Board of Zoning Appeals Division I Hearing - October 7, 2025
Board of Zoning Appeals Division I Hearing - October 7, 2025
The Metropolitan Board of Zoning Appeals Division I convened on October 7, 2025, at 1:00 PM in the Public Assembly Room of the City-County Building. Chair Peter Nelson presided, joined by board members David Duncan, Jennifer Witt, and Andrew Katona. The board considered continuances, an expedited docket, and public hearings on six variance petitions. A public commenter spoke at the start of the meeting.
Public Comments & Testimony
- A resident, Mr. Conard (address provided), expressed concern that the board members did not know the neighborhood and stated his opposition to a proposed industrial park near the racetrack. He requested time to speak when his petition was called. The chair assured him he would have the opportunity and noted that board members represent diverse areas of the city.
Consent Calendar and Administrative Items
- The board granted a waiver of its rules of procedure to vote on the expedited petitions without additional testimony (motion by Duncan, second by Witt; vote 4-0).
- Withdrawals were acknowledged for:
- 2025-DV1-038 (954 Traub Ave)
- 2025-UV1-018 (7526 Southeastern Ave)
Continuances
- 2025-DV1-042 (8415 W Washington St): Automatically continued to November 4, 2025, due to a remonstrator filing.
- 2025-UV1-015 (488 S Rochester Ave): Continued to November 4, 2025, with new notice at staff’s request (vote 4-0).
- 2025-UV1-019 (3040 S Kercheval Dr): Continued to November 4, 2025, due to insufficient notice (vote 4-0).
- 2025-UV1-009 (5330 W Morris St): Continued to November 4, 2025, as the petitioner was absent; staff supported one final continuance (vote 4-0).
Expedited Petitions (Granted Unanimously 4-0 Each)
- 2025-DV1-039 (Amended): 8600 & 8710 N College Ave – Two monument signs and a pylon sign, exceeding sign limits and height restrictions.
- 2025-DV1-040 (2nd Amended): 3725 W 21st St – Building addition with a 5-foot rear yard setback and legalization of existing front-yard accessory structures.
- 2025-DV1-041: 9229 Walton Ave – Detached garage and legalization of accessory structures with reduced setbacks, resulting in 84% open space (85% required).
- 2025-DV1-045: 5430 Central Ave – Building addition with a 9.5-foot rear yard setback (20 feet required).
- 2025-DV1-047: 5145 N Keystone Ave – Commercial renovation with reduced transparency, Green Factor, and parking (0% and 19% transparency, 0.08 Green Factor, 19 parking spaces).
- 2025-DV1-048: 8326 Southern Springs Blvd – Building addition resulting in 67% open space (70% required).
Public Hearing Petitions – Discussion Items
2025-UV1-014: 6805 Rockville Road – Outdoor Storage and Fence
- Petitioner (Margarito Mendoza Galindo) and supporters testified that the property had been transformed from an eyesore, the $15,000 fence beautified the area and provided safety for grandchildren, and only a work truck and trailer would be stored on-site. The petitioner’s attorney offered commitments: limit the variance to the petitioner’s ownership, store only one Ford F-250 truck and a 14-foot trailer, and restrict equipment to that trailer. Witnesses described how the fence increased security and neighborliness.
- Remonstrators (Rockville Road, High School Road, Girls School Road Neighborhood Association) opposed, arguing that commercial storage would lead to non-residential creep, the 6-foot fence violated the 42-inch maximum, and the petitioner had a history of non-compliance. They noted existing commercial storage at his other properties.
- Staff recommended denial, stating the D-2 district is solidly residential, the comprehensive plan discourages commercial uses, and a 42-inch fence could meet basic needs. The fence would create a channelized corridor.
- Outcome: The board split the vote.
- Part A (outdoor/indoor storage of equipment): Vote 2-2 (Witt no, Duncan no, Nelson yes, Katona yes) – indecisive, continued to November 4 hearing.
- Part B (6-foot fence with electric gate): Granted 4-0.
2025-UV1-016: 9743 Indian Creek Road South – Lawnmower Repair Business
- Petitioner (David Sisk, represented by David Retherford) requested a variance for a long-running seasonal lawnmower repair business, including two small storage buildings, a sign, and a deck. The lot is substandard (1/3 acre vs. 3 acres typical). He had support from 14 neighbors and the Franklin Township Civic League. Commitments were offered to limit the variance to the current owners and to regulate noise.
- No remonstrators appeared.
- Staff recommended denial, classifying the use as industrial in a residential zone, with structures 2 feet from property lines and minimal buffering.
- Outcome: Granted 4-0, subject to commitments on noise and personal to the current owners.
2025-UV1-017: 7323 East Hanna Avenue – Haunted Attraction Expansion
- Petitioner (Hanna Haunted Acres Inc., represented by David Retherford) sought a second use variance to expand the seasonal event (already operating since 2009), add an indoor escape room, and permit alcohol sales in VIP areas. The expansion would increase possible operating days from ~55 to ~108. Support letters from two councilors and the civic league were provided. The petitioner argued the use was compatible with the farm operation and that a rezoning would be unnecessary.
- No remonstrators spoke.
- Staff recommended denial, preferring a rezoning to SU-16 because the expansion would shift the use to a year-round, primary operation. They cited the comprehensive plan and the availability of a special-use district.
- Outcome: Granted 4-0, with commitments to be recorded addressing noise, lighting, and hours.
2025-DV1-043: 2429 and 2431 North College Avenue – Garage Setback Variance
- Petitioner (RE Development Group, represented by John Cross) requested 3-foot side-yard setbacks (5 feet required) to build four-car garages for new duplexes. They argued that standard garages require 40-foot widths and the narrower setback was necessary for marketability. Six neighboring properties submitted letters of support.
- Staff recommended denial, stating that a 34-foot garage (using 8.5-foot parking spaces) could comply without a variance, and no practical difficulty had been shown.
- Outcome: Denied 3-1 (Witt yes; Nelson, Duncan, Katona no).
2025-DV1-046: 201 Shelby Street – Fence at Progress House
- Petitioner (Progress House Inc., represented by James Lingenfelter) requested a 6-foot chain-link fence in the front yard to provide safe outdoor space for 88 men in recovery. The I-3 zoned site abuts a D-8 parcel, which limits fences to 42 inches. The petitioner noted $4 million in renovations and the facility’s role in a developing continuum of care (including a planned homeless services center nearby).
- No remonstrators spoke.
- Staff recommended denial, citing transitional yard requirements and the area’s shift toward pedestrian-friendly uses.
- Outcome: Granted 4-0.
Key Outcomes
- Continuances: Four petitions continued to November 4, 2025: 2025-UV1-015, -019, -009, and Part A of 2025-UV1-014.
- Expedited petitions: All six granted (4-0).
- Granted with commitments: 2025-UV1-016 (4-0), 2025-UV1-017 (4-0).
- Granted: 2025-UV1-014 Part B (4-0), 2025-DV1-046 (4-0).
- Denied: 2025-DV1-043 (3-1).
- Meeting adjourned after the final case.
Meeting Transcript
Afternoon, everybody. 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 are Jennifer Witt, Andrew Cotona, and David Duncan. Legal Counsel for the Board today is Chris Steinmetz. Staff members present today from the Division of Planning are Eddie O'Neill, current planning administrator. Bryce Patts, current planning manager, Robert Ulenhake, senior planner, Noah Stern, senior planner, Michael Weigel, senior planner, and Marty Weiste, senior board specialist and secretary to the board. The board has copies of the zoning ordinances that will be incorporated by reference into the record of each case heard today. 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 a five-minute time limit for rebuttal and a summation of the case. Rebuttal must be limited to the subject matter of the initial presentations. Remonstrators will then be allowed five minutes for rebuttal of the petitioner's rebuttal evidence and a brief closing statement. No further evidence statements or arguments will be heard unless it is at the discretion of the board. Please limit your testimony and evidence to 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 sign on the subject property at least 23 days prior to the hearing, the board may continue the petition. Compliance with the conditions imposed by the board must be proved by an affidavit of compliance submitted by the petitioner within 30 days of completion. 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. Excuse me. I will note there are only four board members present today, and it does require three votes to take action on any request. So that said, if you receive an indecisive or a two-two vote on your petition, it will automatically be continued to the November 4th hearing. Uh we will take this into consideration while hearing special requests and continuances. Yes. Yes. I'm here. Could you please come and speak into the mic? Thank you. Please give your name and address for the record. We're gonna C-O-N-A-R-D. I live at 2057 North Exeter Avenue. And I'm here. I'm just asking. I don't understand this stuff that's my first time on none of this stuff. But I see that you guys don't know the neighborhood. So I'm kind of questioned. Well, when our petition comes up, the people that wants to do something, this is a neighborhood. They want to build a construction. This is a neighborhood, they want to build an industrial park. So I'm waiting for my turn because this is this is a neighborhood right by the racetrack. And so now they want to build an industrial park over there. I don't know what's happening with that. Okay. Yeah, and when we call that petition, you'll have time to speak on on that. Um so during our when we're hearing the case, um, you'll be allowed um some allotted time um within one of those 15 minute periods, depending on whether you're speaking uh for or against. So you'll be welcome up at that point. And I I think the other part of that is we all represent different parts of Indianapolis.
openpublica.com