All right, good afternoon, everyone.

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

I am Peter Nelson, Chairperson of Division One.

Other board members present today are Jennifer Witt, David Duncan, and Tom Barnes.

Legal counsel for the board today is Chris Steinmetz.

Staff members present today from the Division of Planning are Jeff York, current planning manager.

Michael Weigel, planning, principal planner two, Robert Uhlenhages, senior planner, Josh Lavec, senior planner, and Marty Weistie, senior board specialist and secretary to the board.

I will say the back doors look like they're propped open, but they are locked today for some reason.

So if they do get closed and you need to step out, you can enter through these doors, but just a heads up.

So 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 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 a five-minute 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 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 improper notice has not been given and would like the petition continued due to lack of proper notice must bring this matter to the board's attention at the beginning of the hearing.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I'll ask everyone to please be courteous and orderly at all times, and please be sure all cell phone ringers are turned off.

I will note there are four members present today.

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

So we'll take this into consideration when hearing requests for continuances or with or uh yeah.

Um if your petition does receive an indecisive vote, so with four members, that'd be two two.

Um, or if one has to recuse uh two one, um, whatever.

If it receives an indecisive vote, your petition will be automatically continued to the May 2nd, or excuse me, May 12th hearing uh 2026.

Um, board members, you have been provided meeting minutes for a March 3rd hearing.

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

Duncan so moved.

And a second.

Wit, second.

All right, call for a vote.

Uh Witt.

Wit, yes.

Duncan.

Duncan, yes.

Barnes.

Barnes, yes.

And Nelson votes yes.

All right.

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

All right, hearing none.

Before we hear special requests, I will ask for a waiver of our rules of procedure to allow for the board to vote on 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.

Barnes?

Yes.

Nelson votes yes.

All right.

At this time we will consider special requests and continuances.

1338 lecture of a new with uh 2026 DB1-012.

3675 West 11 street.

Uh requesting the continuancy for May 12th, if possible.

Um we needed time to obtain the letter of approval from uh the east men from IS and Redu the site plan to reduce the front park in the space.

Okay, thank you.

Is there anyone in the audience with interest in petition 2026 DV1012?

3675 West 11th Street, um, specifically in relation to the continuance request.

All right, seeing no one, I will ask staff are we comfortable with this request?

Uh thank you, Chairperson Nelson.

Members of the board, given that this would be the first such request for continuance made by the petitioner staff would not object.

This would be without new notice unless site plan adjustments required for some reason.

All right, board, we have a request to continue petition 2026 DV 1012 to the May 12th notice.

That is without additional notice, or to the May 12th hearing, that is without additional notice unless something changes and it is needed.

Um I have a motion.

Duncan so moved.

Second.

Wit, second.

All right, call for a vote.

Wit.

Wit, yes.

Duncan.

Duncan, yes.

Barnes, yes.

Nelson votes yes.

Thank you so much.

Ladies and gentlemen, if I could ask if you uh need to have conversations that you take those out into the hall rather than um have them here in the room.

They carry very easily up here and uh interferes with what's going on at the microphone.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Um for the record, my name is David Gilman.

My address is 211 South Ritter Avenue, suite H 46219.

Um I represent the first petition on your docket 2026 DB1003 with the address 602 Prospect Street.

We are um continuing to work with the staff on a revised amended site plan, and it appears that that revision would include additional variances or a change of the variances that we advertised for.

So we would ask that you would continue this petition to your May docket with notice so that we're able to re-advertise and uh continue working with the staff on a site plan that hopefully will be acceptable to both parties.

All right, is there anyone in the audience with interest in 2026 DB 1003 uh with the continuance request to the May 12th hearing?

All right, uh staff.

Can we get your comments on this request?

Thank you, Chairperson Nelson, members of the board.

Uh staff has been working with the petitioner and they have submitted a revised site plan per staff suggestion.

So yes, staff is in agreement with this continuance and um subject to with notice as required.

Thank you.

All right, thank you.

Board, we have a request to continue the petition 2026 DB 1003 to the May 12th hearing.

That is with notice as needed.

Is there a motion?

Duncan so moved.

Second.

Wit, second.

All right, call for a vote.

Wit.

Wit, yes.

Duncan?

Duncan, yes.

Barnes, yes.

Nelson votes yes.

Thank you.

Good afternoon, Justin Kingan.

Address is 618 East Market Street, Indianapolis, Indiana 46202.

Here before you regarding item number 10 on your agenda, uh petition 2026 UV 1002, address being 5301 West 56th Street.

Um we're requesting a continuance actually to your June 2nd hearing.

Um this continuance was made to allow time for a fire inspection to take place on the property uh for that report to be published and for us to address the items in that report.

Uh we just received the report yesterday and we'll be making alterations to the property to reflect uh the comments made in that report.

We then are uh scheduled to appear before the Pike Township residents association in May.

That meeting would take place uh I believe on May 13th, and so the continuance to June 2nd would allow for that uh us to appear before them.

Uh this continuance would be without additional notice.

Right.

Anyone in the audience would be opposed to the continuance to the June 2nd hearing for petition 2026 UV 1002.

That's 5301 West 56th Street.

All right, seeing no one staff, can we have your comments on this request?

Uh thank you, Chair Person Nelson.

Members of the board.

Uh staff wouldn't be able to guarantee support for future continuances beyond that, given this would be for two months, and I think there was a previous continuance beforehand, but we wouldn't we wouldn't object given these circumstances, and we would be interested in seeing that uh report as well that was generated by the fire marshal.

Certainly.

All right.

Board, we have a request to continue petition 2026, UV1002 to the June second hearing.

That is without additional notice.

Is there a motion?

Duncan so moved.

Second.

With second.

All right, call for a vote, wit.

Wit, yes.

Duncan, Duncan, yes.

Barnes.

And Nelson votes yes.

Great.

Thank you.

Any other continuance requests.

Yeah, uh, there's several from staff.

Um we'll draw your attention to uh the special request at the very top of the agenda without a number in front of it, 2026 D V1008 at 5102 West Bradbury Avenue.

Uh the petitioner was able to amend their request to meet ordnance requirements as well as DPW rules for driveway separation and therefore indicated by email that this petition could be withdrawn from consideration.

Uh, this would merely require the board's acknowledgement.

So acknowledged.

Thank you.

Uh staff would also draw your attention to item number three on the agenda.

Uh that's 2026 UV1006 at 8798 Moore Road.

Uh staff is requesting a one-month continuance of this matter to the May 12th hearing in order to allow additional time for discussion of the site layout with the petitioner and potentially incorporate some of staff's notes in a way to improve the project or bringing to a point of mutual agreeability.

For that reason, we would ask for a one-month continuance to your May hearing date.

I don't I don't believe in petitioners in attendance this afternoon.

But they're aware of this request and supportive.

Okay, great.

I will ask, is there anyone in the audience with interest in petition 2026 UV 1006?

All right.

Hearing none and having the requests made from staff board, there is a request to continue the petition 2026 UV 1006 amended to the May 12th hearing.

Is there a motion?

Duncan so moved.

Second.

Wit, second.

All right, call for a vote.

Wit.

Wait, yes.

Duncan, Duncan, yes.

Barnes, yes.

Nelson votes yes.

Caramin Nelson and members of the board.

Staff would also draw your attention to item number two.

Now this is 2026 DV1010 at 2606 Northview Avenue.

Uh staff has requested a one-month continuance for this petition to assist in um updating consent forms to assist with notice.

Uh, and so this would be with new notice.

All right, anyone in the audience with interest in petition 2026 D V1010.

Seeing none, uh requests made from staff.

So board, we have a request to move, continue petition 2026 D V1010 to the May 12th hearing with notice.

Is there a motion?

Duncan so moved.

Second.

Wit, second.

All right, call for a vote, wit.

Wit, yes.

Duncan, Duncan, yes.

Barnes Nelson votes yes.

Are there any other special requests or continuances at this time?

All right.

Hearing none, we can go ahead and proceed with the expedited docket.

These are petitions to be expedited.

Case number two zero two six-d v one-zero zero six.

Property address seven five seven five Central Avenue, Town of Meridian Hills.

Washington Township, Council District Number Two, Zoned DS.

The petitioner is Rebecca Boyle, represented by Todd Williams.

Variants of development standards of the consolidated zoning and subdivision ordinance to per permit the construction of a single family dwelling with a rear yard setback of 15 feet.

Minimum of 30 feet required.

And case number 2026-DV one-009 amended property address 44 East 54th Street.

Washington Township, Council District No.

7, zoned D2.

The petitioners are Charles and Julie Rivard.

Variants of development standards of the consolidated zoning and subdivision ordinance to provide for the construction of a detached garage with a five-foot west side yard setback, seven-foot side yard setback required, and an open space of 65%, 75% open space 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.

Thank you, Marty.

Uh board, uh you've heard the expedited cases.

Please go ahead and cast your ballot for those uh now.

Thank you.

Peter Nelson votes yes.

Tom Barnes votes yes, Jennifer Witt votes yes, and David Duncan votes yes.

That variance is granted.

And on case two zero two six dash D V one-009 amended, Peter Nelson votes yes, Tom Barnes votes yes, Jennifer Witt votes yes, and David Duncan votes yes.

That variance is granted.

All right.

Anyone who is here only for expedited cases, you can feel free to take off if you'd like.

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

Okay, my name is Mark Crouch.

I represent Mr.

Risemore for case number 2025 DV1059 at 5217 Broadway.12 feet to the south.

I did a markup of the site plan, floor plan, and elevations in red that show uh what the code would allow us to do.

Um and this is where we are exceeding that, and that's where we're asking for the the continuance.

Um Mr.

Rising Moore has a active building permit that was for uh about one half of the existing size, and had made his contractor had asked uh for some revisions, which we did.

They did not know that that was exceeding the side yard setback.

Uh I brought that when we brought that to their attention and the city's attention.

That's kind of started the need for the variant uh request.

Uh there was work that was working prior to this.

Some was permitted under the original permit, and some uh has been uh stopped uh work on.

Uh Mr.

Risingore would like to speak today.

If you have any questions of me, I would just like for him to speak for a few minutes on uh what uh his thoughts were and what his uh intention was with the construction.

Yes, good afternoon.

Uh John Rising Moore.

Uh I bought this uh property in uh 2015, and um we've been working off and on the COVID got us, so we couldn't do much for quite some time.

So this has been quite a long process.

And uh I have to take some of the responsibility and blame, you know, for this inconvenience here.

Uh I'm a Vietnam veteran, and uh I've been diagnosed with uh Parkinson's and I've been a uh a patient of the Rotebush uh hospital out here at the VA hospital for about 10 years now.

Um my physician suggested that I get my ducks in order and look to the future maybe three soon.

And uh I'm not as immortal as I thought I used to be.

But anyway, um we had applied for this permit with Mr.

Bidmead some time ago, and then in the process, my doctor told me that I need uh qualified for a handicapped bathroom and a bedroom.

So I had Mr.

Bidmead apply for another.

I guess we had a variance now.

We needed another one, so I'm not sure exactly how the whole process works, but my little house doesn't wasn't able to accommodate any kind of a facility like they're asking for.

Bathroom facilities.

So I think that's how we got to where we are, and uh I don't know much more I can add because I've been gone and through this process and came back here for this hearing.

So thank you for any consideration you might give me.

Thank you.

Everything if there's any questions that you have, I would be happy to answer them.

Board, any questions for the petitioner.

All right, hearing none.

Um I didn't see anybody, but I will ask is there anyone here today that is speaking in opposition to this case, petition 2025 DV1059.

All right.

Um let's go to staff comments, please.

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

Excuse me.

Petition was granted a permit ILP 2501021 on September 11th, 2025 from the Department of Built Business and Neighborhood Services.

And this was to allow a for a rear and second story addition to the primary dwelling with the proposed side setbacks being a one-time 12-foot expansion of the existing legally non-conforming side setbacks.

As the house was built prior to the current or current ordinance, it has deficient side setbacks.

A one-time expansion is allowed as long as that expansion is allowed without a variance, as long as that expansion is no more than 50% of the side that it is expanding on, which was the case for the permit as it was issued.

November 11th, 2025, revised site plans indicating revision to the rear addition and expansion were submitted to DBNS for an updated ILP permit, and that's ILP 25-3006.

Those plans were not zoning compliant as they did exceed that one time 50% expansion uh rule.

Therefore, the ILP permit was placed on hold at that time, and the applicant was informed by DBNS on November 12, 2025 that they would now need a zoning variance for the deficient side setbacks.

On December 1st, 2025, uh this petition for zoning variants of development standards was submitted to our office.

On December 12th, 2025, a stop work order violation 250111 was issued due to apparent ongoing work and the failure to amend the existing structural permit prior to the construction of the cupboard deck on the at the back of the new addition that exceeded the one time 50% expansion.

By all appearances, work continued on the revised non-permitted edition after notification was given on November 12th, and after the variance petition was filed on December 1st, as the stop work order was issued on December 12th.

Staff is not recommending denial because of the work proceeded without the proper permitting.

Staff is recommending to dial because of the size and volume of the house with respect to the reduced side setbacks is overwhelming to the adjacent properties in staff's opinion.

The proposed two-story 25 26 foot addition with reduced side setbacks would be too intense to the subject site.

On the bottom one, or 38, excuse me, and 39 on the top one.

The need for the reduction in the required setbacks beyond the one-time 50% expansion is self-imposed and not a result of the ordinance requirements.

Staff believes the lot is deep enough that any further rear expansion be time beyond the one-time 50% allowance could then be met by the required setbacks, in addition, which would would require for it to be in set five feet to meet those side setbacks.

As I indicated, staff um is not recommending denial because of the work proceeded without permits.

If this was filed prior to permitting, staff would still be recommending denial as we feel this project and intensity of scale is too intense for the site at the at the requested setbacks.

That any existing work completed with the non-compliant expansion is believed to be non-permitted per DBNS.

Therefore, staff does recommend denial.

Be happy to answer any questions the board may have board.

Any questions for staff.

Um can you remind me what the position of Marine Kessler Neighborhood Association was on this one?

I I believe they took no position, but just wanted to confirm.

Thank you.

All right.

We can go back to the petitioner.

Um five minutes for rebuttal and closing comments.

Uh thank you.

Um we have met with the neighborhood association and presented our plans to them.

They had no objection uh to the variance that we were going to have to file.

Uh we did not need to present anything to them prior to this because it was within compliance.

Uh they took a position of they weren't for it or against it.

Um so I feel like that's a good thing.

The neighbors did not have an issue with it.

Um Mr.

Risemore's daughter is an adjacent neighbor to the south, or was just she wouldn't remonstrate against her father.

Um there were some issues with the contractor was basically miscommunication, which is no fault of the owner, but certainly it is self uh imposed, but yet it still would be a hardship to him to remove those improvements.

Um the reduction of the uh point eight feet to the north and the point one two feet for a portion of that is a significant cost.

It doesn't change any of the scale of the building, except for an eighth of an inch, or excuse me, eighth of a foot and one point two to the south.

On the drawings that I provided you, I was trying to illustrate that the massing that is not an issue.

Uh it's not something that we're seeking a variance for, except for the the side yard setback, but it doesn't effectively reduce the massing in any significant way.

Um previously it was noted about the fire uh firemen might have an issue.

Um that's why the side yard setbacks are in ordinance, but the the existing house has had those 4.2 and 3.8 setback for it since it was conceived, so it uh there hasn't been an issue, and then the back the backyard is clearly uh an accessible area for the the fireman.

Uh Mr.

Rising Worse kind of a victim here uh from the contractor.

They didn't feel like when we applied for the original permit, there was no issue with the side side yard setback.

Uh when when the inspector came out, um he had noted that there could be an issue and that they were working outside of the permit.

Uh we had filed for because it was still under under review, and at that time of review, that's when they told us that there was additional variants that we would need, which we applied for.

Uh the work that was continued was under work under the existing permit, which is still existing today, and they were basically covering and protecting the integrity of the structure that was already uh constructed.

Um it can be we haven't even gotten close to any of the open space issues on it.

There we are don't have a height restriction, so that wouldn't change no matter if we if we slid it in or not.

Um we're hoping that it's in significant uh type of a change.

Um the owner uh understands the responsibility he has to follow the rules.

We applied for the variants to try to bring that into compliance as much as we could, and we're just asking for um your uh favorable uh vote today.

All right, board.

Any any questions before we cast our ballots?

All right, hearing none, board please cast your vote for petition 2025 DV1059.

On case 2025-DV1-059, David Duncan votes yes, Peter Nelson votes no, Jennifer Witt votes yes, and Tom Barnes votes yes.

The variance is granted.

Thank you very much.

Thank you, Robert.

Thank you.

Case number two zero two five-dv one-065 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.

Five foot setback required.

Do you swear or affirm under penalty of perjury to tell the truth and nothing but the truth?

Say I do.

Yes, I do.

Chris, I will ask, do we need the translator to swear in or is that yes, just that she swears to uh truthfully translate the testimony provided by the petitioner.

Yes, I do.

Thank you.

You're welcome.

And then should we get the name and address of the translator as well?

Uh my name is Liliana Guire and I came from LTC.

Okay.

Thank you.

You're welcome.

Uh my name is Mar Martin Arauz.

Um 299, Eagle Del Drive in the Annapolis, Indiana 4622.

So my name is Martin.

So Martin Jimenez, and my address is uh 2929's Eagle Drive, Wine Township, Indianapolis, Indiana.

Uh 4622.

Okay, thank you.

You have um up to 15 minutes for your presentation of the petition.

Okay, 15 minutes.

Go ahead.

Okay, uh DM Tosis Kere Kelly Kings.

Okay, so uh the last time that I was here they requesting some pictures and I brought some pictures.

Okay, great.

Can you present them to the board secretary, please?

Okay, continue.

Okay, oui.

Okay, so what I'm doing today is I asking for variants of development standard.

So um when I build this, I never do it with the intention to bother any neighbors or any thing.

So I'll follow the all the measure and security to not affecting any neighbor.

So my intention is you know, spend a tie right there with my family and have some staff and not getting brokered for the weather condition or anything.

Um para meter vehicles or always it is not for coming through any vehicles or anything, it's just for spent time with the family and put on uh personal items that was not damaged through the weather's condition.

Uh no yeah electricidad, plumeria ni map.

They don't have electricity or pluming.

Solamente eso perdon por lo que is a paid.

Well, first of all, I asked to forgiveness because I do this without asking permission to the city.

That's only what I have to say.

Okay.

Thank you.

Um are there any qu questions for the petitioner at this time?

Um I have a question.

It looks like um you have a neighbor that has quite a uh packed yard.

I'm I'm just wondering like did this get reported, like maybe when their stuff got reported, or or is there no second whole is your neighbor very upset?

No, it's the well queue parking law.

Okay, um, I received a notification because I have a car, it was parking in my in my grass.

Okay.

So after that, the the person from the city, they saw the the attach that I do to the uh the garage, and that's when I'm starting receiving notification from the city.

Uh you have to do that.

And also I talked to my neighbors, make sure if it's not getting bothered for this or offended with this, what I done, and they say they don't have no issues with that.

Okay, thank you.

I I just I wanted to know what the catalyst was, and it you probably the the car in the grass got the city to come out, and then they have to look at everything.

So basically uh parking lacida yega, not solamente go for el carro, sino comiroporto.

So basically uh parking, not solamente go for the carro, so uh my neighbor told me if we need any sign assured that he is okay with our bill or anything, he was happy to help me with that.

And also I make uh uh make sure when they raining the bat the neighborhood, they don't got the gutters, they're not getting into the neighborhood to make sure not no issue or problem.

So what if I it looks like you take very good care of your house and um I understand the frustration with this and appreciate your honesty?

Okay.

Um key to this, and la frustration custom much.

Thank you.

I had uh questions on the photographs that were provided.

Are those before and after photographs or are those all photographs of what its current condition is?

After I received the notification from the city.

And I have a question.

Are there any other homes in your area that have similar car ports that go to the property line?

Okay, Ustedes savez in la area and su vecindario tiening algo construido igualmente or no.

It looks like your neighbor has one.

I'm not sure what that, but I don't I'm not sure about that.

Okay, thank you.

Gracias.

Board, any other questions right now?

All right, hearing none.

Um again, I didn't see anybody, but I'll double check.

Is there anyone here that would be speaking in opposition to this petition?

Uh 2025 DP1065.

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

Yep.

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

Uh you'll note we're joined by a translator this afternoon.

Yep.

Uh this is Lillian from LTC, uh, the city uh made a contract with her, so I'll take periodic pauses throughout my testimony to allow her to translate for a petitioner's benefit.

Okay.

Okay, yes, thank you for being here as well.

You're welcome.

Yes.

Um staff is recommending denial of this variance, uh, seeking forgiveness instead of permission for a zero foot side setback of a carport structure.

Yep, for context of the site, it's a residential property improved with a single family home built in 1956 per the assessor's card.

Uh it's mid-block on a curved street.

Um the lot is around 5,000 square feet in size, which meets the current minimum size for the D5 zoning district.

Okay, um, basically minimum enters for Sarason Kitarla porque and recommends it for suburban neighborhood uses, other houses or other properties nearby are also residential in nature.

Um caso de violation.

That was Vio 24-005040.

This is based on a complaint filed with the mayor's action center about the parking of cars on the site.

Yeah, excuse me, really quickly.

Uh could the people uh having a conversation if you need to have a conversation, please step out.

Oh, the personality parafora.

Yes, so um the full tax of that violation is displayed on the screen, uh side of the property for unlicensed cars being parked, uh a lack of distinct edging for gravel parking areas, and then a lack of ILP for the carport edition, which appears to have been placed in early 2024 based on aerial photography.

Yes, the aerial photo on screen now shows a before version.

And then the after version is reflected in that slightly zoomed out photo on the screen.

In response to the question asked by board member Witt, it seems like that property to the east did have a trash violation that was opened in 2024.

It's been since marked as resolved.

Yeah, no tiny intentional, but the accordal map is on a sermovida.

So uh the carport is sixteen feet in width.

It's supported by three posts.

Uh there it has open walls, but there is a fence that runs along the southwestern portion near the driveway.

Right.

It appears that the area underneath.

Oh, sorry.

Yeah, it appears the area underneath is utilized for outdoor seating as opposed for vehicle storage given that tall side yard fence along the southwest portion.

There's no mention of height within the violation that was opened.

Um if the if the fence at the subject property, which is shown in the photo there exceeded the height of six feet, that could potentially be citable as well, just for the petitioners' awareness.

Yeah, so see, but so puzzle stalto somas the CPS.

So approval here is solely seeking permission for the side setback, not any of those other items mentioned.

Okay, and so uh ellos dising queestamina verlocovanas parabelocelevana uh recommendar.

Uh infill housing guidelines, which are a part of the comprehensive plan, indicate that side setbacks and spacing should reinforce block context, that minimum spacing is needed for maintenance and reduction of fire risk as well.

Looking in case of the keture case or elves or inclusive bombers tendrien can yakuaring.

Yep.

Findings submitted by the applicant indicate that granted the variance would be justified, sense of a carpet would be on their property, and that no negative impacts or externalities related to site runoff or drainage would result.

Yes, I I'm not an expert on drainage.

I don't know, but I would be able to verify if the latter is true.

That is something I believe that might be checked during the permitting process.

And specifically the zero foot difficulty arises from placement without permits in place, which would be a self-imposed difficulty as opposed to something and specific to the property.

Right.

Um in other instances, lots have been undersized for current zoning minimums.

Um there may have been permission sought through permits before construction.

Or the separation might have been more than zero feet being right on the property line.

Yes.

Uh the side setback of the house without the carport was about 14 feet.

Some 14 PS.

This would allow room for covered space of nine additional feet off the side of the house before entering the setback area at all.

Yes.

And it's also likely the no permanent foundation was involved for its placement, which might make removal and replacement of a compliance structure more feasible.

Yes.

It's unfortunate that the petitioner uh was unaware of or did not follow the permit process, but staff also doesn't want to incentivize construction without permits in future context.

Right.

So based on those four reasons.

The lack of site specific practical difficulty.

Potential drainage impact on adjacent properties.

So baser potentiality remover.

Yes, and then options for alternate compliant development.

Yes.

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

So if they were to cut it back four and a half feet, that it would be permitted.

Yes.

Yeah, it's a five foot required setback that appears to be around zero feet just from staff's visit.

It looks like it's right up on the property line.

We wrote it as zero feet and might be closer to a half foot.

Yeah.

Okay.

And um further down, three houses or so down.

There is a carport behind the home that goes to the property line, looks original to the 1950s.

Um not that that really matters, right?

Because that would be existing non-conforming.

Right.

Is that that that looks like it might be some sort of detached garage for the one to the northwest fair?

Yeah, but it does go it does go to the zero property line.

Um pleto or selected bajar el I assume that the northwest corner of the building that looks like it's not nearly five feet off the side yard is is that grandfathered in because if that's the way it was constructed originally before the five year five foot setback was established.

Are you referring to where my cursor is there on the screen approximately?

Yes.

Yes, I believe that would be considered legally nonconforming.

Uh the house was built in the 1950s.

So for no sigilas dias de construction.

Any other questions for staff at this time?

Um back to that back corner that you were pointing out, the garage of the neighbor goes to their property line as well, a full enclosed garage.

So it's this 2935.

They have a full drive-in garage back there that goes to the property line, is that correct?

I don't think this picture is.

It looks like it's on or near the property line, but that would likely be legally non-conforming as well.

I need to consult older aerials to see exactly when it was built.

But not within the past few years.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Um at this time we can go back to the petitioner if you have any additional comments, um rebuttal of staff comments.

Closing statement, you can have up to five minutes for for those.

So lack of the knowledge, I don't do the right measures.

It was costing me a lot of money to build this, you know, and I was willing to work what you guys decided.

I don't really want to tear down completely.

I just wonder you guys um tell me what to do and follow your recommendations.

If it has to be going down or make more sure or what I don't know, I'm open to your recommendations.

We appreciate that.

Okay.

Any any other questions for the petitioner from the board.

Hold on, let's not pregunta.

All right, hearing none.

Uh before we cast our ballots, I do want to thank our translator for being here today.

I want to thank Mr.

Amenz for his his patience over the past couple of months.

And anyone on staff who had some effort in making sure that all of our Indianapolis residents have some equal time and capabilities to present before us at this at this board.

So thank you to everybody involved.

Um with that, I will ask the board, please go ahead and cast your ballot for petition 2025 DV1065.

On case 2025-DV1-065, Tom Barnes votes no.

Jennifer Witt votes yes, Peter Nelson votes no, and David Duncan votes no.

The variance is not granted.

No, no, no, no, no.

Solamente uno que dijo que se canta.

So with that not granted, um you can talk to staff on how you can maintain potentially some of the the building, um, some of the cardport.

Um, but they they can they can guide you through next steps.

Okay.

Uh pues no leap provaron lo que está pidiendo.

Okay, so and what moment I can talk to them.

Oh, man.

Okay.

Okay.

Thank you.

Thank you so much.

Thank you.

Case number two zero two six-dv one-zero zero one property address 445 Sanders Street amended.

Property uh, never mind.

Sorry.

Center Township Council District Number 18, zoned D8.

The petitioner is NP Financial Services LLC, represented by Josh Smith.

Variants of development standards of the consolidated zoning and subdivision ordinance to provide for the construction of a two-family dwelling encroaching within the clear site triangle of Sanders Street and Southeast Street, not permitted.

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

Sorry.

Do you swear or affirm under penalty of perjury to tell the truth and nothing but the truth?

Say I do.

I do.

You mind if I go first?

I just have a real brief statement.

Are you speaking in remonstrance?

Pardon?

Are you remonstrance in opposition or support?

No, I'm in support.

Okay, absolutely.

You guys can go whichever order.

So real quick, I'm with the Bates Hendricks uh Homeowners Association, land use committee, and Josh and his crew have been great.

Sorry, can you add your name and address for the record?

Sorry, Clark Mathis 727 Lincoln, Indianapolis 46203.

The land use committee and Bates Hendricks are not in opposition.

Uh we're uh in a in agreement with the variants.

Thank you.

Good afternoon, members of the board.

My name's Josh Smith with RG Development Offices at 1073 Oliver Avenue 46221.

Um this site proposed or poses a uh very big problem.

Um because of E Street being a primary arterial, the clear site triangle is rather large on the property.

I don't know if you've got a copy of the site plan in front of you.

We've got a proposed site plan that has a big red line across there.

In order to build a home on this lot, we would have to set back from the front approximately 40 to 44 feet.

The maximum front setback in the zoning code is 19.9 feet.

So it's it's just not possible to build without some sort of variance, whether it's for the clear site triangle or the front setbacks.

And working with the neighborhood association.

And looking at the block, the historic home that was there prior.

It just looks like it's going to fit better to have the house in line with the existing row of homes that was there.

The same the same setback this house had prior to its demolition in the late 90s.

Okay.

And we can take a look.

Yeah.

Robert, these are the same things I emailed you on the 19th.

The top litter size sheets are just there to show what the prior house looked like.

There's a black and white photo, arrow photo from 1995, and then the old Sanborne insurance maps.

On the the site plan, you know, we're showing the home proposed in line with the existing block.

There's another sheet in there that shows the this same clear site triangle issue up and down East Street for this segment.

Primarily because it's considered a primary arterial.

If if E Street was considered, you know a local neighborhood street, and most of these clear site triangle problems would would be minimized because it would be a 75-foot triangle instead of 125 foot.

Again, we think it would just be you know agreeing with the neighborhood association.

The home would just feel better, be more connected to the neighbors.

The block would look more consistent having it in line.

We in their letter of support, it does have two recommendations.

We're not opposed to those, those have already been addressed in the elevations that you have in your hand.

Um we could add those as stipulations if this gets approved.

Do you have anything else?

No, that's it at this time.

Just the the handouts.

If you have questions, I'd be happy to help.

I do want to clarify.

Yeah, I don't mind reading them.

The Bates Hendricks Neighborhood Association Lane Use Committee submitted a letter to staff March 31st, and it said they recommend approval for the project with the following conditions.

And then the second bullet point as a condition of this variance, the petitioner has agreed to install large windows with trim on at least the north front and east side facades and install an open seven-foot six-inch deep porch, which improves light side or site line visibility and is generally illustrated on the March 19th, 2026 drawing set the petitioner shared with the BHA.

And I can give you my copy of this letter if you guys need it for the file.

Thank you.

All right.

Was there anyone speaking in?

Or I guess is there anyone else speaking in support at this time?

Um if not, we can go to anyone speaking in opposition to this petition.

All right.

Seeing no one.

Um let's go to staff comments, please.

Thank you, Chiperson.

Also, members of the board, what I'm handing out to you, or what I provided to Marty to hand out to you was the original proposed site plan.

Um as you can see, that house is set further back.

It did require an additional variance for an increased setback, and that proposed setback was 29-foot setback, where a 19.9 foot setback.

But as you see on that site plan, which is not in the SAF report, there are two triangles, and I'll have Jill Palmer with the Department of Public Works speak after me in regards to that.

She is here.

What the difference of those are one is the red one is the clear site triangle.

And then the green one is, I believe, the site distance triangle, which is a DPW standard, not a zoning ordinance.

Staff initially thought, yes, it might be by all appearances better to move the house up as the neighborhood indicated.

But as we looked at this further, that proposed inherent risk for traffic on eastbound Sanders Street, trying to turn right onto East Street as a house, even with the open porch as proposed, would still block visibility as this is not a signalized intersection.

The vehicles would have to approach further up.

And as you see on the north side of the intersection, there's a wider portion of East Street north of Sanders, and it narrows down as it goes south.

That being said, um with that additional variance for the increased setback, staff felt it was better out of that for better to be out of that site distance triangle.

And staff initially recommended approval until the neighborhood had their discussions with the petitioner, and the and the petition was then since amended to remove that excessive uh that 29 foot rear setback, excuse me, front setback, uh, and to move the house up further into the clear site triangle and into the site distance triangle as proposed on the screen and in the staff report.

Um as amended with the 10-foot front step back, um that would be placed further in as indicated.

Staff feels that would provide more of a um hardship on drivers and uh increase the amount of uh uh safe driving, uh the difficulty for safe driving.

Uh there's no practical difficulty for it to be placed further back, although that would uh require an additional variance, which staff is supportive of.

Staff does feel that additional variance.

How do I want to say this?

Is the would be more important than to remove that to have that variance and have the house set back than to remove it and have the house further into the um uh clear site triangle.

Staff would prefer that we do have that where uh increased setback uh variance as opposed to not having that.

With that, I'll have Jill Palmer speak on behalf of DPW in regards to the green site distance triangle, if I'm referring to that correct.

Hi.

Uh Jill Palmer, program manager multimodal, Department of Public Works addresses here at 200 East Washington Street, suite 1401.

I'd like to try and explain to you this concept of the the varying site triangles.

Uh, you probably got a bunch of shapes on your map and wondering what they mean.

Uh so the zoning establishes a clear site triangle as defined in the ordinance, and that is what the variance is being sought.

The second Clare site triangle is the intersection site distance intersection decision site distance triangle.

That is a an engineering concept, it's fairly universal.

Uh different jurisdictions around the country all use these same values.

And what that means specifically here, if you are traffic on Sanders Street and you're approaching East Street, and with regard to this parcel, specifically you're on Sanders looking to turn left, which is north onto East Street.

This is the area that needs to be kept clear so that you can uh adequately judge the speed and presence of oncoming traffic and safely make that turn into traffic.

So that green triangle that is on the handout provided to you, that is based on the intersection decision site distance.

And from my perspective, to put anything into that area uh would be considered introducing a new hazard to the roadway.

Um it is a concern to us.

Uh I'm sure you've all heard about our vision zero initiative, so we are uh trying to emphasize the point of remediating our infrastructure wherever we can, and then certainly we don't want to introduce a new hazard to the roadway.

Um so that's what that triangle means.

That the green one, not the ones on the overhead map, but the one on your handout, that green one.

So that means no building, no fences, no shrubs that are mid-height.

All those things are important in order to keep the area visible for drivers to make to allow them to make a safe decision to turn into traffic.

So there are times, again, because we have these two different definitions of the site triangle.

There are times DPW and DMD work closely together to evaluate these variance cases.

And there have been times when staff has supported a variance of a clear site triangle if the engineering decision site distance triangle is met.

So that's been a hard line for us in the past.

There's been a number of case examples where staff supported a variance of the zoning clear site triangle as long as that that engineering triangle was met.

Because again, that is a hard line for us because you're introducing a hazard.

So in this case, on the proposed uh setback of the house would put the building structure into that intersection site triangle.

It would block the view of traffic trying to depart Sanders Street, make a left turn on to East Street.

And in my opinion, that that creates a new hazard, which is something that we'd like to avoid.

Available if you have any questions.

Thank you, Joe.

With that, um, to be clear, as proposed.

Um with both the handout of the original um dwelling location and the new proposed dwelling location, there is some encroachment into the clear site triangle.

The original location had had minimal encroachment and also did not have any encroachment into the site distance triangle.

Staff would recommend approval of the variance with that additional variance reinstated for the 19 excuse me, 29-foot rear setback subject to that handout site plan.

If the variance um goes forward and as proposed by the petitioner with just the variance for encroachment into the clear site triangle as shown on the um overhead elevation site plan, and then the site plan staff does recommend denial of that.

And we'll be happy to answer any questions the board may have.

And just generally, you know, this site's unique in that there was a historic structure that sometime in the 90s was demolished.

But if we're not looking at the zoning ordinance now and we're looking at the DPW site decision triangle, I mean that that's gonna have pretty broad sweeping impacts across the city, right?

As buildings on these ride-aways are redeveloped, we're essentially saying they can't be redeveloped in the way that they were.

And I mean, looking at the site plan C3 that the petitioner handed out, which just tracks the clear site triangle.

It seems like this that that same DPW site decision triangle would impact each one of these buildings.

So as those go through the redevelopment phase, we're gonna have wide areas throughout the city that are become vacant.

Yeah, understood.

Um, so it's actually pretty rare for um buildings to be within that site triangle.

Um it's most of the time the the site triangle takes up only a sliver that is mostly the the existing sidewalk and right-of-way anyway.

What we have here is a little bit of an unusual condition, and either version of the exhibits acceptable.

You see, East Street is wider to the north of the site and narrower.

So what that means is that southbound traffic is actually sort of approaching this house head on.

So we have to take that into account as part of the triangle.

So there is a little bit of an unusual circumstance on this one.

Uh most cases where we have, again, where we have supported a variance of the clear site triangle, usually it's a very minor setback from a typical four-way intersection that we need to keep clear.

One example I can think of is the new Damien Center headquarters at Washington and Oriental.

That was one where we ended up modifying the building slightly to get out of the intersection site triangle.

But it is a variance of the zoning clear site triangle, but it was one that we supported because we we found that it had adequate site distance.

So and also as far as the historic precedent, unfortunately, I'm not able to pull crash data prior to 2003.

That's as far as our records go.

Others I otherwise I I could have gone back and compared, you know, safety statistics.

But one thing that has happened more recently is that we're finding uh higher vehicle speeds and and poor compliance with regulatory conditions and in some cases increasing crash rates.

Um can't compare to the historical value, but what I do know is the the trends that are taking place in today in our roadways and doing everything we can to provide safe infrastructure moving forward.

Okay.

Do we do we know what that impact is?

We what we don't have is an overlay of a clear decision triangle site, I'm sorry, the decision site distance triangle overlaid on the new site plan.

Correct.

We do not have a version of that drawing.

Thank you.

Another question for you, ma'am.

So are you proposing that we include commitments for the height of the bushes and trees and uh no?

That is something that is something, again, usually the that's in most cases that's within the right-of-way and it is regulated.

So uh when we encounter these, maybe after a crash has occurred, uh, we will go back and either we will trim it ourselves if it's in the right of way, or we'll work with uh Department of Business and Neighborhood Services if there's an obstruction on private property, but we do aim to keep that intersection decision site distance clear at every single intersection.

So we we are right routinely looking for obstructions of any type.

Uh again, the one thing that is allowed is trees, uh, because they are relatively narrow.

It's you know, young trees, and then eventually they you know the canopy is up above and out of the way, and signposts, which are very narrow, but generally things like fences and and large shrubs and uh entire buildings, we discourage.

Now, when it can't be avoided, again, there are a few cases where there's something like a bridge abutment, or you know, there are a few very old buildings that that do get into that.

And what ends up happening is we have to control traffic with a traffic signal or or four-way stop just because of the site distance.

And so if you look at the Indiana Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices, which tells us when we can install a four-way stop or a traffic signal, one of the things it envisions is a limited site distance situation.

So if you can't see, you make everybody stop, and then that should solve it, right?

Well, it says to first attempt to mitigate the site distance issue, then only as a last resort, use a traffic control signal.

So we have some examples of that, like um Massachusetts and Valley is a it's a bridge abutment going uh under the railroad.

You can't see in any direction, it would be a very big expensive thing to fix.

It's been there a long time.

It is signalized.

So that is historically been the kind of the remediation is to make everybody stop so that you can see one another.

But what we have found since 2020 is just poor compliance with stopping.

So you have authority to go in and make them cut the bushes.

Yeah, yeah.

Okay.

But again, if if you know, and and to say this location, I would not propose that we put out a new stop or a new signal because so many drivers are disobeying those that I can tell you locations around the city that so many people are running red lights, that the location where they ran the lead light, but they also cannot see those are the locations where we're seeing a higher incidence of crashes, and those red light running in particular tend to be higher in injury and fatality rate.

So that is what I'm trying to avoid.

Um and I just want to clarify.

So this E Street doesn't go straight into the house because there's like a lane of parking and a trail.

There's a little bit of a jog, so yeah.

There's a jog for sure, but they've they've converted half that jog to parking and a bike trail.

Uh-huh.

Right.

So you didn't give us this, but on this map, like there's a whole parking lane and a bike lane and then one lane of traffic that's kind of curving in.

So you guys have done some mitigation already to make sure they don't drive into the yard.

Right, yes.

Hopefully, they don't do that.

Yeah, I did we did draw the the site triangles like on top of a current aerial, so it was to scale and everything.

Oh I guess yeah, you have a similar map.

One lane parking.

Yes.

If you did the agent, otherwise right, other yeah, that's yes, that's that's hoping.

Uh yeah, I have my mic on.

Ideally, if people follow the correct alignment of the street, they won't run directly into the house.

And if they're a park, if there are cars parked there.

Uh yeah, if they're yeah, if all those things fall into place, yes, that helps with the southbound alignment of the intersection.

Um but yeah, if you are the specific to the site triangle issue, this is for traffic that is turning left.

So they're needed to look to their right, and what they're gonna see is a house.

And then they're gonna call me and say, DPW, this intersection is unsafe.

Do you need to come out and fix it?

Uh because I think you know, it's it's great that the petitioner was able to work with neighborhoods and get support, but I I think this concept is maybe it's an engineering concept.

I know how it translates from paper to the real world, but I think not every uh average resident does.

So I have a feeling if we put up a dummy test wall or something in that exact location, people might uh go, oh wait, no, actually, I like being able to safely enter traffic when I can see who's coming or not.

And and so, you know, potentially if if this is approved, I I foresee having to take some mitigation measures because introducing a known hazard, what I would look at doing is one possibility would be make Sanders Street one way the other way, um, so that nobody is trying to pull out.

Um that's one possibility, but sometimes on neighborhood streets there's poor compliance with the one way.

People are like, I've always done it, I'm just gonna keep doing what I've always done.

So, you know, worst case, we would have to just close off the end of the street.

And that might, I don't know, that might be popular, that might cause some uh hardship for the people that live on that block.

So I don't mean that to sound threatening, but that is what I I do.

We have a documented design deficiency that would be introduced uh if we're encroaching into the intersection site distance, and with that on the books, then I'm sort of obligated to protect the health, safety, and the welfare of the general public and and do something about it.

So another whenever we're looking at the clear site triangle, one thing that always you know, you see vegetation, you see trees, you see fences.

We also see utilities and utility boxes and the like.

And I don't see any of those on the site plan, but do we know whether any of those are within the clear site triangle and or decision site distance triangle on this price?

I don't know, but like utility poles are usually okay.

Um occasionally what if they're placed too close to the intersection.

But that what happens with those is you're able to like either you you see coming up or you have to pull up a little bit, but there are locations where in the process of replacing poles, we end up with a double pole that that between AES and the telecoms, they've got two different poles out there that creates a bigger hazard.

And we saw at the intersection of uh post road and Troy Avenue, we saw uh fatal crashes just skyrocketed this location because and part of it was the only the only obstruction was there were different poles, you know, too many utility poles in the way.

So that that can be an issue at higher speeds, especially because that the gap of the pole at 50 miles per hour means a wider gap in being able to see traffic.

Hopefully, traffic is not going so fast on E Street that that those would be an issue.

But generally speaking, we do allow things like you know, signal poles, utility poles, signposts, and again tree trunks, provided that the canopy is pruned up high.

Um, because you can you know sort of move your head or or slow your car down or move up a little bit in order to see around a smaller object like that, but with you know, an actual house structure in the way you're you're you know, you're limited, you have to pull out you know, into the travel lane before you could actually see.

Thank you.

Okay.

Um so with the decision site distance, um, is that extended because this is a primary arterial similarly to the clear site triangle?

So it's it's kind of a similar concept to the zoning site triangle, but the uh intersection decision site distance triangle is based on the speed, the posted speed of the roadway, not the classification.

I don't know why.

They're they're very similar concepts.

I'm not sure why we define them differently, and one's in the zoning code and one's an engineering standard.

Similar concept, right?

Of keeping the the intersection area clear.

But yeah, this one is calculated based on the posted speed, is what we were providing.

Um ideally, actual travel speed would be a better, you know, representation of real life conditions, but we didn't have the chance to do a speed study and get actual speeds, so we use the posted speed of East Street to calculate that distance.

So it's you you do 14 and a half feet for to represent where the driver's eye is located, and then you go whatever based on the speed, go down in this street, go south on East Street, that distance based on the posted speed, and then you draw the triangle in between the two, and then that's the area that needs to be cut clear.

Thank you.

Um one other question on that.

Some of the data that you mentioned collecting, well, I think all of the data you mentioned collecting was related to uh vehicle collisions.

Is DPW collecting any information related to collisions with pedestrians?

Because I know you know, along East Street, there's a lot of sidewalks, and people will will use main arterials as well to uh make their way on foot.

But is there any data that's being collected that would be able to show how this either the clear site or the decision site site, excuse me, decision site?

I'm not I'm I'm done with saying that.

Um the green triangle affects the uh the uh the pedestrians I'm not aware of a study specifically um correlating that because again it's pretty rare that we have that condition.

The nice thing about pedestrians is we can have them come right up to the corner until they can see and they will they will always stop because you know I do you know they can't hopefully don't want sometimes they don't, then we have a whole other problem.

But generally speaking, when we're designing for pedestrians, they are such a slower speed and they have more flexibility to move around and find a place where they can see adequately.

Um but we as far as us collecting data, um, we have so very much data.

Uh I am DPW's representative to the fatal crash review team, and I've been an advisor to our our vision zero working group, and so I am uh deep into the world of uh examining.

I've I've you know reviewed every fatal crash since 2020.

I've seen what's happening out on our streets, and and that has influenced um my my opinions here.

Okay, appreciate it.

Thank you.

I have one more question for the gentleman from the neighborhood association.

Yes.

So why are you opposed to the original footprint for the property?

Your original footprint because of the set because of the setback in relationship to the original building that was there, it was torn down.

And the other reason why we're not opposed to it is because to the left, as you're going of the traffic that's coming from the that's coming from the north going south, you can't see that direction either.

People have to actually pull up almost to the sidewalk in order to see that direction.

So even if even if we decline this site the uh site line to the right, the people have to go, people have to pull up to the intersection because there's a building that's right directly to the left.

So in order to make that turn, going from Sanders going left, you have to pull up almost to the to the intersection itself instead of the setback to see what's traffic is coming from the north.

And what we propose is that they don't extend the building so much as the expose the porch and with one column so you can see through the porch.

All right, any other questions at this time from the board.

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

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

Yeah, thank you.

Uh and we we've had several versions of the site plan going back since September when we applied for the initial permits.

You know, the permit office said the same thing.

You're too close to the you're in the clear side triangle.

We move it back.

Now they say you're above the maximum front setback.

So we've we've gone all around all sorts of departments with it.

Um for the traffic standpoint on southbound East Street is no parking.

So there's no cars are gonna be parked there for visibility on Sanders Street.

There are cars that park right up in front of the proposed house.

Uh I believe the staff report photo they took of the front of the property shows shows cars parked there.

Um yeah, you can see where kind of the melted ice was.

There was a car parked in front of the site.

So cars park, and that's the area where the the rep neighborhood representative was saying they have to pull up to where that snow mound is to be able to look north to the left to see traffic coming.

So we propose that the site plan you have with the green front.

Oh, yeah.

Sorry.

Um so if you're coming, this is if my Google are coming south on East Street, Sanders tease to it.

Is there a parking?

Not on East Street, but um directly in front of the porch.

Is there parking in that lane?

Yes.

If we if we're able to go back to that picture that was just on the screen, that right there.

Yep.

Um that one.

So that that empty lot is parking.

The pick the photographers facing south at that point.

And that you can see kind of the melted area in the snow where there was a car park there prior to snow removal.

That's Sanders.

Correct.

That's Sanders Street, and then where the trees are on the left side, that is East Street.

And immediately to the left of those trees, there's no parking allowed on East Street.

Correct.

But but behind the photographer, there's parking on East Street.

I believe so.

I'd have to double check.

Thanks.

Which keeps them from running into your front porch.

Yeah.

Okay.

Gotcha.

And so, you know, we we were working through this with the city, the city staff support, you know, like Robert was saying, they support, you know, sort of that middle ground that's between the clear site triangle and the uh decision site distance green triangle.

Um but when we talk to the neighborhood, you know, the people that live there, they have to see this every day, they have to drive by this every day, they live next door, they live across the street.

You know, we we want to make them happy.

You know, if if the people that live there and they see it all the time aren't happy, they're gonna look out the door every day and then see it, and they're like, Man, I really wish they would just built that up, you know, ten more feet or eleven more feet.

Um so that's why we we moved it up uh a few weeks ago in the proposal.

Um from the owner's perspective, if the only way to get an approval is to move it back to the middle ground, he's willing to do any of it.

Um but he wants to work with the neighborhood and make the neighbors happy.

So I uh my first question is for Chris, Chris.

I I think all we can vote on is what's in front of us, and right now what's in front of us is the petitioner's proposed site plan.

So unless he amends that petition now, we we can't vote on the site plan staff prefers.

We would be voting on the site site plan the petitioner presented.

I I guess the I don't know that I've ever seen this, but could we do could we if the petitioner is in alignment with it, could we do a vote on A, which is his original petition that was presented at A, and then a vote on B, which is a fallback vote if A doesn't pass that B would be what the staff would prefer.

Or how do we how do we move forward procedurally?

Well, um I guess the cleanest is like you say you just vote on what's been presented in in front of you, just one vote.

Alternatively, you could uh maybe get a cont have a continuance, see if there's anything that can be sorted outside of the hearing process that uh they can come back in and um you know be able to clearly state those alternatives rather than trying to do it on the fly.

Okay, so my second question is for the petitioner.

Um you could move forward with the vote on what you what you presented as far as the the application today, or you could amend your petition to go to the original site plan that staff was discussing in their presentation, or you can request a continuance to confer with staff and figure out what you want to do with some more you know direction.

Okay.

Um I think given the nature of the traffic presentation, I think it would be in their best interest to revert back to the February 5th.

I forget the February site plan that Rob represented shows the green triangles.

Amend the position or amend our proposal now to revert back to the petition site plan from a month ago that shows I think it's a 29-foot front setback, I don't have it in front of me.

Which is the handout that you provided.

Okay.

So there, I guess there are two corollary tie-ins.

One, there was a commitment discussed at the beginning of the hearing that came out of the neighborhood association's letter of support.

And I don't the dimensions of the porch are different on the original site plan.

So I think the inference is that that commitment would no longer be applicable, but then that raises a second tie in, which is what's the neighborhood's position on this revised amended petition.

And so I think we need to hear from the neighborhood as well.

They will not support it.

I went round and round with them for several weeks via email, and then on in our in-person or uh Zoom meeting, they will not support it unless it's in line with the existing block.

Can I yeah, yeah, by all means?

Do you mind stepping forward uh especially given all that you heard from DPW and the safety concerns?

Yeah, at this time we're not we're not in support of the original one.

Our plan was to have what we put we would prefer is to have the new building in line with the rest of the houses on Sanders.

And I can I can only speak for myself.

I would have to go back to the board.

Okay, thank you.

I think we're nudging towards a continuance.

I don't know if I'm allowed to say that.

I I think we are.

I don't know if you can infer it from the discussion, but I have no idea how this vote's gonna turn out, and I don't think that's good for either side.

Um so a continuance may be the most appropriate next step to see exactly where you can get unanimity on some of this.

Sounds good.

I will uh we we we do not oppose a continuance to I guess it'll be the May 12th or possibly June meeting.

Okay.

Oh can we request formally request a continuance of this case to the May 12th meeting?

Okay.

In that case, I will ask if the uh I suppose any anybody in the audience, but I guess specifically the the uh neighborhood representative that's been here.

Um is there any opposition to the continuance requests for petition 2026 D V 1001?

And then staff are we comfortable then continuing this petition to the May 12th hearing to allow some some further discussion and potentially amendment of the petition.

Thank you, Chairman Nelson.

Yeah, staff has no objection to continuing this for sake of clarity.

I would continue it as it is written in today's docket.

Therefore, if it is amended, the amended uh will be reflected in the May 12th docket.

Um then that's just for clarity.

I know the petitioner did amend it verbally, but I think there was no vote or no acceptance by the board of that amendment uh due to the opposition of the neighborhood association.

So that's how I would recommend proceeding with the petition as written.

But staff has no objection to the continuance.

Thank you.

I would agree with Mr.

Ullen Haig on that.

Um board, we do have a continuance request to continue petition 2026 DV10145 Sanders Street to the May 12th hearing.

Is there a motion?

Duncan, so moved.

Second.

Barnes second.

All right.

Uh motion and second, call for a vote.

Uh Witt.

Wit, yes.

Duncan, Duncan, yes.

Barnes and Nelson votes yes.

Thank you.

Case number two zero two six-dv one-004 property address six five three five North Only Street, Washington Township, Council District number three, zoned D2.

The petitioner is Chris Schmidt.

Variants of development standards of the consolidated zoning and subdivision ordinance to provide for the installation of a privacy fence not to exceed 12 feet in height in the rear yard.

Maximum height, six feet permitted in rear yards.

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

Do you swear or affirm under penalty of perjury to tell the truth and nothing but the truth?

Say I do.

I do.

Can I share these with for the board?

Um my name is Chris Schmidt.

I'm me and my wife are the owners of uh 6535 North Olney Street.

And um not sure where to start, so I'll just start with uh uh neighbor consent affidavit that I had signed by my immediate neighbors.

Um says we the undersigned property owners are residents in proximity to property located at 6535 North Olness Street.

Do you hearby affirm and state as follows?

We are aware of a proposed install of the the installation of a mesh tarping privacy cover extending above the existing fence line within the rear yard of the subject property.

We understand that the purpose of said mesh tarping is to mitigate direct site lines into the subject's backyard, backyard and pool area from the second story deck surrounding, which is says being constructed, is actually in constructed and installed for the neighbors directly behind us.

We acknowledge that the proposed deck creates an elevated vantage point with direct visibility into the private outdoor living space.

We further acknowledge that the installation of the mess tarping is reasonable, necessary, and intended solely for the purpose of preserving privacy and the enjoyment of the subject backyard.

So they have no obligation or no objection.

It's it's not the city was uh uh uh said it couldn't be a fence above six feet.

It's not a fence, it's just a tarping that we have for privacy.

We raise our 11-year-old niece, and we have young children over all the time.

And the I don't know if the pictures do it justice if you guys can tell, but that back deck has direct sight line into our backyard, so we have no privacy.

The fence the tarp we we have up is within our fence line, and it's strictly for privacy.

When they're out there in the summer sitting on the deck, they can see directly in, and we got a whole neighbor or pool full of young children.

So strictly for privacy.

One of my neighbors is actually here in support.

I understand the neighbor directly.

Uh who's most directly affected is against it.

The surrounding neighbors have had multiple issues with this person, and they've been under construction for like three years in their backyard.

So it's it's it's strictly to mitigate the site lines and protect the privacy of our kids and us.

That's it.

All right, board.

Any questions for the petitioner at this time?

This the netting is temporary.

So you close it every day or open it every day as you use the pool, or is it going to be permanent?

It's gonna be permanent.

Okay.

We're we're eventually within a year or two gonna put up uh some tall shrubs to protect it, but right now uh uh finances prevent us from doing that.

So this was the immediate fix to get it resolved.

They're up there hooked on, and uh, you know, because she can go out there any time and have direct access, so we want it there full time.

Same thing at night.

You can we have a very lit up backyard.

Can I ask um looking at your property and and some of these pictures of your home?

Um which is it like on the north side, the south side of the pool, which which side is it on?

Uh, yeah, that doesn't do here.

Let me uh maybe just tell me which address you're trying to block.

I don't it it's well ask that one more time.

I'm sorry.

Like which house, you know, uh the but it's the one directly behind us, which is okay.

Uh so it's actually off a different road.

Yes, it's but yeah, you you got it.

It's behind us.

Okay, gotcha.

And the immediate neighbor to her is here today to support us.

All right, thank you so much for that.

I appreciate it.

And looks like that's a it's kind of their front, sort of that's like where they pull in their driveway because they loop around the house.

So it's very active.

Yeah.

Okay.

Yes.

Thank you.

So none of the neighbors object, and they completely understand.

They they support us.

All right, board.

Any other questions right now?

All right.

I didn't see anyone in opposition here today, but I will ask is there anyone here speaking in opposition to petition 2026 DB 1004?

All right.

Seeing none, uh staff comments, please.

Thank you, Chairperson Nelson, members of the board.

Um as defined, this structure is considered a fence, and therefore it does need to meet the requirements in the ordinance of fence height, which is limited to six feet in behind the primary dwelling or in the rear yard.

The purpose of that height limitation is to create an open appearance among dwellings, prevent blocking views, limit the negative visual impacts on adjacent properties and prevent a canyonized effect when multiple tall fences are in the same area.

The height requirements are in place to limit bulk, create a consistent density and intensity, and keep the environment at a human scale.

When you have multiple tall fences, that kind of diminishes the human scale.

In addition, when structures are too tall, it limits the sunlight on adjacent properties.

Typically, when additional height is needed, uh additional landscaping measurements that allow for landscaping to grow taller uh would be added as there is no height restriction on landscaping, whether it be um evergreen bushes, evergreen trees, um, or other um uh plantings of such nature.

Staff would point out for reference in the site plan um that the proposed structure is not on the property line but is offset five feet, I believe.

That is indicated on the site plan.

The and I believe also in the site in the excuse, and also in the staff report, there's an elevation of the proposed structure, and the petitioner can uh as you see right now, which has more of a wooden lattice, so the screens that you are seeing in the pit picture are temporary until approval apparently would be given, and then they would convert to that wooden lattice um structure.

I I believe the petitioner can confirm whether that's true or not.

Um regards to this, um it does not have appearance of a fence, but again, staff has to reiterate it does meet the definition of a fence, so therefore for it falls under the ordinance regulations of fence standards.

Um staff would recommend if this is is approved um that the board might subject it to two commitments, that being the elevation as submitted, and the site plan as submitted, as this would not be the entire rear yard, it would just be uh uh about six panels of the back fence, six or eight panels of the rear yard um to my estimate.

Um but I would be happy to um recommend any other commitments if the board still feels the need to with that regard, and reject and in um conjunction of its relationship to the ordinance, staff does recommend denial and would be happy to answer any questions the board may have thank you.

Um what are the dimensions on the proposed fence or structure that holds the tarping?

My computer just crashed, so I'm sorry I don't it's rebooting.

Um I believe it's 12 feet tall.

I do know that.

I do not know the width of each panel.

I mean that it appears there's like six panels maybe or seven panels.

I don't have that width.

And then the existing fence that's on the property line.

I would believe that would be a six a traditional six-foot privacy fence.

So I mean, one question I had is you know, the intent of the of the fence height limitation is to keep the dimensions and visibility all cohesive in the neighborhoods, etc.

And a six foot tall on the fence line versus a twelve-foot tall fence further back into the property has the same effect because if you're from the property viewing a fence that's further away, it doesn't have as big of an impact.

Does that make sense?

Your your line of sight triangle is is effectively the same.

I could see your point of view, but again, the ordinance doesn't take that consideration.

Yeah, six foot is six foot.

It doesn't matter if it's twenty feet from the property line or right at the property.

Unfortunately, yes, that is the case.

Thank you.

Any other questions from the board for staff?

I have a question.

Um in this case, since the plan long term would be to have some kind of shrubbery, right?

Long term.

Yeah, we need I mean it takes a couple years.

Yeah.

I got a couple of things.

Yeah, they need full mature trees, yes.

Right.

Um, would a time commitment be appropriate or is that not allowed?

Like or an expiration of this approval.

Um the board could impose a time commitment, so such as five years, as you see in the picture.

I believe the petitioner has planted some small evergreens.

What's the the growth of those evergreens?

I'm not sure, but five or seven years may allow them to grow taller than the existing six-foot fence and therefore no longer need, but again, um that would be something the board would would have to decide to okay.

Thank you.

I appreciate it.

And those evergreens like to die, so it takes a while.

But understood.

Thank you.

Any other questions from the board?

All right.

We can go back to the petitioner.

You can have up to five minutes for uh rebuttal and closing comments.

Um should I have my neighbor speak?

You you're absolutely welcome too.

Cindy, you want to just say a few words.

She's the immediate neighbor behind us next to the one person who objected.

If uh if you have not sworn in, you'll need to do that.

So we need an address.

Do you swear or affirm under penalty of perjury to tell the truth and nothing but the truth?

Say I do.

I do.

And then if you'd uh please just give your name and address for the record, um feel free to start whenever 6544 North Ewing Street, Indianapolis, 4620.

Name.

Oh, Cindy Miller.

Thank you.

Go ahead.

I'm sorry, I couldn't just one.

You can go ahead and speak whatever you would like to in support of your neighbor.

Yeah, I'm so in support of this because this balcony is high enough that you're looking down into their yard.

And they have a pool, young children, and the people are up in this balcony.

They have the only view is their yard and another neighbor and my yard.

They don't have a view of, I mean, this isn't like uh Terra where Scarlet was out on the balcony looking out into the they're looking right at their pool.

So um I'm in favor of it because people need their privacy, and the and that's not going to change.

The balcony will always be looking down at them.

So thank you.

Is that good enough?

That's great.

Okay.

Do you have any other comments?

No.

Okay.

All right, board.

Any questions for the petitioner?

I do.

Um, so we talked about a couple commitments, and for us, you know, before we vote on this, we need to know whether you're in alignment with those or not, and whether you agree to accept them.

And so the first commitment I had I heard um is that the grant be subject to the site plan that was submitted uh with the petition, i.e.

that it won't grow beyond its current status and the height that that it is at currently.

That that totally agree.

You're in agreement with that.

We're fine with that.

Yeah, that's what it is.

It's we don't need any more.

Okay.

And then uh another one that was talked about here.

I mean, it sounds like this is temporary and it's meant to be intended to be temporary in nature to give the vegetation time to show up and be a natural, more natural, aesthetically pleasing buffer.

So is five-year time limit on the grant.

You know, those pine trees grow two to four or two to four feet a year.

So yeah, I would think five years, they should be it should be fully grown out and covered.

We had some pie trees to the side of the yard that do a wonderful job.

Of course, those are 40, 50 years old, but I would say within five years it would that's our hope.

We don't want it there.

All right.

Thank you.

All right.

Um hearing all that board, um, we've heard the commitments that member Duncan has has read and the petitioner has agreed to.

So consider those as you cast your ballot for petition 2026 D V one zero zero four.

On case two zero two six-dv one-004, David Duncan votes yes, Peter Nelson votes yes, Jennifer Witt votes yes, and Tom Barnes votes no.

The variance is granted subject to the agreed upon commitments.

Thank you.

Case number two zero two six-d v property address four one three seven North Sherman Drive, Washington Township, Council District number eight, zoned D2.

The petitioner is DeAndre Smith.

Variants of development standards of the consolidated zoning and subdivision ordinance to provide for the installation of a six-foot fence within the front yard, maximum three and a half foot tall fence permitted within front yards.

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

Do you swear or affirm under penalty of perjury to tell the truth and nothing but the truth?

Say I do.

I do.

Oh no, name and address for the record, and then you have yeah, 15 minutes for your initial comments.

Thank you.

My name is Rosetta Clay.

I live at 4137 North Sherman Drive, Indianapolis, Indiana, 4626, along with DeAndre Smith.

Okay.

Um so the property is a was a new bill, new construction that was built on a vacant lot in between two existing homes.

Uh we bought the property in December 2025.

Um the builder constructed the fence on the north side as well as the south side.

They uh uh renovated the home on the south side as well.

Uh we were not aware of any uh ordinance or compliance as it relates to the fence or any other uh variances as it relates to the property.

We have concerns about safety as well as uh privacy on both sides.

If you look at the photos, the neighbor to the north side, their driveway is extremely close to our uh property, the vehicle there, that's their driveway.

They have two small dogs that they leave out uh uh tied to the front of the driveway.

Um so there's a concern there with uh poop as well as the smell.

Uh the neighbor to the south.

Um he has um we have concerns about safety with that neighbor specifically.

We've had incidences with him already.

Um and so we're just concerned about our ability to have privacy at all on either side just just to clarify.

I I see the new wood fence um that extends to the front of the property.

Are you also asking to fence in the front of your property or do you are not the side pieces?

We are not we didn't add anything.

You just we didn't ask for any of this.

This was brought to our attention.

Yes, okay.

Would you have I mean do you have any intentions as you think about your property and enjoying your home?

Any intentions of fencing the front portion and gating it.

We've had several people come and ask for that type of thing, and so I want to ask since you're here if that's an intention or not.

We had intentions of doing that, but now that we've learned of the three feet um bearings in the front, we are looking at other options, possibly uh shrubbery for the front of it to um add some privacy because as you can imagine, Sherman Drive is a very busy thoroughfare.

Um so we wanted to have some privacy there, but now that we have learned about this fence variance issue or ordinance issue, we are looking at shrubbery options for the front.

Um thank you for that.

And it's just for the side is the variance written just for the sidesta or is it I just want to make sure I'm not reading this wrong.

I'll I'll wait till later and ask.

I was going to say, okay.

Um yeah, we'll get back to that.

Um but any other questions for the petitioner at this time.

I don't want to make sure you um do you have any other comments at this point?

No, I think that is the only comment.

That is that is perfectly fine.

All right.

Um just to make sure anyone in the audience um speaking in opposition to this petition 2026 DV1007.

Seeing no one.

Um staff comments.

Thank you.

Thank you, Chairperson Elson members of the board.

Um development standards uh permits maximum fence height in the front yard in front of a primary dwelling uh for a solid facing fence at 42 inches within the front yard and six feet uh to the rear of the front of the the dwelling.

The purpose of this height emulate limitation is to create an open appearance among public right-a-ways, prevent blocking views, and limit negative visual impacts on adjacent properties and the streetscape.

Uh the height requirements also limit bulk, create a constant density and intensity, and keep the environment at a human scale.

Um multiple fences of six feet height are in the front yard, they can uh tend to create um the uh uh a canyonization of the street.

Um they also block sunlight um and uh disrupt neighborhood compatibility.

Um staff would point out on page 79, the house to the north, excuse me, south, the red brick house has what is now appears to be a three and a half fence.

The petitioner had indicated that previously was a six fence, and they were cited six-foot fence, they were cited as well, but the instead of proceeding for a variance, they reduce their fence to three and a half feet to make it legally compliant.

There's nothing, and that still provides a separation or uh line of demarcation, if you will, um, from traffic and from people from entering into the property.

The same could be with the same could be done with the subject site's fence uh in order to make it zoning compliant.

It does not need to be removed, it just needs to be reduced in heights to 42 inches.

Um that would be three and a half feet.

Um and it would still provide the same separation from the neighbor to the south uh if you or excuse me, neighbor to the north as indicated by the petitioner.

Um in addition, uh additional landscaping, uh heavy screening of landscaping could be provided if additional height is needed, as there is no restriction on landscaping height, um just on the on the fence structure fences as structures.

Um therefore staff believes there's no practical difficulty as a three and a half foot fence could be uh installed or modified or the existing fence can be modified to three and a half feet and be zoning compliant and provide the same uh protection separation and privacy issues as uh indicated uh or as typically requested.

Staff about staff does recommend denial for these reasons, or we'd be happy to answer any questions the board may have.

I the only question I it's just a clarification, but the front yard is measured from the front of the house out or measured from the right-of-way in a certain amount of feet.

What what do you consider the front yard when measuring the front yard setback or the front yard where the three and a half foot fence in this case would be allowed would be anything in front of the face of the house?

So six feet is allowed on the side of the house, but not in front of the house would be the leading uh leading edge of the house.

Um that would go all the way up to the right-of-way line or the parcel line, which would be the same thing.

Got it.

Board, any other questions for staff.

If approved, this would allow them the ability to put a like a front piece on the two sides if it if it were approved as requested.

Ms.

Mamma.

That we repeat that, please.

If we approve this as a board as submitted.

Go against recommendation, would the owner be allowed to gate in the front?

If you approve this variance, the owner would be allowed to keep a six-foot fence within the front yard without any commitments or restrictions, the entire front yard could be a six-foot fence, not just what's there now as the variance is worded.

Thank you.

All right, we can go back to the petitioner.

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

So closing comments would be that one, we did not construct the fence.

Number two would be that even if we were to basically cut that fence in half and three feet, we would um still have the view of the top of their vehicle as well as any other um items in the front of their home, and their home is not um as kept as ours.

Um I'll just put it that way.

Um and again, the dogs in the front, they already bark very loudly, oftentimes throughout the um middle and in into the early morning hours.

Um so that would be a concern, and um their leash is uh a little bit longer, so I I don't know that there's any ordinance in regards to that, but they could possibly be closer to that fence.

Um and and again, uh not just about privacy and um aesthetically, but also um safety concerns would be my other main issue.

And and the individual on the right, he received the same order uh um, I guess issue in regards to the variance because the builder built his fence as well, and he decided to tear it down, and as you can see, aesthetically it is not at all pleasing to the eye.

Um, and his yard is not pleasing to the eye either.

So um, yeah, we have we have a number of concerns on both sides of that uh property.

Thank you.

Absolutely.

Board, any questions for the petitioner.

Do you know of any other homes along Sherman that maybe have similar fencing?

Um is yours kind of unique.

I'm not seeing anything similar to it.

Just sometimes it's kind of like historically, you know, divid divisions like that.

I just didn't know if you'd seen anything similar along Sherman.

Um further down there are um not in that in our immediate block.

I have not seen any.

And across the street, there is one as well.

I guess I will ask the petitioner.

Um, since you had mentioned you are looking at other ways to be within um zoning requirements for any additional fencing or um mitigation, would you be willing to commit that the existing fence is what would be applicable for this variance and any new um fencing that would be added to the front yard would be within zoning standards, whether that's um you know a three and a half foot fence or shrubbery or whatever, maybe that you decide upon.

Yeah, yes, but we would have to know what that zoning requirements are.

Again, we had no idea of any of this.

Um, this was all brought to us evidently by someone else in the community, so we had no idea of it.

So if we have the ordinance and the guidance of it, yes.

Um, but again, we are looking for some sort of privacy on this road and from surrounding neighbors.

Okay, absolutely.

Um yeah, certainly if you if you do um any other mitigation, I would just recommend again reaching out to staff um to ensure compliance with any future zoning things, knowing that this wasn't you installing this initial fence, but any any future things it might be uh worth reaching out to staff to ensure that you're within compliance for new mitigation measures.

And so that would be through this city-county ordinance.

You wouldn't necessarily have to go through us, you could reach out to Robert directly um to to make sure submit plans to um staff here.

Okay, they're pretty helpful when it comes to hey, I think I want to do this.

What where where do I need to go?

Who do we ask?

Yeah, you'd only need to come to us if you're outside of those guidelines.

Okay.

Okay.

Hopefully, I don't have to come back.

All right.

Um board, any any other questions?

So we do have a commitment from the petitioner to that this this variance does apply to only the existing portion of the fence, um, not adding any new additional six-foot-high fence in the front.

Um, so please do consider that and cast your ballot for petition 2026 DB 1007.

On case 2026-DV1-007, David Duncan votes yes, Peter Nelson votes yes, Jennifer Witt votes yes, and Tom Barnes votes no.

The variance is granted subject to the agreed upon commitments.

Thank you.

Case number 2026-DV1-011.

Property address 2562 North Bancroft Street, Center Township, Council District Number 8, zoned D4 slash I3.

The petitioner is Edward Hanson, represented by John Cross.

Variance of development standards of the consolidated zoning and subdivision ordinance to allow for a 1,344 foot uh square foot barn with a primary dwelling totaling 1,335 square feet.

Detached accessory structure larger than primary dwelling are not permitted.

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

Do you swear or affirm under penalty of perjury to tell the truth and nothing but the truth?

Say I do.

I do.

All right.

Just a heads up before everybody starts.

We do have a hard stop at four o'clock for one of our board members.

We will still have a quorum.

Um, but just to let everyone know, um, there may be a three-person vote for the next couple petitions, depending on how much time lapses.

So just wanted to give everybody that that fair warning.

Thank you, and good afternoon.

Attorney John Cross addresses 13 North State Street, suite 241, Greenfield, Indiana, 46140 here uh representing Edward Hanson in person uh on this uh variance request.

Uh we did submit some digital exhibits, but uh we did tech on uh a six exhibit, uh, but they're all shown in the uh hangouts we've given.

The the handouts that in front of you um unfortunately are black and white only, but the digital ones are colored, so if there's any questions or requests to see colored photos, um we have that there, but uh the subject property here's 2562 North Bancroft Street, Indianapolis, where Mr.

Uh Hansen resides, uh owns the property.

It has a uh his single-family home on it uh in a previously existing shed off to the west, and the subject barn uh barn garage shed I'll probably refer to in interchangeably, uh, which was constructed uh a little over a few years ago during the COVID times.

Uh Mr.

Hanson has actually been here before you previously.

Uh I believe that hearing was November 2024.

You might remember it because we didn't get negative findings of fact until March 2026, so it might be a little fresh for you all.

Um but I was not involved in that process back then.

His contractor, Jim Pierce, uh assisted with him.

He was here today earlier, but had a three o'clock engagement, so he had to take off.

Um so just to go over the brief history of of how this one came about.

Uh Mr.

Hanson originally uh went through the permitting process himself during COVID.

That's when things just drastically changed.

He found it difficult to uh communicate, get responses back from permitting.

Um he was emailing, calling, not getting callbacks, eventually got an email saying pay your fee, we'll get you the permit.

He did that and was sent a permit.

He thought he was good to go.

That was only the floodway permit, not uh the remaining permits.

So he constructed the shed thinking he uh had them all, turned out not to be the case, which the in city inspectors uh found out and so issued uh a violation originally.

So with the assistance of Mr.

Pierce to get permits back then, uh they did submit a variance uh request uh which came before this board.

Uh there were two variances being requested.

There was an issue with the height of the built barn as well as the size.

Uh going over the prior negative findings of fact in the staff report.

I I'm not sure what the discrepancy is between that variance and this one, but there is a clear difference in them.

Uh previously, the uh the variance of site was a variance of use and developmental standards uh for the construction of a non-permitted minor residenti residential structure uh that is not permitted within the floodway fringe because only permitted within the floodway fringe if less than 70% of the primary building.

So the uh the built barn was both larger and taller than the primary building at the time.

So he did come before you uh that was denied.

Uh since then, with the help of his contractor Jim Pierce, uh, he has now elevated the uh existing house.

So the house has been made level with the barn, so they are now the same height.

So there's no issue there.

Um I don't know if the city inspector has gotten back around to it.

We've got a compliance hearing tomorrow to update there, um, but we were going through that process.

So all that we are left here today for your consideration is the size of the uh the new garage.

And and again, back when it was originally requested, it was it was over 75% within the floodway fringe area.

So that was the standard.

Here, the standard that we're looking at is that a detached accessory structure uh cannot be larger than the primary dwelling.

So it has doesn't have to do with the floodway plane.

Um 70%, I don't know if that's changed.

I know that there's a 75% standard if a uh accessory structure is under 400 feet, but that's not the case given the size of it.

So looking at the two structures, the barn that uh was built is 1,344 square feet.

The existing home is 1,335 square feet.

So we are talking about a nine uh square foot difference, which comes out to be uh it's larger by 0.67% than the primary dwelling.

Uh so going back to the negative findings of fact that were issued in March of this year, all of those uh hat focused on the structure being within the uh either the floodway plain or the floodway fringe area, and I believe it's only within the floodway fringe area for purposes of looking at the FEMA map.

So the request is to uh legally establish the existing barn uh with the square footage uh as it stands being greater than the uh primary structure.

Again, it's larger by nine square feet.

So the exhibits that have been submitted to you because I I do know that the property that the barn is still within the floodway plain, it's still partially within the floodway fringe as well.

So the the first exhibit on page two uh shows the FEMA map depiction of the uh subject garage being within the floodway fringe.

Uh it's similar to the to the structure just south on the neighboring lot, uh so very similar there.

It's not within the floodway plain, it's in the floodway fringe, which which is different for uh construction and an ordinance uh procedure, so it's an important distinction.

Uh according to the Indiana floodplain information portal, the the base flood elevation level at this juncture is 800 1.1 feet.

Um something also worth noting regarding uh the flood, the floodway uh status is that Mr.

Hanson, uh his insurer does not require him to have flood insurance uh for the structure.

They deemed it not an issue, so they didn't see any issue with uh the flood uh him having flood insurance, so he's not required to do that.

And I know that the FEMA floodplain map plays into that consideration as well.

The second exhibit, which is on pages three through twelve, is the elevation certificate that Mr.

Pierce obtained throughout the process.

This kind of give the gives the grade levels.

The important ones to look at here is that uh page six shows that for the garage the the lowest adjustable grade levels 803.

The highest is just over 804 feet.

Uh again, the base flood elevation level is 801.1 feet.

So the the lowest adjustable grade level of this garage is over two feet higher than the base flood elevation.

That's important because uh a structure in the floodway fringe uh can be built if it is over two feet higher than the uh the base flood elevation, uh, which is exactly uh the case here.

Uh but that elevation certificate also has page 11 showing another FEMA map, just kind of showing more where the property is with respect to those flood uh area distinctions.

The third exhibit on page 12 uh is the floodway permit that was pulled for raising uh the elevation of the house as stated that has now since been completed and is no longer an issue.

The fourth exhibit, which is pages 13 through 24, are photos taken by Mr.

Hanson.

Uh these were taken on March 4th of this year.

Uh the reason they were taken on March 4th is I think that was like right after I posted the sign, and we received Indianapolis received over two and a half inches of rain on Mar on March 3rd.

On March 4th, we received over 0.8 inches of rain.

So it's a good day to take pictures to show what the property would look like when it gets hit by a a lot of rain.

Uh what the pictures show, page uh 15 shows street pictures.

You can see some pulling of water there.

Uh pictures of the shed, the barn uh around page 18.

Uh 22 shows the south side of the barn.

Uh and it sh was what's important to show there is it shows the grading down to the uh southern lot to show where the barn uh exists and to show that's that's the existing condition of the of the grade of the level uh already.

So there's really good elevation where this barn is located at.

Um but what the pictures show is that there's no pooling of water around the uh the new barn.

It hasn't caused any negative impact.

Again, it's been here for a while.

So Mr.

Hanson would know if that's been the case, and that's not the case, whereas other pictures that have been submitted in that exhibit do show that there's pooling of water uh in other locations.

The fifth exhibit, pages 25 through 30, uh, those are the construction plans that Mr.

Pierce created for raising uh the height of the uh the house.

I think he wanted uh to put him there to to brag about it, but he's no longer here, so he loses out on that.

Um and then the last exhibit for the hard copies, that's exhibit six, it's kind of the the loose leaf that you've got.

Mr.

Hanson walked around his neighborhood and obtained 34 signatures in support of the uh of this petition from all of his neighbors, including the ones uh directly south.

Uh Mr.

Hanson does own the property that is directly south, but he does not live there.

There are uh renters who live there, so but they're fully in support of this as well.

So far, I've not been aware of any uh remote remonstration from this.

So uh again, the issue is that the uh new garage is uh nine square feet larger than the existing primary structure.

Uh as I stated, I know that last time the focus was on this structure being within the uh the flood uh floodway fringe.

Uh but the ordinance that's applicable regarding this that I found is that uh detached residential accessory structures larger than 400 square feet in a floodway fringe district must be provided with the lowest flood elevation as flood uh at flood protection grade of at least two feet above the base flood elevation.

As stated, that's the case.

That's shown on the exhibit.

We're two feet over that, so there's no issue uh with the location in the floodway fringe.

The issue is just it's barely larger than the uh existing ones.

So, you know, the real alternative options are I mean, clearly he built it thinking he had the permits, it wasn't the case.

So he could take a sliver of the barn off.

He could expand his home.

His home, in my opinion, is on the relatively smaller side at 1300 square feet.

So if he can tack on a little bit more, it'd be compliant.

So he spent a lot of money and time going through this process, raising the elevation of his house because I mean that was a you know something that he uh took to heart as being a serious issue, but he would request a variance for just the size issue because he's not wanting the house to be bigger, he's not wanting the garage to be smaller.

Um he would like it to remain as is uh and is here before you today with that request.

Um again, it's existed this way for a while uh to no injurious impact to the area.

Uh I know that in the negative findings of fact issued previously, one of the considerations was how the comp plan states no construction within the floodway.

But again, this structure is not within the floodway, it's outside of it.

It's in the floodway fringe, which is very distinct and different.

So that's not applicable, but I know that was something that was contained in the negative findings of fact previously issued.

Uh the uh use is also permitted in the floodway fringe because it's a use that's permitted uh in the residential zoning district as is, and it's not one of the listed prohibited uses uh in the floodway fringe area.

So it's not a prohibited use, and it's two feet above the base flood elevation level as required.

Uh the shed material is shown uh it's it's made out of metal, so it's resistant to flood damage.

It has not increased risk of flood damage to the area, hasn't increased flood heights uh or any other threats to public safety out there.

So the only issue is the size just being again 0.67% larger than the uh the home that he lives in.

And there won't be any negative impact by approving the variance.

Uh again, uh it seemed like the height level was more of the major one, which has been corrected.

Uh it's existed so far without any negative implications on the area.

Um something I was considering is well, you if you look at this bar and you're looking at it head on.

I mean, if he takes off the back part of the barn to make it within the size district or the size ordinance, if you're looking at it, it's the exact same shape from the front.

I mean, you're not gonna see a difference whatsoever unless you're in the rear, really noticing that difference.

So altering either the the barn to make it smaller is gonna have no negative, it's gonna have no real difference on the appearance.

Uh if anything, it's gonna lower the property value.

Uh again, he can increase the size of the of the house if he wanted to, but the location is important because that's where the existing drive is.

He didn't want to connect uh and split the parcel by adding another drive to go to the north side of the property.

He didn't want to get a permit to try and get a second uh access point, which are hard to get anyways.

So the location is the best location possible.

And without having to either increase the uh size of the house or decrease the size of the barn, uh he requested it stay the same.

And the size of the barn, uh it's for parking for his garage as well as indoor activities as well.

So he's content with the size of the home, but he needed an additional space for parking uh and for the indoor activities he does within the barn.

So that's why the size of it is uh important to him.

And again, there's no negative impact on the use as shown by the overwhelming support that he's received from uh all of the neighbors here.

So the practical difficulty we're looking at is when the barn was built.

Clearly there was issues with the permitting, which is recognized, and we're not here to ask for goodness for that.

But the home was already existing when he built it, a relatively small home at uh 1,300 square feet.

Uh he needed the size of the barn for his activities and for the parking.

So he was left with either having to build a bigger house to accommodate a garage, which he could do, or clearly the variance should have been done first, but he thought that he was doing it correctly.

Uh so the practical difficulties he had the smaller home to begin with, and he needs the larger garage size to accommodate for the use that comes with it.

So all other developmental standards uh with respect to it have been met or would be met through the permitting process.

So he requests approval of the variance for the size to continue through the permitting process.

If any other issues would arise in that regard, he would handle them much like you did with the height elevation uh not matching.

Uh but with respect to that, uh he would request your approval and we'd be happy to answer any questions you have.

I asked this question last time.

I think you guys are here.

Is there a walkway between the barn and the house?

Because you got like a backyard to your home.

There is, and you got a great picture of it.

Thank you.

And I just got lucky on the level.

I had no help from the city whatsoever.

And I I called him I bet 30 times.

It was during COVID, nobody would meet with me or nothing.

Thank you.

Any other questions from the board?

For the petitioner.

I just want to confirm that there's no living space in this accessory structure.

It's just garage space or open space, but there's no living activities going on.

No, sir.

No plumbing, no, no, no, there's no plumbing.

Okay.

And I don't I believe the flood wave fringe ordinances prohibit that in anyways.

Thank you.

All right.

Um here in opposition to this petition.

All right.

Seeing no one, um, we can go to staff comments.

Yes.

Uh thank you, Chairman Nelson, um, members of the board.

Um just to sort of clarify here, yes, staff does acknowledge um the request here is specifically for the um barn with a a greater square footage as as mentioned earlier, um, a detached residential accessory structure larger than 400 feet.

We are not take taking uh into consideration the 75% of the existing building structure in that case, and also in terms of uh the height, of course, uh knowing that the uh the ILPs were pulled and and that was being uh taken care of.

Our focus here was on legally um establishing that barn with the greater square footage.

Um just to note that of course the ordinance does indicate that the horizontal land area of any one accessory building or minor structure must be less than the horizontal land areas covered by the primary building.

We'll note that uh the 2024 UV 1019 uh case that was mentioned earlier uh did actually um also cover the um uh request of being larger and taller than the primary structure that was brought before this board um and was um uh denied.

Um and so in staff's analysis, when we consider this, of course, we take a look at the site-specific practical difficulties that would um factor into our analysis for a recommendation.

Uh and in in such case here, uh we find no site-specific practical difficulties that require a uh barn of the size to be larger than the home.

As such, uh, we do recommend uh denial of this petition.

Board, any questions for staff?

Yeah, I just want to clarify uh petitioner spent a lot of time talking about the height and the size of the primary structure and made it seem like that was the variance being requested, but the staff report also mentions just general construction of the barn and the floodway fringe as a part of the variance.

And so my question is if the barn were in fact less square footage than the primary structure, would would we need to be here today?

Would we you even talking about this variance?

My understanding is that um as long as it hits that 400 square foot uh uh mark, which is in uh 74203 F5G.

Um if it was um above the 400 square feet and hits the um uh um elevation levels as as listed, um the thing that brings us here today then is simply the uh square footage of the barn being larger than the square footage of the home.

So to answer your question, as long as it uh was still within the 400 square feet and did not meet the or did not go over excuse me, as long as it was uh greater than 400 square feet and uh met the um elevation requirements uh then from I guess all I can see in this case is that uh no, we would not be here today.

I apologize if I missed it, but what is the square footage of the of the accessory structure?

I had it listed at um 1,344 square feet with the primary structure being 1,335 square feet.

So it's above the 400 feet.

Yes, and so uh a detached residential um accessory structure larger than 400 square feet simply has to have the um elevation uh has to fall in the elevation uh requirements.

If it was under 400 square feet, then the uh 75% of the existing primary residential structure aspect that was mentioned earlier, that's when that would kick in.

So because it is larger than 400 square feet, we do not have to uh factor that part in.

I'd be happy to explain further.

There's a section where um if it is uh less than or equal to 400 square feet, then the detached structure um is allowed to be built provided that it is no larger than 75% of the existing primary residential structure.

But since it is greater than 400 square feet, that section does not apply.

Got it.

And then it is just the simple as long as it's you know smaller and smaller in general.

Yes.

Okay, thank you.

All right.

We can go back to the petitioner uh final comments and rebuttal um up to five minutes for those thank you.

Uh and yes, I kind of had the same questions, uh, especially this morning.

I believe I received the staff report on this on Friday.

We were technically closed by looked at it, and then when I was looking at it more closely today and comparing it to the prior staff report, that's when I had these questions about why back then did it have to do with the 70% floodway fringe uh standards, whereas today we don't.

So when I was going through all the ordinances, which Josh referenced as well, yes, I mean it it's to me it's interesting and I question it because if you're above 400 square feet and you hit that two feet mark like like I said we do, that's it, you're good.

But if you're under 400 feet, then it says you can build it under 400 feet if all these conditions are met, and that's n doesn't apply to us.

So I was just kind of I I questioned that, and I know that Noah CERN was the prior staff member.

It's something that I wanted to reach out to Josh, but I didn't want to bombard him before today's hearing this morning on it when I was when I was looking at it.

So that's where we are.

I mean, this is really not a floodway fringe issue, which is what the prior focus is.

And I don't know why I'll accept that that's the case, but today's purposes it's it's not the case.

Um the question had to do with why it can be built and why it doesn't apply.

It's because we hit that two foot above the basis level elevation.

Um so the fringeway elevation standards uh don't make a difference.

It can be built, so we're just looking at the normal standards for uh a barn not being greater than the primary structure.

And and again here, I mean uh again we got the two-fold difficulty of I I think there was the exception for the COVID times when permitting back then was exceptionally hard.

Um he did try, but he he failed.

I mean we can't say that he succeeded, but it failed, but he mean he tried and thought he got everything that was right, but he called and didn't get answers back.

He paid for a permit, he got it, and he built it uh himself as well, not using a contractor.

Um so that and given the the smaller size of the home, we're here today.

So I mean, I I think that there are uh many other solutions, but just none of them are practical.

They're not gonna increase or make a benefit to the property as opposed to just letting things be.

Um one of the other conditions and exceptions in the floodway fringe area is well, you can attach the structure directly to the home if all these conditions are met.

So I'm like, well, you know, can we just theoretically you know can connect these somehow?

And it changes no use of either property, but it just goes through all these hoops again, not to the extent of raising the elevation, but I mean I think there's a consideration here, but the point is to show that you know it was done.

We know that uh the permit wasn't pulled, but it's been this way, it hasn't had any sort of negative impact on the area given uh its condition in the floodway fringe, and I think that's because it's above that two-foot uh level, uh the grading helps as well.

So instead of having to redo his house, redo the barn, uh do anything else like that.

We are requesting for you know the approval for the the barn to be just that point six seven percent greater than the home.

And for what it's worth, uh it's only built so big because my dad always told me when I was a kid, always build big.

And I did because I'm getting ready to retire and I wanted to do work in the garage after I retire.

All right, any final questions from the board for for the uh petitioner.

All right, hearing none, please go ahead and cast your ballot for petition.

Did you guys in the bottom there for the other?

Oh, okay.

So you don't have any additional comments.

Okay.

Um yeah, name and address for the record, and then um whatever was left on the uh five minute clock.

We can have up to that.

My name is Ronnie Harris, 2560, North Mancroft, Indianapolis, Indiana, 46218.

He was actually respectful enough to even come and ask us if we cared he'd build it, even though we live on his property.

And uh the flood thing, um I did construction there for a while to uh injured myself, but uh they said it didn't flood there no more due to the pose run.

They cleared all that up, but we went around, talked to all the neighbors, me and my wife.

Nobody it didn't bother them.

We're a small little area back there.

We all look out for each other.

He's like my old man.

But I didn't want to let y'all know.

Yeah, he actually asked us first.

Okay, thank you.

Thanks for thanks for putting that out, Marty.

Um all right, board, unless there's any anything else I missed.

Um go ahead and cast your ballot for petition 2026 DV101.

On case 2026-DV1-011, David Duncan votes yes, Peter Nelson votes yes, Jennifer Witt votes yes, and Tom Barnes votes no.

The variance is granted.

Thank you.

Thank you.

All right, it was requested to take a quick recess, so we're gonna take two, three minutes, five minutes, whatever.

Um, but we'll be back real quickly.

Um and then here the next case.

I guess Marty needs to read the case when you're ready.

Case number two zero two six-UV1-004 property address 4902 West Washington Street.

Washington Township, Council District No.

17, zoned C5 T O D.

The petitioner is QHW Washington Street LLC, represented by Joseph D.

Calderan.

Variance of use of the consolidated zoning and subdivision ordinance to provide for a check caching and validation service use within 50 feet of a protected district.

500 foot separation required.

Will this plan to speak?

Please uh raise your right hand to be sworn in.

Do you swear or affirm under penalty of perjury to tell the truth and nothing but the truth?

Say I do.

I do.

Thank you and good evening, uh chairperson also members of the board, just kidding.

Uh no, you've been here a long time, so I'll try to be as efficient as I can while getting through uh the salient points of our presentation.

Uh each of you have a hard copy version of what's on uh the screen.

Uh I represent PLS Financial Services.

Uh Ken Crane with PLS uh is actually here with me today in case you have any operational questions or other uh considerations uh that you want to bring uh to him.

For those of you who are not familiar with PLS financial services, and I know sometimes the blurb in all of our zoning notices can be rather succinct in this case.

Uh the request is for a check caching and validation service as defined in the ordinance.

But PLS is much more than that.

Uh they actually do uh provide very uh lots of financial consumer services, but what they don't do, and what's important for you uh to know is that they do not act as a lender.

They are not a title lender, a payday uh lender, a short-term lender, any stretch of the imagination.

They do cash checks, they do money orders, they do uh ATM services, bill pay, uh all kinds of uh services beyond just check caching.

And I think that's important as you weigh your consideration this afternoon, particularly in light of the fact that they're just going in to occupy what is now a vacant building on Washington Street.

It will operate all indoors.

It'll be a quiet use.

It's for some reason the ordinance requires a separation uh between uh check caching facility and protected districts.

Um they again uh provide will provide much more than just caching checks uh at this site.

They are already in Indianapolis with uh several locations uh and they're nationwide.

Uh they uh if we can go to the slide that says who is our customer, uh their primary market is uh for the folks that are on or underbanked or unbanked.

Uh it's a pretty significant chunk of our population.

Uh there's a lot of people that are very nervous or don't have the financial uh wherewithal or education to uh deal with traditional banks.

So in this case, the company is not taking advantage of those customers, they're actually providing services.

Again, they are not in the lending business.

Uh they just charge a small fee for the transaction itself.

Excuse me.

Mr.

Caldwin, is this the right address?

4902 West Washington.

West Washington.

West Washington.

Okay.

Yes, it's no, it's Wayne Township.

I think Marty read Washington Township.

It's Wayne Township.

It says Washington Township on our paperwork, but it is Wayne Township.

It is Wayne.

Yeah, sorry about that.

No.

Uh it's uh Wayne Township.

Uh in this case again, renovating an existing vacant building, we think is a good thing.

That uh has been a commercial site going back.

I looked uh as a single-use commercial building at least to 1978, and it looked like even prior to that there were scattered other buildings.

So most of us have experience with Washington Street, East and West, our national road.

It's a very important road, and we think that uh the development pattern that is historically uh been along the frontage of those streets has been commercial with residential behind.

So I'm gonna flip ahead uh to page nine of my PowerPoint.

Um the site is zone C5.

So Cree, four, five, seven all permit this use.

However, what triggers the variance before you today is there's a use specific separation requirement that is in a separate table than the use table.

When we think of C5 zoning, we think about traditionally auto sales lots.

That's the been the classic Marion County C5 zoning classification, but allows for outdoor types of retail and entertainment use.

Page nine shows that uh the automobile sales and repair, outdoor recreation and entertainment, bar tavern, car wash, commercial contractors, gas stations are all permitted on this property, as is this use.

We just have the separation issue.

The comprehensive plan calls for community commercials, so I think we're squarely within uh that uh portion of the consideration for today.

Uh if you look at page 10, you can kind of see the uh pinned version of an aerial photo uh from Google Earth.

You can see all the commercial lined up along Washington Street, and you can also see obviously the neighborhood that runs to the north.

Now I will say this there is a screen, a solid wood screen fence separating the current property from the residential to the north.

There's a furniture store that is located just to the east, which actually pushes further north into the neighborhood.

Uh and then you can see on both sides of the street how kind of the commercial uh butts against the residential.

Page 11, you can see the existing building and kind of the fence in the background.

Uh again, that's been vacated by Pizza Hut and is now uh hopefully going to be reused by my client.

As to adjoining uses, which is also important in your consideration, uh to the west we have an auto repair facility.

To the east is mentioned previously, there's a furniture uh store that uh actually pushes further uh to the north into the neighborhood, to the south, there's auto repair in a restaurant, and obviously to the north uh we recognize that there is residential uh screen by the wood fence.

You can see some of the uses on pages 13 uh through 18.

If you turn to page 17 in the PowerPoint, you will see that there's a tattoo parlor at 4955 West Washington Street.

I will show you in a moment that tattoo parlors also have the exact same restriction for separation between that type of use and residential, and there is a residential pushing to the south of 495.

So the use itself is congruent with really everything along the Washington Street corridor.

Uh one thing that I wanted to bring to your attention, and I certainly respect uh Michael and his ability to write a staff report, and he says basically that look, there's a lot of uses you can use this property for.

We don't see any hardship, we don't see any reason that the property can't be used for permitted use.

Well, I think he stopped a little short of the proper inquiry because the use is permitted, it's just a 500-foot use specific restriction separation that the inquiry really needs to delve into.

It's just a 500-foot use specific restriction separation that the inquiry really needs to delve into.

And my way of thinking as I apply this type of restriction is well, what is it about this property that makes it impossible or difficult to meet that 500-foot separation?

And I go back to what I previously mentioned to you earlier, and that historically Washington Street has always been developed this way with all kinds of commercial uses on the front and all kinds of residential uses in the back.

That has been around for decades and decades and decades.

And what I did, and I've uh added some slides to show you, is that about a two and a half mile stretch from Tibbs all the way to 465 along Washington Street.

You have the exact same development pattern.

So you really make it impossible for any of the use restrict separation uses to apply.

And for the life of me, I can't figure out why a use like this is restrict overly restricted by 500-foot separation anyway.

But you have this pattern for about two and a half miles, where you have an impossibility of having pretty significant commercial zoning, whether it be C3, C4, C5, and in some cases C7, and proximity to residential.

The other portion of the staff report I wanted to bring your attention to has to do with the blue line and the transit-oriented development overlay, which does try to change the game in terms of how we look at development along uh those rapid bus lines.

What I would like to bring to your attention is the fact that the blue line is not planned to be at or terribly close to this property.

It's gonna go from the airport along 70 and then up to Holt Road, which is to the east, and then through downtown and along the east side.

So, with all due respect, and the TOD does push for you know, kind of mixed use development, human-scale pedestrian-friendly development, that's not in play here.

And I've attached the map.

So you can see, if you'll bear with me, starting on page 20, and for some reason my zoning maps didn't have the pagination.

I did about six maps right out of the city uh zoning browser, which kind of show you, starting with the first one in 4902, right in the bullseye, how the relationship between commercial and residential properties exist.

And you can see it's frontage commercial, residential behind.

And you can see that pushing to the east as you go through uh several pages, and then back to the west, and it'll take you all the way to I-465.

So again, it's a pretty significant segment where the development pattern we think creates the hardship uh test for uh the separation requirement.

And then if you go to page 26 of the PowerPoint, you can see the blue line segment map, and you can see how it's changed to where it's now routed on 70 all the way to Holt Road, which is to the east of the subject property, and then continuing on to the east.

So from a planning standpoint, I don't think you are hamstrung by any notion that this is not an appropriate use.

It fits the zoning, it's just a separation requirement.

On page 27, you can see some of the ordinance separation requirements for other businesses, some of which you might find interesting comparatively.

Adult business, which has to go through a Supreme Court test, and in our ordinance does a pretty good job of explaining the rationale for 500-foot separation, animal care vet boarding, 100 feet, car wash, 100 feet, bar tavern, 100 feet, drive-through 25 feet, liquor store 100 feet, they have check caching in the same categories as separation as adult, explosives, manufacturing hazardous materials, substance abuse facility methadone clinic, and they have some of these other uses that have much closer proximity or separation requirements.

And they have some of these other uses that have much closer proximity or separation requirements.

And then we get down to the bottom of page 27.

And this is what I really wanted to bring home to you.

Tattoo parlors.

Years ago used to have a stigma attached, right?

Not so much anymore.

Nevertheless, our ordinance has a 500 foot in some cases and a thousand foot separation requirement for tattoo parlors from protected districts.

Well, staff actually has supported variances for separation on tattoo parlors.

And guess what?

You remember that slide that I had for 4955 West Washington?

That was a 2009 variance, and staff actually supported that variance.

2009 UV 3020.

Virtually across the street, and they supported a separation requirement variance for that.

Then you can look, I did 2024 SE3003.

That's at 9910 East Washington, Washington and Midhoffer, and then you can see 5167 North College.

So we ask you to consider those cases as you ponder.

Ken and I are here happy to answer your questions.

The board may have.

Thank you.

All right, thank you.

Board, any questions for the petitioner at this time?

Right.

Nobody else is here but I'll ask just to make sure.

Anybody speaking in opposition to this petition?

2026 UV 1004.

I have a question.

All right.

Jennifer has a question for the petitioner.

Hi, petitioner.

Hi.

Um I live in that area.

Grew up going skating at the skating rink across the street, and there are several businesses that have been there over 100 years.

So I understand the neighborhood very, very well.

Um I love the idea that you're offering our residents who are maybe underbanked an opportunity to engage in banking services in a way that's not predatory.

Um can you tell me a little bit about how you've engaged with the community or how you plan to as an organization?

Sorry, I missed the last part.

How do you engage with the community, the local community?

Obviously, you're there in your business and you're running, but is there any additional community engagement that you guys do?

There is, yes.

Thank you.

Thank you for the question.

Um, a few things to start with, I'd say we uh provide jobs, and the way our our business runs is that uh we always hire from the local community, so we'll be creating about 16, 17 new jobs for that location.

In addition, our company has a long history of um of community uh service or community give back.

Uh we do things, for example, like school drives, uh providing backpacks uh for for kids in need who who can't afford their own school supplies, backpacks, things of that nature.

We prov uh we have an uh sponsor, uh a national author um from the Chicago area who uh on business entrepreneurship.

We we follow her around the country and attend uh some of her she wrote a children's book uh business entrepreneurship, where we sponsor her, uh support her.

Um I'm trying to think of some other things.

We um uh over the years, or uh we part one of our products we provide is a prepaid uh uh credit card, and with that we always we're aligned with people like Toys for Tots, and we give back portions of our our earnings to so we're very responsible corporate uh citizen in our estimation.

Uh and on that point, um, you aren't a payday loan vent location, however it is check casting services, and so there is always the opportunity without a specific guidance that you could enter into that type of business area.

Is that correct?

Um is that something you guys agree not to do in this location ever?

Yes, payday loans.

Yes.

Okay, thank you.

Sir, did we get your name and address for the record?

Did we?

I I don't I filled out a slip, but I can provide it if you go ahead.

Yeah, just state it for the record, please.

But you should do you should provide your name and address for the record business address.

Yes.

Uh my name's Kenneth Crane uh with PLS Financial Services.

Our our corporate address is one South Wacker Drive, 36th floor, Chicago, Illinois, 60606.

Any other questions from the board at this point?

All right.

Uh let's go to staff comments, please.

Absolutely.

Uh thank you very much, Pepperson Nelson, uh, members of the board for being here.

Thank you, D V petitioner, for their comments as well.

Uh staff is recommending denial of this petition to allow for a check caching use uh 50 feet away from a protected district when a separation of 500 feet would be required by the zoning ordinance.

Uh, this is a commercial parcel about uh four tenths of an acre uh to house a Pizza Hut restaurant until recently.

It is along West Washington Street, which is within Wayne Township, to be clear.

I think I typed Washington twice there on the front page of the staff report, and I apologize for any confusion I might have caused.

Uh this property is along the West Washington Street corridor.

Uh uh blue line stop at the BRT was planned at one point to the west of the site at the Washington and Auburn intersection.

Uh our commercial land uses along Washington as mentioned, and crucially their residential use is just to the north of the site running along Lack Lead Street, Black Lade Street, maybe.

Uh this petition would allow for a check caching and validation service use utilizing the existing um facilities at the property as mentioned.

Um required separation is only 10% of it is required.

500 is required by ordinance and 50 is proposed.

Uh just wouldn't be an exemption from other applicable use specific standards about um you know placement of interior cameras or um bicycle parking requirements if applicable.

Uh the property is zoned C5, which is the city's general commercial zoning district.

Uh it's often typified by automobiles and outdoor display as discussed.

Uh the comp plan is community commercial uses as well.

Uh purvy operation plan filed by the petitioner, a variety of financial services uses would be offered in addition to check caching and validation.

That'd be 15 to 20 employees total with eight at the site at any given time at a maximum level.

Uh, before 2016, uh the Indianapolis zoning ordinance um in 2016, because everyone just was updated to create a separate line on the use table for check caching and validation service uses um previously that I think they would have been lumped into the existing financial services use line of the use table, which does still exist.

Uh some services do overlap between those uses uh the separation.

My understanding is was done both to reflect differences inherent between this use and the for financial service uses where check caching might be of a more secondary nature.

And also to allow for the implementation of the separation requirements for check cache and validation, which are the reason that we're here today.

Uh staff notes that a core difference between those two uses might be um FDIC insurance requirements for financial service uses that wouldn't typically be present for check cache and validation uses, um, at least a higher level of regulation.

Some of the potential differences between those two use categories might be transaction speed, fees, and limits.

Those can differ between banks and money service businesses as well.

Um the C5 district allows for dozens of uses by right.

Um, this as mentioned, this use is allowed by right, but uh without the separation requirements being yet being met, which means that the use would not be allowed, which is why this was filed as a variance of use.

Um, as the board is aware, the state required burden of proof is an undue hardship that would prevent alternate compliant use at the site.

Uh it's clear what it's not clear what factors would prevent the site from housing alternate uses that would be allowed without separation requirements.

Um place separation requirements on many uses, uh, most of the ones that do were listed on the petitioner slide.

Uh so for that reason, and given the uh 90% reduction that would result, um, those are our pri and as well as residences to the north.

Um that would be our rationale for redenial recommendation and uh happy answer questions that you might have.

Board, any questions for staff.

Right, hearing none.

Um let's go back to the petitioner.

Five minutes for rebuttal, closing comments.

I'll say that.

Thank you.

Um, very briefly.

Um existing improved site.

Vacant.

Our client, my client will occupy that site, bring some employment to it.

Yes, it is within 500 feet of residential to the north.

But the folks that are protected by that separation, they're not here.

There's nobody really against this.

I personally reached out to counselor Evans, Indie Gateway, 40 West.

We can meet.

Let's know if you have any questions, nothing.

This is just one of those restrictions that's looking for a problem that doesn't exist.

In fact, I question the rationality of a 500-foot separation requirement for an indoor use that provides financial services.

Nevertheless, it's on the table.

We're seeking a variance from that.

The development pattern along Washington Street, we think does create a hardship by providing for significant commercial butt up against residential to where no separation requirement use can be met, which knocks out of the box a lot of commercial uses.

You can see by the vacancy that it's not as easy to say, well, there's lots of other uses that can go in there without separation requirements.

We're dealing with the right here right now, and we think the two and a half mile development uh development pattern of Washington justifies the finding as a fact that we uh provided to you for your consideration today.

No remonstrance, all indoor use.

We're happy to put a commitment in that we won't be a lender.

We'll put in a commitment that will shore up the screening fence if we're to protect.

There's no shared connection with the residential to the north, we're self-contained within our property.

We'll seal that off a little bit better if your board so chooses.

And then we should be really congruent or better than a number of the existing commercial uses as they relate to the residential.

I'll let Ken say anything else that he might want.

Um happy to answer any final questions.

Thank you for your consideration.

Um I have a couple questions.

Uh so other concerns.

Uh you have several locations across our city, obviously in Illinois as well.

Um are there any security concerns?

Like if if your house and I I see there's a uh mobile home that's behind the property um that looks well lit loved and lived in.

Um I've got several friends in the area.

You know, what are the what's the hours for this business?

Um, and what is your plan for security around this business?

Well what what was the question on the hours?

Hours.

What are the hours?

You know, banking hours part of part of what I see in our community of why people are unbanked is because banking hours don't work for people who are at the factory all day.

Correct, right.

So we um if in Indianapolis currently we're uh we have six or seven operating locations.

We've been uh doing business in Neapolis for the last 20 plus years.

Uh we operate on a 24 hour uh 247, 365 uh day basis um for those exact reasons like you're saying is that so we've provided an incredible amount of service.

Um I noticed you know, I well thank you for all your guys' time and long day.

It was we've sat here the whole day too, and I and one of the earlier cases I noticed there was a uh uh a Spanish speaker who spoke no English and and needed a translator, and we uh provide bilingual staff in our stores for that exact reason.

So we're we provide an incredible level of service for sort of the out to meet the customers' needs on hours, uh language barriers, um, so very high touch point level of service with our customer.

Uh I'm sorry, was there another part of your question?

No, that that's good.

I I don't recall if that Kroger is still 24 hours.

Um that area used to have several 24 hour restaurants.

Um there was a um stick and shake that I love to uh visit uh around the corner.

So I I think there's a 24-hour vet there as well.

So um I that's not a hold up for me.

I just wanted to understand what that business model looked like and how it serves the community.

So thank you.

Board, any other questions?

I have a couple.

Um so is this site owned by um the petitioner, or is it gonna be leased?

We're uh PLS is under contract to buy it.

Okay, uh, the current seller is based out of Florida, as I recall.

I think they're a kind of a portfolio real estate owner.

So they're under contract to buy it, you know, subject to due diligence, including zoning approvals.

So the I want to make sure.

So the first commitment that I think we've agreed to, but I want to restate this is that there will be there'll be no uh title loans, payday loans, or short short-term loans offered at this facility.

Correct.

Okay, and then I would like to uh ask about a second commitment.

If we grant this petition, then it you know part of what we're being sold here is PLS's business and it's it what it does and doesn't do and that only works so long as you own occupy the premises.

But if you sell it to an operator that doesn't share the same morals and veracity for that that you do, then that it changes what we're granting here today a little bit.

And so I'd like to ask if you guys would agree that this variance of granted only applies during your period of ownership and or occupancy of of the property.

So if you were to at some point go through a corporate transaction like sale lease back where you sell off your real estate, but you continue to operate that would be permitted.

It'd be permitted, yes.

Yeah, that would help be helpful.

Yeah, or does it say a lease back?

Right, but you're saying if we ever stopped operating there or sold or sold to a third party, or if we sold to another operator, yeah, exactly.

Or you wanted to sell it to like a pawn shop or another payday loan service provider who doesn't honor your commitments.

Yeah, we're happy to we file a plan of operation, um, and we're gonna be subject to that, but I'm sure we can come up with some language that would kind of finesse that through.

Sure.

Yeah, I think we're good with that, subject to carve-outs for you know a corporate transaction, as you just mentioned, Mr.

Duncan.

Okay, yeah.

Chris.

All right.

Thank you.

All right.

Board, go ahead and cast your ballot for petition 2026 UV one zero zero four.

David Duncan votes yes, Peter Nelson votes yes, Jennifer Witt votes yes, and Tom Barnes votes yes.

Variance is granted.

Thanks.

Thank you.

Thanks for staying so late.

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

All right.

Some of you stick around, sign some findings of fact.

Otherwise, this hearing is adjourned.