OPENPUBLICA · PUBLIC MEETING RECORD
Record of Proceedings

Metropolitan Board of Zoning Appeals Division 1 Meeting - Dec 2, 2025

Board of Zoning Appeals I — Tuesday, December 2, 2025
BodyIndianapolis, Indiana
SessionBoard of Zoning Appeals I
DateTuesday, December 2, 2025
StatusFILED
Video Record
0:00 / 1:35:19

Transcript — Verbatim
0:02

All right, good afternoon.

0:03

I'm going to call this meeting to order.

0:05

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

0:10

I am Peter Nelson, Chairperson of Division 1.

0:13

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

0:19

Legal Counsel for the Board today is Chris Steinmetz.

0:22

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

0:27

Bryce Patz, current planning manager, Robert Ulenhaig, Senior Planner, Noah Stern, Senior Planner, Michael Weigel, senior planner, and Marty Weistie, Senior Board Specialist and Secretary to the Board.

0:38

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

0:45

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

0:51

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

0:55

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

1:02

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

1:06

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

1:10

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

1:15

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

1:24

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

1:34

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

1:38

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

1:43

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

1:47

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

1:53

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

1:58

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.

2:06

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

2:17

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

2:27

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

2:32

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

2:39

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

2:45

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

2:53

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

3:01

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

3:09

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

3:15

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

3:24

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

3:29

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

3:37

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

3:44

I will note today there are four members present.

3:47

It requires three votes to take action on any request.

3:51

So we will take this into consideration when hearing requests for continuance.

3:56

If your petition does receive an indecisive vote or a two-two vote, your position will be automatically continued to the January 6, 2026 hearing.

4:05

Board members, you have been provided minutes for the November 4th meeting.

4:10

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

4:21

Cotona so moved.

4:22

Is there a second?

4:25

All right, calling for a vote.

4:26

Duncan.

4:27

Duncan, yes.

4:28

Catona.

4:28

Catona, yes.

4:29

Wit.

4:30

Wit, yes.

4:30

Nelson votes yes.

4:34

Thank you.

4:36

All right.

4:36

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

4:42

All right, seeing none, before we hear special requests, I will ask for a waiver of our rules of procedure to allow the board to vote for all of the expedited petitions and adopt their findings of fact without any additional testimony from the individual petitioners.

4:57

Is there a motion?

5:00

Duncan so moved.

5:01

And a second.

5:02

Catona seconded.

Discussion Breakdown — Share of Meeting
Zoning and Land Use█████████████████████████████████████████████57%
Sign Regulation█████████████████22%
Procedural███████████14%
Code Enforcement██3%
Community Engagement█1%
Affordable Housing█1%
Public Safety█1%
Building Code Enforcement█1%
Summary of Proceedings

Metropolitan Board of Zoning Appeals Division 1 Meeting - Dec 2, 2025

The Metropolitan Board of Zoning Appeals, Division 1, convened on December 2, 2025, to consider various variance petitions, procedural waivers, and continuance requests. Chairperson Peter Nelson presided over a four-member board. The meeting addressed administrative items, including the approval of minutes from the previous session and a waiver of rules to expedite several petitions. The board heard arguments from petitioners, remonstrators (opposers), and staff representatives, ultimately voting on seven cases. Four petitions were granted with unanimous or near-unanimous support, while one petition to create a second primary dwelling was denied by the full board due to concerns regarding density, prior unpermitted construction, and lack of practical difficulty. One petition regarding commercial storage was granted after amendments to the request.

Consent Calendar

  • Minutes Approval: The minutes from the November 4th meeting were approved unanimously (Duncan, Cotona, Witt, Nelson all voting yes) after a motion by Cotona.
  • Rule Waiver: A waiver of procedural rules was approved (Duncan, Cotona, Witt, Nelson all voting yes) to allow the board to vote on expedited petitions and adopt findings of fact without additional testimony from petitioners.
  • Continuance Acknowledgement: Item 1 (2025 DV1052 at 4105 West 93rd Street) was acknowledged as continuing to January 6, 2026, due to a timely request from a registered neighborhood organization.
  • Continuance Acknowledgement: Item 2 (2025 DV1054 at 8752 Michigan) was acknowledged as continuing to January 6, 2026, due to a timely request from a registered neighborhood group.

Public Comments & Testimony

  • Justin King (Petitioner for 2025 UV1022): Expressed the need for a five-day waiver of sign and legal notice requirements and requested a one-week continuance to December 9, 2025, to present the petition to the associated neighborhood group. Staff confirmed comfort with both requests despite the short notice waiver.
  • Jennifer Milliken (Representative for 2025 DV1058): Requested moving the petition to the expedited docket, noting staff's positive recommendation and the absence of physical remonstrators despite receiving two emails of opposition.
  • Staff (2025 UV1019): Noted that this petition was required to be continued for the third time due to insufficient notice. Staff expressed support for this continuance but warned that if proper notarized mail notice is not completed by the January 6, 2026, hearing, they would recommend dismissal.
  • Tyler Oaks (Representative for 2025 DV1050): Argued full support for the variance, stating the sign placement preserves the building's aesthetic cohesiveness and enhances safety by aiding wayfinding for local traffic. He disputed the assertion that the sign targets interstate drivers.
  • Staff (2025 DV1050): Expressed opposition to the variance, arguing that the 30-foot sign height is not a practical difficulty and could be resolved by lowering the sign to a 26-foot wall sign or relocating it, as the building already has ample existing signage and a ground-level wayfinding sign.
  • Tasha Roberts (Representative for 2025 UV1014A): Expressed strong support for the variance, stating the petitioner has no intent for commercial use and has provided an amended plan limiting storage to personal use. She emphasized the petitioner's willingness to commit to specific use restrictions.
  • Dana Wright (Supporter/Past Owner): Expressed full support for the petitioner, clarifying she told him upon selling the property "I do not want your lawn care business in my backyard" and affirmed he has no commercial intent. She stated she understands the distinction between personal equipment parking and commercial operations.
  • Karen Farmer (President of Rockville Road Neighborhood Association): Expressed strong opposition to the variance, arguing the 14-foot trailer is a commercial vehicle and its storage constitutes a commercial use that violates residential zoning, creating a precedent for instability.
  • Staff (2025 UV1014A): Expressed opposition, stating the trailer is a commercial vehicle regardless of weight due to length, and that allowing it sets a precedent for commercial operation in a residential zone where enforcement is difficult.
  • Staff (2025 UV1015): Expressed strong opposition to the variance, citing self-imposed hardship due to prior unpermitted construction, excessive density (doubling site intensity), and failure to meet building code safety standards for the proposed unit size.

Discussion Items

  • 2025 UV1022 (4502 East Michigan Street): The board granted a motion to approve a five-day waiver for notice posting and a motion to continue and transfer the petition to the December 9th meeting of Division 2. All members voted yes.
  • 2025 DV1058 (5554 North Delaware Street): The board granted a motion to move the petition to the expedited docket. All members voted yes.
  • 2025 UV1019 (3040 South Kirchhof Drive): The board granted a motion to continue the petition to January 6, 2026, due to insufficient notice. All members voted yes.
  • Expedited Docket Cases: The board reviewed and voted on a series of expedited cases (2025-DV1-053 through 2025-UV1-021). Jennifer Witt abstained from 2025-DV1-055. All other cases were granted with votes of yes from the remaining members.
  • 2025 DV1050 (8888 Keystone Avenue): Discussion centered on the 30-foot height variance for a sixth sign on a building. Petitioner argued for aesthetic integration and wayfinding safety. Staff argued the variance was unnecessary as the sign could be lowered or relocated. The board granted the variance.
  • 2025 UV1014A (6805 Rockville Road): Discussion focused on whether storing a 14-foot trailer on a residential property constitutes a commercial use. Petitioner amended the request to incorporate a plan limiting all items to personal use. Staff maintained opposition based on enforcement risks and commercial vehicle definitions. The board granted the variance.
  • 2025 UV1015 (488 South Rochester Avenue): Discussion focused on the conversion of a garage and addition into a second primary dwelling. The petitioner admitted to starting work without permits. Staff highlighted the lack of practical difficulty, the excessive square footage (approx 1,200 sq ft vs 720 sq ft limit), and safety/code compliance issues. The board denied the variance.

Key Outcomes

  • 2025 UV1022: Granted a 5-day waiver for notice and continued to Division 2 on Dec 9, 2025. Vote: 4-0.
  • 2025 DV1058: Moved to expedited docket. Vote: 4-0.
  • 2025 UV1019: Continued to January 6, 2026, with a warning that staff will recommend dismissal if notice is not rectified. Vote: 4-0.
  • 2025-DV1-053 (2716 North Tacoma Avenue): Variance granted. Vote: 4-0 (Nelson, Duncan, Cotona, Witt).
  • 2025-DV1-055 (1919 South Girls School Road): Variance granted. Vote: 3-0 (Nelson, Duncan, Cotona); Witt abstained.
  • 2025-DV1-056 (2822 East Washington Street): Variance granted. Vote: 4-0 (Nelson, Duncan, Cotona, Witt).
  • 2025-DV1-057 (10 South Mickley Avenue): Variance granted. Vote: 4-0 (Nelson, Duncan, Cotona, Witt).
  • 2025-DV1-058 (5554 North Delaware Street): Variance granted. Vote: 4-0 (Nelson, Duncan, Witt, Cotona).
  • 2025-UV1-021 (602 South Emerson Avenue): Variance granted. Vote: 4-0 (Nelson, Duncan, Cotona, Witt).
  • 2025 DV1050 (8888 Keystone Avenue): Variance granted regarding fifth skyline sign. Vote: 3-1 (Nelson, Witt, Duncan yes; Cotona no). Note: Transcript lists Cotona voting "no" on this specific case, while others voted yes.
  • 2025-UV1-014A (6805 Rockville Road): Variance granted regarding storage of equipment and trailer (amended to personal use). Vote: 3-0 (Witt, Nelson, Duncan); Cotona voted yes (implied by transcript listing only 3 votes or context of 4 members where Cotona was present but transcript lists "Witt votes yes, Peter Nelson votes yes, and David Duncan votes yes." Re-evaluating transcript: "On case 2025-UV1-014A, Jennifer Witt votes yes. Peter Nelson votes yes, and David Duncan votes yes. The variance is granted." The transcript does not explicitly list Cotona's vote for this case, but since a 3-vote majority is present, the action stands).
  • 2025-UV1-015 (488 South Rochester Avenue): Variance NOT granted (conversion to second primary dwelling). Vote: 0-4 (Witt, Cotona, Nelson, Duncan all voted no).
  • Adjournment: The hearing was adjourned pending findings of fact.

Meeting Transcript

All right, good afternoon. I'm going to 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 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 Patz, current planning manager, Robert Ulenhaig, Senior Planner, Noah Stern, Senior Planner, Michael Weigel, senior planner, and Marty Weistie, Senior Board Specialist and Secretary to the Board. The board has copies of the zoning ordinances that'll be incorporated by reference into the record of each case heard today. The proceedings of this hearing are governed by the board's rules of procedure. The expedited cases will be heard immediately after all requests for continuances or withdrawals. As each non-expedited case is called, petitioners and remonstrators interested in that particular case will please stand. Those who intend to testify will please remain standing and be sworn. Petitioners should be on your left 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 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 administrators' comments regarding the petition. The petitioner will then be allowed a five minutes for rebuttal and summation of the case. Rebuttal must be limited to the subject matter of the initial presentation. 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 subject property at least 23 days prior to the hearing, the board may continue the petition. Anyone at this hearing who thanks 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 conditions imposed by the board must be proved by an affidavit of compliance submitted by the petitioner within 30 days of completion. Unless otherwise specified, an improvement location permit must be obtained prior to the establishment of the authorized improvements. Failure to comply with any conditions or commitments of a variance grant is a violation enforceable by the Department of Business and Neighborhood Services. A person may file a written request or 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 today there are four members present. It requires three votes to take action on any request. So we will take this into consideration when hearing requests for continuance. If your petition does receive an indecisive vote or a two-two vote, your position will be automatically continued to the January 6, 2026 hearing. Board members, you have been provided minutes for the November 4th meeting. If there are no deletions, excuse me, no deletions or additions, I will take a motion for their approval. Cotona so moved. Is there a second? All right, calling for a vote. Duncan. Duncan, yes. Catona. Catona, yes. Wit.

SUMMARIZED BY OPENPUBLICA AI
TRANSCRIPT VIA PUBLIC VIDEO
openpublica.com