All right, good afternoon, everybody.

Gonna call this meeting to order.

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

I am Peter Nelson, acting chairperson of Division One.

Other board members present today are 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 Ulenhake, senior planner, Michael Weigel, senior planner, Marty Weistie, 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.

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 continuance 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 administrator's comments regarding the petition.

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

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

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

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

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

If the petitioners have failed to comply with all notice requirements as stipulated by the board's rules of procedure, including posting of the notice sign on 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 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.

A person may file a written request to receive notice of the filing of the 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.

It does require three votes to take action on any request.

So any split vote would automatically be continued.

We will take this into consideration when hearing requests for continuances.

Board members, you've been provided the meeting minutes for a January 6th hearing.

If there are no deletions or additions, I'll take a motion for their approval.

Duncan so moved.

In a second.

Catona seconded.

All right, I'll take a call for a vote.

Duncan.

Duncan, yes.

Catona?

Catone, yes.

And Nelson votes yes.

All right.

Are there any questions in the audience about our procedures?

All right, seeing none.

Peter, I have just one comment.

Yes.

David, I believe you may have my folder because I've got a so I just want to I've got a vote with your name on it.

No problem.

I just wanted to make sure people didn't think we were doing some funky.

All right.

Thank you for the clarification.

So currently we don't have any expedited petitions, so I will skip over our uh rules of procedure for the uh the waiver of that that we normally do.

Um I will come back to it if we end up with an expedited petition.

So at this time, are there any special requests or continuances Brendan Crouch?

I live at 124 East Pleasant Run Parkway, North Drive.

And I'm here about 2025 DV1059, which is 5217 Broadway Street.

We are asking for a 30-day continuance in order to uh make some changes to the plans that comply with what the neighborhood is looking for.

All right, is there anyone in the audience with interest in petition 2025 DV1059 5217 Broadway Street?

All right.

Seeing no one staff, are we comfortable with this continuance request to the March 3rd hearing?

Thank you, Chair Person Nelson members of the board.

Staff has no objection to this request.

All right, board, we have a request to continue petition 2025 DV1059 to the March 3rd hearing.

Is there a motion?

Duncan so moved.

And a second.

All right, call for a vote.

Duncan.

Duncan, yes.

Katona.

Nelson votes yes.

Thank you very much.

My name is Greg Fecto.

I live at 5242 Singleton Street, Indianapolis.

We had a hearing uh and uh it's not on the docket.

I'm assuming we had a hearing on January 15th where the request for the petitioner was denied.

Uh they wanted it re-heard today, uh, but it's not on today's docket.

It's in the 5500 block of South Madison Avenue.

I'm assuming that the uh continuance was granted because they asked for one.

Uh and I'm I apologize for not having more facts because I was brought into this a little bit late.

Um so we're asking for the continuance on that, but I don't have a docket number because it's not on here.

And uh they uh uh again I'm sorry, I I can't think of the word.

They wanted reheard um because they were denied on January 15th.

So we're asking for a continuance because we couldn't get the remonstrators all on the same page here.

So you may have that in your notes, but it's not on the docket here.

I I've been through it twice, and I don't see any information on that uh that that uh petition.

There was no BZA hearing on January 15th.

There was one on January 13th.

Uh if you know for a fact that the case was heard on January 15th, then it would have been a different hearing body.

January 16th, I apologize.

16th.

Yes.

And we had the remonstrator here.

Uh and it was again it was denied, and so he cannot be back until March.

And so he uh and they're gonna continuance forward.

Um sir, I apologize, but there was no BCA hearing on that date either.

What was the address of the subject site again?

It's a 5500 block of South Madison I have no regarding a used car uh lot.

And uh they wanted to uh add a uh car uh auto repair service there uh and it was denied uh because of uh according to the the board the the gentleman that owns the property, the petitioner, uh did not make good on previous commitments from 10 years ago, and so it was denied based, I understand, based on that and that alone, and they wanted to get uh an appeal.

That's the word I was looking for, and it was scheduled for today.

And so again, it's not being not on this the docket here.

I I just don't have the information to guide you to where that or any of that information okay, yeah, fair enough.

Um so it appears there was not a uh BZA hearing on that date, so I think staff is looking into this.

So would you pull this gentleman aside when you find that information?

And then uh we'll we'll go ahead and continue with our BZA hearing.

Kathleen Black excuse me, was the was the person at the Marion County Development that they spoke with.

Uh she uh apparently she's not here today.

Okay.

Staff will assist you.

I think they can point you in the right direction with that request.

Uh we've got the the case number here is 2025 MOD024, and that is not a BCA case.

That is a hearing examiner case.

Thank you.

Any other special requests, continuances?

Chairperson Nelson, members of the board.

Staff are drawing your attention to the first special request, 2025 UV1025, located at 35315 points road.

Petitioners requested that this petition be withdrawn.

This require the board's acknowledgement.

So acknowledged.

Thank you.

And then also the second special request, 2025 UV1023, located at 5237 Commerce Circle.

Petitioners requested that this petition be withdrawn as well, and would require your acknowledgement.

So acknowledged.

Thank you.

Thank you, Chairperson Nelson.

Members of the board staff would draw your attention to item number one on the agenda 2025 DV1052 amended at 4105 West 93rd Street.

Uh per amended documentation, the petitioner was able to have one uh previous variance withdrawn, which could be acknowledged at your next hearing in March.

They also had a second variance added to the scope of the petition.

Uh, they also want additional time to discuss the case with staff as well as with um with the concerned neighbor.

Um staff is also waiting on additional um support and documentation from the applicant Fair Force staff is requesting a continuance to the March 3rd 2026 hearing date uh with new notice.

Okay, thank you.

Anyone in the audience with interest in petition 2025 D V one zero five two.

All right, seeing none, uh board staff has requested we move this petition 2025 D V1052 to the March 3rd hearing, continue it to the March 3rd hearing that is with additional notice.

Is there a motion?

Duncan so moved.

A second.

Catona seconded.

All right, call for a vote.

Duncan?

Duncan, yes.

Katona Catoni, yes.

Nelson votes yes.

Uh thank you.

Staff would also draw your attention to item number two on the agenda, 2025 DV1061 at 9000 Shetland Lane.

Uh, the petitioner is out of town um working on a different variance in Green Bay, Wisconsin was unable to be here this afternoon.

Uh they and uh the Pike Township Residence Association have agreed that um they would be amenable to having the petition continued and transferred to the Division 2 hearing of the BZA scheduled for February 10th, 2026, which would be in one week's time.

Uh staff is making this request on the petitioner's behalf, but would not have an objection to the request.

Thank you.

Anyone in the audience with interest in petition 2025 DV1061.

All right, board, we have a request from staff to transfer petition 2025 DV1061.

Uh continue and transfer it to the Division 2 hearing on February 10th.

Is there a motion?

Duncan so moved and a second.

All right, call for a vote, Duncan.

Duncan, yes.

Catona.

Nelson votes yes.

Uh thank you.

Staff would draw your attention to item number three on the docket, 2025 D V 1063 amended at 6690 Jackson Street.

Um, an automatic continuance was filed by a registered neighborhood organization.

Um automatically continuing this petition to your March 3rd 2026 hearing date.

Uh this would merely require the board's acknowledgement.

So acknowledged.

Thank you.

And uh finally, I draw your attention to item number six on the agenda 2025 DV1064 at 3155 Arbor Street.

Uh the petitioners come to an agreement with the Northwest Perry Neighborhood Association to have this petition continued to the March 3rd, 2026 hearing date to allow for additional discussion between them.

My understanding is that given that agreement, neither party is in attendance this afternoon, and staff is making this request on thorough on the neighborhood group's behalf.

We have no objection to the request.

All right, thank you.

Anyone in the audience with interest in petition?

2025 D V1064.

All right, board.

We have a request to continue petition 2025 DV1064 to the March 3rd hearing.

Is there a motion?

Duncan so moved and a second.

Catona seconded.

All right, call for a vote, Duncan.

Duncan.

Duncan, yes.

Catona.

Nelson votes yes.

All right.

Any other requests, continuances at this time.

Hearing none, we do not have anything on the expedited docket.

So we can go ahead and move to the first case.

These are petitions for public hearing.

Case number 2025-DV1-062 property address 9110 Kenwood Drive.

Washington Township, Council District No.

2, zoned D2.

The petitioner is Joseph Pennell.

Variants of development standards of the consolidated zoning and subdivision ordinance to allow for a six-foot tall fence within a front yard.

Maximum three and a half foot height permitted.

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

Do you swear or affirm under penalty of perjury that the testimony will give the truth and nothing but the truth?

Say I do.

I do afternoon.

Joseph Pennell, 9110 Kenwood Drive.

We moved into our house in April of 2022.

This fence was already existing.

The fence we're talking about is actually facing 91st Street.

So even though this is on a corner, this fence is considered a front yard.

Her father, excuse me, built the neighborhood.

She remembers the fence being originally built 60 years ago, so it was an old, very old fence.

In February of last year, during that big windstorm, a section of the fence blew down, uh, taking one of the posts with it.

So I repaired the post, rails, and fence of those two sections.

Uh it was considerably different than the rest of the fence.

So to make it look consistent, I just went ahead and replaced all of the pickets of the fence.

Did not replace the rails, move the fence, do anything to it, and I made it the exact same way it was before, um, with old posts and rails on the back side.

When I originally got um the violation and I called, they said it was because I built a new fence, and because that's what you were seeing, just the new pickets.

And when I told them that I had just replaced the pickets, then they said, Well, then you repaired too much of the fence.

And I asked if there was in the the variation what percentage you're allowed to replace, and they said no.

So that's why we're here today because all I did was replace the pickets.

Um, the exact size and height the fence was before.

And um then since then we've had other damage to the fence which I've had to repair.

Um, and then more when that branch came down.

I'm not sure if you have that in the pictures, but that took out uh some more rails and one post as well.

So everything else is consistent with what it was before on um the 8th of February.

I actually went before the Nora Northside Community Council and presented them with this information, and they had no objection uh to the petition.

Um, seeing that it was you know just the fence has always been there to be grandfathered in.

So my 94-year-old neighbor did want to come down here, but I told her she can stay at home.

So she did write a letter, but uh I won't I won't read that out loud.

I do believe we got the letter of support in the uh packet.

So um board, do you have any questions for the petitioner at this time?

And I don't see anybody, but I should ask is there anyone here speaking in opposition to this case 2025 DV1062?

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

Sure.

Uh thanks very much.

Um, Chairperson Nelson, members of the board for your time and for volunteering.

Um, thank you to the petitioner for their comments as well.

Um, our staff is recommending denial of this petition for a front yard fence with a height that would exceed uh the allowed height for a front yard on the southern portion of the property.

Uh for context, this is a residential parcel on the northwest corner of 91st and Kenwood.

It's improved with a single family home that has driveway access from both frontages, both Kenwood to the west as well as 91st to the south, and is surrounded by other residential development.

Uh, since this is a corner lot, as the petition noted there would be two front yards, both to the south and to the east.

Um, per aerial photography, uh dispenses existed in the approximate location of the current fence for the last 40 years.

Sounds like the last 60 per um folks at the petitioner knows as well.

Uh most recent street view photo in 2007 appears to show a fence with uh similar height of around six foot.

Uh per documents and photos submitted by the applicant, a portion of that fence sustained damage from a storm in February of 2025.

Um at that point, the fence was removed and replaced with those new pickets, it sounds like in the same location.

There was additional damage from a tree branch in September of 2025, where just a portion was also replaced a second time.

Uh those are photos five and six within the staff report, and you can see the tree damage pretty clearly there.

Um a violation case was opened as a result of an anonymous uh complaint, uh, presumably from a neighbor of O that wasn't anonymous, so we're not sure.

And July of 2025, uh site of the property for a fence over 42 inches in height within the front yard.

Approval of this variance would allow for the currently existing fence shown within those site photographs to remain in place.

Uh the variance for the front yard height is the only variance that would be required.

Defense is not within the clear site triangle formed by um the private driveway in 91st Street.

Um the infill housing guidelines, which is a component of the comprehensive plan um indicates that sea fruit fencing and front yards is safest and preferred.

Uh fences should be ornamental in style, not opaque privacy fences like the ones being shown.

Uh property to the west of the subject site appears to also be improved with a fence in the front yard, um, but with chain link as opposed to the wooden slats, which allows some added visibility of a properties immediately surrounding don't appear to have front yard privacy fences of this nature.

Um, not that it would constitute a practical difficulty if they did.

Umfortunate that storm damage earlier this year spurred the property owner to remove and replace the fence in a manner that would lose that legally non-conforming status that it may have had.

Um staff does not feel that rises to the level of a site-specific practical difficulty that would prevent installation of a compliant fence.

I want to be clear this isn't a prohibition on any fencing at the site or even any fencing in this location at the site.

Uh, multiple options would still exist to either have a fence in this spot, but with the compliant height, it could be up to four foot if chain link or three and a half if the wooden materials were maintained, or a six-foot fence that could be pulled back to run parallel with the front building line of the house around 91st Street.

I would still allow for a fenced area of around 4,375 square feet.

Um given that flexibility for alternate options and a lack of site-specific practical difficulty, which is the uh state burden imposed as a criteria for variance approval, uh, we would recommend denial of the petition.

Uh we were contacted by uh multiple neighbors.

We had the no objection letter from um from that council group as well as several who called to confirm the scope of the project.

Um none expressed opposition, but some were worried that the way the variance was phrased would allow for new or additional fence to be placed along the Kenwood Drive to the east.

Uh my understanding is that that is not the intent of the petitioner, but if this were to be approved over a denial, um it could be subject to a commitment limited to like the current fence layout or orientation if that's a concern that the board shares.

And with that, I'd be happy to answer questions.

All right, board, any questions for staff.

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

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

Yeah, looking at the fence, um, the neighbor behind me with that chain link was actually built before ours because our shared back line is chain link from them.

That's really old and rusted.

And to remove the fence even further back to the requirements, well to even lower it three feet.

I the only way I can probably do that would be to take a chainsaw to it, and it would not look as good.

And then to move it back another 30 feet to the house would already be a significant out-of-pocket expense, which I've already had quite a bit of an expense just to replace the pickets, um, just to make it like it was before.

And that would be a burden.

Then you would have the fence not even lined up with the current fence, which aesthetically it would look uh worse than it does right now, um, because it would be out of line with that line that you see there with the neighbor's fence.

And then it would significantly decrease our property value having less uh fenced in yard, plus the out-of-pocket, you think about uh what to do a fence fifty dollars per square foot, another five thousand, and then I would have to replace and uh remove all of the two-foot sunk eight foot or excuse me, yeah, eight foot um posts with concrete at the base.

I've already had to remove one base for that one section that was blown down, and that was not fun.

Um, so that would be another significant expense to remove all those uh to fill in the yard and make it look uh appealing.

All right, thank you.

Uh board, any questions for anyone at this time?

Yeah, would you entertain a commitment that um you wouldn't further the encroachment of the fence that if it did need to be rebuilt that it would be rebuilt and it's as existing location, similar to what you did with replacing?

Yeah, would you entertain a commitment that um you wouldn't further the encroachment of the fence that if it did need to be rebuilt that it would be rebuilt and it's as existing location similar to what you did with replacing the fixed.

Anything you wanted.

My goal is not to increase it, it was just to replace it and fix it.

And I would continue that.

All right, thank you.

All right, anything else from the board at this time?

All right.

I will say we will consider that a commitment from the petitioner to not increase or further extend the existing layout of the existing fence.

Um please consider that as you cast your ballot for petition 2025 DV1062.

On case 2025-DV1-062, Andrew Catona votes yes, Peter Nelson votes yes, and David Duncan votes yes.

The variance is granted.

Thank you.

Subject to the commitment agreed upon.

Correct.

Case number 2025-DV1-064 property address 3155 Arbor Street.

Perry Township.

Council District.

That one was continued.

That one was continued.

Yeah.

I apologize.

Oh, yeah, sure enough, the last one.

Okay.

Uh next case is case number 2025-UV1-024 amended property address 2170 East 75th Street.

Washington Township, Council District No.

2, zoned DSFW.

The petitioner is Molly A.

Wright, represented by David Stevens.

Variants of use and development standards of the consolidated zoning and subdivision ordinance to provide for and legally establish an accessory structure in the front yard of 75th Street, not permitted, to provide for the expansion of a detached garage with a two-foot side setback, 15-foot side setback required for the garage to have a footprint larger than the primary building.

Accessory structures cannot be larger than the primary building, and with 81% open space, 85% open space required.

Those who plan to speak on this petition, please raise the right hand to be sworn in.

I do.

Yes, my name is Molly Wright.

Uh address 2170 East 75th Street, Indianapolis, 46240.

The basically the homes along the river are known to have the front yard facing the river, and the backyard would be where the garage is actually.

So a lot of people, it's kind of reverse from what normal houses are.

The proposed garage is designed.

Yes, it is oversized.

Um, it's to fit boats in.

Um homeowners along the White River have boats.

Um we and like to store them inside, um, especially with the Indiana weather, rather than outdoors and having to replace more on your boat.

Um having an oversized garage would increase the property value since homeowners along the river uh would notice and they um like just like to store their boats inside.

So it would increase the property value rather than paying for an off-site facility.

Many houses on the river have more than one garage.

Uh houses in the neighborhood have summer homes, um, properties such as a carriage house above their garage, and some have pool houses along with garages and storage sheds.

The proposed garage does have a larger footprint than the house, but the garage was that you approved in 2018 also has a larger footprint than the house, and that was case number uh 2018 DV1-26.

The house was updated in 2018 along with that garage that you were approved.

This would be the last establishment on the property that would bring everything on the property up to date and up to code.

As for the side setback, the property has been owned by the same family since 1985.

There have not has not been an issue with the upkeep.

Since 85, it has been painted, re-sided, re-roofed with no problem.

The neighbors garage that set that backs up to the is taken care of as well and was recently painted.

The neighbors have actually written a letter stating that they are aware and have no problem with the proposed garage and the size.

Neighbors and property owners along the river are aware of how important it is for indoor boat storage with our weather.

Safety was also listed as a concern for the proposed garage.

The adjacent garage has had does have an apartment above it.

They did have an emergency back in the 90s, and emergency personnel did not have a problem.

Since then, there has actually been additional fire hydrants that have been installed on 75th Street.

A fire hydrant is now located directly across from the proposed garage.

The garage is in the original frame and foundation that was built prior to purchase in 1985.

All right.

Thank you.

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

Yeah, you you mentioned a couple times there that the new garage is necessary to bring the property into compliance with building code.

What are the violations of the existing garage to the to the building code?

The violations, it's just the set the current garage is the setback.

Setback.

All right.

Thank you.

All right.

Is there anyone in the audience in opposition today for this petition case 2025 UV 1024?

All right.

Seeing none.

Uh staff comments, please.

Thank you, Chairperson Elsa members of the board.

Um staff does not object to locating the accessory structure in front of the primary building.

Um this would be the second one that has been requested in 2018.

A similar garage was requested, which staff did recommend approval for that.

This uh current proposal um would be the third accessory structure in front of the dwelling on the subject site.

It's staff's um belief that this uh amount of accessory structures would lead to um a larger amount of covered space on the lot uh and therefore might provide obstructions to both floodplain when the river floods and um and to responding emergency uh personnel, uh especially when there's a proposed two-foot side setback adjacent to another dwelling with a zero foot side, or excuse me, another structure with a zero foot side setback.

Um the lot does is smaller than the DS standard, so there is some hardship in meeting that but in staff's opinion.

Um the what the proposed is is an overdevelopment of the site and uh a smaller garage uh with maybe uh eight-foot side setback would be more palatable to staff.

Um this would uh eliminate one or one and or possibly two of the requested variances.

Um the garage existing garage with the two-foot side setback is considered legally non-conforming, as is the neighbors' garage with the zero foot side setback, both in the front yard, and they're allowed to remain as is.

Once you change, alter, improve, and large, then they need to become zoning compliant, which is a request uh part of the request you have today for to legally establish that two-foot side setback.

If the existing garage was to remain as is, staff being a one one level garage, staff would not have much concern.

However, elevations indicate this will be a two-story garage, uh, similar to the neighbors, and those two structures and massing side by side with the two-foot separation would have some concern for staff, which is why we are recommending denial of that request.

Um similar with the open space.

Um, although this does not meet the DS standards lot size, it is about half the lot size of a DS.

Um we are concerned that the amount of covered lot um those would could possibly could possibly provide um issues as I indicated before with uh flood floodplain drainage and um and uh la uh lessening of green space in the area with the staff does recommend denial as proposed.

Um, and be happy to answer any question the board may have um is this property in the flood fringe?

Is that do I have that term right?

It doesn't look like it's in the floodway, but is it in the flood fringe?

The floodway is indicated, but that's at the northern part along the river.

Okay, the majority of it is outside, but I think there might be some flood fringe around the edges of the property.

Okay.

And the reason I'm asking, I'm looking at the elevations that are in the staff report, and on a lot of the properties that are in the floodway andor in the flood fringe, there's a requirement for the like the fall away walls, like the block walls that if there is a flood that comes through, that those are designed to fall over so that the entire structure doesn't lift up off its foundation and become a moveable.

So building code standards are different from zoning code standards, uh development standards.

Um if the variance is aggranded, they would still have to meet building code standards for building anything within a flood wave fringe.

And that would include drainage outlets within the foundation of uh structure.

I'm not too familiar with what the specific requirements are.

However, in addition, some of the structures you mentioned may even predate that and be legally non-conforming as well if they do not have drainage vents.

Um as they may have been there for 70 years, as this area was developed in the early 1920s, was first developed to my knowledge in the 1920s.

All right, thank you.

I want to acknowledge the petitioner.

It looked like he had something to say.

Um I was just gonna say it is in the 500-year floodplain, and we've had it evaluated, and we actually sit higher than monument circle, so downtown monument circle would be flooded before the house is flooded.

All right, board.

Any other questions for staff?

I actually had one.

Um I want to clarify something.

So I understand, and pardon me if I don't have this orientation right based on the plan that I'm looking at.

But so I understand extending this property or the the garage north um makes this lose its legally nonconforming status as you're adding more to that um side set back that'll that'll be just that two feet.

Would the building also lose the legally nonconforming status if it was just expanded to the west and if it was not expanded north at all, or would it still remain legally nonconforming?

Uh any change would uh result in the losing regard if it was north or west.

Okay.

So the the standard is as is where is, if you will.

Okay, great.

Thank you for that clarification.

All right.

Um at this time um I think we're good.

Uh we'll go back to the petitioner.

You can have again up to five minutes for your rebuttal and closing statements.

Um there was a second um mini barn that was added recently because a tree actually took down our mini barn, so it was replaced.

It has been there since we purchased the house.

Um, so I know that is about 200 square feet that was added that was not on our previous one when we did have that garage the our other garage built.

Um I know that the house down the street, a complete house was built with a five-foot setback from the property.

Um, so there's only five feet in between the house and the property, and ours is actually does have about five feet between the two properties.

There is enough room to walk between the properties and put a ladder up to do anything.

Uh, there is a fence that actually goes back uh right down the properties and trees that are a tree that's even growing.

So there is room in between to get through between the neighbor's garage and the proposed garage.

Um I just want to say this this is a family home.

We've had it since 85.

Um we have a lot of treasures.

Um we're an outdoor family.

We do have quads, boats, a car we recently inherited.

So this proposed garage would just allow us to have everything on our property for our children.

Uh we don't plan on moving.

We want this to be passed on to our children.

We are a family who does everything together, and the kids are always working with us in the garage and on our boats and toys.

So we're just trying to get this garage so we can have more room for our toys and make sure stuff's stored for them to pass it down to them.

All right, thank you.

Board, any final questions, comments before we cast our ballots.

All right, hearing none, then I will ask you to please cast your ballot for petition 2025 UV 1024 amended.

It fell on the floor.

On case 2025-UV1-024 amended, David Duncan votes yes.

Peter Nelson votes yes, and Andrew Catona votes yes.

The variance is granted.

Thank you.

Case number two zero two five-dv one-zero six five property address two nine two nine Eagledale Drive.

Wayne Township, Council District Number 11, zoned D5.

The petitioner is Grizzy Home and Property Group LLC represented by Martin Jimenez.

Variants of development standards of the consolidated zoning and subdivision ordinance to provide for a carport with a zero foot side yard setback.

Five foot setback required.

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

Oh uh do we have a case I I do.

Okay.

There we go.

Uh I am speaking this in my song, I don't know.

Am I able to translate for it?

Absolutely.

You'll you'll have to swear in as well, but you're absolutely welcome to come and speak.

Just go ahead and raise your right hand for me.

Thank you.

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

Say I do.

Thank you.

Um we were we were told to come here today for the sorry real real quick.

Can you guys state your name and address for the record?

Um my father's name is Martin Um Jimenez, Arauz Jimenez, and um Johnson Arauz Vargas.

And uh that's my file on the slide.

Uh address is 2929 equals L5.

Okay, thank you.

Just kind of get that down for the for the record.

Uh go ahead.

Thanks.

Um, so we were cited today to come here because we had we added a like a seat, like a roof next to the house.

And um we asked for permission to do it.

So we should they told us to come here and we don't try to solve it out to see if we can get uh permission to uh keep it.

Um is there any possible way that we can get uh more advanced translator?

Because I'm not like advocated for this translation.

Um I'm fluent in both languages, but I'm not completely like 100% fully.

I'm sorry.

Okay, no no worries.

Um do we have a translator at all that we can get?

Um I'm I'm wondering, you know, with with this notice if we may need to continue the petition or or what we'd have to do in this instance.

If we don't have somebody that can be available right now?

Right.

Yeah, so I think it would definitely have to be continued to make arrangements for um an interpreter.

Okay, and is is there someone that that we can provide, or is there someone that you might have that could be here if we needed to continue this petition to maybe next month?

Um is it the demo towards on a pick up with uh books you want me?

Yeah, we can.

You guys can find one?

Yeah, we can find it.

We can find one for the question.

Okay.

So then I will ask, are you comfortable?

Um, because you know, we just want to make sure you're as ready as possible and we can get the best information that we can as a board to hear your case.

But can you if we were to transfer that to next month's hearing, so that'd be March 3rd.

Is it is that would that date work for you guys?

Yeah.

Okay.

Um I guess I'll ask, it appears everybody here.

Is uh everybody else here is either with the petitioner or with someone else, but is there anyone uh that would be opposed to this petition being continued?

2025 DV1065.

Anyone in the audience?

All right, seeing none.

Um I'll go ahead and ask staff.

Are are we comfortable doing this so we can get the petitioner so the petitioner can provide or uh if needed work with staff to get a translator available?

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

Uh this was the initial uh docketed hearing for the petition, so we wouldn't have an objection to the continuance.

I don't believe we have in-person translation services that we're able to offer that I'm aware of, but um we can reach out to the applicant as needed to see what sort of arrangements or accommodations we might may or may not be able to help with, but we have no objections at a March continuance.

Okay.

I I think maybe as as a board I would ask if staff could just kind of check to make sure the the petitioner and the their their chosen translator could could be there next month.

Um otherwise I will uh pose to the board that we have a request to move this petition, continue petition 2025 DV1065 to the March 3rd hearing to allow time to get a translator for the petitioner uh to be present.

Is there a motion for that continuance?

I would just add that's without additional notice.

Thank you.

Yes.

Duncan so moved.

In a second.

All right.

Call for a vote then, Duncan?

Duncan, yes.

Katona?

Katoni, yes.

And Nelson votes yes.

All right, so we can we can hear the case on March 3rd, and then that'll give you some time to find find a translator so we can get the best information from you.

All right, thank you.

Absolutely.

All right, that was the last case on our docket.

Do we have any additional business today?

All right, board, a couple of findings of fact that we will sign, so stick around for that.

Otherwise, this hearing is adjourned.