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.

So you mentioned the racetrack.

I live in Wayne Township right by there.

Yeah.

So we we represent different areas specifically for that reason.

Thank you.

Thank you.

All right.

Um before we hear special requests, I will ask the board um for a waiver of our rules of procedure to allow the board to vote on all the expedited petitions and adopt their findings of fact without any additional testimony from the individual petitioners.

Um is there a motion?

Duncan so moved.

Is there a second?

Wit second.

All right, I'll call for a vote.

Duncan?

Duncan, yes.

Catona.

Catoni, yes.

Wit.

Wait, yes.

And Nelson votes yes.

All right.

At this time we can consider special requests and continuances.

Thank you, Chairperson members of the board.

Staff will draw your attention to the first special request, petition number 2025, DB1-038 located at line 54 Trob Avenue.

The petitioner has requested to withdraw this petition that would require the board's acknowledgement.

So acknowledged.

Thank you.

Staff will also draw your attention to the first petition requesting to be continued.

Petition 2025, DV1-042 located at 8415 Westington Street.

An automatic continuance has been filed by uh remonstrator continuing this petition to the November 4th, 2025 hearing.

This would require the board's acknowledgement.

So acknowledged.

Thank you.

Um staff will also draw your attention to petition number two under requested continues and continuances.

Petition number 2025 UV 1-015 located at 488 South Rochester Avenue.

The petitioner has submitted an amended site plan, and this will require new variances.

Therefore, this petition will need to be continued with notice to the November 4th, 2025 hearing.

All right, is there anyone in the audience with interest in this continuance for petition 2025 UV 1015 488 South Rochester Avenue?

All right, and board seeing a staff made the uh request.

We have a request to continue this petition, 2025 UV 1015 to the November 4th hearing.

Do I have a motion?

Uh Duncan so moved, and that's with additional notice.

Wit second.

Thank you.

All right, motion and a second, call for a vote.

Duncan.

Duncan, yes.

Catona.

Catoni, yes.

Wit.

Wait, yes.

Nelson votes yes.

Thank you, Chairman Nelson, members of the board.

Staff would draw your attention to the second item under special requests.

2025 UV 1018 at 7526 Southeastern Avenue.

The petitioner has indicated they wish to withdraw this petition that would require the board's acknowledgement.

So acknowledged.

Thank you.

And staff would also draw your attention to item number three, 2025 UV 1019 at 3040 South Kirkcheval Drive.

This petition is needing to be continued due to insufficient notice.

And as of today, the sign has still not been picked up.

So that would be to the November 4th hearing, and again, that would be with new notice.

Alright, anyone in the audience with interest in the continuance request for petition 2025 UV1019.

All right, board staff has made the request to continue this petition to the November 4th hearing.

That is with new notice.

Duncan so moved.

And a second.

Wit, second.

All right, call for a vote.

Duncan.

Duncan, yes.

Catona.

Catona, yes.

WIT.

Wit, yes.

Nelson votes yes.

Thank you.

All right.

Any additional requests for continuances.

All right.

Hearing none.

Let's go ahead and move on to the expedited docket.

These are petitions to be expedited.

Case number 2025-DV1-039 amended.

Property address 8600 and 8710 North College Avenue.

Washington Township, Council District No.

2, Zoned SU1 TOD.

The petitioner is First Baptist Church of Indianapolis, represented by Brent Bennett.

Variants of development standards of the consolidated zoning and subdivision ordinance to provide for the installation of two monument signs and a pylon sign, bringing the total number of freestanding signs to five, maximum of two per frontage, with the pylon sign being located within 400 feet of a protected district, 600 foot separation required, and the monument signs possessing heights of seven foot tall and five and a half foot tall, maximum height of five feet permitted.

Case number two zero two five-d v 1-040, second amended, property address 3725 West 21st Street.

Wayne Township, Council District No.

11, zoned D5.

The petitioner is Maria Del Rocio Cortez Garcia, represented by Josh Smith.

Variance of development standards of the consolidated zoning and subdivision ordinance to provide for a building addition, resulting in a five-foot rear yard setback, and to legally establish an existing detached garage in the two accessory structures within the front yard of Rochester Avenue.

20-foot rear yard setback required.

Accessory buildings within front yards not permitted.

Case number 2025-DV1-041.

Property address 9229 Walton Avenue.

Wayne Township, Council District Number 17, Zoned DA.

The petitioners are Pamela and Mark Farley.

Variants of development standards of the consolidated zoning and subdivision ordinance to provide for the construction of a detached garage and to legally establish detached accessory structures with a five-foot west side yard setback and a three-foot south rear yard setback.

15 foot setbacks required, resulting in an open space of 84%.

85% required.

The petitioners are Robert and Christine Broughton, represented by Randall Green.

Variants of development standards of the consolidated zoning and subdivision ordinance to provide for a building addition, including an attached garage, resulting in a nine and a half foot rear yard setback.

20 foot rear setback required.

Case number 2025-DV1-047.

Property address 5145 North Keystone Avenue.

Washington Township, Council District Number 2, Zoned C7W5.

The petitioner is DAST2 LLC, represented by Joseph Leslie.

Variance of development standards of the consolidated zoning and subdivision ordinance to provide for the renovation of an existing commercial building, resulting in 0% transparency along the north elevation.

19% transparency along the south elevation.08 green factor, an alternative interior parking landscape plan, and 19 parking spaces.

And case number 2025-DV one-048, property address 8326, Southern Springs Boulevard.

Franklin Township, Council District Number 25, Zoned D3.

The petitioner is Diana Allen Johnson.

Variants of development standards of the consolidated zoning and subdivision ordinance to provide for a building addition, resulting in an open space of 67%, 70% open space required.

Is there anyone here in opposition to any of the petitions I've just read?

Chairperson Nelson, that's the end of your expedited docket.

All right, thank you.

Board, I would ask you now to cast your ballot for the expedited docket.

Yeah, please.

On case two zero two five-d v one-zero three nine amended, David Duncan votes yes, Peter Nelson votes yes, Andrew Catona votes yes, and Jennifer Witt votes yes.

That variance is granted.

On case two zero two five-d v one-zero four zero second amended, David Duncan votes yes, Peter Nelson votes yes, Andrew Cotona votes yes, and Jennifer Witt votes yes, that variance is granted.

On case two zero two five-d v one-zero four zero, David Duncan votes yes, Peter Nelson votes yes, Andrew Catona votes yes, and Jennifer Witt votes yes.

That variance is granted.

On case two zero two five-d v one-zero four five, David Duncan votes yes, Peter Nelson votes yes, Andrew Catona votes yes, and Jennifer Witt votes yes.

That variance is granted.

On case two zero two five dash DV1-047, David Duncan votes yes, Peter Nelson votes yes, Andrew Cotona votes yes, and Jennifer Witt votes yes.

That variance is granted.

And on case two zero two five-d v one-zero four eight, David Duncan votes yes, Peter Nelson votes yes, Andrew Cotona votes yes, and Jennifer Witt votes yes.

That variance is granted.

All right.

Well, the expedited ballots have passed.

So if anybody was just here from expedited case, you can feel free to exit at this time.

We'll let the uh room clear out a little bit.

And then we'll call the first case for the full hearing.

These are petitions for public hearing.

Case number 2025-UV1-009 property address 530 West Morris Street.

Wayne Township, Council District Number 17, zoned C3 TOD.

The petitioner is Adriano Montas, 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 parking spaces provided.

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

So I don't know what follows if you excuse me.

Could I uh I still need to swear you in?

I still need to swear you in.

So please raise your right hand.

Thank you.

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

Yes.

And then your name and address for the record, please.

My name is George Gonzalez, and my address is 4415 East Michigan Street, Indianapolis, Indiana.

Okay.

And you are requesting a continuance.

Well, we requested a continuance last last month because Mr.

Montez was not able to be here and again he failed to today.

He didn't inform me he he was not gonna be here.

So at this point, I don't know what could be the next step.

Well, would you want to I guess if he's the petitioner, but if you want to present his case, um you can you can move forward with that today, or we can continue or consider a continuance, or perhaps depending on staff's comments, um we may consider a withdrawal as well of this petition and it may have to be filed again.

Um again, we'll we'll get staff comments before we make a decision on that, but um just want to get your thoughts before we hear from staff.

Yes.

Well, um we have received a letter from one of the neighbors in the area, and he does not want to uh have this um business uh in this area because he thinks that we're gonna have a lot of cars and um the cars are gonna be old and rusty and so and also there's gonna be a lot of contamination according to his letter, but we wanted to let him um let him know that we are trying to um enhance this uh this project with only taking care of cars that are gonna be um kind of um new and and luxury cars because we we will um change tires and rims and stereos to sorry hold on one second yeah.

Um I are you are you are you comfortable?

Do you want to present this cases?

No, I I would say he's not here today, so um continues with if you grant to continues that'll be the best for us.

Go ahead.

Yeah, please.

Um can I just ask what what is your relation to um Adriano Montaz?

Is are are you his his representative?

What what's your capacity on the case?

Well, um yeah, I work for him and yes.

So you're an employee.

Yes, correct.

All right, thank you.

All right.

I g I guess at this point I'll ask staff.

It seems like the uh person here representing the petitioner.

Um thought the petitioner was gonna be here um and would prefer a continuance.

Staff, what how how do you feel about uh another continuance?

It looks like this has been continued a few times.

Um and have I guess have have we seen a situation like this where the petitioner hasn't shown up um in a case where the representative would prefer to continue this and how have we handled that in the past, I guess.

Thanks, Chairman Nelson and members of the board.

Uh staff would just want to first ask the petitioner directly if they have been in contact with the owner and if they have been able to confirm that November would work or if potentially they might need a continuance further out.

Have you been in contact with the with Mr.

Montaus?

Uh yes.

And and would November work if we were to continue to the November 4th date?

Correct.

Okay.

Uh staff's position with this would be that we could support it one more continuance, um, particularly since there's a remonstrator that has expressed interest and it doesn't sound like they are in attendance.

Um, but this would be the final continuant require request that staff would support.

And then I guess just for knowledge of everyone here.

What would at that point staff be recommending a withdrawal of the petition if it can't move forward in November?

Well, since staff wouldn't be supporting any further continuances, they would have the choice to withdraw to be subjected to the three-month refiling rule or the dismissal while for want of prosecution.

It would be up to however the petitioner chooses to move forward.

Okay.

Thank you.

Peter.

Yes.

Um you may want to check if there's anybody else in the audience on this petition.

Okay, thank you.

Yeah.

Um, I just wanted you to be aware um to relay that to Mr.

Montaz.

Um if we were to continue this.

But is is there anyone else in the audience with interest in this petition, 2025 UV 1009?

Okay.

Um I guess right now, uh, Mr.

Gonzalez, you are requesting a continuance to the November 4th hearing.

Yes.

All right.

And staff has mentioned they are comfortable with one more hearing.

Did you have a question?

Okay.

So, board, I will ask we have a request to continue position 2025 UV 1009 to the November 4th hearing.

Is there a motion?

Duncan, so moved.

Second.

Wit, second.

All right.

I will call for a vote.

Duncan.

Duncan, yes.

Katona, yes.

Wit.

Wait, yes.

And Nelson votes yes.

All right.

It will be on the November hearing.

Thank you so much.

Thanks.

Case number 2025-UV1-014 property address 6805 Rockville Road, Wayne Township, Council District No.

16, zoned D2.

The petitioner is Margarito Mendoza Galindo, represented by Tasha Roberts.

Variants of use and development standards of the consolidated zoning and subdivision ordinance to provide for outdoor and indoor storage of lawn care equipment, machinery and materials.

Not permitted.

And the installation of a six-foot-tall fence and electric gate within the front yard of Eleanor Street.

Maximum 42-inch fence height permitted.

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?

We do.

Good afternoon, Mr.

Chairperson and the board.

Again, my name is Tasha Roberts.

My office address is 118 North Delaware.

I am here on behalf of Mr.

Margarito Galindo, who is on my left.

Mr.

Galindo operates a small landscaping business.

He does not operate the business at the subject property.

The subject property is where one of his brothers and the brothers' family lives.

The subject property on Rockville Road is the road that connects Indianapolis to Avon.

So it's very busy.

Mr.

Galindo's property and 16 other properties in that area have been the subject of vehicle theft and auto parks theft from driveways.

That is the purpose of the fence that he has installed.

All equipment and materials for his business are located at 8501 Rockville Road.

All materials used and purchased for his business are purchased from Damon's Garden and Landscaping located at 4914 Rockville Road.

The office for his company is at 7501 Rockville Road.

So that is not necessary to have commercial equipment stored at the subject property.

The only commercial equipment that is actually at the subject property is the truck and trailer that his brother uses to go to work.

And Mr.

Galingo would argue that it is no different than an IMPD officer taking their vehicle that they use home or technician for Comcast or ATT driving their work vehicle home.

Mr.

Galindo has 11 grandchildren.

The subject property is used for family get togethers.

There's a vegetable garden.

He does not keep materials or anything related to his business besides his work, his brother's work truck and trailer for the sole purpose that he doesn't want the children playing on it, tearing up the equipment, risk hurting themselves.

For the fence in question, which we've provided photocopies of it, he spent $15,000 on that fence.

If that would be ordered to be torn down, it would be at another large expense.

The fence itself, I hope you would agree, beautifies the neighborhood and increases property values.

His vision for the property is to provide a safe space for his 11 grandchildren, store their toys, have get togethers and barbecues.

Moreover, we have learned that in that area there are registered child sex offenders in that area.

The fence is for privacy and protection of the children.

Now we know that the staffers have declined to approve this petition because they say the opacity of the fence is 30%.

That is to protect the children's privacy.

Also, the fence ensures that the children and their balls or toys don't go into other people's yards, or if the children's toys go out when the balls go into the street, they're protected.

It keeps everyone in that fence.

The fence also protects the children and people, the homeowner, from fast-moving vehicles.

I don't have children, but I know children when they're playing, they don't always think.

If they run outside that yard, a car is coming around the corner, they may not see that child.

The fence provides safety to the homeowner and to the children.

Although the staffers are not recommending approval for this petition.

The reason why there is a snow plow is during the winter, if there's a lot of snow, he has to dig himself out.

He also has that snow plow there because there's a neighbor behind him that has cancer.

He is homebound.

He has used that snow plow to also help that neighbor.

Mr.

Galindo did not intend to violate anything.

He, I mean, unless you're in this world, you don't know that you have to do variances and permits for anything.

We've provided statements of support.

We've provided pictures, and we're now going to call a couple of witnesses who live in the area.

The first person that we're going to call is Dana Wright.

Hi.

My name is Dana Wright.

I've lived in the neighborhood for 67 years.

It's been my home.

Could you sorry?

State your address for the record as well.

My address is 6814 Walton Street.

Thank you.

I also own 6816 Walton Street and 6711 Walton Street.

My parents had their own business for many years on Rockville Road, and my dad brought our TV truck home every day with Swinney's TV plastered all over the side of it and parked it in our driveway.

Later, I bought a house at 6711, and then we bought the house at 6814.

At that house, my husband had his own oil business, and we had a pickup truck that had right environmental all over the side of it, and he drove it home every day.

We didn't have our business there, but he brought his truck home.

That's what he drove.

As for the house that Galindo or Margarita purchased, I sold him that house.

I'm a real estate agent with Remax Advanced Realty.

That house has been vacant for probably 25 years, and I knew the people, she was my son's elementary kindergarten teacher, Mrs.

Munch.

We all loved her.

And her mother lived there, and her mother actually Mrs.

Munch passed away first, the grant the daughter, and then Mrs.

Munch passed away, leaving the home to two brothers, and it went through a process.

So it hadn't been fixed up in many, many years.

I have actual the actual pictures of the listing and how disgusting and unlivable the home was.

They had an issue with a brother that we couldn't get the house sold.

She had tried with another real estate agent.

He didn't do the due diligence of going through the title work and having that house cleared prior to putting it on the market.

I did.

I had um Mrs.

Munch, who was the wife to one of the brothers, contact an attorney, and they we worked through the process of getting the house released from Medicaid, uh the nursing home.

It had over $300,000 worth of liens against it.

House wasn't worth that much.

I think I sold it for $145,000.

And he didn't pay me, the seller paid me to sell it.

And he started from the moment he took over that house, he started beautifying that house, and that was the entrance to where I live in this neighborhood.

It was one of the biggest eyesores around.

We watched him as he redid the house, and we really enjoyed watching his vision come to life.

He had parties there.

His birthday party was a little bit of a disaster for some of us because his music was a little too loud.

Um I spoke with him, we haven't had that since.

We don't do that anymore.

He's very easy.

We just ask him, it gets done.

I have some pictures of other houses that enter our neighborhood from high school road from Rockville Road that have these same fences.

Some of them are also six foot tall.

One is an IMPD officer who's who's let me just say his yard is atrocious, his fence is disgusting, and the garbage he has piled up outside his garage is something these ladies should be working on because they are all about staying within compliance of city ordinance.

And to me, that's something that we should all worry about.

Rodents, rats, raccoons, varmits, we got them all.

And uh it cost me about 40,000 at my house at 6711 because the raccoons decided to make the gutter system or the soffit system a racetrack.

And we had to literally tear that house almost down to redo it.

So my thing is if all these other houses have these fences and they don't look even half as beautiful as his does.

Why are we here?

And as for whether he's bringing equipment in or stirring mulch or staring rock or concrete or whatever is supposedly said he's doing, I go by his house every day.

I can see inside his fence from my house, and there's none of that.

And he even like made it so the neighbor behind him wasn't boxed in by the fence.

He opened it up so the neighbor would have the view of the his beautiful yard that he's put in.

Um if anything, I would like to worry about the things in our neighborhood within one block distance of my house, one block square distance.

There are six cars with unplated unplated cars.

If that's what these ladies are about, I would so be behind them and help them with this.

But some of this stuff is just ridiculous and a waste of your time.

Thank you.

The next person I'd like to call is Teresa Torres.

Good afternoon.

My name is Teresa Torres.

Do you need my address or anything?

673 Rockville Road.

And uh just like Dana was saying, uh, since Mr.

Galindo has been there, it has been amazing the transformation at that corner of Rockville and Eleanor.

We live right across that right across from uh Margarito.

We face to his house on the side, right?

The front yard, I wish I had one like his there.

It's beautiful, it's well kept, and they have only been really good neighbors.

My voice cracks a little bit because there has been robberies in our neighborhood.

And one of the times I was alone, my husband was out of town, and I was alone at night, and I woke up, and you know, the the cars outside, they had all the doors open, and it was awful.

I I was very scared.

The first people that showed up was Mr.

Galindo's family to check on me to know if everything was okay.

Not only did they do that, but they hired a 24-hour guard to keep an eye on all of us.

And of course, I felt so much relief at night, knowing there's a human being there, checking on us, a guard.

Those are very altruistic ways of being in my vocabulary.

So I'm very grateful for him.

And exactly before that, I I feel a lot of respect for the people that lived there before and the situations they were going through.

Nevertheless, it wasn't, it was a really eyesore.

The house was awful, and as Dana mentioned, it was embarrassing for relatives or people to come over and were like, oh, don't look over there because the the way the house left.

The fence that now Mr.

Margarito put up is gorgeous.

It is beautiful.

I have relatives come and same thing, say, oh my god, that fence is so beautiful.

Why don't you put up one like that?

But we can't afford it, right?

So anyway, it's beautiful.

It is it has helped the neighborhood, if anything, as well as the front yard, and they are kind people, they are cooperative.

It is we get along great.

I think most of us in the neighborhood, we we say hello or when you see each other, but Mr.

Galindo stands out with his kindness, and I see nothing against either the fence or anything else that he does in the business.

It it's not at all intrusive or obstructive, none of the above.

You know, it's like, yeah, it cars don't even come in and out.

It's only when they leave to work and when they come home from work, which is what we all do.

Bring our cars in and take our cars out.

There's uh a chiropractic office, a block away.

I go to that chiropractic, so I like them too, but they have cars in and out all day, every 15 minutes, because they have 30 minute appointments.

So there's a lot of movement over there.

I I don't think any planes are for them.

I I still go there.

It's it's like the other day we were mentioning Margarito and I.

It's like this is a working neighborhood, and people work, and it's not offices there, it's not their place of work, but we go in and out, and and and the people that have trucks.

Well, my husband might speak next, and he counted how many houses have all these other commercial vehicles, like we say it's it's it's a working neighborhood, the the people who live there.

I don't know anything else to add, but my opinion is keep the fence, and we love the the property.

Thank you.

We'd like to call Douglas Sharp, please.

Good afternoon.

My name is Douglas Sharp, and I live at 67 33 Rockville Road.

Um I bought my home in 2015, and uh it was a hoarder's home.

And so it was uh my house was a complete and the property was a complete disaster.

I've spent the last 10 years improving the house and improving the property so that uh time time for the petitioner comments has expired, so apologies it's in the middle of the middle of your comments, but um we do have to move on at this point.

Okay, well, in in the within a two-block radius of Mr.

Margarito Galino's house, I counted 17 homes that had commercial vehicles parked in their driveways.

I counted 24 homes.

Okay, thanks.

We're we're we actually are gonna move on at this point.

There is going to be time for petitioner rebuttal up to five minutes after staff comments.

So at this point, we do need to move on to remonstrator comments.

Um so remonstrance, anybody speaking in opposition.

Uh you will also have up to a total of 15 minutes for your comments, and then we will move to staff.

Thank you.

Um I am Karen Farmer, and before I start, I would like um everyone in the audience that is opposition to this petition to please stand.

As as you're able, I should say.

Thank you.

Could you also please state your address for the records?

Yes, I live at 6520 Rockville Road.

Our registered name is Rockville Road, High School Road, Girls School Road Neighborhood Association.

Our association covers a wide area, north and south of Rockville Road, and our boundary to the east is I-465 and west to the railroad underpass on Rockville Road.

We were established in 1973, and our area is a stable, well maintained neighborhood.

RHGNA addresses every zoning or variance petition that is within our boundaries.

Today we are asking that city ordinances be upheld regarding today's petition.

This is a petition that is asking for a six-foot fence, which is not permitted, and indoor and outdoor storage of lawn care equipment and materials not permitted in a residential area.

6805 Rockville Road is a single family residence.

Most recently, a new large detached garage slash barn was built on the property.

However, the property already had a very large detached garage.

Why would someone need so much outside and inside storage space for multiple pieces of equipment for a single family residence?

We know that Mr.

Glindo is the owner of Glindo Brothers Landscaping, which has been in business for 18 years according to their website.

Their office, according to the website, is 6501 Rockville Road.

So we began to wonder if this property was going to be used in Mr.

Glindo's landscape business.

The high fence is out of character with the character of the neighborhood.

And also creates a negative, unwelcoming and unfriendly vibe in the neighborhood.

And we are asking for denial of this petition.

A person requests a variance when they believe their circumstances, circumstance is exceptional or extraordinary.

I believe neither one of these in this case.

Convenience to store his equipment and materials at his property.

As was stated, this there is no prop, no materials or equipment there yet.

That's the reason for the variance.

How many other people seeking variances would like to be approved because it's just more convenient.

Now it's rather obvious, I think, that equipment and materials is not just going to sit there in the yard.

Onto Eleanor Street and onto job sites.

It's a very narrow street in an area where kids bike on the side streets and people walk their dogs.

Trucks out in the morning and back in the evening is not conducive to safety for our families.

Coming and going from the property with equipment is not safe for anyone using Eleanor Street.

Mr.

Galindo's equipment and materials must be stored off site at a commercial lot or a commercial building, but not in a residential neighborhood.

Granting this petition granting this exception for one person could very well set a precedent for the residences in our neighborhood who likewise might file a petition for a security fence or outside storage of equipment and materials.

If approved, a precedent will be set, which will bring more and more similar petitions.

We are also very concerned in the future because the variance stays with the property, at which time Mr.

Galindo does not live there.

And we don't know what kind of care he'll take care of his property or her property.

This is not a place where an exception should be given.

Very old, 1999.

The staff report today lists many petitions in our history, but this one was not listed.

This was a petition for a variance of development standards of the dwelling district's zoning ordinance to legally establish a six-foot tall fence in the front yard of 7040 Rockville Road.

The petition was denied, and the six-foot fence was cut back to 42 inches shortly thereafter by the homeowner.

The owner did not move or replace the fence.

Oh, wait, if we have time.

How much time's left, Marty?

Six minutes.

I'll be brief.

My name is Anna Pay, and I live at the corner of uh Jackson and Eleanor, which is a side street that we all use.

I'm at 6810 Jackson.

I just want to give you a little historical perspective on what we're looking at here.

And I track this all for the RHGNA.

So 2015 it came to our attention that there was a landscape business by Mr.

Galindo at uh 6501 Rockville, and we started working with the city because we do not approve of that, and nor does the city.

So this went on and on, and Galindo ignored us and fighted us, fought us at every corner, and then finally in 2022, it looks like there was a violation V1021 00897, and he you know they quit parking fleets of trucks there and quit putting uh landscape material in the backyard and piles of mulch and things like that.

So we thought we thought that was a done deal, so it wasn't.

And then they bought a home in our neighborhood at 7207 Jackson, and that is a home that um I believe that is actually owned by the Galindo brothers.

The other two are owned by their um company, I believe.

So, anyhow, they have employees living there, and they have a pickup truck they park there every night, and their old fleet uses 6501 Rockville Road as their corporate office.

Now we don't personally, we don't like that because it's a residential area, but they still use 6501 on their website and everything.

They use that number as their the uh state secretary of state, they have it listed.

Angie's list, they have it listed everywhere it's listed, they use that home address 6501.

So then the Jackson Street, and now this came up.

Now, our concern, one of our many concerns, but one of important concern is if he's allowed to this exception, he could use this exception to step back on the other two houses, and then we would have three landscaping houses in the neighborhood, and we really don't want that.

So I would ask or wonder why doesn't Mr.

Galindo get a commercial building and put a landscaping service in there.

I have a friend that does that.

I mean, they they have a regular you know office, they park a fleet of trucks, nobody sees it.

I mean, that's what he should be doing, and as far as like using this as a residence, 6805.

I was just up there last night, and there were two of his flatbed trailers coming in there, picking up and delivering things out of there.

It's not they're running a business out there, and we would request that he remove that big um building he put in there because he said on the permit that that was for residential use only.

I don't think it's ever been for that.

I think it's only ever been used for a commercial.

And by the way, as I drove by there today, there has been like an eight-foot tall pile of logs in that backyard with a tarp over them for two or three weeks now.

So this isn't something any residents needs or wants, and that's why we are asking you to enforce the city's rules.

Thank you.

Hi, my name is Carol Barker.

I live at 6334 Walton Street, and I am the treasurer of the RHGNA.

Uh we've heard a lot of testimony, and uh I agree with all of Dr.

uh Mr.

Galindo's respondents that it is a beautiful piece of property.

It actually is.

He's done a wonderful job remodeling the house, upping the yard.

My concern is not so much with Mr.

Galindo.

I do have an issue with his attorney trying to convince you that it's for grandchildren, that that's an awfully big building for grandchildren, and there's typically six or seven cars parked on the west side of the property on the house.

Most grandchildren that are playing with toys do not have cars that they drive.

So I'm I'm kind of at odds with the attorney.

However, my concern isn't so much with today.

As the planner has stated that this variance would basically turn that piece of property with all the qualifications of a C5 industrial zone, commercial zone, which I reviewed the zoning viol, the zoning paperwork yesterday.

That means that as this, if you're going to allow this, then that turns it into a C5, which means you can have a used car lot.

You could have a strip club, you could have a lot of undesirable neighborhood things.

So I would ask that you deny, based on the fact that the variance goes with the property.

I know I have lived there 36 years.

I love the neighborhood.

I love all these neighbors.

They're great.

My concern is not with Mr.

Galindo, and not with his landscape business.

It's with what holes this opens up for the next person.

Thank you.

All right.

Okay.

All right.

Um let's let's move on to staff comments, please.

Thank you, Chairperson Nelson.

I just provided the board secretary a copy of the plan of operation that was submitted to the file.

This was not included.

This staff report, that's why you're getting a paper copy.

Um I would also point out that the petitioner indicated they would only be storing a truck and trailer on site, but she also mentioned a snow plow.

I don't know if that's a commercial snowplow, but if that's the case, then staff would maybe recommend that the petition be amended to remove outdoor indoor storage of lawn carry equipment, machinery, and materials, and possibly just allow for the storage of his truck and trailer as was indicated.

But I'll leave that for the petitioner to decide if they want to do that, because as we stand, we still have the request before us that has not been amended.

With that in mind, the comprehensive plan does recommend suburban neighborhood uses for the subject site.

Suburban neighborhood uses are primarily residential and low-scale C1 office uses.

The proposed outdoor storage and indoor storage, along care equipment, machinery materials would be uh use permitted in the C5 district, which is a general commercial zoning district.

This would be similar to car lots, this would be similar to gas stations, this would be similar to other high traffic commercial areas, also areas that have large outdoor operations for uh commercial sales, outdoor display, and major merchandise as well.

Previously commercial contracts were not contractors were not allowed in the C5 district, they were allowed in C7, but recently that ordinance was amended to allow them in the C5.

Um staff does find that the types of those uses uh tend to be outdoor functions, brightly lit, noisy, and are considered as large traffic generators generators because they generally have uh large volume sales or large operations that increase a larger amount of traffic.

The comprehensive plan recommends that uses that are permitted in C5 should be located at select heavy commercial thoroughfares and should be avoid locating adjacent to protected districts.

This whole south side of Rockville Road is a protected district.

It is a D2 district.

Um there have been other requests for commercial variances along here.

If you see in the staff report, uh petition history, majority of them have been denied.

There was one C1 rezoning.

Um this corridor being solidly residential.

Uh the comprehensive plan has never recommended the incursion of commercial uses into this area.

As I indicated, the subject side is zone D2, and the purpose of that is to put pretty much to provide residential uses in a suburban area.

Um it is the lowest density of residential that the comprehensive general land use plan recommends.

Staff believes this is a significant increase in intensity between the two um the uh actual C5 use and the D2 zoning district.

Uh based on what they had originally planned on storing outside or had requested.

We do believe that this would open the door for commercial creep along the Rockville Road corridor.

Uh additional commercial um contractors or vendors or our uses would come in and allow for incremental commercial uses to start buying up these residential properties and the and encroaching into the solidly residential neighborhood.

The strict applications of the terms of this ordinance does not constitute a practical difficulty for the property since the property is zone D2 and can could be used by any number of uses permitted in the D2 zoning district, such as single family dwellings, which is what the adjoining property owners are in fact doing without variances.

Subject size is similar to those that nearby properties that are able to comply with the zoning ordinance.

In regards to the fence height, development standards for the consolidated zoning district permits a maximum fence height of 42 inches within the front yard.

This is in the metro context, so both Rockville Road and Elinor, I believe, uh the side street are considered front yard frontages.

So both the Rockville and the side road uh are required, have a maximum limit of 42 inches for an opaque fence.

A chain link fence can have 48 inches, but since the fence installed is opaque, that would be limited to 42 inches or three and a half feet.

The reason for the height measurements requirements are to limit bulk, uh, create consistent density and intensity, and to keep the environment at a human scale in the primarily in a residential neighborhood.

The regulation limits the number of walls or abnormal tall structures that can be built to ensure neighborhood compatibility and prevent unreasonable blockage of sight lines and sunlight.

If this is permitted, hypothetically, the the dwelling across the street could also have a six-foot fence as well, and you're looking down a channelized corridor with uh limited sight lines and visit visibility to some extent.

There's nothing keeping the property from having a three and a half foot fence, which would be permitted by the ordinance and would not require a variance.

The need for the six and a half foot fence is primarily in staff's opinion, although would be for the security of the proposed uh commercial use, as other properties are able to have uh zoning compliant fences for the protection of their grandkids, children, and vehicles as well without the need for a six-foot fence in a front yard.

Therefore, staff does recommend denial of this request as noticed, and be happy to answer any question the board may have thank you.

Um I do have a couple questions.

My first one the plan of operations list two addresses, six five zero one Marockville Road, and then it references employees and storage units at 7501 Rockville Road.

The approximate address of the subject property is 6805 Rockville Road.

So my question is do is the intent that this plan of operations is for the subject property, or is it a different property?

That would probably be a question for the petitioner because um they have not indicated that any approval would be subject to that.

That was submitted with the file.

Um I will point out 6501 is zone D2 as well.

Uh it is about three blocks to the east in the same stretch of Rockville Road.

Um but um for this property.

I So let me ask clarifying question then.

If it is a petitioner's intent that this plan of operations is for this subject property that's at issue today, does the request sufficiently cover everything that they're proposing to be done at this property in this plan of operations?

The request was written due to the submittal of that, so I would believe it would, yes.

Okay.

Um another question.

Uh the I just this is a clarifying question, but if the electric gate were reduced to 42 inches, the permitted height, would it would an electric gate be permitted or is that not permitted in the front yard?

Uh and to clarify, this is a side yard gate considered the front because of the location, right?

Yeah.

So there's two front yards.

I don't believe there's a restriction on the electric gate.

I'll let Mr.

Honeo confirm that.

I think the restriction is just on the 40 exceeding the 42-inch height of the gate, but I'll let Mr.

Honeyo confirm that if that's the case.

All right.

So an electrified gate in terms of electrification moving the component itself is not prohibited by the ordinance.

The electrified fencing language is related to touching and being shocked.

Yeah.

I just want to, yeah, okay.

And then um I wanted to ask and just clarify one point that one of the remonstrators raised, which was if this variance petition is granted today, then any use within the C5 designation can occur on this property.

And I I don't think that's the case, but I want to make sure that that's your understanding as well.

No, this variance does not allow all C5 use.

The intent of the staff report referencing C5 is that the request is allowed in the C5 district.

The variance, if granted, would only be for the specific request, either as noticed or if in or amended.

Okay.

And now it would not allow the others uh uses of similar intensity.

Thank you.

I have two quick questions.

One, this is not an electrified in in the case of I'm going to be shocked if I touch it gate.

Just want to be clear, clear.

Okay.

Wanted to make sure.

And then two, um, is there the option to separate these two things?

Because one is allowing a business variance, and one is allowing a fence variance.

Is there the ability to separate the two?

Because I think there are two things, right?

One is a fence, um, which I think somebody here noted there are other similar height fences in the area, and but the other is running a business.

So there's kind of there's two issues here.

It's but it's all together correct.

Two variants requests, yes.

Uh whether the fence is for the business or the residents is has not been clarified.

Uh the fact that there are other fences in the area, um, they could be non-conforming, they could be, but you know that it's and I say that in that I drive down the street every day, I live around the corner.

So I have no clue if they're conforming, non-conforming, or about to get drawn up on petitions.

So I just want to be clear that like it's come to us as one petition.

It currently is one petition.

Any other questions from the board at this time?

All right, we can go back to the petitioner for rebuttal comments.

Uh anyone anyone speaking uh can have a total uh the petitioner rebuttal is a total of five minutes.

So to address some of the concerns uh by the board, if there is a way that Mr.

Calendal can provide the commitment that if the property is ever sold that the variants would not transfer, he's willing to do that.

Now, the the reason why there was a plan of operation provided is because he was asked.

Now, admittedly, he when he bought property, he put it all in his business name.

He never met with a lawyer, but this property is for the benefit of his family.

He intends to, after discussing with me, to put it in the family trust.

This has nothing to do with the business.

As for again, the plan of operation, all materials are stored at 8501 Rockville Road.

So in that plan of operations, that's a typo.

The office is at 7501.

I'm sorry, 6501.

I apologize.

I apologize.

And um whatever we need to do, so just allow us to have his truck that his brother drives and the trailer, we're willing to do that.

The RNGA and Mr.

Galingo have three goals: safety for people driving up and down the road, visibility of for traffic to be able to see, children in the neighborhood, beautifying the neighborhood, as well as increasing property values.

And I think Mr.

Galindo has done this with this property, and that's exactly what the RNG RHGA wants to do.

There's no difference.

Since we have time, we're gonna ask for two more witnesses to speak.

The first one, William Jackson, please.

Thank you.

I keep calling you Kelly, you know.

I I don't know how to say Margarita.

I think Margaret.

So my name is William Jackson.

I live at 44 South Eleanor Street.

I live directly behind in my fence line is right there.

And Kelly and Marguerito, tell me about why he was building the fence and and the challenges we had with uh break-ins, and there was a kid running around uh checking out some garages to uh break into.

And that's that's what he explained to me.

I wasn't bothered by the fence when he built the fence.

He explained to me, he didn't want to put a big old privacy fence.

I think our property line is 10 feet from that how the house.

I you know got to see him build this property from a beautiful piece of property and landscaping, and it's a shame people can't see it.

Um from what look like um I'm from the hood.

I'll call it a trap house.

Um I you know, I've been to the the meetings and I'm involved.

I've tried to work with them to try and get the my ditch fixed, which because the Cindy of City of Indianapolis got some really bad contractors to move the fiber optic cable from Rockville Road.

They totally destroyed the grading of the ditch.

So both of our properties flood really bad because the ditches don't work the way they should.

It's a shame because I'm sure Indianapolis spent quite a bit of money, but it's not about me.

I know there may be other people that are against our are on this crusade to you know keep him from storing work equipment there on his property, which a snowplow at your place of business would not make sense because you're gonna need it to get out of your house to help others who might be um snowed in.

Um I too work from home.

I have work equipment at my house, and I'm concerned that I'm gonna get reported for because I sit there and look at his back uh back uh yard there.

But I do have to stress the fact that um I get city ordinance.

The I didn't realize that the side lot was considered um the front yard as well.

I mean, that totally makes that make sense.

The the privacy fence itself doesn't come up past the back of his house.

And the other thing is there are others in this neighborhood that stand behind him and that aren't here thinking that he needs to stop storing or having a work truck on his property, or I I've never seen piles of mulch, and I have seen him out playing volleyball with his grandkids a lot more than I have seen him use this property for work, and a lot of the equipment stored on this property is to beautify the property itself, the mulch, the trucks, the trailers.

He's he needs he you the property cannot be used or maintained with um a push mower, like I take care of mine.

So I'm guessing that light means that's your time.

So thank you for listening.

Thank you.

Um so I I I do have a question.

It sounded like uh Miss Robert Hugh had addressed this, uh, but I want to confirm.

So this um plan of work here.

You you said it would not extend to this subject property at 6805 Rockville Road.

I just want to confirm that that is the case.

That is correct.

Okay.

So between comments that you had made in your initial um in your initial time and some of the staff comments.

I I I was a little confused um with this scope as well, that of the of the need and the request for the storage of all the equipment and materials.

Um so staff had made a comment that maybe that is reduced to um just the the truck and trailer used by the petitioner's brother.

So I just I just want to get some additional thoughts from you on that full request for the outdoor storage.

How much how much storage specifically of materials and machinery is needed, and then um just kind of wonder I think if that full request is fully needed.

Yeah, I think this is more of a quest for my clients.

Let me ask Margarita to step up.

Okay.

Good afternoon, everybody.

Actually, and this property we not uh sorry, name and address for the record.

Margarito Galindo, my address 6501 Rockville Road, Indianapolis.

My intention to this property is not a um bio any actually a uh materials, nothing.

I build my poor barn because I would like to use it for my family to kind of have a reunion over there, but we got a nice summer, so we use it out outside instead of inside.

So, but I have a trailer that we not use very much.

We use very little because I have a bunch of properties on it.

And my brother, he's the one who got more of the properties.

So I want to storage there.

He's long mowered.

What he used and his trailer and the truck he used.

My company, we got a pretty much 12 trucks, and we rent a property where we have a dose, and we never storage any material in the property either.

We just use it now for a parking lot.

That's it.

So that's all I ask him.

Just to have my privacy fans and have my uh truck that what my brother used, and he's trying, he's long mower.

He uses the lawnmower for the same property, and he helped some of my neighbors too, and he used that for my other properties.

That's all asking for okay.

That clarifies some things.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Um I may have like half another thought, but it's not formulated yet.

Um quite yet.

So go ahead.

Do we have pictures of these trucks?

Do we have pictures of the trucks?

Do we have to look like?

It's just a basic.

Um the truck that Bullmore, his brother, drives, is a basic Ford.

I don't know, 250 has the pickup truck, it has two doors and then a little cab that you can kind of slide in in the back.

And it has his the company's name on it.

Yeah, and and there's lawn equipment on the truck on the trailer that's pulled behind the truck.

Okay.

What about um there's a reference to a snowplow?

Is that we gonna put it out on uh we used to have an in a parking lot because we know how to pull barn that's why I'll be able to pull a barn to put it in sign so that way when the times come to use in the parking lot, because we got a big parking lot, it's that's a yeah, probably a driveway.

It's a circular driveway.

Okay.

All right.

So he's used of that right there.

And if we and all the neighbors use it or the other properties use it, we use it out of it too, but we're not used that like a commercial.

I I think what we're what you're hearing us kind of grasp with is that to grapple with is that as drafted the request is so broad that he could if this was granted, he could terminate his lease where he has a parking lot for his 12 vehicles and just start storing those here.

And he could then also start uh store piling landscaping materials.

When it doesn't sound like that's the intent.

And so I I think what we're looking for is a proposal on a commitment.

So you proposed one commitment, which is to limit it to the ownership of um the petitioner.

Um and and then I think we're looking for another commitment as to some specificity on the number of vehicles and and type of vehicles that will be stored.

I I don't think we need like a model number of the truck, but just like a general description so that we have some specificity to tie this to.

Okay, we can do that.

Okay.

Is there anything else?

I don't I don't think so at this time.

Um but go ahead.

Hi, Jennifer again.

Um it was mentioned you okay.

You own several properties, they look lovely.

Thank you, Google Earth.

Um, and as somebody in the neighborhood, I appreciate that you've taken great care of this property.

It was dilapidated as was mentioned.

Um, and I think our uh neighborhood association can agree we have several properties that could use more care.

Um I think the concern that I'm hearing from the neighborhood and some of the the written remonstrator letters that we were given is the concern that this will be taken advantage of.

That there's a history of perhaps more vehicles than the neighborhood would prefer, and that is zoned properly.

And so it's kind of one of those things if you're given this, how do we know that it's not going to take a whole lot more time to help hold compliance?

And so I think that's what I'm hearing.

Um the fence is beautiful.

I appreciate that you take care of your properties.

I appreciate that you employ our neighbors.

Um, but we also want to be very respectful of those other homeowners, and it is a difficult area, right?

36 is very busy, there's lots of traffic, there is a mix of homes and businesses, but I think what I'm hearing from our neighborhood partners is that they desperately want to hold on to our single family homes.

They want you to play with your grandkids in that area.

They want your um they want that home to have people in it.

And so um, I do see that you're taking wonderful care of the homes, but I think the concern is that this becomes um more of a a multi-business location, and I'm hearing kind of two things.

You're saying absolutely not, but that petition, as as my um fellow uh BCA members said, the petition is very wide open, and so I think we need to narrow that very directly if um there's any hope of support of it, because it sounds like the neighborhood has struggled with trying to rein this in for a while.

Well, we are more than willing to amend the petition and provide the commitments as necessary.

I I guess I Robert, I I have a question for staff, which is does it make sense for to ask them to amend the request right now, or do we want to do it via commitment?

What would be staff's preference if they're open to that?

Make sure I heard you correctly.

You're asking what staff's preference is.

Yes.

Um the staff recommends the board votes on the petition as what what the evidence in front of you is now.

If the petition is denied, they can come back in three months, refile and with a more solidified um petition at that point.

If it's granted, the board could um make that grant subject to specific commitments uh based on their determination.

Thank you.

May I say one more thing?

If he amends the petition, that's expensive.

I'm not being paid for this because this is my first variance, so it's not costing him anything.

He's paid the $15,000 for the fence.

The economy is not in the best.

He's got 11 grandchildren.

I don't have one child, but I know that's expensive.

So if he can just provide the commitments, that's what we prefer, if that's applicable.

I'd like to do two things.

I'd like us to ask our remonstrators, and I know we're putting you on the spot, so you can be like, absolutely not, not talking about that.

Um, but some understanding if you would be okay with a commitment, and then also um if we split the fence and this business type, the two things.

If if there's any feelings from our remonstrator group, um, I know you guys are well skilled at this.

I am not, so I think I think with with Jennifer's comments, we can go ahead and go to the remonstrator rebuttal.

Um you you guys do have five minutes total um for your um closing statements and rebuttal.

Um so if you could address Jennifer's comments in in that time frame as well, um we may have some additional questions, but um we'll go ahead and put the your your time on the clock and we can get going with that period.

So thanks.

Okay, thank you.

Um the question you ask um the staff person um about whether to vote on this today or not.

I am support of voting on this today.

They can come back in three months and have their commitments in line and ready to go.

Um and we can take another look at it.

But what they're asking for is lawn care equipment.

So we're talking about the mowers and all of the lawn care equipment, all the digging uh equipment that you have to have to do the landscaping work.

It's a big business he has.

It's a big business.

Uh has machinery and the materials on the stockpiles of materials in the yard.

Um we don't want to see that.

It's not for a residential neighborhood.

Um also it opens the door for any I I know other landscapers uh businesses who um in our in our R H DNA area, two or three of them, and they store all their material off site.

Now, when they hear about this, well, hey, they've uh some of them live on about three quarters of an acre.

So they've got a lot of space.

They can come back and say, hey, what what we heard about this.

We want to start storing our material and all of our equipment on our property too.

So it's it'll it'll be never ending.

But um, I will say that the ordinances have been set in place because they're deemed to be um worthy and responsible, and the people that drew them up, I'm sure spent hours making sure they were good ordinances, and all we ask is that people in our neighborhood follow the ordinances.

Um but when one person does not want to follow the ordinance, yes, they have that opportunity then to apply for a variance.

Uh however, I do believe that if you apply for a variance, it's you must show some really extraordinary circumstances why that variance should be granted to you and why you can't meet the requirements of the ordinance.

In this case, I think um requiring requiring cutting of the fence down to the legal size is not a hardship.

And keeping your equipment in your commercial property that you already have for storage, uh does not place an extraordinary hardship on the petitioner.

And so we do ask that you um act today and deny the petition.

Thank you.

Was there anyone else speaking in opposition during the closing?

Pete Peter.

Um I I would like to get some clarification on any commitment regarding vehicles.

So it sounds like they're they park one truck in one trailer.

Um so, and if you go with uh Jennifer's suggestion of maybe splitting the vote and having part A be the fence and part B being the balance of the request, then or either way you want to do it.

Um the commitment would attach to whichever you know it wouldn't attach to the fence part portion of it, be the other uh portion of it.

Um the commitment would attach to whichever you know it wouldn't attach to the fence part portion of it be the other uh portion of it and um for for the gentleman in the audience that was hoping to speak that time for for uh testimony has expired.

Thank you.

Thank you.

How much how much time is left for two?

Okay.

Just a comment about the fence.

Um it's a very nice fence, but um it also is it's not in keeping with the character that you see in neighborhoods.

Um it's 250 feet long.

And what is attractive to homeowners and people looking to live in our neighborhood is kind of the openness and the friendliness and um the invitingness of a neighborhood and I don't the fences that we're responded to over here, these are fences that are in the middle of other lots.

That are on the bordering streets.

Six fences.

We we've we've heard uh petitioner comments.

Can we please leave these for rebuttal comments?

But um so we if you do split the vote, we still believe that the fence should be cut down.

Thank you.

Thank you.

All right.

I'm just putting them, please.

Last thing to be clear, all Mr.

Galindo wants to store is his truck and his trailer and the snow plow.

If he can't store a snow plow, he'll give that up.

But all he wants is his truck and his trailer.

That's it.

Okay.

And so can I phrase this as just a commitment so that we all can consider it with the vote?

But the commitments as I understand them are number one to limit the requested the request to his period of ownership, and then two, with respect to the use, limit to one work truck, one trailer, uh the lawn care equipment located on such trailer and the snow plow.

Yes.

Okay, thank you.

And that lawn, I'm sorry, and the lawn equipment on that trailer is for maintenance of that yard.

So thank you.

I I mean, I I think we we have to, because that was part of their original request, so that's why I wanted to clarify that.

Could we get a uh length of determination on the trailer?

Because a 20-foot trailer is one thing, a 32-foot trailer is another thing.

So um I think the commitment should be specific to a Ford 250 or similar.

Obviously, Chevl Chevy makes similar, not just a work truck, as that is vague language, not just a trailer, but a specific length of a trailer.

It is a Ford F 250 truck and a 14-foot trailer.

Okay.

Thank you everyone for your comments.

Um I have over the we are finished with comments and questions at this time.

I think we're just gonna take a vote.

Um so we're gonna move forward.

Um, so per request of our board member Jennifer, we're going to split this vote.

So petition 2025 UB 1014-A.

And I'm just gonna go in order here of how they're written.

That is for the providing the outdoor storage equipment, etc.

This will come with the commitments of the variants ending with the property sale or transfer.

Um, so um this variance will expire with property trailer sand transfer, excuse me.

Um beyond from you know, a public trust to from the business to his public trust.

That that was stated he was going to do that.

Um so any anything after that.

Um the variants will end, and then the use requirement of the truck no larger than the Ford F-250 style truck, uh trailer that is no longer than 14 feet equipment that would fit on said 14-foot trailer and the snow plow.

Um, and then petition 2025 UV 1014 B will be the installation of the six-foot-tall fence with the electric gate alongside Elinor Street with that variance.

Um with that variance.

So, board, please go ahead and make your additional ballot and cast your vote for those two at this time.

On case 2025-UV1-014A, this pertains to the outdoor storage portion of the variance request.

Jennifer Witt votes no.

David Duncan votes no.

Peter Nelson votes yes, and Andrew Catona votes yes.

That portion is indecisive and will be continued to the November 4th hearing.

And on case 2025-UV1-014B, this pertains to the fence portion of the variance request.

Jennifer Witt votes yes.

David Duncan votes yes.

Peter Nelson votes yes, and Andrew Cotona votes yes.

That variance is granted.

Case number two zero two five-UV1-016, property address 9743 Indian Creek Road South.

Franklin Township, Council District Number 25, zoned DA.

The petitioners are David and Margaret Sisk, represented by David A.

Rutherford.

Variants of use and development standards of the consolidated zoning and subdivision ordinance to provide for the operation of a lawnmower repair business with accessory outdoor storage and operations, not permitted.

Accessory structures within a two-foot western side yard setback and a two-foot rear yard setback.

15-foot side and rear yard setbacks required.

And a rear deck resulting in an open space of 82.5%, minimum 85% required.

And one portable sign with an area of six square feet, not permitted per filed plan of operation.

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

And he got into we believe some political discussion on the local chat group and upset someone, so they turned him in.

So he's been there for decades doing this without creating any problems, but it's a lesson about talking about politics is uh not always a great idea.

Um so we we took a look at the violation cases.

He solved most of the all the easy ones, which was stuff like sticks piled in one spot, so he cleaned all that stuff.

But when we got done, we had a use issue, and we also had a setback issue with some of the existing little storage buildings that don't have foundations that he uses in that area to keep stuff indoors.

And then he's got a two by three sign that sets out front so people know that he sharpens blades and does lawn repair seasonally.

So those required variances.

So that's what the case is about.

Again, nothing is proposed to change uh at all.

Uh the pat the packet that I've given you, I'll just kind of go through those uh briefly.

There's a a site plan that kind of lays it out.

We've got a little defined operations area that's in the backyard, and so it's got I think there's three small buildings and a little lean to area there.

And he's got a little outdoor concrete pad that has a lift on it, so he can pick up the mower to work on it, and it's in behind these buildings, but it is it is in that area, and that's the only area that's allowed to have any sort of activity uh related to this at all.

Um and if you'll notice though, these existing buildings, the pads there, the buildings were set up, and they are pretty close to the property line.

There is a budding building on the neighbor's property that's very close to the property line as well, as is there's one behind him.

These are older homes that's been there a long time.

Um and then he's also got a a wood deck that has been on the house for quite a while, but he was in the process of repairing that and putting some uh railings on to replace the rotting railings that was on it, and that's what was going on when the inspector showed up.

So he got cited for that deck, and since it was originally constructed, the rules have changed for the open space.

So I think we're within two percentage points of the open space on that.

I think it's 83 if I remember correctly, and we're supposed to be at 85.

And just remember, 85 is based on a three-acre DA zone lot.

This is less than a half an acre, so this is one of these old DA zone lots that is not possible that we really could comply, but he's really close.

He's within a couple of percentage points for that particular development standards.

So we did some pretty unusual things in this.

Uh I let my client go talk to his neighbors.

And so you'll see there's a plan of operation here that describes this, makes it limited personally to him.

Um he's got to reside on site.

It talks about the you know, he's the only employee, um, can't grow.

This is the area that's got to stay.

He's responsible for cleaning it up, no trash, any of that kind of stuff.

And then we uh let him go talk to his neighbors about that.

And I'm not sure if it's it's not in this packet, but there's some stuff that was filed that's got a map that shows the I don't know if staff's got access to that map that I filed.

Do you have that any close at all?

I know the gentleman back here is off there.

No, there's a there's a neighborhood map.

Well, if it's not in there, it shows that he talked to his neighbors.

There's no one here opposed.

Almost everyone around him.

There's one exception, I think, that was not in the abutting properties.

I think we got 14 names on the petition that has a drawing that shows these neighbors are actually in support of it.

Again, that's where a lot of these people that showed up last time were that same group of people.

Um we also went to the Franklin Township Civic League, which is a great resource for vetting these cases, giving neighbors an opportunity to hear what it's about, ask questions.

Um they listened.

There were a couple of people that had questions, we answered those questions, but there's been support through this entire process.

It's actually been pretty extraordinary in my experience in Franklin Township.

It's easy to get people upset and afraid, but it's really hard to get them to step out and support.

So we have the support of the Franklin Township Civic League, subject to this plan of operation and this site plan.

We have the support of both the counselors.

This is right in an area that's uh I'm sorry, the the one this was particular case is just has the uh Brian Mowray who I met with and and he is very much in support of this.

He recognizes what Mr.

Sisk is doing.

Um the last exhibit in your packet is the thing.

I'm I keep getting these two cases confused, so I apologize for that.

But there is a uh petition there that shows all the people that signed in support, and they have seen the site plan, they have seen the plan of operation.

These are informed support.

So that I think that's really important and actually fairly extraordinary in my experience.

And then ahead of that, this is the drawing I'm talking about right here.

We it was in there.

So it shows the cross-hasted areas, his subject site is in the middle.

It shows all the locations of the people that are around him that are on this on this thing.

There's some vacant properties around, and some properties have been sold in the area, and they couldn't find the new owners, but this is this is his neighbors.

So from our perspective, there's no one opposed uh since the hearing.

He people found out it got continued, thought maybe that he was really up against it.

So there's been another half a dozen or so emails that we've sent on to staff that's been added to the pile and support.

So again, this is one of those cases where I we understand where staff is coming from.

This is an unusual set of facts.

They would always prefer, I think, to solve a use variance with a zoning.

Zoning doesn't fit here.

This is not a long-term thing.

He's not going to live another 80 years, not that I have can tell anyway.

So this is something that he will continue to do as long as he's physically able.

And quite honestly, with the loss of allied appliances in Watermaker, there is no one out here doing this kind of work, and we really need somebody to do it.

And he's he's managed to do it in a way that is not upsetting his neighbors and uh and he does a great job on it too.

So with that said, we'd be happy to answer any questions that you might have and uh would ask you to approve the case subject to the plan of operation with uh with the commitments that are in there.

Thank you.

Board, any questions for the petitioner?

Anyone speaking in opposition to this case here today?

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

Sure.

Uh thank you very much, Chairperson Nelson and members of the board for your time.

Uh thank you to Mr.

Referford for his comments as well.

Always does a professional job.

Um our staff is recommending denial of this variance to allow for what is classified by our ordinance as a heavy commercial or industrial use within residential area, but it's also within two feet of neighbor property lines to the west and to the south with minimal buffering existing.

This property is zoned DA, which is the dwelling agricultural district.

This is smaller than a typical DA, though, as noted by the petitioner.

It's only about one third of an acre when three acres is the current minimum.

Uh within Franklin Township, but properties in approved of a single family residence, as well as four accessory buildings clustered in the southwest portion of the site.

Uh the size of those buildings range from around 80 square feet to around 192 square feet.

Uh three of them were built in the 90s, and the fourth one was placed a bit more recently in 2012.

Um each of those are below the size of requiring improvement location permits or permanent foundations, but they would still be required to meet setback requirements.

Uh, there's a wooden deck on the side that's also partially constructed off the south of the house, uh, was partially constructed as of April 2025, and it sounds like it may have been replacing one that had been there previously.

Uh there appears to be a chain link fence along the southern property line, um, and there does not appear to be any buffering placed by the petitioner along the western property line.

Um violation case VIO 25-003756 was opened on April 25th uh per anonymous complaint.

There were three tickets submitted to the mayor's action center in total.

Uh one was prior to the violation, and then two of them came on the same day afterwards.

It's possible those are even likely those were the same individual.

Um it's impossible for us as a staff to verify since they were filed anonymously.

But um, they resulted in the violation, citing multiple things.

Uh the lawmower repair business with accessory outdoor storage being chief among them.

Uh the outdoor items listed included lawn mowers, vehicle parts like tires and batteries, an unlicensed trailer, and miscellaneous items such as tarps and plywood.

Uh that full violation text, and some photos are available within the exhibits of staff's report.

There was also the deck under rear yard of the primary residence being partially built without a permit, as well as the portable sign being mentioned.

That's the six square foot.

Um our ordinance does indicate allowance for six square foot yard signs, and this sign is that size, but it doesn't appear that this sign is temporary in nature, and it also appears to be bearing a commercial message instead of something a little more personal or political.

So the inspector cited it and called it a portable sign.

I believe there's two shown in the exhibits, but this variance would allow for one if I recall correctly from the plan of operation.

So, as mentioned, the variance would be for continuing operation of the lawmore business per the plan of operation with that sign.

Uh deficient setbacks to legally establish those smaller accessory structures with two feet to decide and read when 15 would be the typical requirement, which is an 85% reduction in the minimum, as well as for the completion of the deck.

Um, those setbacks are fine, but it plus the house plus those four accessories would result in 82% open space.

Um anything within that violation that's not addressed by this request or a plan of operation would need to be removed or fixed regardless.

And it sounds like they've made some progress in that regard already.

Um as mentioned a property zoned DA and within the suburban neighborhood typology from the comprehensive plan.

Both of those are residential designations.

Uh DA is the lowest density designation that we have.

Suburban neighborhood does contemplate densities for a bit higher, but in either case, uh no residential zones or typologies contemplate contractor uses or outdoor storage and operations within close proximity to homes or residences.

Um per to plan of operation, it would be just the owner-occupant working from 8 a.m.

to 6 30 p.m.

Uh the plan mentions sharpening, minor welding, and repair of engines, both indoor and outdoor per within the hashed area shown on that site plan distributed by the petitioner and within the exhibits.

Um all that work will be done in the area on the southwest corner of the site near properties to the west and south, except for pickups and drop-offs, which would be made from the existing residential driveway.

Uh per an email sent by the petitioner would be around six to eight mowers being worked on in any given point in time.

Uh section eight of that operation plan discusses noise levels and mentions that mentions will be left running that idle except for short periods of time as necessary and with a max of ten continuous minutes.

Um if approved staff foresees potential for some difficulty in enforcement, it could result from the way this is phrased.

Um be difficult to cite for violation unless the activity happened to be occurring at the time of the visit.

This isn't too inferred.

But just that ensuring compliance for outdoor noise complaints could prove difficult if approved as written.

Um there are so excuse me.

There are also rules separating residential uses and um heavy outdoor commercial industrial operations.

And these are a long-standing part of our ordinance, even part of the initial rationales for zoning in general to keep development of different intensities separate and to minimize negative externalities for neighbors.

Um even in areas zoned appropriately where this sort of use would be allowed outdoor.

Uh, there are ordinance rules for required transitional yard setbacks and for buffering landscaping.

Uh those aren't met here.

Uh is two feet away from the property lines with just a chain link fence that appears to be less than six feet in height.

Um landscaping requirements for this sort of thing might be a six-foot fence with landscape buffer, um, either trees or head or shrubs at a height of six feet, and depending on which commercial industrial zone it is, the typical setback would range anywhere from twenty to a hundred and fifty feet of separation.

Um the whole staff isn't opposed to bottom water repair businesses in general, but we don't feel that this is a low appropriate location.

Um it seems like you're had some impacts that already bothered someone, um, whether it's an adjacent neighbor or someone who was involved in an online debate is not something that we'd be able to verify.

Uh, but staff does not feel that an undue hardship has been established to prevent alternative use of this property, which would be you know compliant residential development.

Um with regards to the variance of development standards, this is a substandard DA lot.

So there are some instances in which you know something could be had for small reductions in open space or in setback.

Uh the site has fairly drastic reductions of both side and rear setbacks for buildings that are not on permanent foundations, which seems like they might be a little bit easier to move or to adjust.

And those buildings also are related to the unpermitted commercial use.

Uh similarly for the open space variants, I was only needed to allow for the deck, home, and for those structures that are part of the unpermitted use.

So uh given that context, we are recommending denial.

Uh I would be happy to answer any questions that the board might have.

Board, any questions for staff?

Hearing none, uh let's go back to the petitioner.

Five minutes for rebuttal closing comments.

Thank you.

Um this is an unusual area in Indianapolis.

These houses have been there a long time, and um with the time they were built, there was farm operations going on around there that this area actually behind it has a fairly new IPL IPL substation.

There's an active railroad line around there, so it's not really a truly uh a great residential neighborhood, I guess, for for oh, they're not we would not be tolerant about this.

But um one of the things I always try to do in these cases is if the impacted property owners know what they're getting and it's limited to that.

Um I think it makes it easier to argue that that this is okay, that we're not we're not putting something new here that's going to impact them.

It's not gonna what we've done in the way of these um efforts to put some limits on the noise and that stuff.

It's really his worst case scenarios of what's going on right now, just to make sure they know that he's not going to make it any different than what they're already just fine with.

Um again, one of the people who is here is the lady who lives directly south and in that vein.

There are some people here that are here to support.

Would you care to stand and show that you're in support?

Or they can't stand, but they're gonna raise their hand.

There's two ladies back there.

Yes, thank you.

And the lady to the to this side is the property owner to the south.

Um so I think that makes it a little easier when uh we've been really open with it.

They've had some experience with it, and they're just not concerned about the about this thing working because it's so small, and again, it's just seasonal, and they know who's doing it.

Um I think that one of the good things about this little small area back there is it is right behind the house.

So you have to look for it from the road.

You have to really have to make an effort to see it because it's in this area that's right behind the house and it's back through a couple couple hundred feet off the road, so it's not it's not something that's obviously visible.

Um so I guess with that said, I understand where staff's coming from on these kind of cases.

They got an ordinance to defend and and the ordinance, that's why we're here for variance, is that we have a situation where without this variance, we lose this business.

This is a part-time seasonal kind of thing.

If he can't do it in this particular location, then he's done.

So we're just asking.

That's the hardship is the township wants it, that's why you got all this support, and he's been a good neighbor in proven that.

So we would ask for your support.

I have a question.

Sure.

Um, would the petitioner be willing to accept a commitment that the use for the um outdoor storage and operations be limited to his period of ownership?

It I think it already says that.

I'm pretty sure it's limited, yeah.

Staff can confirm that.

It does say that it's just limited to him.

That's in the plan of operations.

Yes.

Chris, I mean, does having that in the plan of operations satisfy?

Because the commitments typically get recorded, right?

Right.

So we it would have to be something in recordable form.

Yeah.

Um you're familiar with our form.

So I think there are some things that have been discussed that are commitments that we we intended to put in the form of a commitment anyway.

So that's that's fine.

Can you identify those, Dave?

I guess Chris, could we say the variance is voting?

We're voting on the variance subject to the plan of operation.

Would that cover it?

Or is that just general since it was submitted?

I would note that the text of the request itself does specify per the file plan of operation at the very end.

Right.

I suppose we could have that be its own separate commitment as well, just so it could be placed on a recordable form.

But my understanding would be that the vote would be subject to the filed planets within within our documents here.

Yeah.

That somebody wants to have a secondary uh method of tracking, especially back in the days when the only way to find them was a you couldn't find them in a zoning search, so you that wasn't a real good record of what these variances were.

I don't have a problem with that.

But to me, when I look at this, the noise limits and this thing about making it personal to his period of ownership, those would be the things that might be appropriate for commitments, and we would be happy to do that if that would be the board's preference.

Or we can just rely on it being in the plan.

Yeah.

Um so as far as doing the subject to the plan, that basically reduces it to the petition as being conditioned on that plan.

And that that's that's a um that's different than a commitment.

Um there's statutory um definitions of what is a commitment and what needs to be done and particularly it has to be recorded to be enforced.

Um if it's just in the plan of operation, then you're relying on code enforcement.

Um identifying that he's not in compliance with the plan and uh you know initiating code enforcement action.

Yeah.

And an owner that buys takes title of the property without actual notice of the plan of operation isn't bound by the commitment because it's not recorded against the property.

Yeah.

So I I think David, with that respect to that, at least that one commitment, I would like for that to be in recordable form.

And we can add the noise limits too, because I think if we're gonna do that, that should probably be in there too.

I think that people relied on that.

So we could add both the noise limit section and also the personal expiration, we're fine with that.

Thank you.

Could it be a commitment tied up to the full operation plan, like attached to exhibit A and to that recorded document?

I just at a whole thing.

I don't think we want to record the entire plan of operation.

I I would understand a pushback from a petitioner on that.

Yeah, that that was that would start an avalanche of a whole different process here.

I don't think we want to go down.

Okay.

Okay.

Okay.

So to get it said and out there, commitments are um as listed in the plan of operation, the noise limits, uh, the limits on the noise, um, so those requirements, and then the commitment to limit the variance to the time frame of the current ownership of the property.

The the variance of use to the time frame of the current ownership.

Yes, thank you.

Um so board considering those commitments, um, please go ahead and cast your ballot for petition 2025 UV 1016.

On case 2025-UV1-016, Jennifer Witt votes yes, David Duncan votes yes, Peter Nelson votes yes, and Andrew Catona votes yes.

The variance is granted.

All right, I think we're going to take a quick recess.

Uh five minutes or until everyone's back, I guess, but shoot for five minutes, please.

All right.

Let's uh let's go ahead and resume the meeting.

Looks like pretty much everybody's here, so we'll get rolling again.

Case number 2025-UV1-017, property address 7323 East Hannah Avenue, Franklin Township, Council District number 20, zoned DA.

The petitioner is Hannah Haunted Acres Incorporated, represented by David A.

Rutherford.

Variants of use of the consolidated zoning and subdivision ordinance to provide for the operation of a seasonal indoor and outdoor commercial recreational use, including the sale of alcoholic beverages subject to the filed site uh filed plan of operation, not permitted.

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.

Good afternoon.

Me again.

Name is Dave Rutherford offices at 8801 Southeastern Avenue here in Indianapolis.

And I'm here on behalf of Scott Waterman and his family.

Um this is this is an interesting case.

I've been involved in this particular piece of property for uh a long time, and um Scott's family is owned this property since before I I even moved to the township.

So the the important thing to start with here is that this operation was approved in 2009 with a very detailed variance, very detailed plan of operation, very detailed set of commitments.

And the really good news is that during that intervening period, there have not been any incidents.

We've not had violation scenarios.

He has he is a great neighbor to the people around it.

He recognizes that there's some things going out there going on out there, some screams in the woods and occasionally fake chainsaws and stuff that could be a source of irritation to people if they didn't realize that this is this is probably one of the icons on this whole south side of Indianapolis, and in fact they're known throughout the state.

Um but the really interesting thing about this is they've managed to do this in a way that from the road um it still looks like a farm.

So they in fact I personally buy the hay off of their front fields or other parking lots for my cows.

So we really much appreciate the fact that it's still an operating farm.

And the only reason we're down here is not because we really got any problems.

He's looking at how do we transition to the next generation in his family because he's got some kids that are now getting to the adult ages that are very much involved in this.

This is a big operation.

They they employ seasonally over a hundred people in this operation.

And again, I I'm not uh I don't want you to think it's so big that it can't be managed as site, but I mean the FFA conventions when they're in town, they send a group of people out there.

It's one of the highlights of their whole trip.

They do an excellent job of this.

He's involved in some national organizations that that plan these so he stays up to date.

Um I've worked with him as he's gotten various haunts from other organizations.

They trade them around the country to keep it fresh.

I mean, he really does this well.

Um but when it's not being used for that, it's still an operating farm.

And I say that only because I really think that's staff's biggest issue on this, is that staff would like to see us zone this special use for an outdoor operation because with the additional hours that have been proposed, additional days basically that have been proposed for some satellite kind of the scenarios like a Krampus thing, which is a Christmas haunted.

I don't actually know who wants to do that, but apparently there's people that do that.

Um the same thing they have a haunted Valentine's Day.

I think that's just a really bad idea, but they there's there are people doing that all over the place, and so a day or two, that's all that is.

It's just a little thing that gives them a way to kind of use the event.

It it makes it for lack of a better um way to say it, there's a lot of the indoor haunt stuff, they don't take those down, so they're still real easy to operate a couple other days a year, a few other weekends a year.

And it also allows the org the thing to generate enough revenue that they don't have to give up and make a subdivision out of it.

And in Franklin Township, that's a big deal.

There are there all the farmers, all the ag operations out there.

We've gotten to the point where this ground is worth so much, and the temperature of the community for putting up with big pieces of farm equipment going down their roads and the mess that it creates and the spring and stuff like that has just gotten to the point where they turns I think there's only two or three of us left.

We have a this cattle farm that we keep out there.

There's only a few of us left that even try to do that.

But the people who have been here for a while, nothing wrong with a good subdivision, but they really think they're happening way too fast for us.

So anything they can do as a community to encourage this sort of creative use of a farm.

Um it's kind of the same scenario.

They have another business that's a paintball operation that is a farm most of the time, but they have a section of it that is where they do some paintball operations, and it allows them to continue to farm on the rest of it, still maintain an ag lifestyle and still have that, some open areas in the township.

And so I think that's one of the reasons that people have been pretty cooperative with this.

Um, not to mention the fact that when somebody calls him with an issue that he responds, whether it's a light scenario or dust, he gets people out there and solves it in the dust scenarios.

They really only have four maybe really busy weekends a year.

The rest of it is just kind of weak stuff, um, and some of the the extra things he's tried to add here.

They're just there's gonna be much smaller crowds.

So those weekends in October, he was telling me he has not gotten much sleep lately because it's October.

So the weekends in October, those three-day weekends, those are the primary operations.

And that's when he's also most sensitive to the neighbors.

So there is a set of very detailed variance conditions that would actually be commitments at this phase because that rule has changed since we did those.

So they're all that last several pages of variance conditions, those will be recorded as commitments.

And they're 90% identical to the ones that were already approved.

We've just modified them to accommodate the changes in the operation to add like this, these haunted elements for the the Krampus thing.

And he wants to do a he gets some families that come out there that want to do things for the smaller children.

Well, not all of that is they don't need to be seeing like people sawing bodies in a half, even if it's not real.

So they do things like a like a trail, a little pumpkin trail that has some little haunted things, something fun, something, but not something to scare the kids.

So that part of the family has something to do, maybe why the teenagers are going in and getting themselves scared half to death.

Same thing for Christmas.

They want to have a small little Christmas trail in that same area.

They would set that up with some uh solar power, some other power there, be able to do some stuff, nothing major.

And so we've described all that in detail in here about the kind of stuff that could be done on this property.

Um, I'll also tell you that as the properties around this were zoned, um, we were able to negotiate with the developers that this is disclosed in the declarations on these projects.

There's three subdivisions that are that are fairly close to this.

Umly two have developed so far.

Those are disclosed to the neighbors that this is going on.

It was their first.

So that there's not anybody that can move in there and be surprised, assuming they read their declaration, and we all know that sometimes people don't do all that, but it's a it's it is I've read two of them, and it's disclosed in the first part of the document that this is an existing use, and it's seasonal, and the documents about this are available for them to educate themselves that there's problems.

And we really truly have not had problems.

I mean, he's buffered it well, he's been a considerate neighbor.

Um a lot of people around there work there, so they like the fact that their teenagers have something to do.

It's a safe place to work.

So the packet I've given you kind of I'm I'm I'm giving you the big picture, but the the packet I'm giving you, this again, there's nothing really different in this layout other than if you look at the top of it, this is Hannah.

So the front area that's up along Hannah, that's all still just hay fields and seasonal parking.

That's all that's for.

So it and and nothing starts until you're halfway back on this 80-acre parcel.

And so then you've got this little area that's got some small buildings.

Um he's got a little area that's one of the things that is new here, is that he'd like to have a little entertainment venue in the middle of it to do skits and plays and stuff and have some seating associated with that.

Um we've actually he's actually been uh selling um alcohol there for several years, but the type of permit that he can get to do that is not doesn't really work the way he would like to do it.

He'd like to be able to create some VIP areas so he can control it better, keep it out of the parking lots better.

And so by doing that, he it takes a neck next step ABC license.

To do that in Indiana, you have to have an outdoor venue, outdoor seating area.

So we've put that in there.

Um we've committed that it will only be used max at the time that the haunted operations are going.

There's not going to be any separate concerts or anything else going on that.

He's doing it really truly just to just to um qualify, pursuit pursuant to the ABC attorney's um qualification or requirements so that he can actually try to get the next level alcohol beverage permit to be able to have some VIP areas that he can use bands and be able to control the alcohol use, which has not been a problem, but he'd like to be able to control that better.

There are lots of security on site.

Again, that's one of the reasons we don't have problems, so they patrol the parking lot, they have off-duty police officers that go through the grounds.

Um it's teenagers, it's young adults, so they're they can get bored in line and do dumb stuff.

So he's got enough.

I was a teenager once too.

I remember doing dumb stuff in line.

So it it's it's good to have people around that that can watch, and so he's got a lot of people that just do that and help him and keep keep good control of it, which is why we've not had any instance at all.

But you can see the area where we're talking about this kind of loop area to the left, the farm festival.

That's just where this would be around the perimeter of this field.

This actually is a farm to field, they have pumpkins out there, that's where they're raising.

So this would be around a perimeter of that.

Um the plan is again fairly straightforward.

I'm happy to we don't have enough time to go this through every line of this stuff, but basically the corn maze is already established, it works fantastic.

The the area that is the the haunted hay ride in the woods, that's already legally established.

And in fact, that's that's where it started.

That was the very first attraction he ever had out there.

So that that still goes well.

Um all the haunted stuff that we're talking about in the primary area.

We've not asked to increase the square footage of buildings at all.

We're just kind of reallocating them a little bit based on how it's turned out what he thinks he needs and what he doesn't need.

So like we we've got uh we've got this scenario for um I'm trying to think if we left that in there or not.

Yes, an indoor escape room type of attraction, and that is the only thing that is not subject to the limited days of operation, and he may not even build a thing, but he's he's got the right in the primary operations area to create an escape room attraction, 10,000 square foot max that that could be operated year year round if he if there was a market for that.

So that's the only thing that's not this seasonal.

And all this again was disclosed.

Um that's why we went to the Civic League.

They uh there were neighbors that showed up that had questions, time we got done answering them, talking to Scott about them, they were unanimous in their support.

That's why you have a letter of support there.

This is an unusual one where we have uh this property was always in Councilor Mowry's district until three years ago when it was redistricted.

So we have a letter of support from both Councillor Mowry and also the current counselor, which is counselor Hart.

Um that's kind of rare.

Uh we did have one neighbor that um came in and met with us, actually, two of them after the civic league meeting, and so we added some commitments to resolve their concerns.

There's a there's an email attached from the one that verifies that they're fine with it as well.

So you would think if I I have been doing this long enough to to know that if there were problems, these people would be here taking advantage of an opportunity to try to try to control us.

So that's not what we have here.

This is really something that uh we're proud of in Franklin Township, to be honest with you.

It's so unique.

Um, and what this family does is really appreciated out here.

But we also want to make sure people are comfortable with it.

So that's why we have all these variance conditions.

And the one that uh is probably the the most difficult one to enforce is the noise scenario.

So what we've done is we have our own meter.

So he goes over and measures it regularly to make sure we're in compliance, and the neighbors in that HOA next door, they also know that the way this is set up, if they got a problem, he meets them.

They go stand at the property line and they measure it and make sure that it's not an issue.

That's how you keep good relationships with neighbors.

So this would these would be recorded as variants commitments, not conditions.

Again, I talked about the letters uh support from two counselors.

I'm not sure I've ever had one that had two counselors involved, but they they both know what's going on here and they really appreciate it.

Um and the Civic League and then the uh the email.

So I I we had some issues from with staff from the beginning, um, and we worked through most of those, but I think the biggest issue is this they would like to see it zoned SU 43, and we don't.

We want it to stay AG so that he can still use the ag stuff up front.

And it doesn't open the door that there's anything else that could go on except specifically this use with these specific conditions.

And I guess if we were in a situation where we were starting new, then it might make sense.

But we've got this 2009 variance that we're really just tweaking.

That's what we're doing here, and we really don't think it makes sense to start over and deal with the whole new set of standards under SU 43 and redraft all that stuff when it's working fine.

And it means that anything else that goes on there is either gonna require a public notice and a variance, or we got to rezone it.

And that's that we talked about that in front of the civic league, and they would strongly prefer that this stay zone DA with this setup as opposed to zoning it.

So that's we're and that's I think that's why we're here today is a staff would prefer we rezon at special use, and we don't want to do that.

So if you have any questions, please feel free to ask and ask for your support subject to the plan of operation and also these variants commitments.

I've got a peculiar question.

So back in I think you said 2009.

2009, yes.

Radio Shack was still a thing.

Exactly.

Um Radio Shack's no longer around, but the I still have.

But what happens when it if it stops working, and that's the identified model number of uh meter to be used for measuring compliance with the You know, I I I'm proud that you read all that.

Thank you.

That's speed reading.

But um I think we could modify that if you want to to say or substantially similar.

The technology from that is actually phones.

Yeah.

Now because that's so we we could we could modify that to say or similar sound measuring device.

I think that would make sense.

Thank you.

Okay.

I I have a question.

So you sold all your stock and radio shack?

Sorry.

Um so a couple things.

One, um, I saw the name Waterman.

Is this also related to the waterman pumpkin patchy?

You also have family stall involved in that awesome.

Thank you.

I like that one.

This one has chainsaws, but this one I'm not allowed to go to.

Nightmare.

I I went with my daughter.

Well familiar.

Lots of third graders.

Um but on the Hannah 100 acres side, um, it looks like you have quite a bit of support.

I'm a little confused.

Um what I don't see here, I saw like for conventions you'll have maybe events, but I didn't see anything for like weddings.

Is that not in the purview of what you're asking for?

I don't want a spooky wedding.

But I thought if you're asking for convention things, I just want to make sure that you've covered your basis.

Um is that something that would be excluded from this?

I don't know that he's ever done that.

That would be probably not a lot of money.

Nobody wants to deal with a bride.

That's fine.

I've gotten some requests for, but you have to be slowing.

Okay.

Okay, so you're really looking at convention events and then your seasonality.

Yeah, okay.

So that I guess we think there's no and then if we have the we'll probably fit it in on the off season thing that if the wedding were to happen, I think we could fit in that.

And then my other question was with this um idea that you need to have an ABC, you have to have the liquor license, you have to have some kind of venue on site to help control that.

Um I don't I don't quite understand that.

So uh well, it it's the level of the level of license that you can get.

And uh honestly, if I I have to care if I'm on the record here.

I don't I don't know that he's got any big plans for that venue, but it has to exist.

And so he's got people that are already in character in these haunt things that have some desire to do some theatrical things, so he's actually thinking that he would just have some them do a play or some sort of an act.

And it might be a good way to entertain some of the people in line, just have them pull them over here and sit there for part of that.

That's he's trying to figure out some way to get out of it.

It's not very fancy, but it's a good idea.

And I think it's seen some of that, and you see that at like new fields, like they have you big line, and there's like a seating area in the middle.

Okay, as I'm trying to make sure I understand.

All right, thank you.

It's a it's a cork in the ABC laws, to be honest with you.

I'm not sure why it makes sense, but that's that's what they tell us we gotta do.

So actually, sir, since you spoke, I think we need to get your name and address for the record.

I don't think we captured that.

Yeah, yes, yeah, come back.

Yes.

Yep.

Scott, we'll introduce yourself, just your name and your app street address.

Scott Wadron, 4726 Hiddle Drive.

Thank you.

Just wanted to make sure we captured that since you had some comments.

So I just wanted to make sure.

All right.

Um thank you.

And I think board, that's all the questions we had for now.

So um I'll make sure.

Is there anyone in the audience speaking in opposition to this petition?

Very echoe today.

Um, can we please go to staff comments then?

Absolutely.

Uh thank you very much, Chippers and Duncan, members of the board for your time once again.

Uh, thanks to petitioner once again for their comments.

Uh they're correct that we are recommending denial of this petition largely due to the scope of the expansion of this use.

Uh, we as a staff feel that a rezoning would be a more appropriate tool than a second use variance, but more than double the frequency of outdoor operations at this site.

Uh the positioner gave a pretty good rundown.

There is a lot of information here, but it's a side of approximately 78 acres improved with a single family home and various structures, improvements, and parking facilities, uh, both grass and temporary gravel that are associated with the seasonal indoor and outdoor haunted attraction known as Hannah Haunted Acres.

Um, does also function as a farm.

Um the applicant mentioned hay, corn, beans of a potential for lumber in the future as farm materials would be generated at the site.

Uh site is intersected by the big run creek.

Uh surrounding land uses include residential subdivisions as well as some undeveloped land to be south.

They're now seeking a second use variance related to the same user.

We'll have to think of it as a large modification of the operation plan and commitments.

So one thing to staff noted within these documents is that the outdoor nature that would be starting earlier and ending later at the site.

And it wouldn't be active every day in that span necessarily, either to be a certain number.

The total time of potential function would be around 55 days per staff's calculation.

The amended version would expand this fairly dramatically.

The applicant mentioned Christmas and Valentine's Day activities.

Per staff's calculation, there would be a potential for up to 108 total days of potential outdoor operation.

This would be also a higher ratio outside of that core season of September to early November from the older plan of operation as well.

Additionally, many of the evenings would be allowed to go later into the night as well compared to the 2009 plan with more evenings stretching into midnight, 1 a.m., 2 a.m., things of this nature.

Other changes to the site itself.

There is the outdoor trail area on the western portion of the site, mentioned for pumpkins, Christmas lights, things like that.

There would be a stage area within the primary operations, sort of rectangle there facing west away from the homes to the east.

A potential escape room attraction, 10,000 square feet in size.

No formal location has been set for that yet.

It looks like they have several alternatives listed on the site plan, one of which is within the stream protection corridor, so we would recommend they not use that one should this be approved.

But that would be functioning year-round and indoors.

There also is explicit confirmation to sale of alcohol would be permitted on site.

The previous 2009 variants had only referenced snack and beverage sales and service without explicitly clarifying whether the consumption of alcoholic beverages would or would not be included within that.

The site is zoned DA for agricultural use, as well as some dwelling.

Completion recommendation is for suburban neighborhood typology.

Large-scale places of assemblies are contemplated in certain instances along primary arterials, if there's pedestrian infrastructure near homes, if it's near transit or harmonious with the surrounding neighborhood.

Buffering and landscaping preservation to the east would also be required, as well as admin approval of development plans for new structures.

One small area of staff concerned, it was discussed a little bit by the petitioner was related to the alcohol consumption.

The plan, as it's written, does know if its sales would be limited to designated areas with eye identification checks.

We weren't certain if there were specified areas limiting the consumption of that as well.

Staff does think there probably should be precautions in place to limit the consumption areas.

You're thinking similar to something like a concert to reduce the risk of underage drinking, negative externalities of noise or driving while intoxicated, especially given that this use caters to teens or young adults.

If precautions like that would exist, that's good to hear.

Apologies for any miscommunication if that's the case.

However, the primary reason for our recommend recommendation of denial is that given the scope of this expansion, both in terms of the hours of operation of the overall days, and then the focus beyond just the Halloween season, that core area of September to early November.

Staff feels that this would be the primary use at the site and would move beyond just being a quote unquote seasonal use.

Seasonal doesn't have a formal definition within our ordinance, unfortunately, but it seems likely this would be considered the primary use of the site, both in terms of public perception and potentially in terms of revenues generated as well.

It's sort of state recognized across the state and across the country as a petitioner noted.

There is the SU 16 zoning district at special use 16, designated specifically for areas that allow for indoor and outdoor recreation as the primary use category.

Uh to staff, this seems to match the proposed land use and division better than a DA property with multiple use variances and the potential for future use variances or modifications down the road should the use seek to expand in the future.

Um in addition to being a better match for deposed nature and intensity of land use, uh the SU 16 zoning district would also allow for the existing residential agricultural and parking improvements to remain as legally nonconformant uses.

It would still require admin approval for any additions that were to be made to the site.

Um it could also be subject to commitments for rezoning similar to those established for the use variants.

Um also would likely allow for alcohol sales as contemplated by the applicants.

Uh you could even host spooky weddings fair potentially.

Um this wouldn't be a guarantee of staff's approval of that necessarily, but we would be supportive of a fee transfer of money already paid toward this use variance going toward that petition if the petitioner chose to go that route.

Um ultimately there doesn't appear to be any undue hardship preventing this site from functioning either with uses allowed by the DA district or within the parameters established by the 2009 variance approval, which already does allow for seasonal operation within those 55 days.

Uh the burden of proof for a use variance is a met, which is um part of staff's issue, uh reason petition wouldn't need to establish that undue hardship as um evidentiary standard.

There also would be you know fewer public hearings in the future for review for expansion, um reduce administrative burden in that regard as well.

Um staff feels it would be more appropriate to see it filed as a rezone.

Uh indicated the petition indicated they might have some openness to withdrawing the year-round escape room if it might make this use seem more seasonal.

Uh staff still feels it would be a hundred eight days of potential outdoor operations of relatively high intensity.

So you feel that a rezon to a district reflecting that would be optimal.

Not necessarily opposed to the use, but to this specific tool to intensify and further implement it.

Um with that, I'm happy to answer questions that you might have to do.

I do have one.

Um so I guess my question is did did staff review and provide meaningful comment on the zoning conditions.

And if if not, I I it's it was your review and comment similar to what it would have been had they gone with the special use uh petition instead of with the use variants.

I'm understanding the question correctly.

Did staff had substantial objection to the contents of the commitment?

Um none that came up during our initial discussion.

The primary focus of our proposition is um the tool being used to seek the um allowance.

Okay.

So if it went through the special use process, there would be a different review of the conditions that were proposed than what it's already already been undertaken.

Well, it would be up to commitments submitted by the applicant ultimately to an extent to be up to them.

We would review the commitments provided for our review and provide feedback from then.

I actually want to see similar protections to what existed with the 2009 use variants in place, but it would depend on what was filed.

All right, we'll go back to the petitioner.

Uh five minutes for your rebuttal and closing comments.

Thank you.

Um the 2009 variants stays in place, even if this is denied today.

So this is their one of their family businesses.

They do the paintball thing.

They also do the farmers or the Waterman's farm market and all the Christmas festival that goes on on another piece of ground.

So this is kind of what their family does.

So it's continue to operate it.

Um this is just kind of planning ahead for the future that they see after operating under this particular variance with these particular conditions since 2009.

There's some things that they would like to tweak because they've gotten customers that said, hey, we would we would do a few more days here.

Um it's kind of weather dependent stuff.

So we've added the opportunity for them to do that if the if the market is there.

Just because we've got the possibility of being open on those days, doesn't mean that we will.

I don't think he uses the maximum amount that he had under the O9 variants.

He's just got a window there that possibly he could use if the if the market um justifies that.

Um the other thing is that we're still under 30 percent of the days of the year that there could be any operations on there that's tied to this.

And the farming is still runs from the middle of March to the first of November.

So it is still the primary activity.

The parking lots, there's a small area that's got some regrind on it backed by the primary operation.

The parking lot is all hay fields except for two uh regrind drives, that's all.

So it still very much looks like a farm.

Um we did offer if it made a difference that the skate room was not a uh make or break deal.

It may never get built, but he's got, he thinks that's a possibility that might something that would keep one of his kids or two kids busy if they wanted to do that.

And again, it's back in the operations area.

It's 1500 feet off the road.

It's not going to be visible in a way that would, and it and it is certainly not going to create the crowds that the primary haunted days do.

This is weird.

I just freely tell you this is a very unusual situation.

And I don't think I don't think staff really likes any part of it.

And I respect that, but it's here and it works, and people like it.

And we're trying to make this fit around an ordinance that's not really designed for something as weird as this.

And yes, it takes a lot of pages.

We did this in 09 as a test to see if this covered the issues that the neighbors had.

It it has, and he's complied with those, which is why we don't have people here.

We've tweaked these to kind of match this new plan, but all the protections are still in place.

In fact, we're even adding some more trees, because we had a neighbor that was concerned about the visibility.

So we're adding some more trees in the area that was kind of a gap before.

We're doing some light control in an area.

We're doing some more dust control.

Those are things that we've he's been responsive to since his case was filed.

So anything that we can come up with that gives the neighbors some assurance that if they have this problem that there's something in writing that they can go to that says, hey Scott, I'm gonna because they don't they they code to him first.

Hey Scott, it says here you're gonna do this.

Generally they don't even have to do that.

They just say, hey, I'm having a problem with the dust, and he sends the water wagon out there and they and they solve it.

So that's the way these things are supposed to work.

He knows this is unusual, though, so that's why he's been so diligent about keeping those relationships up.

And I'm I'm not sure what to do other than just to tell you that um I think we'd be in this same scenario, but we'd be starting totally over with a rezone.

And I don't I don't think that that's the right way to go with the situation that's just tweaking what already exists that has worked well.

We're not having the city coming out involved in enforcement scenarios, we're not having a violations, we're not having police runs, we're not having problems there.

And so this setup that we have works for him, it works for the neighbors.

Legally, it's worked fine, and we're just kind of trying to take it into the future based on what we've learned since 2009 is a way to continue to let this thing work without bugging the neighbors, and that is creating an opportunity for this to stay this kind of a use without it being a subdivision for the foreseeable future, because that is that was an important priority for the community.

Um by the way, he can't do weddings unless they're on a day that is already scheduled to operation.

And the idea of people knowing in advance that the wedding's scary, that's I'm not sure any of us know that at the time of year.

Can that be a commitment?

I joke.

It's a joke.

I'm not sure I'm supposed to joke, but it's funny.

It it it'll we were not allowed any other days for weddings outside of those normal operating days, just to be clear.

Um, and we did agree to change the commitment about the radio stack stack uh to it to something that's comparable.

Um again, all these hours were disclosed, all these changes were disclosed and discussed.

In detail, I send two page letters when I send this stuff out.

We told him what we were changing.

I actually sent a comparison that plant the existing commitments, existing plan of operation.

Here's what's highlighted that will change.

Do you have issues with any of those?

And we're good with it.

So I don't think we again I think we have fully informed neighbors about the changes and they're fine with it.

So I appreciate where staff's coming from.

This is just one that doesn't really fit within the rails.

So we asked for your approval.

Thanks.

All right, board.

Any final questions for anybody?

Hearing nothing, please cast your ballot for petition 2025 UV 1017.

On case 2025-UV1-017, Jennifer Witt votes yes, David Duncan votes yes, Peter Nelson votes yes, and Andrew Cotona votes yes.

Variance is granted.

Thank you very much.

Case number 2025-DV1-043 property addresses 2429 and 2431 North College Avenue, Center Township, Council District Number 8, zoned D8.

The petitioner is RE development group incorporated, represented by John Cross.

Variants of development standards of the consolidated zoning and subdivision ordinance to provide for the construction of a four-car detached garage on each lot with three foot side yard setbacks, five foot setbacks required.

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.

Good afternoon, members of the board.

Attorney John Cross, my address is 13 North State Street, suite 241, Greenfield, Indiana, representing the petitioner, the redevelopment group LLC, who's here by Representative Josh Dubach here today.

The petitioner redevelopment group, they uh own both of these vacant lots, and they plan to uh develop and construct the improvements themselves with uh higher end two unit multifamily dwellings on each of the lots uh that is shown on the site plan contained in the staff report.

To maximize the property value and use of each of them, uh uh each unit would have a two-car covered garage.

Uh so each lot itself would have a four-car covered garage on it, but to do so pursuant to best standards require that the uh side yard setback variances uh of three feet are needed on each side yard instead of the five foot requirement.

So the plans for both the lots are to have the same two-unit uh multifamily dwelling on it with the same looking garage in the rears as well.

Uh so the variance is for the set side yard setbacks for the uh four-car covered garage.

Uh the exhibits that have been provided.

Uh the first uh exhibit one, uh we provided two pictures, um, pages two and three of what the proposed uh garages would look like to show uh quality and appearance.

The second exhibit we provided uh is some general information um uh regarding the standard size garages.

Uh according to a lot of research I've done, and according to this factory sheet, the average or standard size garages are a minimum of 40 feet.

They go up to 44 feet, go up to 48 feet.

That's all dependent on uh lot size, vehicle size, owner preference, etc.

But 40 foot 40 feet is the minimum standard size for a four-car garage, and that is what the proposal is before you today.

So it's the shortest standard length being requested.

And in this area where the lots are located on exhibit three, which is page 16.

Uh it's also the area mapped in the staff report.

Uh just looking at kind of an overhead view of the properties around here.

It's not inconsistent for some of the properties, accessory dwellings to be closer to the uh property lines.

So it's not out of inconsistent with the area uh for the garages to be a little bit closer to the property lines by two feet than uh required.

The petitioners also uh submitted a written commitment, which is exhibit four, uh in order to minimize the impact of the variance uh that the variance would itself only apply to the actual garage structure.

We're not asking for any sort of variance with respect to the uh the main primary structure.

And the last uh exhibit exhibit five uh petition did obtain and provide six letters of support uh from owners in the area, uh, all in support of the project.

Um we are not aware of any remonstrance to this petition besides staff's opposition.

So uh really to provide uh spaces with uh parking spaces with adequate uh parking width.

The options here are either for what's being proposed, the four-car covered garage with a 40-foot width, um, or maybe some sort of hybrid of a three-car covered garage with a carport attached, or maybe just car ports in general without it being covered.

So again, the plan here is to maximize the use and the value of the of the property.

The four-car covered garage uh with the variance, uh, it'll provide a benefit to the to the property and the in the community as well.

Uh the garage compared to uh a hybrid option with the carport, uh, provides better security.

Um you can do more storage inside of it.

Uh so you're gonna have less you know chances of breakings or whatnot in the area along the alley.

Uh and four car spaces per lot to per unit is gonna help as well with uh not overcrowding college.

It's kind of a tight squeeze there already.

Uh there is some off-street parking in this strip of college that this is on around 24th street.

There's some areas north and south that have some off-street parking on the east side, some of it doesn't have, but regardless, college when you drive, it's a it's it's a busy, scary enough road to drive drive on as is, let alone to park on.

Um so a covered garage will provide the benefit of the safety and convenience for the for the owners who would be uh living at these properties.

Uh so there wouldn't be any sort of injurious impact here to the four car covered garages.

Uh with respect to the to the use of this property and the and the others in the surrounding area, uh again, it's a hybrid option with the car port.

Carports, you know, in general, maybe seen as a less attractive addition to a home, potentially deterring any sort of home buyers here.

So here the plan is to have uh a consistent feel uh in plan and the aesthetics to all of the lots and all of the individual units.

So to do that, we would need to have a two covered garage for each owner as opposed to one side having a two-car covered garage and the other side maybe having one car uh covered garage and the other one having a car port.

So we're trying to make this as uniform and aesthetically pleasing uh to the actual property owner and the surrounding areas is possible here.

So the car for the garage uh will increase property values of these properties in the area as a result of that.

Uh and this is a minimal deviation here that won't have any sort of negative impact on user value of the surrounding area.

And realistically, uh any owners of these units going forward once they're built and sold off.

I mean, they'll have two cars, they'll need a place to park them.

Uh the lots are 46 feet width, so they're adequate size to provide the uh two uh unit multifamily drilling already.

But in order to provide the modern size garage, that's the the least narrow standard size being 40 feet.

Uh the variance is needed to make that possible.

So again, on exhibit two, we've shown you that you know, standard standard car four-guard garages are typically 40 to 48 feet.

Uh those dimensions do vary um again based off of car sizes and the lot sizes.

Uh we did have um quick communications with with staff after filing, and staff did request if the plans could be downscaled to make a narrower garage or a different option.

Looking at the eight and a half foot uh parking space standard that's contained in the staff report.

The engineer who designed the project said that there's really no useful or practical way to create a more narrow garage that's gonna accommodate four cars to complement especially the higher end uh units that are that are going on here.

Um I mean I've got I I've always kind of had tight fitting garages that I've lived in.

I'd always be nicer to have a little bit more space on each side to open doors, kids' stuff on the side if you had that stores, but I've also lived when I haven't had a garage, and I'll take the garage any day over having no garage.

So uh to address staff's comments on the parking size.

Uh, while eight and a half feet might be enough for with for an open parking lot situation, the garages here.

I mean, we're talking about walls, interior storage, so that's not quite adequate or effective enough for the uh car doors to swing open.

Uh theoretically, it could be narrowed, but if you're gonna narrow it from 40 feet, you're really only going to be able to accommodate compact vehicles here.

So we're not trying to limit the you know, owners who only have small cars here.

We're trying to open it up to standard sized cars, uh, SUVs, trucks, and thing that future owners could have here.

So that's why the 40 feet is the best option.

That's kind of the most modern approach here that is being requested.

And uh the engineer also believes that you know typically parking lots uh are trying to design it nine feet, ten feet because eight and a half feet just in standard seems to be a little bit uh too narrow.

So with that, um our request is pretty straightforward, but we would be happy to answer any questions that there are any.

Thank you.

Is this gonna have a door for each car, or is it a double door for each?

It would be uh a double door for each on exhibit one pages two, three gave examples of what it would look like.

So I don't know that I saw that, but thank you very much.

Yes, my only question.

Any other questions from the board?

All right, is there anybody in the audience that is speaking in opposition to this petition?

Seeing none.

Uh staff comments, please.

Yeah, thank you.

Uh Chairperson Nelson members of the board.

I'll uh keep my comments uh brief.

Um this site is zone D8, uh, two two adjacent parcels, um, both approximately 46 feet in width, and uh as the petitioner noted, the lots are of sufficient lot width.

Um for the proposed duplexes.

Um and really staff's um tape just comes down to a few points.

The the first one being just that the lot is of sufficient width, uh both of them.

Um, the required amount of parking per unit is one.

Uh they're requesting two per unit.

But that aside, uh the standard width for residential spaces is eight and a half feet uh per space.

Uh times that by fours is 34 feet, so they actually still could provide four spaces on site and not need a variance uh for side setbacks.

Um they actually have two feet on top of that to play with, even for additional width for each space before variances would be needed.

So given that they're requesting more parking than is required, and the parking that they are uh proposing is wider than what is required.

Uh staff does not find there to be any practical difficulty for needing the variants, and therefore does not believe that they meet the statutory requirement for meeting the findings and does believe that a compliant four space garage or without a garage could exist on site without the needed variance and therefore does recommend denial.

Can't answer any questions that uh you might have board any questions for staff hearing none.

Uh we can go back to the petitioner for rebuttal and closing comments.

Hello, uh Josh Tubot 1017 East Michigan Street.

I'm with the redevelopment group and just wanted to briefly say we've been developing downtown for 25 years now, and um are pretty thoughtful about when we do infill projects.

We were trying to find the highest and best use for these, what we thought were wide lots.

Um most of what we see are 40 foot and narrower.

Um we also care a lot about affordable home ownership and doing it in a quality way.

So the duplex townhome configuration has been a really successful project idea for us in the past, and those two project uh garage examples, those were from 1617 and 1610, um, which are opposing duplexes across the street from one another on Alabama Street.

And just wanted to point out that yes, while the garages will look like that, those actually had one and a half feet deficient side setbacks that got approved.

And it was kind of auto-approved with that variance because it was in the IHPC controlled district, but we thought this was within keeping from other projects that we've done in the past around town.

Um definitely you feasibly could build a garage at that eight and a half foot width.

We have never done one in our company history.

The garage is a pretty important amenity in the downtown market, particularly with the detached nature of garages, the walkable alleys, um, getting your effects in a protected building is of the utmost importance, or people just won't be interested in purchasing that property.

And then additionally, if if you take care of a yard or have kids' bikes, you just don't have room for everything if you're parking two cars in a garage that narrow.

So fully appreciate staff's comments and would like to accommodate that if it was if it was just that easy.

But it's we just determined that we're not making the most marketable product, and and we also have been talking directly to the neighbors as well, and and they're supportive of the idea and understand the need.

So I just wanted to jump in and say that.

Thank you.

All right.

Um with that board, I'd say well, I guess do we have any questions before we vote?

All right, making sure.

All right, please go ahead and cast your ballot for petition 2025 DV1043.

On case 2025-DV1-043, Andrew Cotona votes no.

Peter Nelson votes no.

David Duncan votes no, and Jennifer Witt votes yes.

The variance is not granted.

Case number 2025-DV1-046, property address 201 Shelby Street, Center Township, Council District No.

18, zoned I3.

The petitioner is Progress House Incorporated, represented by James Lingenfelter.

Variants of development standards of the consolidated zoning and subdivision ordinance to provide for installation of a six-foot-tall chain-link fence within the front yard of Bates Street.

Maximum height of three and a half foot fences permitted in front transitional yards.

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.

Jim Lingenfelder from 525 Design Studio here in Indianapolis representing Progress House and Aspire, Indiana.

I'm here today in a position that I don't really like to be in.

I have a lot of respect for senior planner, Robert Ulinick, and uh we've had good discussion about this, but um this case is in an area that's evolving, and because it's evolving, it's uh caused my client a little bit of concern.

They've invested approximately four million dollars over the last five or six years in upgrading the facility ever since they took over from Progress House's uh not-for-profit board.

And the proper the progress that they've made has been tremendous.

Their recidivism rate has dropped, their completion rate has raised.

They currently have about 88 residents in their facility undergoing treatment.

It is a treatment facility for men in recovery, both uh alcohol and drug addiction, and it works to provide an a residential safe space for people that are undergoing this kind of a program.

Because of the uh success that Progress House has had, it's also led to other developments going on in the area, not directly because of Progress House, but in participation with Progress House.

And I think many of you are aware of what's going on with uh homeless development in the area, plus uh uh Inglewood group has developed a housing facility right near there.

And um the area is still a very heavily industrialized area, but it is changing, it is changing into uh what I think is an appropriate collection of treatment facilities to provide people the ability to go to one place and get a lot of different kinds of services.

And so it's going to be a continuum of care for people that are in various stages of homeless uh unhoused treat um rehabilitation treatment, uh lots of things that I think are good for our community.

And I live near that community, and it's been my uh contention that it should not be NIMBY because if it's not in my backyard, where should it be?

I I believe that we as citizens need to have facilities that help all of our citizens.

But that aside, what we're talking about today is a place that we can create a safe space for the people that are in recovery, who as I said, there are 88 men living in this facility.

We need to provide outdoor space that provides a safe space for people, a place where they can not be tempted by people cutting through the property, and as you'll see, uh provide a way to put provide containment and direction that creates a greater size of a safe space for the entire community, not just the people that are walking down the sidewalk.

I'd like to read a short statement from what my client has said that they would like to achieve for their residents.

In just a sec.

A controlled area for fresh air, meditation, and recreation is beneficial to the success of the treatment.

Also, while living in a treatment facility with approximately 80 other residents, this space allows for separation for residents while providing structure to support a treatment environment.

Keeping residents confined to the house or immediate lawn around the house would be too restrictive and provoke additional anxiety.

So the idea is that they want to provide a full environment for people to experience the their rehabilitation treatment.

And if you look on page 161 in your packet, the site plan that is showing the entire facility at 201 Shelby.

And then our outdoor area is just to the right on your plan.

So they could operate it as a group home without having to do it as a variance.

That created the situation that we're up against today that when a fence in an I3 area comes up to an abutting property of D8, it has to be 42 inches, not the six feet that would be allowed if that had remained as an I3 property.

So I may be back here if we're able to create this.

Providing them with a safe outdoor area is a way that we think provides a good way to reinforce that behavior and also to reinforce the behavior of the community that you don't interact randomly.

You come in through a controlled situation.

This is it's very important to the residents there.

As the neighborhood develops we think it's going to be more important to have that control because there will be more people coming to to the facilities.

So in in summary we would like to have safe space for our clients we'd like to reinforce the overall development of this compound if you will of services that will be being developed with the city aspire of Indiana and Progress House are working very closely with the people that are developing that property.

They're working with the clinics to provide services we think that overall we are an asset we've invested a lot of money in that and it's showing results.

So we think that this is part of a continuum of development and we ask for your approval despite the the staff's recommendation I just have a point of clarification you mentioned that there is um a space uh a community space going in for those who are experiencing um homelessness are are unhoused and that's a is that the one that's planned at a thousand east Georgia Street so directly across your parking lot is that the the future space for that yes okay I just want to make sure I understand the location of that thank you.

Yeah yeah the it looks like there's an alley between the building the south side of the building and the courtyard across is that alley vacated it is vacated I see that on the plat or the plan.

Yeah but do the adjacent property owners um so the the properties that are due east are due west of the D eight parcel do they still utilize that alley for access it looks like there's a couple cars there.

No they they do utilize it but it is part of it's not a public alley anymore it is totally vacated.

So is okay and we will not be fencing off that portion of the alley they will all access will still be maintained our fence will not go across the alley at that point it will go across the alley further into the east.

Further to the east yes but if they come out of their property the north end of their property they can't turn right down the alley they'll have to turn left to connect with Shelby Street right away.

They can't at this time at either okay that's all that area is all service courtyard for Progress House.

Our kitchen is in that area and so it isn't a public alley at all.

Okay thank you.

And then um I know you said you rent uh is that one uh 1110 um the Indianapolis mobile mechanics it looks like it's closed is that that property on the corner yes okay and is there future plans to acquire that as well as the house it it would be in our long range plan at a okay thank you and if you've um look at that neighborhood it is perma primarily an I3 district major fire across on Bates yeah I have uh what other question and you're you're asking for chain link at six foot um is there a reason you're not asking for more like a the decorative aluminum is that like price or just I'm sorry is there a reason for chain link versus some other material oh well chain link but it is uh not an opaque chain link the material cost it's the cost that we would be um concerned about plus um we're we're not sure exactly what long-term development might be um you know chain link feels like it's the least uh least objectionable and and it's very much what's used in the neighborhood down there right now see some wood and and that and and I I didn't know if like the uh aluminum we see a lot of aluminum like the straight lines but sometimes that's a you can sneak through it yeah okay horse chain link might be a little harder.

Um just to be sure, is there anyone here today speaking in opposition to this petition?

All right, didn't think so.

So uh let's get uh staff comments.

Um Chairmember Duncan, I will clarify that alley is vacant, thank vacated from the western edge of the outdoor space to the eastern edge, just not the entire length of the parcel.

Okay, which is not normal.

Normally the entire alley would be vacated, but in this instance it's just the width of those two parcels.

So the adjoining uh properties do have access to the alley, but they would either have to go left or right, depending on what side of that vacation they are.

Um regards to the six-foot fence in the front yard.

Um staff does recommend denial.

Unfortunately, the ordinance does not um dictate uh or allow for exceptions of a six-foot fence depending on how it's used.

As we've seen today, there's different uses for six-foot foot fence in a front yard.

Um it does indicate though that by instituting a six-foot fence, you're it's institute um uh uh a canyonized effect to the street.

Uh your your uh eliminated and open appearance along public right-of-ways.

Um staff did recommend denial on this because we felt this area is becoming more pedestrian-oriented.

Um maybe not exactly now, but with future development that is planned in the area that has already been approved that we're aware of.

Um, there are a few residential houses to the east, although they are zoned industrial.

But um for the most part, um if that house D eight house was not on the west side of the street, they would not be needing this variance.

That's the reason why, because the eight six-foot fence is not permitted in the transitional yard adjacent to that D eight zoning to the east, even if it was a residential uh uh building, but zoned I3 I4 with the variance, then they would not be here for that variance either.

So uh unfortunately staff does recommend denial um as we follow the the ordinance and the the criteria of the ordinance and making these decisions, staff will be able to answer any questions the board may have board.

Any questions for staff all right?

Hearing none, we'll go back to the petitioner uh for rebuttal and closing comments.

Uh the only thing I would like to say is I would thank Robert for his uh comments and the whole process.

We've worked on several projects together.

I've always found him very professional, and I appreciate his comments and hope for you to uh agree with us.

Thank you.

All right, one last board.

Any questions?

If not, let's go ahead and cast our ballots for petition 2025 DV106 on case 2025-DV1-046.

Andrew Catona votes yes, Peter Nelson votes yes, David Duncan votes yes, and Jennifer Witt votes yes.

Variance is granted.

Thank you very much.

Appreciate it.

All right, do we have any additional business to come before the board today?

All right, board, stick around for a minute, sign some findings of fact, otherwise this hearing is adjourned.