Good afternoon, everyone.

Before we begin today's meeting, this this division needs to elect a chairperson, vice chairperson, and secretary.

So we're gonna quickly do those nominations and votes so we can have our officers.

So is there anyone on the board that wishes to serve as chairperson of Division One?

Hearing no one else, I will volunteer to remain as chairperson.

So do we have a motion to nominate Peter Nelson as chair of Division One?

So moved.

Wit, so moved.

And a second.

Duncan second.

All right, we'll call for a vote.

Wit.

Wit, yes.

Duncan.

Duncan, yes.

And Nelson votes yes.

All right.

Is there any member that wishes to serve as vice chair?

I'll uh nominate myself to serve as vice chair.

All right.

Do we have a motion to nominate?

Uh I'll take I'll take uh David's motion as a or David's volunteer as a motion.

So do we have a second?

Wit, second.

All right, so we'll call for a vote to for David Duncan to be vice chair of Division One.

Uh Witt.

Wit.

Uh yes.

Duncan.

Duncan, yes.

And Nelson votes yes.

All right.

And then finally, is there any member that wishes to serve as secretary?

I volunteer to be secretary.

All right.

I will take Jennifer's volunteering to be secretary as the first motion.

Is there a second?

Duncan second.

All right, call for a vote for Jennifer Witt to be secretary of Division One.

Witt.

Wit.

Yes.

Duncan.

Duncan, yes.

And Nelson votes yes.

All right.

Thank you everyone for your patience with that.

Excuse me.

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

I am Peter Nelson, newly elected chairperson of Division One.

The other board members present are Jennifer Witt and David Duncan.

Legal counsel for the board today is Chris Steinmetz.

Staff members present today from the Division of Planning are Jeffrey York, current planning manager, Bryce Patz, current planning manager, Robert Uhlenhake, senior planner, Michael Weigel, senior planner, Josh Levesque, senior planner, and Marty Weistie, senior board specialist and secretary to the board.

The board has copies of the zorning 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 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 administrator's 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 matters covered in the statutory requirements, which must be met in order for the board to grant a variance.

If the petitioners have failed to comply with all notice requirements as stipulated by the board's rules of procedure, including posting of the notice sign on the subject property at least 23 days prior to the hearing, the board may continue the petition.

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 areas, and the dedication of rights of way 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 imp 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 all matters pending before the board outside of this public hearing is prohibited.

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

As I check mine.

So we will take this into consideration when hearing request for continuances.

If your petition receives an indecisive vote, your petition will be automatically continued to the April 7th, 2026 hearing.

All right, board, you have been provided meeting minutes for a February 3rd, 2026 meeting.

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

Duncan so move.

And a second.

Wit, second.

All right, call for a vote, wit.

Wit, yes.

Duncan?

Duncan, yes.

And Nelson votes yes.

All right.

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

All right.

Seeing no one, before we hear special requests, I will ask for a waiver of our rule 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.

Is there a motion?

Duncan so moved.

Second.

Wit, second.

All right, call for a vote.

WIT.

Wit, yes.

Duncan?

Duncan, yes.

Nelson votes yes.

All right, at this time we can consider special requests and continuances.

Good afternoon, members of the board.

My name is Tim Oakes, attorney in Icemar with offices at 1 American Square, Suite 2900, Indianapolis, Indiana, 46282.

Um here this afternoon on behalf of V465 LLC with respect to petition number 2025 DV1052 at 4105 West 93rd Street.

That's the first item on your agenda.

Um staff is requesting a continuance to the April 7th, 2026 hearing, which is their second request to do so while we understand the request.

Um a continuance to April would be uh extremely prejudicial to the project as a whole because of uh April 1st deadline.

Uh so while we will not object to the continuance, we would request that this matter be transferred to Division 2 for a hearing next week.

Everything has been submitted to staff at this point for their report.

Um, and that would allow the project to move forward in a timely manner if the um if it were approved.

So with that, we were we would ask it be transferred to division two for hearing on uh March 10th uh 2026.

Okay.

Um is there anyone in the audience with interest, particularly the continuance request and transfer to Division 2 for petition 2025 DV1052 at 4105 West 93rd Street?

All right, seeing no one um staff, are we comfortable with the continuance and transfer?

Yeah, uh thank you, Chairperson Nelson members of the board.

Uh staff had requested a continuance from your February hearing to the March hearing to allow the petitioner some time to complete some additional documentation related to the filing to give our staff additional context for making our recommendation.

That information was provided after the new a full week after the new information deadline for today's hearing, which is why we had indicated the request to April.

Um the information provided was given within the new information deadline for division two's hearing next week, though, and I understand there are some environmental concerns at the site as well, which means that it would be to their benefit to have that be heard next week, uh, given that context of satisfying with the continuance and transfer to division two for March 10th.

Great, thank you.

All right, board, we have a request to continue and transfer petition 2025 DV1052 to the March 10th hearing of Division 2.

Is there a motion?

Duncan so moved.

Second.

Wit, second.

All right, call for a vote.

Wit.

Wit, yes.

Wit, yes.

Duncan?

Duncan, yes.

And Nelson votes yes.

Thank you.

Chair present also members of the board staff would draw your attention to item number three, petition 2026 DV1001, located at 40 445 Sanders Street, registered neighborhood organization.

This filed a timely automatic continuance continuing this to the April 7th, 2026 hearing.

This would require your acknowledgement.

So acknowledged.

Thank you, Steph.

We'll also draw your attention to item number four.

Petition 2026 D V1003 located at 602 Prospect Street.

Similar registered neighborhood organization has filed a timely automatic continuance, continuing this petition to the April 7th, 2026 hearing.

This would require your acknowledgement.

So acknowledged.

Thank you.

Steph will also draw your attention to item number five, petition 2026 D V1004, located at 6535 North Alney Street.

The petitioner was not able to uh complete his required legal public notice in time.

Therefore, staff is requesting this be continued, I believe, for cause to the April 7th, 2025 hearing.

So that 2026 hearing, excuse me, to allow time for the petitioner to meet the legal notice requirements.

All right, is there anyone in the audience with interest in this petition 2026 DV1004, 6535 North only Street?

All right.

Um so we heard from staff.

So board, we have a request to move petition 2026 DV1004.

Continue it to the April 7th hearing.

Is there a motion?

Duncan so moved.

Second.

Wit, second.

All right, call for a vote.

Wit.

Wit, yes.

Duncan, Duncan, yes.

Nelson votes yes.

Thank you.

Steph will also draw your attention to item number 13, 2026 DV1005, located at 6617 Stearns Hill Drive.

Um staff is requesting uh waiver of the legal notice requirements for this as they were provided late to the petitioner.

I believe a four-day waiver of the mailed notice is required.

The sign was posted on time.

All right.

Is there anyone in the audience that would be in opposition to this waiver request for petition 2026 DV1005?

6617 Stearns Hill Drive.

You can, if you have opposition, you can come to the podium.

Oh, okay.

So you you support the waiver.

Okay.

Sorry.

Um we'll come back to this then where you'd have some time.

Um this was requested by staff.

So board, we have a request for a four-day waiver of the mailing notice for petition 2026 D V1005.

Is there a motion?

Duncan, so move.

Second.

Wit, second.

All right, call for a vote.

Wit.

Wit, yes.

Duncan, Duncan, yes.

Nelson votes yes.

All right, we'll we'll get back to you guys when we get through the uh normal proceeding.

Thank you.

Yeah, uh, thank you, Chair Burst and Nelson, members of the board staff would draw your attention to item number two on the agenda 2025 DV1065 at 2929 Eagledale Drive.

Uh staff is requesting a continuance on the petitioner's behalf to the April 7th, 2026 hearing date.

Uh this is both to allow them time to comply with legal notice requirements for 23-day um signage posting specifically.

Additionally, this is allowing staff time to coordinate to have a translator present.

Um, this petition was initially scheduled to be heard at the February hearing date, but was unable to because the petitioner was unable to understand the proceedings.

Um we're working on having a translator present and will require additional time to do so.

Great, thank you for that.

All right, is there anyone in the audience with interest in 2025 DV1065, 2929 Eagledale Drive that would be in opposition to this continuance request?

Sir I believe you you are the petitioner.

So you you support okay, yeah.

Can does anybody recall this is the petitioner.

Okay.

So we're good.

You're good.

Yes, okay.

So we're gonna we're gonna vote on the continuance.

So you you're cool with next month.

You're okay with next month.

Okay, great.

All right.

Yeah, we just need to confirm that.

Um, board, we have a request to continue petition 2025 DV1065 to the April 7th hearing.

Is there a motion?

Wit, so moved.

Second.

Duncan, second.

All right, call for a vote.

Wit.

Wit, yes.

Duncan, Duncan, yes.

And Nelson votes yes.

Okay.

Uh thank you.

Staff would draw your attention to item number seven on the agenda.

That's 2026 UV1001 at 3919 Muller Road for various or several variances.

Since that petition was filed on staff's advice, a petitioner has since filed a companion rezoning and variance petition, which has been approved by the Metropolitan Development Commission, which would obviate the need for this petition.

They've indicated their desire to have this petition withdrawn.

This would merely require the board's acknowledgement.

So acknowledged.

Thank you.

Staff would also draw your attention to item number eight on the agenda.

This petition is on your expedited docket to allow for a detached accessory garage within the front yard of the site.

The variance was originally filed, including a request related to the width of the front yard driveway as well.

That has since been withdrawn from the filing.

A diversion that's written in on the agenda here is correct, indicating just for one variance, but I believe that partial withdrawal should still be acknowledged verbally by the board.

Okay, we'll acknowledge that partial withdrawal that you had mentioned.

Thank you.

Thank you.

And then finally, uh staff would draw your attention to item number 14 on the agenda.

Uh it's on the third page of our 2026 UV 1002 at 5301 West 56th Street.

Uh timely automatic continuance was filed by a registered registered neighborhood organization to continue this petition to your April uh April 7th hearing, I think that is.

Yes, April 7th.

I mean they require your acknowledgement.

So acknowledged.

Thanks.

Yes.

Thank you, Chairperson Nelson and members of the board.

Uh staff would draw your attention to number six.

This is 2026 DV1006 at 7575 Central Avenue.

Staff would request a continuance to the April 26 or April 7th, 2026 meeting with notice.

Staff noticed a uh mistake in the original legal notice after the uh notice deadline had gone out.

Uh therefore uh changes needed to be made and and uh has needed to be moved to the subsequent uh meeting in order to allow um adequate time for notice.

All right, thank you.

Um is there anyone in the audience with interest in petition 2026 DV1006, 7575 Central Avenue?

All right.

Staff or staff, we heard from staff board.

We have a request to continue petition 2026 DV1006 to the April 7th hearing.

That is with notice.

Is there a motion?

Duncan so moved.

Second.

Wit, second.

All right.

Call for a vote, wit.

Wit, yes.

Duncan?

Duncan, yes.

Nelson votes yes.

All right, are there any other special requests or continuances at this time?

All right, seeing no one, um, let's go on to the expedited docket.

These are petitions to be expedited.

Case number 2025-dv1-064 amended property address 3155 Arbor Street, Perry Township, Council District Number 22, zoned D4F.

The petitioner is Jose Moreno, represented by Samuel Salazar.

Variants of development standards of the consolidated zoning and subdivision ordinance to allow for a detached accessory garage within the front yard of Arbor Street.

Accessory structures must be behind primary buildings.

Case number 2026-d V1-002 property address 101 West Georgia Street, Center Township, Council District Number 18, zoned CBD2 RCTOD.

The petitioner is Capital Improvement Board of Managers of Marion County, represented by Sarah Peters.

Variants of development standards of the consolidated zoning and subdivision ordinance to provide for the placement of a primary freestanding sign within the mile square, not permitted, and within public right of way, not permitted.

And case number 2026-UV1-003 property addresses 2407 and 2409 English Avenue, Center Township, Council District Number 18, zoned C4 slash C7.

The petitioner is Joseph Seikos.

Variance of use and development standards of the consolidated zoning and subdivision ordinance to provide for the operation and expansion of a bar slash tavern within an existing building, approximately five feet from a protected district.

100 foot separation required.

And with 15 parking spaces provided.

22 parking spaces minimum required.

Is there anyone in attendance today that is in opposition to any of these petitions?

Jefferson Nelson, that's the end of the expedited docket.

All right, thank you.

Board, we've heard the expedited cases.

Can you please go ahead and cast your ballots for these for these petitions?

On case 2025-DV1-064, David Duncan votes yes.

Peter Nelson votes yes, and Jennifer Whitt votes yes.

That variance is granted.

On case 2026-DV1-002, David Duncan votes yes.

Peter Nelson votes yes, and Jennifer Whitt votes yes.

That variance is granted.

And on case two zero two six dash UV one-zero zero three, David Duncan votes yes.

Peter Nelson votes yes, and Jennifer Whitt votes yes.

That variance is granted.

All right.

Anyone here with a petition that has been continued or for the expedited cases can feel free to take leave.

Umce the room clears out a bit, we will go ahead and call the first case.

The petitioner is John Rising Moore.

Variants of development standards of the consolidated zoning and subdivision ordinance to provide for the addition to a single family dwelling with a four-foot north side yard set north side setback and a three and a half foot south side setback.

Five foot side setbacks required.

Well, 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 you will give is the truth and nothing but the truth?

Say I do.

I do.

My name is Mark Crouch.

I represent the petitioner, Mr.

Risemore, or his property today.

Um the reason we're here is for a side yard setback variants.

The um my client is putting an addition onto his house.

He has um exceeded the legal limit for the exception that's in the in the code book.

So most of the primary residents is already inferior as a three-foot setback.

The original addition that we applied for took advantage of the exception, and he had since had modified the plans because he has some health concerns, and they extend it back up additional feet beyond that.

So staff's comments for recommendation of denial, or because it was excessive, and he could redesign his project, which has some merit.

I don't know that it's excessive.

The existing house has about 40 feet on both sides that are at three foot.

It's been that way since it was originally constructed.

Um it doesn't change the height of the structure with the addition that they've already been permitted to build.

It's actually in place.

Uh without probably good cause, um, not knowing that they would need an additional variance, and the plans were already submitted to the city of Indianapolis for their review.

The review is on hold, pending the variance today.

The good news is with the new requirements of the building department.

If we build a property within five feet of a property line, it has to have a one-hour fire rated protection.

So that if it was at five foot, we would not have that fire rating protection.

So that's an extra cost that he has to bear, or any homeowner has to bear because of that.

So we're hoping that that helps with staff's uh concerns about the fire rescue.

Uh the three feet existing setbacks on the primary residents obstructing the fire department for uh access, I guess is a is somewhat of a concern, but it's already there, so they'd have to make it through the three feet in order to get to the back of the house.

They could access it easily from the alley, which is probably the best means for egress from the structure at the second level, uh not necessarily from the side.

The owner's daughter uh owns the adjacent property to the north.

She's in obviously support of the petition, doesn't feel like it harms the value of her house.

She would be the one indirect uh reduction of whatever sunlight might be restricted to her from a four-inch or five-inch reduction in the site line.

The um house can be reconstructed, so I agree with staff on that, but why would it doesn't seem to be common sense that we would kick the the sides of the house in for the remaining few feet when the entire structure is at three feet already?

Um we're not interfering with the open uh open site plan requirements for the space.

There is no garage.

He owns a restaurant that's behind there.

Uh the people that are currently use the structure are employees that live there the on-site, so they're not intending to build a garage or expand anything farther from this.

We can make a commitment that we would not expand any farther if that would make a difference in the board's decision decision.

Um it doesn't affect the height of the structure.

The structure is originally or is currently permitted at a certain height that's already established.

It doesn't exceed the height requirements of the neighborhood.

Um so that doesn't it wouldn't affect that at all if we redesigned it.

We would basically be kicking in the side yard six feet or to eight, less than a foot on one side and a foot and a half on the other side.

But again, it would still be in line, it does not exceed the existing setbacks that are established by the house.

We met with the neighborhood.

The neighborhood wasn't necessarily pleased with the design of the house, but because it was within the constraints of the of the ordinance, they did not have a problem with it.

I don't know that Robert probably has something in the file that can explain it more specifically, but they were basically asking us to make some changes to the design so it was more in line with the existing architecture, which the owner is willing to do.

Um I don't think it was a condition.

I think they just voted not to oppose and not to support.

Uh with that, I'd be happy to answer any questions and I can save my time, or I don't need to save my time, I can respond in the in the last five minutes.

Thank you.

I do have a question real quick.

Um, you said that the petitioner proceeded with the plans notwithstanding this approval.

Did does that mean that they just submitted the plans for approval with the city, or did they actually start construction?

So they had a they had an existing building permit that was within the exception phase, and then I was on vacation and they asked me uh about the extension, and I told them that I think it was going to be really close to the exemption, and they probably would need a variance, and they proceeded without that.

So the stop work order is for the additional space, which is about eight feet.

Right.

Farther question, thank you.

Yeah.

Um, two things from me.

Uh one, if you already stated this, I apologize.

But could you state your address for the record?

Uh 124 East Pleasant Run Parkway.

All right, thank you.

Just wanted to make sure we captured that.

Um, secondly, can you confirm it?

Looks like from what you were saying and from looking at these plans, but the existing building is already the exact um at this, I guess, three foot, three and a half foot setback, is that correct?

And so the extension kind of matches along along with that.

Correct.

Okay.

All right.

Thank you.

All right.

I didn't see anyone.

Um actually, does anyone else on the board have any other questions?

All right.

So I didn't see anyone, but is there anyone in opposition to this petition that's going to speak today?

All right.

Perfect.

Let's go to staff comments then, please.

Thank you, Chair Personnel members of the board.

Uh, as a petitioner indicated, this uh originally was issued a permit for a less than 50% legally non-conforming expansion, which is allowed.

Um, apparently, then at some point, new plant revised site plans.

I believe on November 11th, revised site plans, including the revision to the rear addition, were submitted to DBNS for an updated ILP permit.

Uh DBNS indicated those plans were not zoning compliant as they now exceeded the one time 50% expansion rule, and therefore the that ILP would permit was placed on hold.

Um I believe the applicant was informed by on by DBNS on November 12th, 2025 that they would now need the zoning variance for the deficient side setbacks for the portion that exceeded the 50% expansion.

On December 1st, 2025, this petition for the variance of development standards was filed.

Um December 12th, 2025, a stop work order uh violation was issued due to apparent ongoing work and the failure to amend the existing structural permit prior to the construction of the covered deck on the back of the addition.

And staff's opinion by all appearances were continued on the revised non-permitted addition after notification was given that it was not compliant, and even after the variance petition was filed on December 1st, uh, which resulted in the stop work order being issued on December 12th, two weeks later approximately.

Um there's a reason why the 50% expansion is only limited to 50% because that limits the increase of a legally non-conforming intensity that no longer conforms to the current ordinance.

It is correct the existing house has a three-foot side setbacks typically, which was compliant when it was constructed.

However, the ordinance changed as we update it many times over the course of the decade since a result to input from neighbors, input from developers, input from staff, and many other people.

So the point being is just because the house is there doesn't mean the addition should have it.

It means the addition should be compliant with the current standards, not the standards that the house was compliant to when it was built.

Therefore, um in staff's opinion, there's sufficient room in the rear of the yard for the addition beyond the 50 percent to have met the five foot setback.

Yes, that would have been an in set on both sides by tip by only an additional foot or two feet, as they are proposing the three-foot setback, three and a half foot setback on the south side, so that would be a one-foot, one and a half foot inset and a four-foot on the north side, so that would be a one-foot inset in in order to meet the five feet um side setbacks for that addition.

I've not heard any reason why they couldn't do that other than it was already built.

I think um there is a reference to already there.

I don't know if that's the existing house or the expansion that was added out, you know, that resulted in the stop work order.

I'm not sure what the reference to common sense was, but just because something is there that's non-compliant doesn't mean we should continue building non-compliant additions to something.

Uh anything growth going further should also be compliant in my in staff's opinion.

Therefore, for this addition, which I believe did not follow the the rules of the permitting ordinance, staff does recommend denial.

Um can be happy to answer any question you uh may have board any questions for staff.

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

You'll have up to five minutes for your rebuttal of staff's comments and a closing statement.

Okay, thank you.

So uh to answer Robert's uh comments.

So as far as the common sense comment, we believe that we would be able to obtain a variance of the setbacks because the fact that the existing house is about 75% of the completed area, and that would just be common sense to extend it.

We can kick it in to meet the code, but it doesn't seem like that that would be more excessive.

So my clients file for the variance petition today to try to get some relief from that.

There are additional requirements set forth by the fire department in the state of Indiana for a fire rating for anything there.

So that's superior than anything built in the neighborhood.

At that distance, it would be.

At five foot, it wouldn't be.

So I thought I was making a good point for staff that they didn't feel that way.

They still recommended denial.

So that's where we're at.

As far as the work being constructed, it is true that they did exceed the limits of their permit.

When the stop work order was applied, the contractor had asked the inspector could they still work under the existing permit, which is legal, it's still legal today.

And that work is basically completed to the point to where they would not could have any further damage.

So it wasn't we're trying to complete the addition, not trying to break any rules.

Obviously, they did break the setback rule, and we felt like filing for the variance was the proper thing to do.

There is a cost to him, which he's not willing to make that part of the case today, obviously, to change it to kick it in on the sides, but it just doesn't seem like in my opinion that it should rose to that big of a concern where staff wouldn't recognize with the points that I tried to make to them that it was not a sufficient change from the code.

The code was changed for the fire reasons, uh, was part of some of the comments were made for that to make those adjustments which which added the fire protection of the one hour.

Uh there in this case, uh, the other thing that I didn't mention earlier, the bottom portion of the house is open, it's an open porch.

Now, anybody can go in and enclose that porch, but it's currently drawn and permitted that way.

He would need another permit to enclose that.

But I think the side door setback is mitigated again by the fact that that back portion is open to both sides.

Um certainly the client doesn't want to burn up in the house, but there's no there's no windows that are on that back portion on the back edge because of privacy that the neighbors asked for to not be looking directly into their yard.

Uh so the fireman would have to literally go around the windows and the doors to kind of bust into a sidewall, which doesn't seem to be a reasonable thing that they would go the easiest path, I would think.

I guess the doors could be can obstructed, uh but I just I really feel like we should have had staff's support on this.

I don't think that it was that big of a stretch.

The code allowed for 75% of that to be at that setback, so no consideration is made for that.

It's just blanketly approved, and then when we try to extend that, you know, then we have to file for a variance, which we've done.

So staff is uh has all my respect, but in this case, we I disagree with their recommending for a denial.

If they would have recommended approval, we've been on the expedite.

We don't have anybody here that has an issue with it.

Certainly, his daughter doesn't have an issue with it, and the owner doesn't have an issue with it.

Be happy to answer any questions.

What portion I want to make sure I understand this, but what portion of the addition, if I'm looking at the photo, does not comply.

Is it is it just the portion that the port the patio and the portion of the structure that's enclosed above that?

So on the north side where it would be reduced from a five to a four, we're we're exceeding that by approximately ten feet.

So two foot of that portion uh could remain, but then would have to kick in.

On the south side, there was a a dashed line on the site plan that shows a first floor, so that gave us an additional feet, and there's about eight feet of that would have to be reduced.

Okay, and both of those areas are farther back than the adjacent neighbors, so there's plenty of room if there was a fire emergency that they could access that portion easier than any other portion on the house.

And you also mentioned in your original testimony or original presentation that there's a health issue, potential health issue of the petitioner that necessitated the change in the plans.

Help help me help us understand that.

I mean, it's it's on the second floor.

I would think that if it were a health concern, common sense would be that it would be the ground floor level that would need to be expanded, not the second floor.

Yeah, so the the original portion was already basically complete when they added the expansion.

He has uh a debilitating disease, I guess it gets worse with his age.

So the back porch, what he wanted to do was age in place and and die in his property.

So he wanted to sit on the back porch.

He owns the restaurant that's on college, and he wanted to be able to wave and look at the employees enjoy that.

The upstairs was for uh on site care.

He doesn't need it now, but he will.

Okay, so that was his his reasoning.

Thank you.

All right, board.

Any other questions at this time?

All right, then please cast your ballot for petition 2025 DV1059.

On case 2025-DV1-059, Jennifer Witt votes no.

Peter Nelson votes no, and David Duncan votes yes.

The petition will be continued to the April 7th hearing due to indecisive vote.

Thank you.

And thank you for staff for considering this.

Case number two zero two five-d V1-063 amended property address six six nine zero Jackson Street, Wayne Township, Council District number sixteen, zoned D2.

The petitioner is Ramon Ibanez.

Variants of development standards of the consolidated zoning and subdivision ordinance to provide for a six-foot-tall fence with posts exceeding the height of the fence by more than a foot within the front yard of Bauman Street and encroaching within right of way, the clear site triangle of a driveway and an easement, maximum three and a half foot tall fence permitted, posts maximum one foot taller than fence, encroachment of rights of way, clear sight triangles, and easements prohibited.

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

Okay.

Thank you.

Please keep your hand raised.

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

Say I do.

I do.

Thank you.

Well, uh this petition is uh uh the sorry, real quick.

Can you state your name and address for the record before beginning?

Yeah, thank you.

I'm sorry.

Uh my name is Ramon Ivanis, and my others is six six nine zero Jackson Street, Indianapolis, Indiana, 46241.

Thank you.

Okay.

Um the petition de what I what I request is uh it's just to keep the fence the what I was before I voted the house.

This is like 18 years ago.

Uh the only thing what I did is I renovate some of the woods because it was uh bad and painted.

And I keep it like that.

Uh you know, good mainness, and I don't know why they want me to tear down to three and a half or tear down the complete fence.

Um actually they um they told me I have to ask to the IPL, or now it's a AIS, something like that.

Sorry.

Um, because the lines, electrical lines, the high tension lines, it's very high, is about the fence.

So this has been like years and years, and they never complain, and they I don't have any trees closed to they can trim, you know.

So it's no problems with that.

Uh I don't see anything, it's not my property seated on the corner, but doesn't affect the visibility to the drivers or the uh people walking there.

So uh that is why is my petition.

never complain and they I don't have any trees close to they can trim you know so it's no problems with that uh I don't see anything it's not my property seated on the corner but doesn't affect the visibility to the drivers or the uh people walking there so uh that is why is my petition so uh actually is it's no variance because I I don't I I never raise it or never be out the the rules or Marion Connie so uh that is my petition and uh I have I wrote something and um let me read this uh I'm requesting this extending privacy fence in the rear yard along Bauman street to remain as is the fence was installed on the property before petitioner portion uh in 2008 the increasing high will not block signs lines for traffic of pedestrian and will not create a safety hazard and the proposed variance to keep the existing solid fence in the rear yard set back where four feet is permitted by section seven fourfold dash five one zero point C point three uh will not affect the use it and value of the area adjacent to the property in a substantial adverse manner uh the property is in a corner less situated on Balmour Street in Jackson Street the existing fence will create a necessary noise buffer and provide a rational level of privacy for both of petitioners property and adjacent residential property improving the quality of life for both house and holes the surrounding surrounding neighborhood includes a mix of fence highs do it to the various lot characteristics the purpose purpose of fence is similar in material and style to the other fence in the vicinity and as well made it and I will no alter the essential character of the locality also I like to mention uh I have the the gate is like uh six foot each side so it's two two gates the ones they are so heavy and I have the post like it's taller and it's probably like I would say it's eight foot taller and the main reason why I like to keep that is because I have the cross member on the top to keep the fence straight otherwise the fence is gonna line down and it's take me I mean it's uh take me forced to open the gate because the gate is so heavy so that is my petition all right thank you board any questions for the petitioner can I ask what's behind the gate I I'm Jennifer I uh I live in the neighborhood and I'm very familiar with Jackson Street.

Can I ask what's behind the gate?

Because I often when we have fences like this when the neighborhood gets upset or or notices something that's when they bring these kinds of complaints if the fence has been there for a long time so is there anything else going on with the property or any other need for for the fence or is there you know is is everything else in good repair well the the purpose is to keep it like that for our safety for my family's safety and we have issues in the neighborhood they broken into the cars even people try to but they are already vandalis signs and everything so I'm afraid to something happen and I have a few dogs the one uh they are little bit noisy so uh you know I keep it inside the fence uh to no bad is nobody so uh that is why it's the only reason thank you you welcome any other questions right now for the petitioner all right were you in remonstrance okay um was there anyone else speaking in support of the petition just before we move to remonstrance all right seeing no one um yeah we can remove or excuse me we can move to opposition um remonstrance will have up to 15 minutes for for your comments yeah you can have a seat right now we'll get back to you in a minute okay thank you thank you

All right, saying no one.

Um excuse me, we can move to opposition remonstrance will have up to 15 minutes for for your comments.

Yeah.

You can have a seat right now.

We'll get back to you in a minute.

Okay.

Thank you.

Thank you.

My name is um if I turn that.

Um my name is Karen Farmer, uh, 6520 Rockville Road.

Um I'm the president of our neighborhood association.

Our registered name is Rockville Road, High School Road, Girls School Road, Neighborhood Association, and we go by the abbreviation of just RHGNA.

Um the property at 6690 uh Jackson Street is within our boundaries, and we are asking today that the petition for 669 Jackson be denied.

The petition today to keep the fence as it now is.

Request that several issues be overlooked.

The six-foot fence with post exceeding the height of the fence be overlooked.

The six-foot fence in the front yard of Ballman Street be overlooked.

The fence encroaching within the right-of-way by approximately 12 feet be overlooked.

The fence that is within the drainage and the electrical easement be overlooked.

And there are more issues that the staff will bring out.

The city ordinances for residential property were set in place to help a neighborhood maintain its character as a neighborhood.

For example, commercial businesses were not to be interspersed in neighborhoods.

Another example, high fences were not permitted in front yards.

In fill housing guidelines indicate, and I quote, that fencing around dwellings should be carefully placed, that see-through fencing is safest, and that in front yards fences should be ornamental in style instead of privacy fences.

Then the neighborhood can remain stable, healthy, attractive, and a desirable place to live.

Next, in the staff report you will see a number of violations.

I think in total there's eight.

What prompted the complaints coming from neighbors was the suspicion that car sales and car repair were going on at the address.

The inspector found eight violations at the site.

These violations are listed in the staff report.

The city, our city, is showing up to do its part to help maintain safe neighborhoods.

RHGNA is doing the same, showing up here today to guard, to safeguard our neighborhoods.

Finally, of note, in the finding of fact, the petitioner said the fence was necessary as a sound buffer.

Jackson Street is a neighborhood street.

It gets little traffic other than those who live there.

And Ballman Street is so narrow.

Two cars have to be very cautious because two cars can barely be on the road at the same time without driving off into the grass.

Maybe you went out to see the site.

So you know the traffic and the noise is very slight.

On the other hand, in comparison, Rockville Road does get a lot of noise from cars, trucks, and semis.

However, not one house has a six-foot fence in the front yard.

Not one.

In conclusion, we found the start report very comprehensive and very detailed, and we support it 100%.

RHGNA is asking you to deny the petition.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Um any questions for remonstrance?

All right.

Then at this go ahead.

I have a question.

When you say there is no other fence in the front yard, and you're considering because this is on a corner, the South Ballman Street, their front yard?

Or do they actually front fence in the Jackson?

According to the ordinance.

I understand I'm asking you.

When you're looking at this, are you saying when they have fenced in their backyard, which also includes per ordinance a front yard on Bauman and Jackson?

I'm I just clarifying.

Was there anything on the Jackson, the actual frontage of their front door of their home fenced in?

Because sometimes Google Earth is off.

So I'm just clarifying.

So like if you look at their front door, is that front yard fenced in or not?

That part.

Like the I am a human who does not understand ordinances.

Is there true front yard fenced in, or is it the ordinance style front yard, which is that side yard?

I just want to make sure that I'm clear where this fence is.

My sense is that the Ballman Street front H is front yard.

I I understand that that is the ordinance.

I'm asking if there is a fencing of their driveway and front door off of Jackson.

I believe isn't it be I thought it was behind Jackson?

I thought it was in line with the um side of the house.

Okay.

I just wanted to make sure that I have like clarity of where the fence is.

So thank you for that.

Okay.

Any other questions at this time?

All right.

Let's go to staff comments, please.

Absolutely.

Uh thank you so much to the board for your time and for volunteering to be here.

Uh, thank you to be petition remonstrator for their comments as well.

Um staff is recommending denial of these variance requests to allow for a fence to remain with this height and location within uh the public right-of-way, uh, narrowly encroaching within the clear side triangle and within an electrical easement.

Uh in total, there are five variants being requested in association with this petition.

Uh, this is a residential parcel at the northeast corner of Jackson and Bauman, which means that there are two front yards.

Uh driveway access comes from Jackson Street to the south, and uh there is a fence within the front yard of Bauman Street to the west, which appears to have both vehicle access to the interior uh via a gate and gravel parking outside that fence, also within the right of way.

Uh, it's not clear if a driveway permit was granted in that regard, but um to be clear, um the fence currently at the site is within the front yard of Baum, and there is not any um fence within the southern front yard along Jackson Street.

Um per aerial photographs, this fence was installed at some point between 1986 and 1990.

Um, per aerial photography we're able to access um in lieu of a site plan, it encroaches approximately 12 feet past that western property line into public right-of-way.

Uh the fence also narrowly encroaches within the required clear side triangular area for private driveways.

There's a diagram of that within the exhibits uh that would be measured from the edge of the pavement as opposed to the very center of the right-of-way.

As mentioned, Bauman is a fairly narrow drive.

So if that were paved a bit wider, uh, the encroachment into the clear side triangular area would also be a little bit greater.

In addition to all that, uh there's a drainage and electrical easement running along V Norvert eight feet of the property along the very northern property line, it relates to overhead power lines that are in the area.

Um photograph three within the exhibits gives uh the most comprehensive view showing where those power lines are in relation to the fence.

Um in addition to these variances, additional approvements would approvals might be needed from business and neighborhood services into form of an encroachment license from AES Indiana, um, who had provided an email indicating their lack of opposition to defense, and then also from DPW stormwater to maintain the fence in this current spot.

Granted, this variance would not be relief from um from any of those approvals or requirements.

Um as mentioned, this property was a subject of enforcement action uh per deviolation case VIO 25-001049.

Uh, was based on two anonymous neighbor complaints made in 2024 and 2025 about both the fence and the parking of numerous inoperable vehicles at the site.

Uh the full text of that violation is within the exhibits as mentioned.

There were eight items in total.

Uh several relate to defense for which the variance is being sought today.

Others relate to uh commercial use of the site, uh the violation text mentions vehicle repair, sales, and then accessory storage of vehicle parts of the site as well.

Um commercial functions of the site and lack of distinct gravel edging for parking areas would not be part of the requested variance today, would need to be resolved outside of today's proceedings of a petitioner might be able to speak a little bit more comprehensively to what current or former commercial use might have existed of the site, what steps have been taken to address those portions of the violation and things of that regard.

That's beyond today's scope, but I might get a bit to the question that board member Witt had about what was or has been behind the fence.

Uh but I guess uh to be clear there, approval today wouldn't allow for commercial automobile operations of the site.

It's just related to the fence for today's hearing.

Um there's five items in total related to that fence.

Uh the height within a front yard being um six feet when a max of three point five would typically be allowed, uh, the encroachment past their property line into public right-of-way, the narrow encroachment into the clear side triangular area, the easement encroachment, and then uh those two fence posts being over a foot taller than the fence itself, as visible within the second photograph of the exhibits.

Uh, the city's um comprehensive plan recommends a D this D2 zoned site for suburban neighborhood residential uses.

Uh the infill housing guidelines also recommend see-fru fencing as being safest and discourage front yard privacy fences.

Uh dispense would be in violation of both ordinance principles and also not meeting the in-fill housing guideline standards laid out within that portion of the comp.

Um findings from the applicant indicated this fence would be needed since the property is near roadways, which creates additional noise.

Um staff doesn't feel that the evidence provided rises to the level of a site specific practical difficulty that would prevent alternate development of the site.

Uh defense likely was not legal when it was placed, and it just hadn't been reported until this point of time.

It is unfortunate that that predates uh current ownership of the property, but staff also doesn't feel that would be a difficulty preventing any sort of fence from being placed beside just this specific fence.

Um if a petitioner desired a six-foot fence to reduce noise impacts, the option might exist to move the fence onto their property out of the front yard running parallel along the established front building line north, and then moving it out of the easement area as well.

Um this would be allowed by right without requiring variance and would still allow for approximately 7,425 square feet of fenced area, assuming that the ever existing portions of the fence would stay the same in that scenario.

Um ultimately rules of this nature exist for uh good reasons.

Um improvements within the right-of-way and clear side triangle can create potential safety issues and limit future public use.

Um the easement encroachment might create maintenance issues as well.

As mentioned, AES hadn't expressed explicit objection to the proposal, but um input from DPW and BNS might still also be required in that regard.

There's also aesthetic concerns, um, you know, vibrant pedestrian-friendly streetscapes are part of why these rules exist.

Um concern of screening of unpermitted commercial uses may also be a potential concern for the board.

Um given the number and severity of variances needed, uh, the options for alternate placement and the lack of a site-specific practical difficulty requiring a fence with this height and location, uh, those are the main reasons informing staff's recommendation of denial.

So uh happy to answer questions that the board might have.

I have questions.

So uh the remonstrator stated there are no other six-foot fences in these by law of front yards.

Um, did you observe any when you went to look at this?

Because it looks like um Caty Corner on Bauman, right across the way, uh, similar style fence, maybe even less of a setback.

Um same style fence.

Sure.

I just want some clarification on that.

Yeah, I have the aerial pulled up right now.

It appears that their neighbor directly to the west at 6702 has a fence that runs parallel with the back building line.

It looks like that fence directly to the northwest on 6701.

It's a little tough to tell if that runs directly parallel with the front building line established by Balatra Northwest or if it juts out a little bit.

If that does encroach within the front yard, it doesn't look like it's to the same extent as the amount that the front yard fence within this property would encroach.

Um a digital question.

Um, does this existing fence align with the other neighbors' back line fence?

A lot of conversation about this being where the power lines are and in the easement.

Um that happens a lot, and if ever utilities come through, the owner is required to take the fence down at their own cost.

Um does this fall within like the normal bounds of all the other homes in that area from your observations.

Right.

I am looking to see if there's fencing along.

It looks like there's a couple lots to the west, there is a fence that runs roughly along the property line.

Uh very directly adjoining neighbors to the west and east don't appear to have fence in that area.

But uh to your larger point, you are correct that if maintenance was needed to be done in that area that um AES would coordinate with the property owner to have the fence temporarily removed and they would be at their cost.

And then I have one more question uh regarding traffic in the area.

Um it's my experience that that is the cut through for when Rockville Road gets backed up.

Jackson is a main thoroughfare and Ballman as a very often used cut through.

Um did you see traffic?

I I don't see any traffic obviously in your pictures, but you know, if you're not at uh morning or evening hours, they may not have seen it.

Um do you have anything to add on on the traffic seen in that area?

Sure.

Um, I I do live on the west side, but uh uh a good deal north of here is not my standard neck of the woods.

Uh when I visited the site, um I believe there was uh one or two cars parked along the gravel areas on fair property.

I think one car drove by me and passed when I was at the site.

I wouldn't extrapolate too much in either direction based on that.

I wasn't at the site very long.

Okay, thank you.

I do I have a question about the clear sight triangle, and I this is probably gonna just exemplify my own ignorance, but I I don't know that I've ever seen it depicted like this.

I mean, typically the way I think about it and the way I've seen it calculated is to maintain the line of sight as you're you're torn turning around a corner on onto Bauman.

And this seems to go much further deeper into the property, which doesn't really try to maintain your line of sight as you're turning the corner, but all the way down the right-of-way.

Um can you just help help me understand the calculation a little bit?

Sure.

Um I guess the reason I might look slightly different from other clear side triangular calculations is that this is the intersection of a private drive with right-of-way as opposed to the intersection of two rights of way.

Oh, you're seeing the gravel gravel drive off of their yes, off of their property, right.

That's okay.

Delineated by the center line sort of there, which you can see it's measured from the edge of the pavement on Bauman.

And Bauman is a little bit misaligned there.

So as as remonstrator mentioned, you know, if vehicles are passing a little bit, they could be swerfing a bit more into that area there.

So the areas outlined by the yellow dashed lines would constitute the clear side triangular area.

The current fence as it exists on that area only encroaches very narrowly into that required zone.

So felt it better safe than sorry to include on the variance.

Got it.

And then I I guess my other point, and I I've raised this on other discussions around clear sight triangle, but the landscaping seems to be a much bigger impediment, and I know that landscaping and utilities aren't taken into account when when looking at the the clear sight triangle calcs, but it it is a practical effect, right?

Like it does, that has a more significant interference with the triangle than the actual fence does.

Sure.

I would agree.

I guess in this case it looks like there is one relatively large tree much further to the south on the site from where that driveway is.

It doesn't look like for this particular case.

Um photograph four within the staff report sort of shows what that frontage looks like.

It looks like in this particular instance there is not any additional landscape within the clear site triangle.

Um the addition of new plantings within that area would also be disallowed by ordinance.

I'm not certain how frequent that sort of thing is is site sighted, but it could be citable.

And in the neighborhood, mature trees along that road are very common.

Okay, that's good context.

Yeah.

Thank you.

All right.

Any other questions for staff?

Hearing none, we can go back to the petitioner.

Um you can have up to five minutes for your rebuttal and closing comments.

Well, about the violations.

I already been take care.

The only still alive is the fence.

But the fence, I don't see why complaining if he's been there for almost like I said, before I bought a house 2007.

And the only what I did, I never let it down.

I always keep it in maintenance, paint it, try to look better.

And I saw around whole uh a few neighbors, they have the fence, they are already rooted, they are almost teared down, and uh, you know, nobody complained about that.

And uh the other thing is I like to keep that fence total because I have the grandson.

He's two and a half years old, and he's a very hyper guy.

He ran everywhere.

He actually one time I know it's is well, this is uh something like uh don't know how to explain, but anyway, he opened we have the little gate to get access to Baumang Street was with the lack.

But he gave the the lack and opened the gate in I was that day outside, and I saw him walking out.

He opened the gate.

So I know it's is it's my this is my problem or uh problem with my daughter-in-law, but now I raise the lack because I saw him he can reach it, but now no, he cannot reach it.

So that is the main reason that I to keep it and uh it's no business what I'm doing there, is no nothing else.

I mean the only thing what I do is the mainness on my cars, and I don't think so that is an issue for that.

Um the other thing is uh I call the IPL.

Well, I forgot the the other name, and to ask if they bad us battered them to uh the lines running uh about the the fence, and they say it's the first time I ever hear that, and we never have any issue with that because like I say it's not trees around there, they can the fence is on the way to treatment, or uh never have an issue with the uh with the lines.

So uh they I send the the email to them to ask for a letter, they want they can prove they are not an issue for them, and finally they found someone can answer and they say, well, for us doesn't matter because uh we never have any issue with that, so you can keep the fence like that.

I think maybe you guys have on file.

And um for the um the uh water um rainwater uh I know the fence is on on the on tap, but uh it's the same thing.

They I call many places and nobody can answer that if it is an issue with them, but nobody nobody answers.

They don't have answer for that kind of question.

They they say it's the first time I ever hear that.

So I don't know if it's an issue with that, but so far I didn't find any answer.

I have I have a couple questions.

Sure.

So um in my experience, this comes because there have been violations.

Someone got upset because maybe you had multiple cars there, they thought you were selling them, they thought you were working on running a business out of it, and it concerns them.

Um in addition to having the fence, and I understand your reasons, and I'm very familiar with the neighborhood, um, I think what our neighborhood associations are often looking for is some kind of like agreement that these violations aren't going to happen again, that you're going to you know maintain things.

Um just in like the Google Earth photos, like we can see there's there have been some disabled cars like and and things like that.

Um and I think when you say like you don't know why, I think it was brought because it's something outside the bounds, and because maybe the things that they were reporting weren't getting action, this was something that could take be brought to us for for some action.

So just to give you a bit of clarity on what I've seen.

Right, right.

Um, I have an answer for that.

Yes.

Uh actually my neighbor uh across the street from Bauman on Bauman.

Um time uh Toltro come with my car was broken on the street, so I have to hide in somebody.

Well the the the front wheels was on day grass.

Oh okay, and that was the whole issue.

Okay.

And I know I tried to be nice with them, you know, but uh they was even they commit a lot things because they have drugs, they have but uh you know it's not my my business.

They can do whatever they want.

Well you you can call the police if they have drugs.

Right.

So but I almost in the neighborhood I would appreciate that.

But but for this specifically, yeah.

Um I think that's why the neighborhood obviously has shown some neighborhood representatives have shown up and said, hey, the rules are the rules, because there have been some violations.

And so that's where I think some good faith too, you'll maintain it, you're not repairing cars.

I think that's very important.

Right.

Okay.

Okay.

Yeah.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Um would you entertain maybe two commitments that I'd I'd like to propose with respect to the fence.

Okay.

Um so the first one would be that if Bauman Street is ever expanded to into the uh reserved right-away, that the fence would be relocated and in compliance with the zoning code at your cost and expense.

Do you understand?

Yes, but uh I mean relocate it is so if they do work on the road to make it larger, say they add a sidewalk, that you would then move your fence to be in compliance at that time.

So if the city comes through and does work to expand the road, you have to move the fence.

Yeah, absolutely.

Yeah, I'm that so you agree to think to that.

Yeah, I'm agreeing with that.

Even if the IPL come and they say, Well, we have to destroy your fence because we need to get access to the lines.

Yeah.

Perfect.

It's fine for me.

Here's here's the second commitment I was gonna ask.

Yeah.

If more than 50 percent of the fence is replaced, then the entire fence will be reconstructed in compliance with the zoning ordinance.

Yeah, well, I'm trying the back yard, the north side and the uh east.

I like to be redone, but uh is I've been a little bit sick sometimes and can do that.

So this year is my my goal to finish that fence to keep it in good state, but paint it in everything.

So I what he's saying, not that you have to fix it, but if at any time you take down, say a tree smashes half of it.

Yeah, then when you re rebuild it back, it has to be in compliance, which means it has to be see-through.

Yeah.

Okay.

So if you took down two of those sections to fix them in the next year, you'd also have to make it in compliance.

Is that what you're saying?

Well, I I was targeting 50 percent or more.

And I think there's uh my my concern is that you've built the fence over your property line.

You've built the not you, but whoever built the fence built the fence in the end of the right-of-way and into an easement, so it's outside of the envelope of your property, which is an issue separate and apart from the zoning, is part of the zoning, but it's it's a different issue.

And so what I'm trying to say is that if we're to give you the approvals because of the the fence is pre-existing and acknowledging that as a hardship, if 50% or more of the fence, if you go to reconstruct it, you reconstruct it in compliance with the zoning ordinance.

Does that make sense?

So you bring it into your property and bring it off of the easement and and make it comply.

Yes.

Okay.

Would you agree to that commitment?

Yeah.

Okay.

Anything else from the board at this time.

David.

I'd like to clarify.

Do you mean that just along Bauman or you know, he's got fence along the northern part of his uh that's that's all compliant, I guess, and then anything along the east side would be compliant.

So you're you're talking just along with Bauman, yes.

Yes, but the northern portions would be within the easement as well.

So let me let me restate that for the record.

If more than 50 percent of the fence located on Bauman Street is replaced, then the petitioner will relocate that portion of the fence to be in compliance with the zoning ordinance.

Yes, yes, uh I will.

Thank you.

Okay, anything else before we move to the uh remonstrators.

All right.

Uh you'll have your five minutes for your rebuttal and closing statements.

I just have a comment with your question.

I think um I might have misled you in what I said because um what I was trying to make a comparison to was um on lot Rockville Road.

Uh I was just referring to it.

Um if a six-foot fence can really be a noise buffer, people along Rockville Road would be trying to put them up, but there are none at this time.

Um I think there's one house that has a four-foot fence, and and that's it.

But I was only referring to Rockville Road.

You're good.

And I have no other comment.

Okay, thank you.

Thank you.

All right, thank you.

So board, we have a couple of commitments that was agreed to by the petitioner.

Uh member Duncan stated for this petition.

Um to move the fence within compliance if Bauman was to be expanded.

And then to move the fence in to be in compliance if more than 50% along the Bauman Street is being replaced.

So consider those commitments as you cast your ballot for petition 2025 DV1063.

On case 2025-DV1-063, Jennifer Witt votes yes, Peter Nelson votes yes, and David Duncan votes yes.

The variance is granted subject to the two commitments agreed upon.

Case number two zero two one, uh excuse me, two zero two six-dv one-zero zero five property address six six one seven Stearns Hill Drive.

Franklin Township, Council District Number 25, zoned D2.

The petitioner is Tabitha Vuey.

Variants of development standards of the consolidated zoning and subdivision ordinance to provide for a detached accessory structure with a three-foot north side yard setback, seven feet required.

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

I do.

My name is Tabitha Vway, address sixty-six seventeen Stearns Hill Drive, case number two zero two six DV1005.

We're asking for the approval of a setback with a four feet with a three feet setback.

Um in 2022, we had bought the location looking as a selling point for the pole barn as it's been up since before 2018.

We bought it due to we are foster parents.

We have multiple children that we get.

Um at that time we had six.

Um it's easy to have beds, cribs, whatever DCS may need.

It's a good uh buying point for us to have the extra space in those emergency cases.

During our buying process, we had um our realtor do everything we thought she was supposed to do to make sure our house was in the standing for closing.

We were not aware that we are against any violations.

Um the pole barn is very set very nicely.

We take very good care of it.

Um the neighbors love it.

It stops it stops a lot of privacy from their side to our side.

Umise.

Um if we did have to move it, it would be a hardship due to the back of our yard is a big easlement, and it would move into taking up most of the yard for our children to play.

Um the pole barn is sitting on a structured concrete slab that's very nice.

We have put a fence up to block the the the neighbors to the right.

Um we both maintain our sides of the fence every year.

We're very in contact with our neighbors with that, and none of them have ever said they had an issue.

Um we had a boat that we were cleaning in the side yard, and it the tires went flat, so that's kind of how this happened.

Uh the boat was in the yard for three days, and we got a violation, and that's how we we found out what we were in violation.

We would never um build or add anything without the permits.

Um that would have been a different buying process for us if we would have known.

But again, it was something online posted.

The pole barn was one of our big um big reasons for buying it.

So asking just to to grant that for us.

That's fine.

Board, any questions for the petitioner?

I do have a question on the site plan, um, which is on page 83.

So let me get more in here.

So is this is north to the top of the page?

Yes.

Okay.

Uh it I'm looking at the 16 by 32 movable shed.

You've got four feet measured to a line that runs east-west.

And then it says left side fence setback.

What is that?

That's our neighbor's yard.

That's your neighbor's yard.

Yes.

Okay, so the the thick black line isn't your property line.

It's the line between four foot and left side fence setback is your property line.

Yes.

All right, thank you.

Appreciate it.

And there's a picture of it.

Yeah.

Yeah.

Okay.

And that's why I asked because the picture outlined in white looks like again, that's what I would see as like a property line, but it goes beyond the fence line.

And so I was just, I wanted to clarify, but thank you.

You answer my question.

All right.

Um you have another question.

I just want to know how you maintain between that pole barn and your fence.

We have an area like that, and it's a shorter chain link fence, and Manda.

We'd get in there hard.

So we we're our 13-year-old fits very good, so we're telling him good landscaping.

I've got a short girl that I'll have to use next time.

All right, thank you.

All right.

I just want to make sure nobody's tying their shoes, but is there anyone here in opposition for this petition?

Okay.

Um, didn't think so.

So um let's uh go to staff comments then, please.

Thank you, Chairperson also members of the board.

Um development standards for setbacks are specifically included in the ordinance or intended to provide an adequate separation and ventilation between structures on adjacent parcels and use areas and provide for continuous pattern of development through the block of the residential development.

Uh this request would provide for a detached shed with a three-foot north side setback where seven foot is required.

I would point out the site plan does indicate four feet.

Um that's a result of the petitioner rounding up, but for the variance, the actual setback's about three and a half feet, so we rounded down for the requests being three feet in case you had any questions, board member Duncan.

Um petitioner indicated to staff to staff that the shed was located on a concrete foundation and was placed on site by the previous owners and was in its current location when the home was purchased.

Um staff would point out that the structure is adjacent to another accessory structure to the north, as you can see in the uh one of the photos in the staff report.

Um would not be adjacent to living space on the adjacent property.

Um however, no practical difficulty has been provided since the site does have sufficient space to locate the detached shed by right without the need for the variance, and for that reason, staff does recommend denial and could answer any questions.

Board, any questions for staff?

All right, hearing none.

Um let's go back to the petitioner.

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

I know Stan that they're recommending it for the back um of the yard as we do have quite a bit of um room back there.

But on the on the picture, if you notice, we do have a our ex easelment and then the HOA home behind us also has an easy easelement also, so moving it would be a big hardship on taking up space for our yard for our children, um, and very costly.

Uh something that we didn't do or have a part of.

So just asking to accept that.

All right.

Any any final comments from the petitioner or questions from the board?

All right.

Board, please go ahead and cast your ballot for petition 2026 DV105.

On case 2026-DV1-005, Jennifer Witt votes yes.

Peter Nelson votes yes, and David Duncan votes yes.

The variance is granted.

All right.

Any additional business to come before the board today?

All right, board, stick around, findings of fact.

Otherwise, this hearing is adjourned.