

Again, it is not a major part of our recommendation since no variance would be required for it, and it's been previously cleared through the DPW art in the right-of-way program.

We did receive an email from a demonstrator this morning indicating concerns about the illumination of the statue, specifically that a photo shared by the NDR Center made it appear to be the low-level LED lighting was making the statue appear solely green.

Previous rendering if that staff had seen of the statue at night had shown a soft level of lighting, but like a white coloration.

Staff does have minor concerns about monochromatic red, yellow, or green lighting being used just given the proximity to the intersection.

We wouldn't want anybody mistaking this for a traffic signal.

So hopefully that's some of the board could consider the petitioners expressed potential openness to a commitment, ensuring that that wouldn't be the case if this petition were to be approved today.

But our primary focus was on the appropriateness of the clear sight triangle variants and the right-of-way variants.

Given that the clear site triangle encroachment is minor in nature and would comply with the typical engineering 100 foot clear sight triangle.

We are recommending approval.

I am happy to answer any questions that you might have.

I've probably certainly talked enough.

I will I do want to give a little bit of time to Daniel Stevenson from DPW to talk about DPW processes a little bit if that might be helpful.

Good afternoon, members of the board.

Daniel Stevenson, the Deputy Director of Policy and Planning for the Department of Public World.

Just to provide a little further background information on the art in the right-of-way policy.

This is a policy that was introduced at the very end of 2021.

The general reasoning behind having this is that we get approached all the time.

DPW owns the right-of-way.

Wanting to do some kind of public art pieces, whether that's asphalt art in this case, it's a sculpture.

No.

So we drafted a policy and a program that takes a very comprehensive look, primarily from a safety perspective of our installations.

As noted by Mr.

Demerley earlier, for example, the Bloomberg philanthropies has shown a ton of positive data in terms of traffic calming and safety included behind our that is in the right-of-way.

So how we typically handle these projects when we go to review is we are generally looking at the who, what, where, when, why, how the piece.

This was put out in a counselor newsletter.

There was a public meeting.

There were news stories in the Broad Ripple Gazette, etc.

Our department was not made aware of any negative feedback at that time that we were doing review.

Once we kind of cross off those basic checks, we do involve both the policy and planning division of DPW, our engineering division, our operations division, and we also include meetings with public safety.

In this case, primarily it was with IMPD.

All questions were able to be assured from structural integrity.

Engineering uses a standard 100-foot clear line of sight triangle.

We do not feel there's any conflict from that perspective.

I do understand we use a different line of sight than the Department of Metropolitan Development uses.

But we really take an intensive close look at these projects.

Other things that were mentioned today, like size and scale, again, looking at the updated reference photo.

I would make sure to note to you that this is roughly the same height as the traffic signal lights.

But the piece itself will sit back enough that this will not be impeding any traffic signals or traffic safety markings.

Generally speaking, there is an inclusion within our policy.

We typically try to avoid large objects pending size and scale, but as noted, 45 foot tall pine tree.

Some of the street lights in the area will actually be taller than the sculpture, and all of the buildings and massing surrounding the area will exceed the height or be the same height as the sculpture.

So we really took a really strong look there.

It will exceed the required 115 mile per hour wind load, aka 115 mile per hour wind gust is not going to topple this over.

Um in the intersection, the steel structure will funnel anything like that down into, I believe it's eight steel rods that will ground it into the ground, so it'll go from the top all the way to the base down into the ground and dissipate.

So I feel very strongly that our our team has done the necessary look from a safety perspective.

Other things mentioned, like the sidewalks in the area.

Are we concerned about impending traffic congestion, etc.?

Um there are a ton of very large colorful artistic murals around the city.

Uh we've heard about sculptures and caramel, etc.

There's just no specific data that suggests that this is something that we are concerned about at the Department of Public Works with this piece.

Additionally, there was concern about the widths of the sidewalks.

The majority of the sidewalks directly surrounding where the sculpture will be, are roughly six and a half feet wide, um, which would allow even if somebody were to stop on the sidewalk to take in the artistic sculpture that that has been installed, um, it will still allow for pedestrians and cyclists, etc.

to safely pass along on their way.

Um my final comment would be that I did hear some some things in the opposition's statements regarding things like crosswalks that need updated, etc.

That is something that I will take back to our operations division today.

Um, same thing with the broken traffic signal things.

Those are all things that I will take back to operations today to take a look at, see what we can do to get those fixed and updated.

Um, I do understand those as a safety concern.

I just I don't think that they are directly related to what we're talking about today, which is that line of sight triangle.

Um, if you have any questions, I would be happy to help.

I have a question.

So I don't know if we have a picture of the street, but there's both a taller light at that corner, and then there's also the standard traffic signals.

Can you tell me the height of those?

Just so the traffic signals are roughly 30 feet tall.

Okay, perfect.

Um, and the street light there, I believe, is it's it's like 35, 36 feet tall.

Yep.

Um, and I do believe that the one in that picture specifically is the one that will also be being moved when the sculpture goes in.

So and then um for things like those broken buttons and the walkways, where should people report that so it can be addressed more readily?

Because I know that's really important to our community.

Absolutely.

So the best way to get those over to us would be to use the mayor's action center or request Indy, strongly consider um using those so that we are aware and we can get out and fix things as necessary.

Um, I happen to be here today, so I will take them directly, but yeah.

I do have a question.

One of the remonstrators spoke on the um the repair or the conditions of the space outside of the landscaping.

I heard you say that they have there has been architects, there's been individuals looking at the infrastructure.

Um is there a plan of action for some of the concerns that they have?

Or do you did they see any concerns that need to be addressed within the next couple of years or so for those repairs?

Some specific opposition.

So the infrastructure they were speaking about the wood along the water, um, some of the space behind the yes.

So we did, as was discussed by Mr.

Demerley while we were going through this process originally.

We thought this was all 100% going to fall within city right of way.

When we discovered it was with Citizens Energy Group, we required the petitioners to work with CEG.

Um that is owned and operated by Citizens Energy Group.

So I could not speak to their plans for maintenance specifically.

Um I would assume when they're deciding whether or not they're going to give an easement, right?

Like they were looking at you know, underground structures, various things of that nature before they approved to grant easement for this to be in there.

So I that a maintenance responsibilities and things of that I just wouldn't have an answer on, other than they signed off on the easement for the piece.

So the maintenance will fall on cities or on citizens.

For for like the structural wall specifically, that would be a citizens energy group owned thing.

So we separated out like stormwater and things of that nature, and they are controlled and operated by Citizens Energy Group in the city.

Mr.

Demerly could possibly provide a little bit more information on that as far as general maintenance requirements for the sculpture itself.

Those will fall to the group, as Mr.

Dummerly already noted.

That is within policy.

They have to have a maintenance plan if they want something to be up in perpetuity per the art and the right-of-way policy.

Thank you.

I I just wanted a little bit more clarity.

I don't think I'm questioning the maintenance of the sculpture itself.

Is the safety of the land and making sure that next to the water that everything is secure based on what uh remonstrated as the state is that's what I was saying?

Yeah, and my understanding is that citizens has reviewed that.

I just can't speak to their specific maintenance plans to the wood structural wall, um, because that is an asset that is owned by citizens energy group.

So I I can't speak to their maintenance plans.

Could we have Mr.

Demolley step up and maybe address that?

Absolutely.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Yeah, I want to be clear in regards to that retaining wall that has shown that the Roman Sorso has no structural component to our structure.

Uh we are going to place 25 foot pilings down into the ground.

This is something that citizens had requested, and we also required because of the fact that for the structural integrity, we were concerned as well.

So that wall has nothing to do with the structural stability of this sculpture itself.

The structure, this sculpture itself will be completely supported by its own system that goes down 25 feet, way below regards to even the water line of the canal itself.

Okay.

So the answer is yes, there's a plan based on the condition of this space to make sure that it's more secure.

Yes.

Okay.

And I I that wall does show is it's an aged one, absolutely, but it's not we don't we're not relying on at to be able to provide the structural stability.

Our foundation does not impose any pile weight onto that.

It's all being taken down below the canal itself.

Does the board have any additional questions for staff or our DPW representative before we move to uh the rebuttal periods?

I I just have a comment slash question.

So what I'm hearing is that while we all saw the pictures of the wall, the wall is not supporting the structure, and the wall has not been addressed with citizens and citizens has not presented a plan to any repairs of that.

Then the statue itself is going to be on a whole bunch of really, really long structural supports on subsurface bullets.

Yeah, like bedrock to hold it up.

I won't say bedrock, but really really deep, 25 feet.

Yeah.

Okay, cool.

Yeah.

Okay.

At this point, then uh let's move to the petitioner's rebuttal as a reminder.

You'll have up to five minutes total time for your comments.

Yeah.

Well, I'll keep this brief.

We've heard quite a bit of information.

I just want to add in regards to we've been working extensively with the city with citizen energy group.

If you want to have a an institution that's scrutinizing everything you do, and we have a 12-inch main that's going right next to this.

We've gone through it.

Uh so they have signed off.

We have an MOU with them.

Uh, there's also MOUs that are in conjunction with BRBA, with uh Pinrod, with uh the Art Center.

You know, we have crossed every aspect, and there's also a huge amount of money that's being retained and held uh that will take care of the maintenance of this site as well as uh the landscaping at the site as well.

Um I know that the remonstrators also spoke about other art that's not being taken care of, the one which is zero, uh it's the kinetic piece that's at Westfield.

Uh during COVID, it was neglected, uh, and we are having it removed, or I should say uh Burgeon Held, who actually owned the property is having it removed this fall and having it completely redone, so it will be put back into activity again, like it should have been.

Um the art piece that is at the uh college at the river, unfortunately, that was one of those mistakes.

Uh it's actually owned by the city of Indianapolis, uh, and the city of Indianapolis uh is not interested in doing the repair that needs to be done.

Uh we, as BRVA and others uh in the area are working on a plan to have it replaced with something else.

So we are good stewards.

Uh we are not going to let our community uh fall into disarray.

And we work on other artworks that always have to be repaired and replaced or updated.

Um here's a situation where the fact that we've this is change is hard.

Nobody likes change.

But I want to remind the commission.

What we're asking for is to document, finally document the clear site triangle of 100 feet, which had never been documented.

That this sculpture does not impede impedes less as to what the existing structure that is there right now.

Visibility will be better than what the existing sign has conditioned is at this time.

So we are making a better condition to an intersection.

We support as well.

I know LUD uh committee for BRVA requested in regards to having all of the intersections right now.

There are two uh churn on reds, and those we are we support as well in regards to let's get that taken care of.

So we do have uh vision zero for that aspect.

Uh there was a comment in regards to our note that regards to 29, I think they stated death accidents and um casualties of some kind.

Uh I'm not quite sure.

I know there's no deaths that have occurred at this location.

I'm sure there's fender benders, but there have been fender benders at many intersections throughout the city due to neglect of vehicles.

But the pedestrians, there are no incidents that I know of regards to occurring at this location.

And I live at this one block away.

I walk through this.

I know those walk lights work.

I'm sorry that for whatever reason they didn't work for him, but I know they are operating, and I appreciate I know the city's gonna follow up with that.

Um to kind of finalize regards to again, we are asking for a clear side triangle at this intersection.

We're not asking you to approve the content or subject of the art, but we feel like in regards to it is something that is property scaled and would contribute to the vitalization or revitalization of Broad Ripple that is desperately needed.

I appreciate your afternoon, and I hope to appreciate your support.

Good afternoon.

My name is Tom Grubb, and I live live at 6122 Central Avenue, and I will be very quick with this.

I'm sorry, hold on.

Were you speaking in opposition?

Yes.

Okay.

Um was there did we have time for supporters still?

Okay.

Was it I I just wanted to make sure that supporters still had time.

Um was there anyone else that was speaking as far as the rebuttal goes?

And then you'll have your your time as well.

Okay.

Sorry to interrupt, so no one's there, so we can move on.

Um remonstrator comments, um, name and address for the record, and then total time for remonstrator comments would be up to five minutes for the rebuttal period.

Yeah, I'll go very quickly.

My name is Tom Grubb.

I live at 6122 Central Avenue, about four blocks away from this intersection.

I want you to know that I love public art.

I want to see more in Broad Ripple, but this is the wrong place to have it.

My wife and I reached out to uh the Indianapolis police department to learn a little bit more about what has happened here at the intersection beyond the opinions that you've heard today.

A review of police uh service calls at this intersection revealed that it is a very busy area accounting for 918 police markouts from January 1st, 2024 through August 1st, 2025.

Over the same period, the intersection of Broad Ripple and College and the immediate area reported 28 traffic accidents.

Just so you know that's what the police department is telling us.

For added context, the intersection of Keystone and Broad Ripple Avenue had 26.

So less than this place.

If not, I believe a project study should be warranted in this situation, especially after the new uh Indianapolis Fire Department station becomes operational, which is likely to further complicate this intersection.

That's one point I want to make.

The other point is on the maintenance of the sculpture itself.

I also am very disappointed with the maintenance of the sculpture on the river over uh over the White River.

I mean, there's tiles falling off of it, and they've been that way since I've lived in Indianapolis for the last 12 years.

So the same people that are maintaining this are going to maintain this new sculpture.

No.

No.

Okay.

Okay.

All right.

So wrong on that, but at any rate, you have some more data.

It is a very complicated intersection.

It's the wrong place.

Clark Hollow, again, I'm going to echo that comment about the lack of a traffic study.

There hasn't been one at this intersection.

No idea of the volume to capacity ratios that uh are present here.

No, no idea of the level of service, and I think it's does this the citizens a distinct disservice not to have evaluated that.

Um staff report, by the way, uh mentions in there that they didn't think that there was a significant impact from this from this proposal.

Well, you know what?

They've missed the elephant in the room.

They're looking at things laterally and horizontally, but not really looking at the the practical effect of a tall structure.

And I'm sorry that the group here disagrees with the terminology of looming.

I thought that was my term.

I didn't think that was terribly pejorative.

Uh, but uh this is gonna be tall.

And as you all know, I'm quite sure there's a tight intersection with transit line, uh uh congestion, uh, people waiting to get through.

Sometimes they can't get through on the light because people are on their cell phones or otherwise distracted of dealing uh increasing driver frustration.

So I just want to get that into the record.

And I'm gonna continue on with my uh brief reading, unless I'm you know gaveled off the podium.

But uh to continue on that there would be an injurious to uh health and safety welfare.

Uh it would increase vehicle delays caused by drivers who would likely gaze or gawk at the figure and hesitate for a few seconds before proceeding when the light changes to green.

I'm sure we've all seen this in traffic elsewhere.

Uh such a tall statue would also distract the expected future traffic volumes at this location, as we all know uh Broad Ripple has had significant recent development in terms of mixed use and TOD, and there's more and more on the pipeline, and that's gonna be a factor.

Also, the clear site triangles are established for important public purposes, public safety, and should be respected.

And secondly, the use or value of the area adjacent to the property included in the variants would we assert would in fact be affected in a substantially adverse manner because the variants would diminish the capacity of the adjacent public roadway system.

That's the adjacent property we're talking about here by increasing vehicle delays in or near the intersections, five five segments, five roadway segments converging.

Thus the system's utility and value to the motorists and to the taxpayers who have funded over many years would be a reduced.

Also, while recognizing the inherent subjectivity of any art, the proposed tall statue would be counterproductive to the stated desire of village advocates to restore an attractive uh village atmosphere and character and the and economic vitality.

So we urge you to deny.

Thank you.

All right, thank you, and thank you to everybody for the comments.

Um board, are there any final questions for anyone before we cast our ballots?

I do.

I have a question for staff.

Um the petition is not granted today.

What happens to the existing sign?

It would appear that that's in violation the Broad Ripple village sign that's there now.

Would that be comma code enforcement issue?

Um I suppose it could be citable.

I'm not aware of any open enforcement action at the site related to it.

I I just noted that we didn't find a record of it at the time when conducting our review.

Okay.

Thank you.

Anything else from the board?

How long is the existing sign been there and how long was a sign there prior to Could you repeat the question, please?

When was the sign first put there?

Okay, the sign goes back to probably the 70s.

Okay.

When the original sign, the wood sign that was placed there.

And then this one was installed in 2000.

Again, I don't know what the standard or regards to clear site was at that time when it was installed.

Just wanted to know the timeline.

Thank you very much.

All right, board, please cast your ballot for petition 2025 DV1035.

On case 2025-DV1-035 amended, Jennifer Witt votes yes.

David Duncan votes yes, Peter Nelson votes yes, Andrew Cotona votes yes, and Patrice Stuckett Brown votes yes.

The variance is granted celebration.

Well, excuse me, folks, we do have additional business to continue, so I would ask that you take your conversations out to the hallway.

Thank you.

Chairman Nelson, once the room clears stuff, we'll have an additional request to make.

Okay, thank you, Eddie.

Chairman Nelson, members of the board staff would like to make additional special requests uh for continuances specifically of all agenda items listed under new petitions.

That would be agenda items number eight, nine, and ten.

Uh it has come to staff's attention that uh we were in receipt of an outdated uh publication schedule for the court and commercial, and so attempted to publish these under that schedule.

However, it was out of date, and we were unable to come to an agreement with the IBJ and getting them published in uh a date consistent with allowing for initial hearing today.

Um there was an internal miscommunication breakdown where this was not uh relate to the planners and subsequently to the applicants ahead of time.

Uh so for that I do apologize.

However, uh, due to state statute, there is no way that these could go forward today, and so for that reason staff would request that these be continued to uh your next meeting of division one on October 7th, and would advise the applicants uh to reach out to me directly after this hearing via email, or I will email them uh to see what relief in any, if any, we can we can provide all right, thank you.

Um I will ask the applicants to acknowledge um these comments and understand that as Mr.

O'Neah stated that it is state statute that are that is preventing um these from going forward today.

Um I believe correct me if I'm wrong, Eddie, but we we still do have to vote to further continuance.

It does continue, uh, require a motion and vote, yes.

Okay, thank you.

Um but I'd imagine that'll move forward.

But so just acknowledgement.

Any any of the petitioners can feel free to come up and comment on this.

But um, yeah, go ahead.

Thank you again.

My name's David Rutherford, 8801 Southeastern Avenue.

I'm at least affects two of my both of my cases today.

Um the the case number nine is important um in that there are several people who made the effort to come down here to support this case that probably may not be able to make it back next month.

So I would just ask the board to allow those people who are here in support of Mr.

Sisk's case to please stand.

Okay.

Okay, thank you.

There's actually six plus the petitioner was here, and there was a gentleman that was here that was a police officer that had to leave to um just for the record.

And I think we're aware of it.

I'm the last person to cast dispersions from screwing procedural stuff up, so I'm not gonna do that here today.

It just it would have been nice to know before we got all down here because we would have saved some money in some time, but I get it, and we'll work with them.

We'll see if we can work something out.

Okay, thanks.

Sure, appreciate your comments.

Um one more.

Was that case number eight?

The yeah, 2025 DV1038.

Yeah, so I came down and sat all this time for really sorry.

I'll be here next month.

Thank you.

Thank you for your patience.

Appreciate it.

I am I am with him though.

We should have been told sooner.

I drive an hour and a half down here from Elwood.

Understood.

Thank you.

Um board, so I guess unless unless Chris says we can't do it, um, do you want to just take all of these as one kind of motion and vote to move these to next month?

Uh yeah, I'm okay with that.

All right, cool.

So read them into the record and that they're getting continued to the October 7th hearing without additional notice.

All right, thank you.

So based on the uh Mr.

O'Neill's comments, um, petitions 8, 9, and 10 on the agenda.

That is 2025 DV1038, 2025 UV 1016, and 2025 UV 1017.

Uh staff is requesting a continuance to the October 7th hearing.

Um, and I will ask the board if there is a motion.

Duncan, so move.

Second, perfect.

So I will call for a vote.

Duncan.

Duncan, yes.

Katona, Tony, yes.

Wit, wit, yes.

Duckett Brown.

And Nelson votes yes.

All right.

Thanks, everybody.

Apologize for the inconvenience on those.

And we will move to the next case.

Hold on, Peter.

I just I just go ahead.

Confirm to that when we're building next month's schedule, but let's put those guys at the front.

I know.

Can we ask a remind them if they're welcome to send a letter if they can't make it back down?

Case number 2025-UV1-009, property address 530 West Morris Street, Wayne Township, Council District Number 17, zoned C3 TOD.

The petitioner is Adriano Montes, represented by Arnoldo Gonzalez Vasquez.

Variants of use and development standards of the consolidated zoning and subdivision ordinance to provide for the operation of an automobile, motorcycle, and light vehicle service or repair facility with outdoor storage of vehicles awaiting repair, not permitted, with eight parking spaces and zero bicycle sp uh parking spaces provided.

Will those who plan to speak on this petition, please raise their right hand to be sworn in?

Yes.

My name is uh just a moment.

I need you to raise your right hand to swear you went.

Thank you.

Do you swear or affirm that the testimony you will give is the truth and nothing but the truth?

Yes.

Well, my name is uh George Gonzalez, and I'm here because um Mr.

Umtas Adriano, he's not able to be here today, and so he would like to request uh continuance for next month if that's possible.

Okay.

Um generally we do want to hear continuances at the beginning of the meeting, but we we will uh consider that.

So I guess is there anyone here in opposition to this petition?

All right.

Um so I guess I'll ask staff.

I don't believe Mr.

Stern um who reviewed this is here today, but can anybody else speak on?

Thank you, Chairman and Chairman Nelson, the members of the board staff would have no objection to those requests, uh, given that there's no one in attendance to oppose it.

Okay.

Um so I guess board, we do have a request to continue petition 2025 UV one zero zero nine.

Um that to the October 7th hearing.

Yes.

Okay, perfect.

Um is is there a motion for that?

I assume that's without additional dose.

Correct.

Thank you for confirming.

Um Duncan, so moved.

All right, and do we have a second?

Catone seconded.

All right, call for a vote.

Duncan?

Duncan, yes.

Katona?

Catoni, yes.

With wait, yes.

Bucket Brown.

And Nelson votes yes.

All right, we'll see you next month.

Okay, thank you, sir.

Thank you.

Case number 2025-UV1-013 property address 11150 Mays Road, Franklin Township, Council District Number 25, zoned DA.

The petitioners are Michael and Nicole Cole, represented by Ray Basile.

Variants of use and the uh variance of use of the consolidated zoning and subdivision ordinance to provide for the location of a 350 gallon gasoline above ground storage tank and a 550 gallon diesel fuel above ground storage tank.

Not permitted.

In addition to uses permitted by the grant of 2023-UV1-025.

Will those who plan to speak on this petition please raise their right hand to be sworn in.

Do you swear or affirm that the testimony you will give is the truth and nothing but the truth?

I do.

I do.

Good afternoon, Chairperson Nelson and members of the board.

My name is John Cross.

Uh here on behalf of Ray Basili.

My address is 13 North State Street, suite 241, Greenfield, Indiana.

Uh, attorney for the petitioners, Michael and Nicole Cole.

Uh Michael Cole is here with me in person.

Uh he operates a small family business called Concrete Indy LLC from this property location via a variance of use uh approved in 2023, and also on it here is his business partner Eric.

So as stated, uh the uh concrete Indy LLC uh is uh performs residential concrete projects in and around Indianapolis.

So in 2023, uh I believe it was this board approved a variance of use uh for a very limited contract or use of the property where there could only be a home office related to the business, along with the uh parking and overnight parking of 11 commercial vehicles used in correlation with that business.

Uh the vehicles are just driven to and from the property by the employees.

There's no activities that go on uh at the property.

So this is a uh a variance of use request to permit uh as stated the limited construction and use of uh to utilize two above ground fuel tanks not to exceed one 350 gallon gasoline tank and one 550 gallon uh diesel tank.

Uh with respect to these tanks, they have been uh used at the property uh for years now.

The property here is zone DA, uh, which does allow for the use of such uh above ground fuel tanks uh in correlation though with farming uses, uh, but that's not the case.

There's no farming activities on the property, necessitating the need for the variance.

Uh the Coles weren't aware of that uh risk limitation uh with respect to farming uses, and they weren't uh previously aware that a variance was needed with respect to the fuel tanks when they initially sought their first variance back in 2023.

Uh so they have been using those fuel tanks uh for years without complaint by the the city or the neighbors, and as soon as they uh learned it was an issue uh this year was kind of like a random spot um inspection on the property, uh they filed for this variance.

Uh the petitioners uh exhibits show the uh location uh and size of uh the tanks.

This is a uh a long uh property.

Let's see.

You do have them.

Okay, so yeah, I was gonna wait till we get them pulled up.

So we have the site plan uh on the first page shows uh as you can see it's a long property.

Uh the handwriting there shows where the location of the fuel tanks are, which uh it's a large site plan.

So you can uh they're about uh a fourth of the way down the property, maybe a third if you want to go to the next picture.

So this shows uh the front location, the front drive of the property is the bottom one looking back.

So from here you can see the structures.

You can't even see the tanks uh from these pictures.

If you go to the next page.

So this is looking back towards the front of the property.

That's the structure that uh blocks the view of the tanks from the road.

So there are the two tanks that have been there.

If you go to the next slide.

This looks to the the rear of the property, showing how much space and the buffering that's there between the uh this property and the adjoining properties.

If you go to the next slide.

This is uh a scre a screenshot from the actual the staff report back from 2023 when we had our prior uh variance hearing.

So these fuel tanks were kind of front front and center of everybody, nobody realized it was an issue.

Um, so it's not like petitioners trying to hide it.

So again, once learned it was an issue, we're we're here before you today again.

So, with respect to the variants of use, the fuel tanks they would be used exclusively to fill the commercial trucks uh used for concrete Indy.

Uh, those are the ones that are approved to park there at the property current currently.

Uh no work workforces related to this.

Uh again, the employees of concrete indie, they drive their uh their vehicles to the property, take their commercial trucks, leave, uh, then drop them off and then and then leave the property.

So there's no activity that go on besides the home office of the property.

Uh there would be no proposed facilities with respect to the use of the fuel tanks.

Uh the petitioners are in the process of obtaining approval to construct a barn, uh, a pool barn on the property, but the fuel tanks would remain outside in their uh approximate present location.

So there's uh no hours of operation really related to this.

Um those would have been with the prior variants that was granted.

Uh with respect to commitments, uh, back with the 2023 uh variance variances, the petitioner did commit that they would automatically terminate uh upon sale sell of the land to a third party, and he uh the petitioners are making the same commitment with respect to the fuel tanks that if the property sells to a third party, this variance would automatically terminate.

So granting this will not be injurious to the general welfare of the of the community.

Uh, again, the uh fuel tank fuel tanks will be used exclusively for the limited commercial trucks uh stored overnight at the property for the small family business.

The fuel tanks uh that were purchased just a few years ago, so they are still relatively new.

Uh they are commercial grade quality, they are double walled, uh just as required the same for underground storage tanks for use at gas stations.

Uh the double wall protects against leaks, and it also will visibly alert the coals uh if there are any if the inner wall fails or if there are any fuel leaks between those walls, so there are high safety mechanisms in place with these tanks.

And they also utilize an automatic shutoff uh fuel dispenser uh similar to those at gas stations uh to ensure that there's no drippage or leakage during the fueling process.

Uh so the Koals wanted to make sure that these are very high quality and safe fuel tanks because uh they and their family, their children live at this property, so uh safety is paramount to them as a concern, and they realize that that's also a concern for their neighbors and the community as well with respect to use of these tanks.

With respect to the use and value, there's not gonna have any uh substantial adverse impact on the property uses.

Uh again, these have been uh used now uh for years now.

They've been set back on Mays Road, so you drive by you don't see them, respectively 200, 300 feet away from either from either neighbor on either side.

Uh allowing the continued use won't uh add any intensity, it's not going to increase uh the use of the property, uh, it's not going to increase traffic on the property, and there's no public use of these tanks as well.

It's specifically limited to the uh 11 commercial vehicles that are allowed to park uh in correlation with the business.

So the tanks have been used for years without any sort of complaint or problem until it was learned recently.

So the need for uh the continued use does arise from the history of the prior variants and and the historical use of the property.

Uh the property one one five zero maze road, it's uh it's a prime centrally located area that allows for the efficient transportation of concrete indies commercial vehicles uh during their off-site operations.

So again, the city did previous previously approved the variance to allow for the limited parking back in 2023.

So maintaining the tanks on site reduces the number of times those trucks would need to travel uh to uh gas stations uh which will reduce travel time pollution that would come with those uh with respect to the other side, these tanks uh I believe they're only refilled just once a week, so we have one truck coming in now to refill them versus those 11 trucks that would have to go off site to refill multiple times throughout the week.

The site has been used for this limited commercial parking uh and for the fuel tanks for years without any sort of complaint during the time.

So the request for variants only came about because uh again the coals were unaware of the requirement for it until they were notified by that random inspection and notification by the city.

So there would be a hardship here if uh the variance is not granted uh as described this proposed use and the existing uses uh really have a minimal impact uh if any really on the surrounding properties.

The commercial vehicles that are parked there uh are minimally different than the types of tractors and and semi-trailers that would be used on uh typical agricultural property used for farming purposes, uh, which if was the case, then these above ground storage tanks wouldn't uh be an issue and would be compliant with the ordinances to our understanding.

So the property's been used for the same or similar use for four years without any sort of negative impact uh on the properties use, the neighboring properties uses, and so the uh rigid adherence to the zoning ordinances here would present a hardship on the company.

And it's important as well that the approval would not uh and does not interfere substantially with the comprehensive plan.

Uh again, the use of the tanks is entirely consistent with the DA zone properties that allow the same tanks uh all around Indianapolis for farming uses.

The continued use will not encourage any sort of uh growth or expansion of commercial property, either this property since it'd be very limited by the uh provided commitment, uh, and because it's not gonna have any sort of negative impact on the on the area with respect to uh the use again, it's gonna have a it's gonna have a less intensive use while it's not going to provide for these commercial trucks to have a driving more they would than they would already have to be.

So continuing to allow their presence is not can inconsistent uh with or disruptive of the residential designation of the of the uses in this area.

So approval will not interfere with the uh current comprehensive plan.

Uh so with that uh we will wait, happy to answer any questions, but we would request approval and thank you for your time.

I have two questions.

Um, I just want to understand the timing.

Were these tanks in place when the variance was granted in 2023, or did they get located there after that variance was granted?

They were in place.

The picture on screen right now, the exit petitions exhibit that that is straight from the staff report showing that they were there at that time.

So they were there prior to the approval of the 2023 variants.

And they didn't come up during that two.

Correct.

Yes.

And then um second question.

So how are these regulated?

Like I know like gas stations in Marion County, there's a Marion County board that's responsible for testing these, and they get a sticker put on them that you see when you you know when you pull up.

I assume there's some level of state and federal oversight on this as well that required all the different placards on the side of the tank.

How are these regulated?

How do we know that the um safety systems are working properly and that that complies with whatever regulations are applicable?

Uh do you want to speak to that briefly?

But before you do, I will say that when we met with the um the Franklin Township Civil League, um, of course, safety was a a big concern of theirs as well.

And we're saying that they do fully support this variance.

They submitted a letter of support.

Um their only requests with respect to, and you can speak, but I don't think there are really required uh requirements of the state level, much like a gas station.

Um I'm not in the in the zoning world, so you can speak to that.

But uh they did request that we would inform the local fire department to make sure that they are aware of the location so that way they are aware that they are there, and if that they would have any questions, problems, maintenance, maintenance issues that it would be appropriately dealt with.

So I think that if anything would arise to create such an issue, uh knowing that Franklin Township Civic Department's pretty active, I think that they would bring that to uh probably staff's attention for further review.

But it also gets refilled, so there's some kind of tank inspection when they refill it.

Right, from whoever your supplier is.

Yeah, Michael Cole.

Yeah, so uh there's no like official inspection that's done to it.

So we have Brown's oil that fills it.

I think they're a pretty large fuel company in Indianapolis and everywhere.

And I know that they would report a problem, but I know the double walled tanks are like the safest tanks that you can buy.

Like the K and W fueling equipment is where we bought them.

And they're a very like large, they provide these all over the country.

And they say this is like the safest tank you can buy.

It's like nearly impossible.

It's not impossible to explode, but nearly impossible.

Like explosions, the leakages would be detected.

It's gonna catch any fuel that leaks inside of itself.

So the chances of getting a hole in both of them are like it's not impossible.

Like I'm more of a concrete expert than a fuel expert.

But yeah, does your and your family lives in the home on the property?

We do.

Yeah, we live right there.

So kids are playing in the lake and riding bikes and you have no concerns about any of that.

Nothing.

Okay.

I just have a question.

Um, typically a thing that they usually have a bracket that they sit on, or like they're coming off the ground.

Is there a reason why they're sitting on the ground, or is this just how they're because they're double walled?

If they were single walled, they don't have to have a containment around them.

I'm not saying we could do that if that's requested, that's a simple fix.

Okay.

Because they're double wall, they don't have to have that bracket to kind of push them up.

Right, right.

Because it's usually what you see, I do know that because I've worked concrete for them, is that it catches fuel.

Right.

So that's why it looks like they're sitting on something normally.

But I I know that they were there in 23 because I I remember this.

I remember these pictures, but how old are they?

And what's the useful life?

I don't know the useful life, honestly.

Um I think we must have got them like 22, 23, right around that time.

Okay.

Probably right before that.

So if you simply farmed one acre, could you have these with no problem?

Yeah.

Yeah.

All right.

Um just to confirm, is there anyone in opposition that needs to speak today?

All right, not saying any.

So we can move to staff comments, please.

Thank you, Chairperson Nelson members of the board.

For the record, staff did receive contact from one neighbor who was in remonstrance of this and indicated they would be here.

Apparently, they are not.

Um, I believe this was also a result of a violation turned in by a neighbor.

Um, so there is some opposition and staff's opinion to this by the neighbors, even if they are not here.

Thank you, Chairperson Duncan and members of the board.

Um the proposed use would be permitted in the C7 high intensity commercial zoning district.

C7 district is designed to provide for specific areas of retail commercial uses, which have usually unincompatible features relative to other commercial uses.

In other words, it's an overly intense commercial site, allows for a lot of outdoor storage.

This is uh even though commercial contractors are permitted in C4 with the uh special exception in C5.

This specifically use accessory use of storage of the tanks is not permitted in those districts due to the limitation on outdoor storage.

So that's why this is only permitted in C7 or the industrial I3, I2, I3, I4 if they meet the levels of outdoor storage.

So we're not just talking about agricultural uses because A, the petitioner is not growing crops, he's not raising animals, he does not have a combine, he does not have tractors, so it's not an agricultural use, even though he implies it's the same thing.

What he does have is he has a Ford F3 F 350 truck.

This is not an F-150, which is the common uh residential truck, it's not an F 250, also known as a dually.

This is an F350, much bigger.

He also has three Silverado 3500s.

I'm not sure of those size, but I would assume they're probably similar to that 350.

There are three drug dump trucks on this site, and there are also four utility trailers that exceed the length of over 12 feet, which makes them commercial trailers.

To me, this does not sound like an agricultural business.

This is certainly a uh a commercial contractor.

In fact, he has placed on Google Maps that he is running his business out of site on site, which has a concrete finisher, which is permitted by the previous variants granted in 2023, limited to the commitments of just parking those equipment that I've A4 mentioned on site and running the office out of the dwelling.

Um, this property is zone DA, the purpose of the DA district is to provide for a variety of agricultural enterprises.

Again, as I stated, this is not an agricultural enterprise.

The DA also allows for rural or estate large lot houses.

Since there is no agricultural, this would be considered a rural or a state house, um, regardless of size, estate being um relative to land size.

Um the inclusion of the two above ground tanks is not permitted uh in that instance when there is no agricultural use.

That's why we are here for the variants.

The fact that the practical difficulty is because he's not doing agricultural uses, is he has to have the variants for the uh gas station or the the fuel tanks as I understand it.

Well, the practical difficulty is he wants to have the gas tanks without doing the agricultural agricultural uses.

There's nothing permitting him from doing agricultural uses.

There's nothing permitting him from just having a rule of state house.

That's what the zoning permits.

So there is no practical difficulty that keeps him from doing either of those two uses on this site.

He wants to add an additional commercial use to this site to pair with the previous commercial use.

Says that they've been on site for a number of years, yet they were replaced or installed several years ago.

So here we are in another situation where activities have happened before getting permits, and then we are uh asking for approval after actions have happened prior to getting permits.

That was the case with the commercial contractor, and it's the case with the fuel tanks as well.

No permits to know my knowledge were getting or uh approved for those fuel tanks on site.

Had permits been applied for, it would have been triggered the variance cause uh requirement at that point.

Same thing for the commercial vehicles being parked there previously, although permits were not required for the commercial vehicles.

However, um no variance was obtained prior to parking those commercial vehicles on site.

They were after the fact after a complaint was turned in.

So given the increase of the intensity, this is even more than what was previously approved.

So we have another in request to let's increase the intensity even more by adding these fuel tanks.

That also negatively impacts the neighbors and staff's opinion.

Um the petitioner indicates that it does not increase the traffic, although the 11 vehicles come and go from the site.

That's more than any standard residential um location, in my opinion that I'm aware of.

Uh maybe four or five cars for residence, even a rural residence, if every member of the household has a car.

But we're talking about 11 heavy-duty commercial trucks, dump trucks, and trailers.

Uh excuse me.

Um four of them are trailers, so out of 11, then that makes seven heavy-duty vehicles.

Um he made the comment that uh um they don't have to go to the gas station as much.

Uh well, what that does mean is a heavy-duty um commercial, very large commercial tanker truck has to come to this site, which normally does not, would not have to in a residential commercial, excuse me, in a residential agricultural setting every week, once a week.

To my knowledge, no other house in the area has that requirement or need.

Again, this is self-imposed by their desire to run and have these gas tanks on site.

Um what that's also doing is requiring 11 vehicles or seven vehicles that is permitted by the previous commitments to come or stay on this site and get fuel on this site.

So that increases traffic to this site by incorporating those 11 vehicles into this site.

As such, staff does not believe there's any practical difficulty for these, even if they have been there unpermitted previously.

They are an increase in the commercial intensity of a commercial use on a site that already has an above average commercial use on the site comparatively to other surrounding properties.

Therefore, staff does recommend denial.

Before I do that, I will point out, which I forgot to do, my apologies.

Um this area is not served by citizens' water.

Uh, that stops west of uh the road to the west, and I forget the name of that, and my apologies.

Uh Acton Road, yes.

The city water stops at Acton Road, it was extended to serve that subdivision.

So all the houses east of Acton Road are on wells.

So, yes, it may be double tanked, it may be um uh meet all the standards, but if there is a fuel spill that's going to affect every single one of those water wells, in staff's opinion.

Uh uh determined on the level of containment or lack of containment thereof.

Um so with that staff would recommend denial of this petition, be happy to answer any questions.

I I do have um two.

You stated that when they got the um the variance or the approval in 2023, they were coming after a um violation.

I believe that was a violation.

They were already parked on site when they came in when I did my site visit at the time, yes.

So that I believe that was an after-fact variance as well.

Uh and then my next question is once we realize that they were doing commercial or an agricultural zoning, why didn't we push them to change their zoning versus just approving it?

I'm sorry, repeat that.

So you stated that the the zoning that they're in is agricultural, right?

So once we realized that they were doing commercial in 2023, why didn't we like request them or push them to rezone?

Or is it not possible?

Uh the plan, well, uh they did they that was their option to rezone if they did.

We did it was not our imperative to tell them to rezone.

We were not supporting any change of use.

Okay.

They filed for variants of use, which by their right they're allowed to.

They could have filed for a rezoning as well.

We would not have supported either one.

We did not support the variants for the eleven commercial vehicles yet, it still did get approved.

Okay.

But you would not have supported the variant the change of zoning either.

That were you saying we would not have supported a rezoning as well.

And and response or to further that the tanks were there in 2023, but the zoning inspector at that time did not realize they were a violation, so the violation was not issued then, and they were only told the parking of the or the operation was a violation, which is why they proceeded with that variance.

A new zoning inspector came after the fact on a new um complaint, I believe, and found the uh the fuel tanks at that point and issued the new violation, which is why we're here today.

And my last question regarding the complaint, uh, was it just out of concern, or is there a smell?

Did something happen for that complaint to come forward?

Um I did not read the complaint itself.

Uh I just know one was turned in as the zoning inspector had told me that.

Um so I was I don't know the the purpose of the complaint, other than it's it's a zoning violation.

Um the tanks, do the did the tanks require a permit before they were installed.

Um I believe they do.

I don't know officially.

Um that's probably presumptuous of me to say that they didn't, but I know commercial tanks at a gas station require um monitoring uh on weights and measures.

Um so uh let me rephrase that.

Um not that they didn't need a permit, but they certainly needed approval prior to installation uh whether the form of approval from a land use component, which they did not have, um, meaning that they were not zoning compliant, or they did not check to see if they were zoning compliant to install those, and that they were installed anyways, just like the the vehicles were installed on site prior to determining if they were zoning compliant.

So I will retract the part about them needing to permit because I do not know clear for clarity-wise if that is correct or not.

I think I found that um can we ask a question?

Sorry, what I I found the zoning violations.

Can we ask a question about it?

Sure.

I'm asking Chris.

Yeah.

Um you need to, I guess, rely on what you're getting from staff and from the petitioner or any remonstrator.

Um so that you're making decisions on things that are part of the record that everybody has had the opportunity to review.

So any other questions for staff at this time.

All right, then let's go back to the petitioner.

Um you can have up to five minutes for your rebuttal closing comments.

Thank you, Attorney John Cross again with Michael Cole.

Um with respect to kind of the the key takeaways here.

Um first to petition's belief no permits are required prior to installing these of the properties, so that uh wasn't an issue.

Uh I don't believe there's any sort of open complaint about uh any permit issues with the tanks at all, it was solely with the the use with it.

Uh again, they had been there uh in use for about four years without a single complaint to our knowledge.

Um still not aware of we haven't seen the remonstrance, so not aware of uh any opposition to this when we met.

So we were set that the last hearing was automatically continued by the Franklin uh uh township civil civic league.

So we met with them, and there were a lot of people in attendance that night.

There was another hot topic agenda.

I was honestly a little worried going into it.

Um for Mr.

Cole, I didn't know what we're gonna run into, which you never really do.

Um there wasn't a single person in opposition uh to Mr.

Mr.

Cole's petition at that time.

Uh there were a lot of questions and a lot of interest.

Uh it seems in the area that there are a lot of uh other trucks that drive by that can get mistakenly believed to be his because the people in the area they do know uh how he operates the property, they do know that he's allowed to store 11, no more than 11 vehicles.

We're sure that some of them kind of count who goes in, who goes out just to make sure he's in compliance, and there's never been an issue in the last four four years about that.

Um but again there wasn't any real concerns about the use of of the tanks.

So uh weren't aware of any sort of opposition to it.

Um again, he didn't know that there was a variance needed at that time.

Again, he he wasn't hiding it, he didn't get approved for the last one, and then immediately install these for that use again.

It's clear as day.

They they were there, we missed it, staff missed it, the board missed it.

So with respect to how the prior inspector got called out there, not exactly we don't have those details.

I knew don't knew that do know that Mr.

Cole spoke with the inspector who who was new and he was told that it was kind of just a a random inspection.

That was our belief for why it was there.

So uh he sought this petition um uh immediately after speaking with that inspector.

So uh to clarify as well what we mean by saying if you know, if approved, that there is not going to be any sort of increase in traffic or vehicles if this is approved.

Um what we mean by that is that the use of these fuel tanks is it's limited to the property.

The vehicles will go out, they come in, they get refueled there.

If it's not approved, then these vehicles will be driving more uh in between to go to those gas stations uh in the interim.

So if they're at the property, they'll have to go out.

So that's gonna result in absolutely more traffic than it would be otherwise, because otherwise they just have to go straight home without diverting.

I mean, it might be minimal, but the bottom line is realistically there will be more traffic uh of these vehicles on the roads if they are not able to refuel at the property.

So that's that's what we mean by that.

Clearly, there is a more more traffic because this board did approve the variance for these trucks to be parked there.

So we're not uh debating that, but it's just that if they can't refuel there, they'll have to re refuel somewhere.

So that's what we mean by there'll be less traffic if this is approved.

Um and then again as as stated, we did meet uh for a while with the Franklin Township Civic League.

They considered all these issues.

Uh we uh uh uh appreciated their time and as represents the community uh appreciate that they do support this petition.

Um with respect to the the DA use.

Again, we we're not trying to say that he's using this for DA use.

Clearly not the case.

Um, but the area it wouldn't be inconsistent with the area.

The the site plan uh or the aerial map on page 55 of the staff report does show that the uh abutting property directly east, large farmland.

We don't know if they do have any of these tanks there, but if they did, then realistically they can probably be used there in correlation with their uh agricultural use without any sort of issues.

Um that uh it's without knowing those tanks.

So I mean, here uh we do recognize that he wasn't aware of it, so clearly it wasn't done the right way to get the variants first, but he wasn't trying to skirt the issue or or or hide anything.

He bought very safe, high quality uh tanks to be used here.

He's not trying to install anymore and just be limited to these these two units.

And and again, this is something that since he and his family live there, uh it's not something that he will uh ever take lightly with respect to that.

Uh and again, it wouldn't have any sort of future impact down the road as long as he owns this property because the second it would sell to a third party, it would terminate and no longer be a concern for this area to the extent that it could develop differently uh in the future.

Um with that, we would be uh happy to answer any questions you may have for us.

All right, board.

Any final questions?

Um I did hear the petitioner commit a couple of times to match the previous petition commitment that it would this uh variance would expire should the owner sell the property.

So I will consider that uh a commitment to this, so please do consider that and cast your ballot for petition 2025 UV one zero one three on case two zero two five-UV one-013.

Jennifer Witt votes yes, David Duncan votes no, Peter Nelson votes yes, Andrew Catona votes no, and Patrice Ducket Brown votes no.

The variance is not granted.

Do we have any other business to hear today?