All right, good afternoon, everybody.

You can call this meeting to order.

This is a public hearing of the Metropolitan Board of Zoning Appeals, Division 1.

I am Peter Nelson, Chairperson of Division 1.

Other board members present are Jennifer Witt, Andrew Cotona, and David Duncan.

Legal Counsel for the Board today is Chris Steinmanz.

Staff members present today from the Division of Planning are Eddie O'Neill, current planning administrator.

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.

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

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

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

Remonstrators and persons appearing in opposition to the petition shall have a maximum of 15 minutes for the presentation of evidence statements and arguments in opposition to the petition.

Staff will then present the administrators' comments regarding the petition.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I will note there are currently four members present today.

It does require three votes to take action on any request, so we will take this into consideration when hearing requests for continuance.

If your petition receives an indecisive vote, your petition will be automatically continued to the December 2nd hearing.

Excuse me.

Board members, you have been provided meeting minutes for our September 2nd and October 7th hearing.

If anybody wants to see them, let me know.

I assume we all have.

Wit, so moved.

And a second.

Duncan second.

All right.

Motion and a second, call for a vote.

Duncan.

Duncan, yes.

Katona.

Katona, yes.

Wit.

Wit, yes.

And Nelson votes yes.

All right.

Is there anyone in the audience who has any questions about our procedures?

Seeing none.

I will uh skip our normal waiver for our rules of procedure for expedited petitions, because right now we don't have any.

If we end up getting one, maybe I'll uh revisit that.

But otherwise, at this time, let's please consider special requests and continuances.

Yeah, if I may, sir.

Yes, sir.

My name is Harry Hicks.

My address is 3040 South Kirchville Drive 46239 zip.

I am here asking for a variance without going through this hundreds of people I'm supposed to mail information to.

I paid the fee to get the variance, 600 bucks, whatever it was.

All I'm asking a variance for is a storage container, which I put on my property after a storm last spring, which blew down two trees.

One of them destroyed a quarter of my house, the other one destroyed my storage shed.

I didn't have enough money to rebuild this shed.

I could buy a storage 20-foot storage container for $2300.

Okay.

I bought one, set it on concrete, and checked with my neighbors, make sure that they didn't have a problem or anything.

It's painted to match the property, even has my address and stuff on the side of it in three-foot tall letters so that anyone coming down the street or anything can see it.

There is several other excuse me, Mr.

Hicks.

Yes.

The merits of your petition today.

We're here to hear uh your request, I believe, for a modification of the board's rules of procedure.

I don't know what I need to be asking for.

I'm just trying to explain why I'm here, sir.

Sir, do you do you have the uh petition number?

Can you confirm that?

It is the petition under the special requests section.

It's 2025 UV1019.

Okay, thank you.

I'm sorry, I didn't know.

No, you're fine.

So it looks like the request is modify the rules of procedure.

So what specifically is that modification request to those rules?

Um I guess I could ask staff to enlist some some help for clarity on our part.

Because it seems like you've yeah, I can speak to you.

Identified what you're what you're going here for, but yeah, if if staff could comment.

Yeah, thank you.

Um Chairman Nelson, members of the board.

So as I understand it, the petitioner is requesting to waive at least one of the rules under Article 4 section one B.

Uh which reads such notice shall also be sent in the same manner to each neighborhood organization whose boundaries include all or some part of the subject property as delineated upon the neighborhood organization map of the Department of Metropolitan Development.

Um the petitioner has indicated that he does not wish to mail notice to certain organizations on the surrounding property owner list.

Um I have that correct.

Pretty much, sir.

Uh I don't mind sending that out to my neighbors.

They're right there.

I've talked to them prior to even setting it.

I don't mind sending that out.

I'll pay to have those letters notarized and sent.

But to send out the 200 or so that I have here does not make a lot of sense on something that is not structurally going to affect the property.

It's setting on concrete, it's steel.

So he would be asking for a waiver for uh number eight under article four one B.

Um just that is just to clarify that is what the request is, I believe at the moment.

If there are any other rules that he might be waiving, I'd I'd lean on counsel for that, but I believe that's the one he'd be asking to be waived.

Okay, and I can comment on staff's position um whenever you're I will ask Mr.

Hicks.

Was is is that the is that the main waiver or or was there anything else that you were seeking?

Basically, I can't afford it.

Okay, understood.

Chris, um, I guess I'll ask you is is that as you understand the one item as you're reading this, is there anything else that we need to be aware of?

And then I'll go to staff comments.

No, just that one request regarding um sending the mailed notice to everybody on the list provided by DMD.

All right.

Thank you.

Um I I I guess before we do go to staff comments, I will ask is there anyone in the audience uh with interest in this petition 2025 EV 1019.

Just like to make sure if there's anyone here in support or um objection to your request.

So all right, seeing no one, um, yeah, we'll go to staff comments, please.

Yeah, thank you.

Um Chairman Nelson, members of the board.

Uh staff is not in support of the waiver request as stated for uh a few different reasons.

Uh firstly, um the rules of procedure are pretty clear on this point.

Um that notice needs to be sent out to all uh addresses on the list that's provided by DMD, and that includes countywide organizations, uh not just organizations that have a specific neighborhood footprint or area.

Um addition it in addition, it it's not really arbitrary nor up to the petitioner to decide if those organizations are relevant or not to the petition.

Um that's up to those orgs, those organizations to decide if they wish to comment or act uh upon receiving notice.

Um and then lastly, staff finds it to be pretty poor precedent to recommend approval of such waiver and fears that that could lead to future requests for other petitions uh requesting to not send notice to all of the organizations for whatever reason uh that might be.

Um so yeah, for for all those reasons, staff is is pretty firmly against the waiver request.

Thank you.

Excuse me, may I address that a moment?

Sorry, we had a question, but we'll come back to you.

Um so the petitioner mentioned I think he said 200 uh register organizations that appeared on his list.

Do you do you actually know how many um excluding the the neighbors but look focusing on item eight of section article four one B.

Do you know how many registered organizations are actually on that list?

I don't have a definitive number, however, I have the printed list of the organizations if the board wished to see those.

Um I don't have a final number.

Um the the list includes all the surrounding property owners as well as organizations and the city council uh rep.

All right, so I have that list if you wanted to review it.

I wouldn't mind, but thank you.

So I I have a question because I think there are a couple things.

So 200 letters postage is not cheap, but um also are we providing this as labels?

Are we providing this as an Excel file?

Just I don't know how the process works, so I thought I'd ask.

Those um that list that I've sent are those addresses are printed on what is to be a label for the envelopes.

Okay, so you can you can use those as labels.

I can shed a little bit of light about the process.

Thank you.

I'm sorry, I just can't understand property owner lists.

Um so those lists are made available in either PDF form by default or by Excel format by request.

Um, however, I would note that we do build in kind of a reduced number of parties that receive notice because state statute says you have to notify property owners either within 660 feet of the perimeter of the property or two unique ownerships deep in every direction.

Uh, we go with the two unique ownerships deep, uh, which does generally dramatically reduce the number of labels.

Um however, staff is uh recommending denial of the request uh specifically as NOAA indicated not to uh set a precedent but more to preserve the interest of the public participation process as well.

And if there are any more questions about our label generation service, I'd be more happy to that you guys provide both of those.

That's wonderful.

Um I think my concern was if this gentleman thought he had to hand address 500 versus being able to use labels for automate it in some way with some assistance.

So thank you.

No, I don't have any questions.

All right.

Uh Mr.

Hicks, I you indicated you had some comments.

So well, go ahead.

The gentleman listed the surrounding neighborhood and everything.

I have no problem with that whatsoever.

I don't think there's any reason I shouldn't send that out.

Not to mention I'm not supposed to be putting forward arguments or anything on my part, but within a half a city block, my storage container is a 20-foot storage container.

There is a 40-foot one setting on Bacon Street, which is within a block of my home.

There is another one on a three streets over that's setting on the ground on gravel, actually.

I put mine on concrete driveway.

But I would ask that there be some relief given.

This month.

If it made some sense to me, I wouldn't even be here.

Can I clarify for being here?

You're doing great.

You're doing great.

Can I clarify?

Do the letters need to be notarized, or they just have to be printed and set, and he has to just say that he sent them.

Do they need to be notarized?

Yeah.

500 of them.

I just want to clarify.

That's what it said in the thing that they all had to be notarized.

The affidavit has to be notarized, however, the actual mailing itself just has to be signed by the applicant and then just mailed, not even certified, just general standard mail.

Does that make it a little more accessible?

Well, saying the way it read, um it can be confused.

It can be very confusing, trust me.

But if they don't have to be notarized, does that make it a bit more accessible?

Yes, and no, it's still you're gonna send it out.

Still a lot of work, yeah.

All these I present.

I counted the notice list.

I mean, it's not 200.

I understand it's it's still north of 100, but it's not 200.

Well, I said about 200.

I I haven't counted them as too many to send, in my opinion.

For some uh basically, it's a storage building that is not shaped with a peaked roof on it.

Yeah, I understand.

And and just food for thought here.

The reason that these organ is the organizations are listed is because sometimes they do have an interest in what's going on.

And I understand by them receiving notice of your petition, it can facilitate an opportunity for you and them to connect before you get to a hearing on the merits of your case, and it gives you an opportunity to meet with those associations that might have an interest in what you're doing, and hopefully address their concerns so that they're not remonstrating against you.

That's a big part of why they're included in the notice rule of procedure.

They might even write a letter in support.

Pardon?

They might even write a letter in support.

Doubtful, but go ahead.

And and I I would just recommend.

I mean, to the extent that you have questions with the notice process and what needs to be notarized versus what needs to be sent via certified mail.

I communicate with staff.

They have members on calling.

I've talked to Noah several times.

Answer those questions and clarify any ambiguities you may have on what is actually required.

I understand that, but I haven't been given any leeway as far as I've been told.

Noah's been courteous and kind and told me what I needed to do and so forth.

I just personally with the situation with others setting in the neighborhood and stuff.

I feel like I'm being singled out on it.

I got uh right now I'm sitting with a thousand and eighty dollar fine for the building the storage container setting there after I filed for a variance on it already.

Well, okay.

Well, we appreciate you coming, Mr.

Hicks.

Um, this this is the first step in in that process.

So you did put a request forth to modify our rules of procedure uh specifically related to notifying organizations as stated in um Article 41B section eight.

I may have read that out of order, but um we can clean that up in the minutes.

But um, so I will ask the board um is there a motion to approve uh Mr.

Hicks request to modify uh our rules of procedure.

Okay, hearing no motion, um we will not take a vote on this.

So um as of right now, Mr.

Hicks, that you you still will be required to mail those those notice um to to the people on the list.

So I would just encourage you to continue to work with staff um to make that as as simple and as easy on you as possible.

Can I ask for a time frame where I can empty it and get get it moved off my property without receiving more fines and stuff?

I I I think working with staff could get you some of those answers, but I'll let them address that that question.

If I'm understanding correctly, are you saying that you will remove the shipping container?

I don't have any option on it.

Basically, I can't afford to do all this and come back down here two or three times to get it done.

I've made an honest request.

Envelope stamps all cost money now.

Stamps are over 50 cents apiece.

Well, fines are exclusively under the purview of the Department of Business and Neighborhood Services, and as far as I know, outside of the parameters of relief that this board can grant.

So with that in mind, my recommendation would be that the case be continued to next month so that he can contact the enforcement officer and work out an agreement on withholding any further fines, but that's not something DMD has any over sigh or input on.

So that would give him time to maybe talk to his city county counselor or neighborhood liaison to get some support to do that and have that conversation.

So that would be my recommended way pass forward is to continue and him contact his enforcement officer directly and work that out.

It is this case even scheduled to be heard today, or was that only on the special request?

It was only on the special requests because as far as I know, notice has not been mailed out at all, nor has the sign been picked up or uh and posted on the property.

So this was just to request that waiver for the notice.

Okay.

Um so it Mr.

Hicks, as long as if your understanding correctly, if you want the petition to move forward, you'll have to mail notice in full and um pick up the notice sign and post on the property at least 23 days before uh the this the December hearing if it is in fact continued.

So with this being just a special request, um the the board did not make a motion for is do we need to continue anything, or will this just be once the the mailing of the notice is out, it'll appear on the agenda.

Is I guess is there any action right now that the board needs to take um additional to what we've already done today give me one second to look something up?

Sure.

So this case was originally scheduled for October 7th in terms of making notice materials available as well as posted materials available, uh, but the case was also published for October 7th and then continued to this date, uh, likely due to lack of an affidavit.

Uh so any continuance would be required and would require a special uh it would require a motion and a vote.

So we would require a continuance for this.

Okay.

So I guess Mr.

Hicks, I will confirm with you.

Um is is that something you would want us to continue this petition so you have a little more time to to deal with some of this issue.

Okay, absolutely.

Then board, we have a request to continue uh this petition 2025 UV 1019 to the December 2nd.

Is that right?

Thank you.

To the December 2nd hearing.

Is there a motion?

So moved.

And a second.

Duncan second.

All right.

Call for a vote.

Duncan.

Duncan, yes.

Katona.

Katoni, yes.

Wit.

Wit, yes.

Nelson votes yes.

So we will uh be able to hear your petition next month at the December 2nd hearing.

Um so you'll have a little additional time to um work on some of these issues.

Sir, so um you're still gonna need to send out notice that reflects that date, the December 2nd date.

Yes, sir.

Staff can assist you with how that notice needs to read.

Where's that?

Do I pick up the banner for the yard?

That would be on the 18th floor of this building.

Where?

18th floor of this building.

Okay.

In the lobby.

Thank you, gentlemen and ladies.

Thank you.

You're welcome.

Any any other requests for continuances good afternoon, Chairperson Nelson, members of the board, Joe Calderon, 11 South Meridian here in Indianapolis.

I call your attention uh to item number two, 2025 DV1051.

That's 5345 West 81st Street.

Um I am requesting a continuance and transfer to board two to uh for November 18th.

The reason being is that uh the Pike Township residents association meets on the second Wednesday of every month, so sequentially, it would just work out to where we can present uh to Pike Township next week.

We've already made arrangements to do so.

Um, and I believe staff is in support of our request.

All right, is there anyone in the audience with interest in petition 2025 D V one zero one five fifty-three forty-five West 81st Street is 2025-DV1-051?

Yes, thank you.

All right, um, we'll get a staff.

Are we comfortable with this continuance and transfer?

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

Staff has no objection to the requested continuance and transfer to division two in a few weeks to allow time to talk with BTRA.

All right.

Board, we have a request to move petition 2025 D V one zero five one.

Uh continue and transfer this to the November 18th hearing of Division 2.

Is there a motion?

Duncan so moved.

Second.

Wit, second.

All right, call for a vote.

Duncan?

Duncan, yes.

Catona.

Katoni, yes.

Wit.

Wait, yes.

Nelson votes yes.

Thank you very much.

Trooper Sandilson members of the board staff will draw your attention to item number one, petition 2025 DV1050, located at 8888 Keystone Crossing.

Registered neighborhood organization has filed a timely automatic continuance continuing this petition to the December 2nd, 2025 hearing.

This would require the board's acknowledgement.

So acknowledged.

Thank you.

Staff will also draw your attention to petition number three, item number three, excuse me.

2025 UV1014A, located at 6805 Rockville Road.

The petitioner contacted staff and indicated that they were summoned or scheduled to be out of town today due to a uh mandatory court deposition.

Um therefore the the petitioner is requesting a continuance for cause to the December 2nd 2025 hearing.

Staff has contacted the remotes remonstrator of record, and they have no objection to the continuance request, which is why they're not here as well.

Uh as I indicated, staff would take care of the continuance on behalf of the petitioner.

Staff has no objection to this continuance either.

All right, thank you.

Um is there anyone else in the audience that might have interest in petition 2025 UV one zero one four A related to the continuance?

All right, seeing none, I'll just go ahead and ask the board.

Um we have a request to continue petition 2025 UV1014A to the December 2nd hearing.

Is there a motion?

Duncan so moved.

And a second.

Wit second.

All right, call for a vote, Duncan.

Duncan, yes.

Katona.

Catoni, yes.

WIT.

WIT, yes.

And Nelson votes yes.

Uh thank you, Chairperson Nelson.

Members of the board, uh staff would draw your attention to item number seven on your agenda 2025 DV 1049 at 250, 254, and 258 North Addison Street.

Uh per the affidavit of notice provided by the applicant, a six-day waiver of notice requirements would be needed in support of this petition.

Um this request would be due to staff delay and provision of notice materials.

Uh given that context, we would not have an objection to the request, but it's still something that would need to be requested by the petitioner and approved by USO board.

Are you the petitioner in this case?

So it's my husband, but we are both doing the process.

Okay.

So are you going to request the continuance at this point?

Or excuse me, the uh the waiver.

Well, I don't know how that's a word.

Yeah, we don't know what it works.

Okay.

So I believe uh Mr.

Weigel stated that you would need to just say that you're requesting that six-day waiver and be the ones to formally request that, and then we can um ask for a motion from the board.

And so right now that's all we would be hearing, and then we would call you up for the full petition, assuming that passed later.

Yeah.

This isn't the full hearing.

This is just because the notice stuff, the sign in the mail, it went out a little bit late.

But we got it to you a little bit late.

So that's all.

Do we need a waiver?

Yes.

So you're gonna say your name, you're gonna say your petition number and your address, and then say that you'd like to have a waiver.

That's all you have to do right now.

Okay.

So okay, so we're requesting a waiver for um because the material was picked up on the 10th, and then uh we sent all the envelopes to all the um community associations on the 17.

I returned the affidavit.

Okay.

And can you just real quick state your name and address for the record?

Uh one of you would be fine.

So 254 nor added in the application.

Okay.

All right.

And then I guess is there anyone in the audience with interest in this petition 2025 DV1049 related to the waiver notice?

All right, seeing none.

Staff, did you have any other comments or were you no additional?

Okay, we have no objection.

Thank you.

Uh board, we have a request for a six-day waiver notice for petition 2025 DV1049.

Is there a motion?

Duncan so moved.

Second.

Wit, second.

All right, call for a vote.

Duncan.

Duncan, yes.

Katona.

Katoni, yes.

Wit.

Wit, yes.

Nelson votes yes.

All right.

So uh we'll call you up when the full hearing is is ready.

But we can with this waiver, we can hear your case today now.

Okay.

All right, thank you.

Thank you, Chairman Nelson, members of the board.

Um staff would draw your attention to item number five, 2025 UV109 at 5330 Westmore Street.

Staff would just request that the board poll the audience to see if there's anyone here for this petition.

I don't see the individual who has been representing.

Um, so just ask the poll the board.

All right, poll the audience.

Is there anyone in the audience here today for petition 2025 UV109 5330 West Morris Street?

Seems no.

So this petition has been continued.

Um four times to today, I believe.

One two, three, yeah, four times to today at the November 4th hearing.

Staff indicated that if the petitioner were not ready for the November 4th hearing, uh, that we would request that this be dismissed.

And so at this time, that is our request that this uh petition uh be dismissed.

Isn't this the one where I think Mr.

Montaz's brother was here and said that he was supposed to be here, but he he didn't, he wasn't able to show up.

So I believe so, yes.

Or maybe it was an employee, not his brother, but yeah, and that who is listed as the agent for the case, and I believe that has been their indication the last two months that the owner is not here or not ready or um something to that effect, but uh they have continued the case um automatically once, and then due to deficient notice, and then two additional times after that, and at the October 7th hearing, we had indicated that we would recommend dismissal.

And I think we reiterated that from here when we took that up.

All right, thank you.

Yeah, all right, board.

We have a request to dismiss case 2025 UV 1009 at 5330 Westmore Street.

Is there a motion?

I have a quick question.

Sure.

I just that this location is right by the Wayne Township trustee offices.

Um did you get any letters of support or anything or remonstration from the community at all?

I have uh denial uh letters from the city county councillor.

Okay, thank you.

Um so moved to dismiss it.

Thank you.

Duncan second.

Okay, thank you.

With a motion and a second, I'll call for a vote.

Duncan Duncan, yes, Catona.

Wit wit, yes, and Nelson votes, yes.

Thank you.

Any other requests, continuances of this time seeing none, uh, let's move forward um with the first case.

These are petitions for public hearing.

Case number 2025-DV1-042 property address 8415 West Washington Street, Wayne Township, Council District Number 17, zoned I1.

The petitioners are Greg and Seth Dotson.

Variants of development standards of the consolidated zoning and subdivision ordinance to provide for the construction of two industrial buildings, resulting in a 40-foot eastern transitional yard and a 20-foot west side yard setback, 50 foot side transitional yard, 30 foot side yard 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?

Yes.

Good afternoon.

I'm uh Greg Dotson, uh owner and petitioner.

Um a little bit about our history in the area.

My dad had sorry, real quick.

Can you state your address for the record?

Uh what's that?

Could you state your address for the record?

8415 West Washington.

Thank you.

Which I feel like it's excessive.

Um here asking for 10 feet on each side of that.

Uh Sandy and I built uh the corner of uh I thought you'd have it up on the screen, but um New Haven and Washington to put an auto upholstery shop in.

We were there for 25 years.

Uh we built a 6,000 square foot building divided two-thirds, one third.

Uh we rented it third of it out, it paid for our mortgage.

Uh we we then bought it a lot just a couple doors down and built a 6,000 square foot building, divided it in half, rented it, did it again 6,000 foot next door to that.

Then we went across the street to 8485 West Washington and built a uh 11 unit office warehouse uh 30 by it's is 55 by 330.

Um it's got 11 units in it.

Um then right next door to that is a strip that the airport owns, and we approached them about buying it.

My son wanted to get into the business.

Uh we met with uh Todd Cook, land development manager at that time, and he told me three things.

Um he didn't want to sell it to me because he didn't want to be me to build another steel building.

Second thing is we want to be mindful of uh who we sell to, and the third thing is this property was for sale next door by a private individual.

He says, buy that you could do whatever you want to do with it.

We got no control over that.

So going back to the steel buildings uh between New Haven and uh Bridgeport Road, there are 18 steel buildings.

If you take those away, you've got a brick church of 75 year old uh uh block garage, and then uh then uh developers built a uh 10,000 square foot poured concrete building, but that's that's that's the only thing that's there that's not a steel building.

So um then the the second thing um he had said we wanted to be mindful of who we sell to if you look at the history uh 2024 CZN 819, which is uh two doors down from me, 8215, I believe.

Um the board granted them several um variances from the development standards, and one of which was um a reduction from two two easements, one on each side from 30 feet to 10 feet.

I'm here asking for 10 on each side.

Uh that particular spot is they also zoned at I1.

Uh it's built they're gonna build it right on top of nursing home.

They're gonna have 8,000 square foot office, a 20,000 square foot commercial building or warehouse, and then 25,000 square feet layout yard.

So that's gonna be an intense site.

I'm in the middle of a field, and just asking for 20 feet, 10 feet on each side.

Uh staff has made comment that there's enough room to do what I um want to do.

I hired an engineer and uh showed him what we wanted to do, and he said, Do you realize you got a 50-foot easement on one side and 30 on the other?

I said, No, I didn't know that.

I've I built uh six buildings in that area, and I didn't have to deal with setbacks.

I mean, you had like a three or four ten foot setback, but not eight.

So I'm requesting 10 feet on each side.

All right, thank you.

Uh board, any questions for the petitioner at this time.

Hi, I'm Jennifer Witt.

Um, I live in your neighborhood, and um I love that you're building in our community.

It sounds like the setbacks are a big problem, and and it looks like your goal is to have additional parking.

What kind of businesses are gonna be in that space?

You know, I I don't know, but or is it just general just uh um it's is zone I1.

Okay, um we've got pretty strict strict leases, they can't park anything out in the parking lot.

I mean it's got to be in the building.

Okay, um so I I don't know, it could be a a heat and air guy, it could be a plumber, could be uh I don't know, uh I got a guy that pops dents, you know, there's no painting, just pushes out dents.

Yeah, and there's a lot of those businesses, but it could be others, right?

Because that's you said it's like office and storage space.

So you have an office.

Well, you have um an entry door and a window, and then a garage door.

So we've only got two spots unless you block the garage door for each one of those units.

Gotcha.

And then so what I wanted to do was put a row of parking down the middle, building on this side, building on this side, parking, parking in a row at the middle.

Okay, and and then I had another question.

Um have you been in touch with any of the neighborhood organization?

There are quite a few little local neighborhood associations.

Have any of them reached out to you, or have you reached out to them beyond the letter to get feedback from them or I talked to uh the attorney from the airport?

Okay, yep.

Uh I didn't know if that there's something I think it's called Rockville Road Neighborhood Association, but they also cover Washington.

I didn't know if one of them had reached out.

Yes, I say I got a letter from the uh gateway, but it's kind of in my favor, I think, because they said they worked in tandem to bring that guy to 8215, and they helped reduce the standards, the metropolitan standards for there.

I mean, they reduced it.

Did you did you talk with them or did they ask you to like add trees or anything like that?

Or okay.

I've got nothing other than letters.

Okay, thank you.

I just wanted to name off the other buildings.

We've also got eight 8639 and 8815 West Washington.

So my point was we're not some new people moving in and gonna exploit the neighborhood.

All right.

Thank you.

Um at this time we can go to any remonstrance.

Um again, please state your name and address for the record, and then you'll have as well up to 15 minutes for your time.

Robert, can you bring up the uh presentation?

Thank you.

Is there a clicker or do I ask you?

Oh, great.

Good afternoon, um, Mr.

Chairman and members of the BZA.

My name is Brian Twee.

My address is 9294 North Meridian.

Here with me today is Jonathan Weinsapel, the general counsel of the Indianapolis Airport, and his address is 7800 Weir Cook Memorial Drive.

Thank you for hearing uh our side of the case.

Eddie, could you go to the first slide, please?

So, first off, the airport has no objection to the petitioner using the site in sort of a rational, reasonable fashion with one building.

What their objection is is this variance is necessitated because the petitioner wants to build two buildings, which I'll show you in a minute, and have about 90 parking spaces.

90 parking spaces is about 50 to 55 spaces over what the I 1 parking ordinance would require.

So this having two buildings and the success of parking is what necessitates the variance.

This slide here on page two, which you've also uh received a copy of, uh, shows that the airport is a very concerned property owner because they border the east side and the west side and the southeast and southwest sides of this site.

So they have a big stake in what happens on this site.

The other thing that's sort of less evident from that exhibit is that New Haven Drive that is just east of there, just east of the airport's property.

That's an actual entrance into the airport.

Now, it's not the front door of the airport, that would be off of Interstate 70 as you come in from the south.

But it's the it it is one of the front doors along West Washington Street, and the airport is is mindful that that area not be overdeveloped or developed in a fashion that is going to harm the value of the airport's property.

Next slide, please.

That shows the site, but what that also shows, members of the uh BZA, is the petitioner's building at 8485 West Washington Street.

And he mentioned that building.

The airport would have no objection to that type of building with only 55 spaces.

But again, the airport's view is this is being overdeveloped, and that's what necessitates the variance.

This site can certainly be developed with one building and the necessary parking, and no variances would be required.

Next slide, please.

Uh this is an excerpt from the zoning code, and what it shows that is in this area the minimum width of side yard is 30 feet, and the minimum width of a transition yard is 50 feet.

And the petitioner wants to reduce those to 20 feet and 40 feet.

Next slide, please, Eddie.

So that's a 33% reduction on the side yard and a 20% reduction on the transitional yard.

And again, the only reason those are required is because we're now putting two buildings on and three rows of parking, which we'll get to.

It's a pretty significant reduction we're seeking in this variance.

Next slide, please.

I think it's uh important that the board recognize that back in January, the petitioners submitted a site plan that showed only 60 parking spaces, which is again 23 spaces over what the requirement would be for an I-1 district.

Next slide, please.

But then in the spring, the petitioners submitted the what I'll call the current site plan, and it had 90 spaces, and you can see on slide seven, there are three rows of parking in the center of that site.

What I think that means is that the petitioner is anticipating uses that will require a a significant amount of parking because those uses uh that 90 parking spaces is way more than the 37 parking spaces, 37 parking spaces that are required by the ordinance.

That makes the airport concerned about the intensity of use and just the intensity of improvements on that site with two large buildings and 90 spaces when only 37 would be required under the ordinance.

Next slide, please.

This shows the petitioner's existing development, which is just west of our site, and the airport has no issue with that.

It has about the same size of building, I think that the petitioner is talking about here, and it only has 55 parking spaces.

I use that exhibit to show this board that it's certainly easy to develop this site with one building or maybe one and a half buildings with much less parking, but the variances they're asking for are completely and totally necessitated by this overdevelopment of the site.

The petitioner has shown that a light industrial use can be built on this site with only 55 spaces and no variances would be needed.

Next slide, please, Eddie.

This is a view of the petitioner's building, and the airport agrees.

The airport has no objection to this site because it's not overdeveloped and not overparked.

Next slide, please.

An organization, what I think is the prominent neighborhood organization called Indy Gateway, in a letter dated October 30th, uh, has written that they object to the approval of the variants to reduce the side yard setbacks by more than 20 percent on each side of the site.

Approval the variants would allow the site to be more densely developed than allowed under the I-1 zoning district development.

Uh Indy Gateway believes that the site may be developed in accordance with the I-1 industrial standards without the necessity of the variance.

And so it's not only the airport that objects, Indie Gateway also objects and thinks this is an over-development of the site.

Next slide, please.

Thank you.

The uh Indianapolis Airport Authority, in a letter dated 103125 from Jonathan Weinsaple, who's here, believes that the proposed variants will allow for significantly reduced setback lines and over-development of the site.

That's contrary to the vision that the IAA and its many partners have set for this corridor.

Approving the variance will adversely affect the value and use of adjoining parcels owned by the IAA.

Additionally, please go to the next slide.

Additionally, the uh director of properties for the Indianapolis Airport Authority, Eric Anderson, writes in a October 31st letter that he observes that the petitioner has not shown any practical difficulty in the use of the site without variances, and that's as evidenced by his similar development just west of there at 84 uh 85 Washington Street.

Next slide, please, Eddie.

As the board is aware, the uh key things and variances is the findings of fact.

And the petitioner's findings of fact are certainly brief.

And under findings of fact number one, he the petitioner says that the request is consistent with other properties in the area, and then goes on to say consistent with approval granted and the variants he uh referenced.

Well, the proposed development actually is not consistent with the other properties, as shown by the petitioner's other property to the west that has one building and only 55 parking spots.

The petitioner showed a site plan from the spring that showed two rows of parking, not three, and it had two, it had two build, it now shows two buildings and three rows of parking on a site that is not big enough to accommodate that all that development.

That's what causes the need for these two variances.

And these three rows of parking and two buildings in the airport view causes the site to be overdeveloped and over-parked more than any other nearby use.

That indicates that this use will be more intense and not consistent with light industrial zoning.

As to the second finding in fact, where you consider whether the use of the or value of the area adjacent to the property included in the variants will not be affected in adverse, substantially adverse manner.

You have two letters before you from the two stakeholders, the uh India or Gateway Neighborhood Organization and the Annapolis Airport Authority, both who are very involved and concerned about the development of West Washington Street, they're objecting to the variance.

I think that's evidence that the use and value of the adjacent areas will be adversely affected.

And petitioner in his uh findings fact produces no evidence to support this finding fact, except that says except he says the request is consistent with other properties in the area.

I actually don't think that's accurate given that the property that he developed to the west was done without any variances.

And the airport uh also takes that belief that that's not an accurate statement because other properties in the area, including his own property, have been able to develop their buildings without variances.

And I think it's generally conceded by folks that do variance work in uh probably the city that the most difficult finding effect is the third finding effect, and that the strict says the strict application of the terms of zoning ordinance will result in practical difficulties in the use of the property.

And the petitioner says that the current setbacks cut parking space too, and then it's blank, and it says the buildings are going to be a certain size with certain bays, and there are only two spots per unit, a center row of parking is needed.

Well, the zoning of I-1 on this site would only call for about 37 spaces, and petitioners' plan shows about 90 spaces.

That would tend to show that the city doesn't believe that an I-1 zoning needs 90 spaces, because otherwise the ordinance would provide for more parking.

And I think it's important to remember that I-1 is a light industrial zoning classifications, and that the petitioner has already shown this type of light industrial zoning.

This light industrial type of building can be built without variances, as evidenced by his own building just west of the site.

The planning staff also examined that and concluded that the site can be developed and be developed compliant with I-1 setback standards without a variance.

I think that shows members of the BZA that there's not a practical difficulty in development of this site as an I-1 use.

It's only because the petitioner wants to have three rows of parking, two rather large buildings, and that the setbacks have to be reduced in order to create create more room for these buildings and parking areas.

That seems to me that's a self-imposed hardship, which you could avoid by only building one building.

In fact, the petitioner at one point showed a different site plan where there was only 60 parking spaces and not 90.

Our thought here is to kind of conclude that part of our presentation, is reduce the number or size of the buildings and reduce the number of parking spaces, and the site can be developed without variances.

Please go to the next slide.

Um the staff, which uh they'll of course make their presentation uh, but just some excerpts.

They recommended denial of this petition.

They note that that the required parking is only about 37 parking spaces, uh, and the current plan shows about 90 parking spaces.

There's sufficient space on the site to construct one building and to provide sufficient parking and still meet the required setbacks.

So they wouldn't need a variance.

And I think the staff concludes that it's the desire to develop two buildings and additional parking that triggers the need for the variance, and that's a self-imposed hardship.

Uh last slide, please, Eddie.

So again, thank you for hearing our petition.

And I think that so far, what this board has heard is that there's really no evidence to support the three findings of fact required for granting these variances.

And that the site plan shows almost two and a half times the amount of parking required under the I-1 zoning ordinance.

And I think there's also evidence that there's sufficient evidence, there's sufficient area on the site to develop improvements and install ample parking for those improvements without reducing the side yard setbacks.

The Indy Gateway Neighborhood Organization is opposed to this uh variance with their letter of October 30th.

The Indianapolis Airport Authority is opposed to this variance, and they are a significant stakeholder and property owner in this area, and the planning staff has recommended denial of this variance.

For those reasons, we would respectfully request that this board deny this variance request.

We'll try to answer any questions you might have, and thanks again for your time.

Board, any questions for remonstrance at this time?

All right, hearing none.

Let's go ahead and go to staff comments, please.

Thank you, Chair Personal Nelson, members of the board.

Um, with this petition, the petitioner has indicated the reduced setbacks so that he can provide additional parking for the proposed two buildings, specifically a third row parking in the middle.

Um if I recall right, these are small tenant bays.

I I believe the number mentioned was 11.

I don't know.

I believe that was for both buildings proposed.

So for a total of 36,000 square feet, that's about 3,000 square feet per unit or less.

And the ordinance would provide two parking spaces per unit.

Um he wants to basically triple that to allow six parking spaces per unit.

Um the units basically would be the size of a large single-family dwelling, three-bedroom dwelling with garage.

Um, but every unit, therefore, would uh having six um parking spaces would have 90 parking spaces approximately on site.

Um this is not a reflection of the ordinance.

Uh the buildings can be designed to possibly accommodate that or to accommodate what's actually needed by reducing the building size.

Umright proposed was one building or one building can be proposed, similar to the development, two parcels to the west.

That's owned by the petitioner as well.

And both setbacks could be meet met.

That would be would require a reduction in the number of uh units for rent.

Um, but that would also require allow for the reduction in the request in the parking that the petitioner would allow would want.

Um another option would be to turn the buildings 90 degrees if he wants to provide two buildings and have them uh meet the side setbacks, and due to the larger length of the lot north-south, he may be able to provide parking in the middle of the two buildings.

He has not provided a site plan to uh or has not provided a site plan to that effect.

Staff's just recommending that.

Um again, some reduction in size of the proposed buildings would be warranted for the reduction of the parking to accommodate.

Um this is a green space, it is not developed, so there are no restrictions on the space to provide any development.

It can be developed without any variance required as I have suggested, either by building one building or rotating the building 90 degrees.

Therefore, the does the desire for the size of the buildings is self-imposed by the petitioner, as is the desire to provide as much parking as possible.

Therefore, staff does recommend denial of this as this is a self-imposed hardship and not in a hardship imposed by the ordinance, and we'll be happy to answer any questions the board may have board.

Any questions for staff?

I I was wondering what the history of the property is.

I and I can see that it looks like that's overgrown now, but was there a building there prior?

I'm sorry, repeat that.

What's the history of the property?

Was there a building there?

Uh I did not do any aerial photo research.

I don't believe I believe it's been vacant for some time.

Um maybe back in the 50s or 60s, there may have been some homes on here, uh, which would be a reason for the remaining uh dwelling district zoning to the east.

Um, prior to the airport expansion, but recently, no, there's not been any development to my knowledge.

Um I just curious, it looks like there used to be a building there.

I feel like it used to maybe be a hotel.

There was a building there years ago.

Years ago, okay.

Thank you.

I do have one question.

I just want to make sure looking at the building elevation on page 14 of the staff report, item four.

Um it looks like there's 11 bays per building.

And I just want to make sure that yeah, 11 bays.

If there's 22 total tenant spaces, is that changing?

Yeah, you'd have is this a question for staff or the petitioner?

I'm sorry, it's a question for staff.

I'm sorry, yeah, it's okay.

Okay.

Um, so if there are 22 tenant spaces instead of 11, does that change staff's opinion at all?

First of all, the the elevation submitted, I think is indicated that that's from a previous variance.

I believe the one to two spaces to the east.

Okay.

So the proposed building would be similar to that.

I don't believe that's the actual building that is being proposed unless the petitioner corrects me.

Um, but that was the photo submitted to the file.

Uh the number of the the bays is irrelevant.

Um that's the petitioner's decide decision.

The fact that he wants multiple small bays uh is going to uh with reduced setback is going to be the same problem if he wants one large building with a reduced setback that's still going to need 90 parking spaces in in their mind for their development.

But um staff's position is that the building could be reduced, however, number of bays that are there to meet the the setback.

Thank you.

Appreciate it.

Any other questions for staff at this time?

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

You'll have up to five minutes for your rebuttal and closing comments.

Yeah, I know from experience that parking can be an issue on that building.

I wish I could use the slides, but uh he showed a handful of cars there.

There's times in the there's every space taken, and that's on one building, and that would be the row against the building and a row out in the middle, shared by two buildings.

Again, the property is uh 290 feet wide, and you're taking almost a third in uh setbacks.

Um, and I'm really surprised that you know Indy Gateway is talking about the impact when they the picture was up there.

They're putting a I one right on top of nursing home, reducing the setbacks from 30 to 10, then building a 20,000 square foot building right behind that nursing home, and then a layout yard.

You know they're gonna have dump trucks, forklifts, backhoes, semis.

That's gonna be an intense site right on top of that nursing home.

I'm asking for 20 feet in the middle of a field.

That's my presentation.

All right, thank you.

And then at this point, we can go back to remonstrance for your closing rebuttal and uh final statements.

Could you please go back to uh slide six, please?

So uh again, thank you, members of the board of zoning appeals.

So slide six shows a plan that petitioners submitted with less parking spaces, about sixty parking spaces in January.

And and this is not new news to this petitioner because in a staff report dated May 6, 2025, Kaya Mullins wrote, very similar to what Mr.

Ulinake has written, that the originally submitted site plan showed a 60 spaces without a variance and additional parking spaces.

She went on to say that with 90 parking spaces, there's there they've way overparked this site and overdeveloped it.

And she said she went on to say that approving this variance will result in a large parking area for two buildings with no predictors for the type of business or amount of traffic on the site.

Please go to the next slide.

So instead of having one building with sufficient parking for one building, as the planning staff is directed as has suggested, the petitioner shows two large buildings with three rows of parking, 90 spaces.

That's an over-development of this site in sense of parking and building.

The petitioner has already uh tacitly acknowledged that you could develop this site with one building and appropriate parking and not need a variance sites 190 feet wide.

You can live with those setbacks, build one building and build sufficient parking on the site.

Eddie, could I ask you please to go to the uh slide?

Um3, I think it is.

Yeah, 13.

At the beginning of this meeting, the uh chairperson uh read the rules of procedure and the statutory requirements for approving a variance, and one of the statutory requirements was that the findings must be met in order to grant this variance.

And we would respectfully suggest that the findings submitted by the petitioner as shown on this exhibit, don't prove or support those three findings, and that the evidence before you that is letters from the gateway organization, letters from the airport, and the fact that there is a building, just one property to the west that didn't need any variances that is owned by the petitioner, and the fact that the staff is recommending denial.

If you weigh all that, it seems to me that those findings have not been met and therefore would warrant a denial of this variance.

We'll try to answer your questions you might have, and thank you for hearing our presentation.

All right, board.

Any final questions before we cast our votes?

Hearing none, please go ahead and cast your ballots for petition 2025 DV1042.

On case 2025-DV1-042, Jennifer Witt votes no, Andrew Catona votes no, Peter Nelson votes no, and David Duncan votes no.

The variance is not granted.

Case number two zero two five-UV1-015 amended property address 488 South Rochester Avenue.

Wayne Township, Council District Number 17, zoned D5 TOD.

The petitioners are Candy Salazar and Leonore Medina, represented by Candy Salazar.

Variants of use and development standards of the consolidated zoning and subdivision ordinance to provide for the excuse me to provide for the conversion of an entire garage and proposed addition into a second primary dwelling not permitted, with a zero-foot rear yard setback, a one-foot south side yard setback, and a 16.75 foot tall building height.

Five foot rear yard setback and five foot side yard setbacks required.

Second primary dwelling cannot be taller than first primary dwelling.

Will those who plan to speak on this petition, please raise the right.

Are they here?

Looks like the petitioner for this case may not be here.

Um I will ask just again to confirm.

Is there anyone is the petitioner specifically for case 2025 UV 1015 in attendance?

Crickets.

Okay.

Um so I guess I'll ask staff.

Um have we I mean it's on the continued petition, so we have.

So how many times have we continued this?

And then would your recommendation be to continue again?

Or as we did with uh previous case, um, would you be recommending denial of this at this point?

I believe this was last continued for the um submittal of uh this has probably been continued twice, I believe.

Uh the most recent one was for the submittal of an updated site plan and amending the petition as it is before you now because this previous set requested setbacks were incorrect.

Um I did notify the petitioner yesterday that their findings of fact were deficient and that they needed to submit new ones.

I don't know if that may have confused the petitioner, thinking that she couldn't go forward until those were submitted.

Nonetheless, staff will support one more continuance, and I will contact the petitioner indicating that they must show up at the December hearing.

And hopefully that will also allow time to submit revised findings as well.

And either this petition could go forward at that point or be dismissed if the petitioner wants to uh either due to lack of attendance or by their decision.

So staff has no objection to continuing this petition one more time.

All right, thank you.

Um I guess then I will ask the board um is there a motion to continue petition 2025 UV 1015 to the December 2nd hearing.

Wait, so moved.

And a second.

Duncan second.

All right, call for a vote.

Duncan.

Duncan, yes.

Catona.

Katonius.

Wit.

Yes.

Nelson votes yes.

Case number two zero two five-d v 1-049.

Property addresses 250-254 and 258 North Addison Street.

Wayne Township, Council District Number 18, zoned D5.

The petitioner is Augustine Alc uh Al Calter.

Thank you.

Variants of development standards of the consolidated zoning and subdivision ordinance to provide for the installation of a fence and gate with a height ranging from 5 feet 4 inches to 6 feet 3 inches.

Maximum fence height of three and a half feet tall permitted.

Encroachment of clear sight triangle prohibited.

And for the placement of a driveway accessed from Addison Street.

Exclusive access from alleys required.

Do you swear or affirm?

Please raise your right hand.

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

Yes.

Well, we built this gate six years ago in the fence.

Honestly, I didn't know about the excuse me, really quick.

Could you just state your name and address for the record?

My name is Agustin Alcoutter.

My address is uh 254 North Addison, 258 North Addison, and 252 North Addison.

Um so we built this gate um when we bought this property, and um it was baked for 24 years.

I didn't know exactly the measurements that we're supposed to do it.

So we build this gate.

Uh so it's not like it's blocking the view.

Meaning you can see through uh is uh iron.

And um my neighbors around me, uh they they love the house.

Uh that what we did to it, because uh they text me for it.

And um, I mean, someone now just uh um don't like it.

And I mean I understand that I need to follow the laws and rules, uh, but um I just I want to know if we can keep it that way because I mean it's not it's not bothering nobody is not bothered to view um it's not like locks in the house.

I mean, my my mailman they can go in and out.

I mean, and so and and I got two big dogs, so they're they're like they always we used to live behind the house and they always jump and so that's why there was a reason that we build it a little bit higher than probably we're supposed to, but um it's I don't know, I mean I just want to live in peace in my house.

I mean I'd not bother nobody.

Can I comment?

Yeah, go ahead.

Okay, I just gonna say thank you.

The neighborhood appreciates beautiful homes that are built well.

It sounds like your intentions were good.

You didn't understand maybe the the rule there, and so you're here to seek a a variance.

Um they asked me about the mini barn, and we moved it yesterday.

That's why I can barely move my own.

So there was something else.

But uh, like I understand those parts, but like my my pro my from fans and my gate.

I pay a lot of money to do it.

I'm not a rich man, and and uh and it will cost me the mean the same to just to trim it out to make it look okay.

Um and I I do you want to ask about that front gate?

Do you actually drive through the gate?

It's a beautiful gate.

But you do drive.

I mean, uh we couldn't uh uh use it because like I said, the house it was baked for 24 years, so the throne uh the little part of the concrete, it was destroyed, and we cannot even go through there, but um that's why uh we fixed it.

I didn't make it bigger on the on the on the street.

We just cut a curve and bring it in.

Okay.

Uh so it was there, and there's probably the staff will tell us more about why.

Uh the um the driveway always been in my house.

I mean, I bought the house with the driveway.

I mean, uh, it's not like something that I built just because I wanted to.

Got it.

Okay.

And then um, this says that the gate is 14 feet tall.

No, it's uh white.

14 feet wide.

Okay, got it.

Sorry, it's right for the graphic.

I just want to make sure I understand.

It's a little bit less than than six height.

At the top, okay.

Uh-huh.

All right.

That's what I needed.

Thank you so much.

Any other questions for the petitioner at this time?

All right, it doesn't appear so, but I will ask just to get it on the record.

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

2025 DV1049.

Okay.

Then let's please go to staff comments.

Absolutely.

Uh, thank you, Trippers and Nelson, members of the board for your time.

Uh, thank you to the petitioner for their comments and cooperation as well.

Um staff is recommending denial of this petition to allow for uh the front yard fence with the height over ordinance requirements and for the uh the driveway accessing Addison Street from the front yard, which was placed in a manner uh wider than the previous driveway that had been there in the past.

Uh just so for a bit of site context, um this subject site is comprised of three total parcels that are contiguous with shared ownership.

Uh 250 Addison is the one furfest to the south.

There's 254 in the middle, and then 258 Addison to the north.

Uh those first two, the ones serviced at itself are improved with single-family residences.

There also appears to be a three-car detached garage in the rear yard that is accessed from the improved alley.

Um, around around six years ago in about summer of 2019 per Google photography.

Um, the iron fence with brick columns was built along the front property line of all three parcels.

Uh, there are additional front yard portions of fence that run perpendicular to Addison Street along the northern and southern edges of the 250 Addison property and the northern edge right at the top at the 258 site.

Um, it surrounds all three at a lots, not just for one as is depicted on the site plan.

As mentioned, the height of the fence ranges a little bit.

There's sort of a bit of a curve or an arch to it.

Uh most sections measure around 5'4.

Uh the tallest portions measure 6'3 per inspections measurements.

Uh, the maximum allowed here would be 3.5 feet.

So this is between 150 and 175% of the max height allowed for front yard residential fences.

Uh also has been some additional site work undertaken within the past year or so.

Um, as mentioned, there was the addition of the driveway to the site.

Um, historically, there was a curb cut that existed there, and it appears that there may have been vehicle access in the past that was worn down over time.

That's the second photo within the photos of staff's exhibits of a curb cut remained, but it was grass on the property itself.

Uh, the new conditions are shown in picture number four, which is what's on the screen right now.

Uh, it's fully paved, and it does appear that the curb cut was widened a bit without issuance of a driveway permit from BNS, plus you know, the new concrete within the front yard area.

In June of 2025, there was a violation case opened.

Uh the full list of citations is within the exhibits of a report as well.

I'd side of the property for defense height in the front yard and being within clear site triangles.

Uh, the legs dot triangle would be 20 feet in along the driveway and then 75 feet along Addison, which is a local street.

Um, or not a local street.

Um uh yeah, 75 feet along Addison.

Um, this variance would allow for the fence, um, the clear side encroachment of that fence, and then the driveway with the front yard access.

And what ordinance does have rules about exclusive access from rear alleys when available.

Um, staff would also note that the violation mentioned a few other things that we're not talking about today.

Uh, there was some sort of anoperable vehicle on site, which sounds like it's since been removed by a petitioner.

I'd also mentioned a lack of ILP for a small residential expansion to one of the primary buildings and for a detached accessory structure within the required northern side yard on the two on the 258 Addison parcel.

That's not part of today's request.

It sounds like they're being addressed or remediated outside of today's hearing.

Sounds like they may have just moved that accessory structure yesterday per the applicant.

Um there were a series of anonymous complaints that were made about uh this property to the mayor's action center.

It appears there were eight investigation cases opened since 2021.

There were some complaints of some sort of commercial contractor operation being sourced from the site.

Uh staff was unable to verify this, and it was not part of the violation at all.

Uh the applicant indicated that they do own a commercial contractor business, but that neither materials nor labor are stored at the site.

So uh just providing that context to be clear that this approval today would not allow for commercial operations at the site.

This property is zoned D5, which is a residential zoning designation, and one of the city's walkable neighborhood districts, which is common for infill development compact areas within center township.

Um, the infill housing guidelines would be relevant for staff's recommendation.

They indicate that front yard fences should be ornamental in scale into vehicle access from accessory buildings should be from the rear to allow for vibrant and pedestrian-friendly front yards with as much green space as possible.

Uh staff doesn't feel that the fence height, clear side triangle encroachment of the fence in those areas where vehicles might be pulling out, or the front yard access match guidance from the ordinance or from infill housing guidelines.

That is obviously unfortunate that these improvements as well as the accessory building of the residential addition were done without knowledge of ordnance requirements.

Uh we feel that an approval recommendation was set a negative precedent going forward of you know asking for forgiveness and not permission.

And uh we would feel that these improvements are a self-imposed difficulty rather than resulting from anything specific to the site.

Uh the fence partially impedes the view of the driveway and their site, as well as a portion of the driveway to the north of the site, which is shown in the third photograph.

Uh, just presents you know a public safety concern.

Um, encroachments within a clear site triangle increase the risk of accidents or negative interaction between vehicles and pedestrians.

Uh so as perhaps that is the primary reason we're recommending denial of the fence variance request.

Uh the driveway rules about exclusive alley access are designed in harmony with both walkable neighborhood ordinance standards were mentioned a second ago, reducing negative interaction between pedestrians and cars, welcoming streets, streetscapes with green space.

Uh staff would know that the existing and expanded curb cut in your driveway run counter to those goals and would remove an eligible street parking spot from Addison.

Um per DPW rules for curb cut probably should have been removed when the driveway was no longer there.

Um that is a rule that I have on the books, but I'm not certain how frequently it's enforced or followed up on.

Um staff was contacted earlier this morning by an adjacent neighbor at 253 Addison.

I believe that is just across the street.

Uh they had concerns specifically about the amount of street parking and the driveway placement taking one spot away along Addison.

Um I can read their email in full that it would please the board, but we were contacted by them in our planner on call account account earlier this morning.

Uh they were unable to attend today, obviously.

Um the applicant findings provided claim that uh the front access is needed since uh the rear alley is narrow and in poor condition, and they would be unable to utilize it for residential access to the site.

Um staff does not agree with that assertion.

It appears that the improved alley is 13 feet wide and is well paved and in good condition.

Um appears that um 40 multiple subject sites, there's already existing access via a three-car garage, a paved parking area, and what appears to be a gate all along the western portion of the site.

Yeah, that's facing the alley there, which being shown on the screen currently.

Um that feels that there are ample vehicle access options at the site that don't run counter to ordnance and infill housing guideline um sort of recommendations and the addition of the eastern driveway filling back in and expanding what was there before seems to go beyond typical residential needs to have both that front and that rear access.

Um looking along Addison, it appears that some sites have front loaded, but the majority appear to be loaded from alleys to the rear.

Uh for that reason we would recommend denial of the requested driveway variants as well, would emphasize regard that if this were to be approved, it would still need to go through business and neighborhood services for a driveway permit.

Um I'm happy to answer any questions that the board might have.

So we're just voting on the fence, not the driveway, because we don't control the driveway.

Or we also is it two things that were to take away.

Um they're seeking variants for both the fence height and the clear side triangle aspects, as well as for the driveway additional on the but the eastern portion of the property loading on the Addison.

But if approved, they then need to go get another permit for the driveway.

Right.

A driveway, I I think they likely would given that it was an expansion of that from BNS.

Understood.

Um Do we have any exhibits that show the clear site triangle on the site plan in relation to the fence and the like sort of drawn on how intense that encroachment would be?

I don't believe that was included within staff's report.

I can see if the inspector put anything similar within the violation, but uh standard would be calculated per chapter 740 of our ordinance.

Um requirement 20 feet back from the intersection of the driveway and the property line, and then the leg would be uh 75 out on the on the street there alone Addison.

So sort of a leg of 75 there and then 20 plus whatever is between the right-of-way and the center line.

I'm not sure if I explained that particularly well.

So is that between them and two six two, which is that property right there?

That's where it's the clear site triangle.

Right.

So yes, there's the driveway 262 and then their own driveway into center.

And you said it's gotta be 20 feet back.

No, and that's helpful.

I mean, one question I had is I mean, could you even have a fence on the property next door given that the lot widths probably aren't 75 feet?

Um so that kind of answers my question.

Thank you.

Any other questions for staff?

All right, we'll go back to the petitioner.

You'll have up to five minutes for your rebuttal and closing statements.

Well, I mean that my house, when we push the house, it has a driveway.

I mean, I understand.

I mean, I have a neighbor that he said he's leaving for 40 years, and the neighboring he always be able to park in the front of the house.

And that's where everything starts because he don't like the that we park on the front.

Now we got a gate, so we can go in and to our driveway.

So there'd be term huge problem.

So that way I can have a hoppy neighbor.

I mean, but my wife, like how she's gonna like she always come to the front of the house.

It's always been like that.

And it's uh something that she does.

I mean, she don't go to the alley because we can barely go into those alleys because it's uh it's a rough neighbor.

Uh so um she can barely feed her car and uh like and because it's so damaged, the alley.

So she always comes to the front.

And I got a big bigger truck, so I can go in to my garage.

The gate in the back, we it's so I mean uh we can open it because uh when it's cold and we cannot get out down and open it.

So and then uh boy and uh my garage, uh probably people can think that I can park in there, but we use it for our family reunions.

So it's we always there.

And I don't I don't understand why I cannot have a front driveway like everybody else.

And it it was there.

It's not like I build it.

Uh yeah, I put more concrete, I can get a permit.

I can I can do anything.

You guys asked me to do it, but I just want to keep my stuff.

You know that's it.

I mean, I don't think I bother nobody.

I don't think I damage it and uh like the neighbor.

I mean, even the uh the community uh ladies, they contact me once you're there, receive the letter, and they're like they text me because the house looks beautiful, and I I own more houses around the neighbor.

It's not just their property.

It's not like I wanna not make the neighbor right.

I mean I mean I live there for 20 years and their neighbor.

And I'm I mean uh because now I got an uh angry neighbor, I got all these issues.

You know.

Um I was building a pregola in the back.

I don't know, someone told me I can uh but I think we close the roof.

I have an architect that working on the plans right now, so we're gonna pull the permit and we can continue it.

So it's just my gate.

I mean, uh, I know this is time it's coming.

I mean uh the architect is start uh uh last Friday building my doing my uh blueprints so we can keep our pergola in the back.

I mean, it's my my house is mean I'm not doing anything wrong, I'm not bothering anybody.

I can barely go, I barely go to the front because I don't want to see the guy in front of me.

He's the one he causes me all these problems, you know.

But uh every time that I go to the front of my house, he starts screaming and yelling at me stuff, and it is not I just I wanna just want to live in peace.

But that's all that's all I got.

Thank you.

All right, thank you.

Board, any final questions for anybody?

All right, I'll ask you to go ahead and please cast your ballot for petition 2025 DV1049 on case 2025-DV1-049.

Jennifer Witt votes yes, Andrew Catona votes yes, Peter Nelson votes yes, and David Duncan votes yes.

The variance is granted.

Thank you.

All right, any additional business to come before the board today?

All right, board, stick around for a minute for some findings of fact we need we need to sign, but otherwise this hearing is adjourned.