All right.

Good afternoon, everyone.

Gonna call this meeting to order.

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.

David Duncan, John Walski, and Jennifer Witt.

Legal counsel for the board today is Chris Steinmetz.

Staff members present today from the division of planning are Bryce Patts, current planning administrator.

Jeff York, current planning manager.

Michael Weigel, Principal Planner 1, Robert Uhlenhag, Senior Planner, Josh LaVesk, Senior Planner, and Marty Weistie, Senior Board Specialist and Secretary to the Board.

The Board has copies of the zoning ordinances that will be incorporated by reference into the record of each case heard today.

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

The expedited cases will be heard immediately after all requests for 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 presentations of evidence statements and arguments in support of the petition.

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

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

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

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

Remonstrators will then be allowed a five-minute uh time period for rebuttal of the petitioner's rebuttal evidence and a brief closing statement.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A person may file a written work request to receive notice of 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 petition number.

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

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

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

We do have four members present today.

It does take three votes to request an or to take action on any item.

So we'll take this into consideration when hearing continuances.

If your petition does receive an indecisive vote or a two-two vote, your petition will be automatically continued to the June 2nd hearing.

Alright, board members, you've been provided minutes for the April 7th hearing.

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

Duncan so moved.

And do we have a second?

Sorry.

All right, motion and second.

I'll call for a vote.

Duncan.

Duncan, yes.

Wolski?

Yes.

And Witt.

And Nelson votes yes.

All right.

Is there anyone in the audience?

Thank you, who does not who anyone in the audience have any questions regarding our procedures?

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

Is there a motion?

Duncan so moved.

Second.

Wit, second.

Alright, call for a vote.

Duncan?

Duncan, yes.

Wolski?

Yes.

WIT?

Yes.

And Nelson votes yes.

All right.

And with that, we will consider special requests and continuances.

Epifanyu Carvajal, 1338, Fletcher Avenue, Indianapolis, Indiana, 46203.

Case number 2026 DB1-012.

Um, 3675 West 11th Street.

Uh requesting the continuity for June the second to have more time for us to obtain the letter from IS.

Uh no.

Um the letter where they will allow us to encroach into the east minute.

Eastman encroach.

All right.

Is there anyone in the audience with interest in petition 2026 DV1012, 3675 West 11th Street?

Um that would be opposed to this continuance.

All right, seeing none, staff, are we comfortable with the continuance?

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

Uh, given that they've continued to work with AES to have some sort of written approval relating to one of the variances requested related to the eastment.

That sounds like the delays on AES is part of nothing on the applicant's part.

This would be the second requested continuance.

Uh staff wouldn't have an objection here, but it's hopeful that it would be the final continuance needed.

All right, thank you.

Board, we have a request to continue petition 2026 DV1012 to the June 2nd hearing.

Is there a motion?

Duncan so moved.

Second.

Wit, second.

Alright, call for a vote.

Duncan?

Duncan, yes.

Wolski?

Yes.

Whipped.

Wit, yes.

Nelson votes yes.

Thank you.

Good afternoon, Chairperson Nelson, uh, members of the board, Joe Calder and 11 South Meridian here in Indianapolis.

I call your attention to item number 20 on your agenda, and that is 2026, DV 1014 9200 Keystone Crossing.

I am requesting a transfer uh to board two uh for next week, the 19th.

Um I discovered uh in preparation this morning that some of the information uh that I had used in my presentation to two of the neighborhood groups that I have been working with was not correct.

I've alerted uh Robert uh Ulanaik, my planner on this case, and I believe he is comfortable with the request uh to transfer this to board two.

All right.

Anyone in the audience with interest in petition 2026 DV1014?

Uh that would be opposed to the transfer to the May 19th hearing.

All right, seeing none, uh staff, are we indeed comfortable with this transfer?

Thank you, Chairperson Nelson, members of the board.

Yes, staff has no objection to this request.

Great, thank you.

All right, board, we have a request to continue and transfer petition 2026 DV1014 to the May 19th hearing of Division 2.

Is there a motion?

Duncan so moved, second wit, second.

All right, call for a vote, Duncan?

Duncan, yes.

Wolski?

Yes.

Whipped.

Wit, yes.

And Nelson votes yes.

Thank you.

Any other continuances, special requests at this time?

Chairperson Nelson, members of the board staff will draw your attention to petition number four, 2026 UV 1011, located at 3922 East 26th Street.

Staff is requesting this petition be continued to the June 2nd, 2026 hearing, and this is to allow time to provide new notice to the surrounding property owners and registered organizations, which was not done for this hearing.

Alright, anyone in the audience with interest in petition 2026 UV 1011 3922 East 26th Street.

Opposed to this continuance request.

Seeing none as staff made the request.

Board, we have a request to continue.

Petition 2026 UV 1011 to the June 2nd hearing.

Duncan so moved.

And a second.

Second wall speed.

Alright.

Motion and second call for a vote.

Duncan.

Duncan, yes.

Wolski?

Yes.

WIT?

Yes.

And Nelson votes yes.

Thank you, Chairberson Nelson, members of the board.

Staff would draw your attention to item number one on the agenda 2026 DV1013 amended at 2440 Lafayette Road.

During staff's review of this petition, it was discovered that an additional variance related to placement of the fence within a rear yard eastman would be needed in addition to those variances included within the original legal notice.

For that reason, staff is requesting that this petition be continued to the June 2nd hearing date to allow for the sending of amended notice reflective of all needed variances.

I'm not certain that the petitioner is present, but they didn't indicate objection when I had informed them of this.

Alright, thank you.

Anyone in the audience with interest in petition 2026 DV1013 opposed to the continuance to the June 2nd hearing.

All right.

Board, we have a request to move petition 2026 DV1013 to the June 2nd hearing.

Sounds like that will require additional notice.

Is there a motion?

Duncan so move.

Second.

Wit, second.

Alright, call for a vote.

Duncan?

Duncan, yes.

Wolski?

Yes.

Whipped?

Yes.

And Nelson votes yes.

Thank you.

Staff would also draw your attention to item number 11 on the agenda.

That is 2026 UV 1006 amended at 8798 Moore Road.

Our staff recommends approval of this petition subject to free commitments.

We did want to bring to the board's attention that the petitioners agreed to free additional commitments with the Pike Township Residents Association, in addition to making a small change to the operation plan that's listed within staff's report.

We did also receive one email indicating remonstrance.

I wanted to make sure that none of those potential remonstrator might be present for this afternoon's hearing.

And just wanted to confirm that disapproval would be subject to the six commitments and the small operation plan change.

The amendments are acknowledged by the board and commitments by the petitioner.

Is there anyone in the audience that does have opposition today to this petition?

2026 UV 1006.

No opposition, Greg Zubek, attorney for the petitioner.

We concur with the statement that was just made by Mr.

Weigel and have discussed the uh slight change to the plan of operation, which was really a more expansive than what was originally included.

So it's it's uh more correct now, I would say than it was previously.

Thank you.

Great, thank you for your comments.

Uh just to make sure I didn't miss anyone speaking in opposition to this today.

Okay.

So no one in attendance today for for this in opposition.

Thank you, Chairman Nelson, members of the board.

Staff would draw your attention to item number two.

Uh this is 2026 UV 1008 for 1852 Shelby Street.

A registered neighborhood organization has filed a timely automatic continuance to the June 2nd, 2026.

Uh hearing this does just require your acknowledgement.

So acknowledged.

And same with uh item number three, 2026 UV one zero zero nine.

A timely automatic continuance was filed on this case as well, uh, continuing it to the June 2nd, 2026 hearing.

Once again, just requires your acknowledgement.

So acknowledged.

All right, any other special special requests, continuances?

Anybody?

All right.

Seeing no one, um, we can now go ahead and proceed with the expedited docket.

These are petitions to be expedited.

Case number two zero two five-se three-zero zero three property address four five five five South Harding Street, Perry Township, Council District number twenty-two, zoned I4FF.

The petitioner is Del A Tosa Properties LLC, represented by Mary Ann McCallow, requesting special exception of the consolidated zoning and subdivision ordinance to provide for the relocation of a legally established outdoor advertising sign due to a highway widening and improvement of I 69 and I 465 by a state agency.

And requesting a variance of development standards of the consolidated zoning and subdivision ordinance to provide for the relocation of an existing 14-foot by 48-foot off-premise advertising sign, of which the relocated off-premise sign will have a height of 70 feet, maximum height of 60 feet permitted, and be located within 400 feet of another outdoor advertising sign.

1,000 foot radial spacing required.

Case number 2026-D V one-003 amended property address 602 Prospect Street.

Center Township, Council District Number 18, zoned D8.

The petitioner is NP Financial Services LLC, represented by David Gilman, requesting variants of development standards of the consolidated zoning and subdivision ordinance to provide for the construction of a two-family dwelling, resulting in the lack of a primary entry feature along the front facade required, with a zero foot front setback, ten-foot front setback required, a three-foot east side setback, seven foot side setback required, a 10-foot rear setback, 20-foot rear setback required, and a 13-foot wide drive aisle, 23-foot wide drive aisle required.

Case number 2026-DV1-017, property address 7320 East Hannah Avenue.

Franklin Township, Council District Number 20, Zoned D3.

The petitioner is MI Homes of Indiana LP, represented by Joseph Cauldron, requesting variants of development standards of the consolidated zoning and subdivision ordinance to provide for the construction of homes on certain lots within the Grayson Subdivision with an open space of 65 to 69%.

70% open space required.

The petitioner is Andrea Jane and Vincent Manganello, represented by David B.

Smith requesting variants of development standards of the consolidated zoning and subdivision ordinance to allow for a 14-foot rearren Township, Council District number 14, zoned D5.

The petitioner is Suleima Morales, represented by Josh Smith, requesting variants of development standards of the consolidated zoning and subdivision ordinance to provide for a building addition to the primary dwelling with an eleven-foot rear setback, 20 feet required.

Case number two zero two six-dv three-zero one two property address four two zero zero South Harding Street, Perry Township, Council District number 22, zoned I4F.

The petitioner is Hansen Aggregates Midwest Incorporated, represented by Joseph Sikos, requesting variants of development standards of the consolidated zoning and subdivision ordinance to provide for the construction of a new building related to the existing extraction use located within the floodway fringe, not permitted, and with deficient landscaping, landscaping required.

Case number 2026-UV1-006 amended property address 8798 Moore Road.

Pike Township, Council District No.

Zoned DA / D1.

The petitioner is JE Land LLC, represented by S.

Gregory Zubeck, requesting variants of use and development standards of the consolidated zoning and subdivision ordinance to provide for a wellness center, not permitted, with gravel parking areas in the front yard of Moore Road exceeding 30 feet in width.

Hard surfacing required, parking in front of buildings limited to 30 feet.

Case number 2026-UV1-007, property address 5282 East 65th Street.

Washington Township, Council District No.

3, zoned I2.

The petitioner is substillay LLC by Artisan Outdoor Craftsman.

Excuse me, requesting variants of use of the consolidated zoning and subdivision ordinance to establish a 1,370 square foot second floor apartment.

Dwelling units not permitted in I2.

And to provide for a deck as a residential accessory structure.

Residential structures not permitted in I2.

Case number 2026-UV1-010 property address 4020 Monaco Drive.

Washington Township, Council District number three, zoned D1.

The petitioner is Chateau in the Woods Investment, LLC, represented by Joseph Caldron, requesting variants of use of the consolidated zoning and subdivision ordinance to legally establish 118 existing multifamily units and to allow up to 126 total units.

Multifamily dwellings not permitted in D1.

Case number 2026-UV3-001 property address 11011 Brookville Road.

Warren Township Council District No.

25, zoned DA, FWF.

The petitioner is Kindred Excavating Group LLC, represented by David Gilman, requesting variants of use of the consolidated zoning and subdivision ordinance to provide for the operation of an excavation commercial contractor, not permitted.

Case number 2026-UV3-002, property address 7900 Shelby Street.

Perry Township, Council District number 22, zoned SU38.

The petitioner is Young Men's Christian Association, represented by Kevin Buckheight, requesting variants of use of the consolidated zoning and subdivision ordinance to provide for the operation of a financial services use, not permitted.

And case number 2026-UV3-004, amended property address two seven oh five Shriver Avenue.

Center Township Council District No.

12 zoned D5.

The petitioner is Debbie Spain, requesting variants of use and development standards of the consolidated zoning and subdivision ordinance to provide for a transitional living quarters use, not permitted, with deficient vehicle parking, five spaces required.

Is there anyone here in attendance that is opposed to any of the petitions I've just read?

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

Thank you very much.

Board, please go ahead and cast your votes using the ballots in your folder.

On case two zero two five dash SE three dash zero zero three, David Duncan votes yes.

Peter Nelson votes yes.

John Wolski votes yes, and Jennifer Whitt votes yes.

That variance is granted.

David Duncan votes yes, Peter Nelson votes yes, John Walski votes yes, and Jennifer Whitt votes yes.

That variance is granted.

On case two zero two six-d v two-009, David Duncan votes yes.

Peter Nelson votes yes, John Walski votes yes, and Jennifer Witt votes yes.

That variance is granted.

On case two zero two six-dv three-007, David Duncan votes yes, Peter Nelson votes yes, John Wolski votes yes, and Jennifer Witt votes yes.

That variance is granted.

On case 2026-DV3-012, David Duncan votes yes, Peter Nelson votes yes, John Walski votes yes, and Jennifer Witt votes yes.

That variance is granted.

On case 2026-UV1-006, amended.

David Duncan votes yes.

Peter Nelson votes yes.

John Walski votes yes, and Jennifer Witt votes yes.

That variance is granted.

On case 2026-UV1-007, David Duncan votes yes.

Peter Nelson votes yes, John Walski votes yes, and Jennifer Witt votes yes.

That variance is granted.

On case 2026-UV1-010, David Duncan votes yes.

Peter Nelson votes yes.

John Walski votes yes, and Jennifer Witt votes yes.

That variance is granted.

On case 2026-UV3-001, David Duncan votes yes.

Peter Nelson votes yes.

John Walski votes yes, and Jennifer Witt votes yes.

That variance is granted.

On case 2026-UV3-002, David Duncan votes yes.

Peter Nelson votes yes, John Walski votes yes, and Jennifer Witt votes yes.

That variance is granted.

And on case 2026-UV3-004, David Duncan votes yes.

Peter Nelson votes yes.

John Walski votes yes, and Jennifer Witt votes yes.

The variance is granted.

I believe that was the end of the expedited cases.

They all received yes votes and granted variances.

So anybody here just for those can feel free to take your leave.

And then once the room clears out a little bit, uh Marty, feel free at your discretion to call the first case.

These are petitions for public hearing.

Case number 2026-DV1-001 amended property address 445 Sanders Street, Center Township, Council District Number 18, zoned D8.

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

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

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

Say I do.

I do.

Good afternoon, members of the board.

My name is Josh Smith with RG Development.

Our offices are at 1073 Oliver Avenue 46221.

Coming back this month, with a revised site plan and a small apology.

The site plan we presented last month that caused a lot of contention with the DPW traffic engineers, was accidentally drawn with a mistake on it.

So the mistake we made was in the DPW traffic engineering decision site triangle.

In our initial emails and conversations with the traffic engineers, they had told us that the short leg of the triangle was 14 feet from the curb.

Our draftsman drew it 14 feet from the property line, not from the curb, and we didn't catch it until after you know during this last month, and we're diving into the codes deeper to try and you know find ways to you know get out of the triangle and figure all this out.

So that was a mistake 100% on my team and my draftsman that we we drew that 14 feet from the property line instead of the curb.

So with that, the proposed home is no longer inside the traffic engineering decision site triangle.

I believe that's out of the AASTHO handbook that DPW uses.

We're still seeking a variance of development standard to be within the clear site triangle of the intersection of East Street and Sanders Street.

With East Street being designated a primary arterial that's a much longer leg on the triangle.

Um if that were a local level street, the triangle would be shorter and it would be 75 feet, and we would be out of it.

But with being a primary turiel, we're within the triangle.

We're proposing to keep the house at the very front of the property, or not the very front, but 10 foot setback in line with the block.

Historically, there was a house there at that same setback.

Within, like inside the folded site plan was copies of that old aerial photos, I believe from one from the 50s and one from the 90s before the home was torn down.

The home was in line with the rest of the block, you know, the 10 foot front setback.

The way the ordinance is today, it is impossible to build a home by meeting the maximum front setback and staying outside of the clear side triangle.

Um the maximum front setback is around 19 feet.

The clear site triangle is going to push the house back to 30, 40 plus feet, which is going to push it back, you know, where the parking area is.

So there's it's it's not feasible to meet both standards.

Um, so we there would have to be a variance of something here to be able to build a home.

In this case, we're asking with neighborhood support to be able to put the house with the existing block consistency.

The, you know, the open front porches will line up, hoping hopefully can be create a community atmosphere with the porches and people using that outdoor space.

Um, and I just want to stress again that all of the traffic engineering concerns that we debated for extensive period of time last month is no longer a concern.

We are completely outside of that triangle.

There's no risk of shutting down the street or any of those extreme items that she mentioned last month.

I do have a member of the Bates Hendricks Neighborhood Association here.

Um, willing to speak on the case.

They provide a letter of support.

This might be in your file.

If not, the board's welcome to my copy.

Um one of the commitments that they did put on there is that the home must be in line with the existing block and that has a deeper front porch and larger windows.

Yeah.

Um the elevations that are on the back of your site plan, those are the amended elevations.

They show the larger ports, they show the larger windows.

It's the same elevations that a commitment that you're agreeable to agreeing to?

Yes, absolutely.

That's we've already made that change to the plans, and that's on the elevation.

So if through the approval process, if that's contingent on you know the plan stamped 430, there's no objection for us for that.

Thank you.

So did you want to?

Um says Clark from the Bates Hendrix Neighbor Association.

Yeah, my name is Clark Math.

This time with the sorry, my name is Clark Math this time with the Bates Hendricks Land Use Committee.

And uh we support uh this proposal.

Excuse me.

Uh could we get your address, please?

727 Lincoln Street, Indianapolis, Indiana.

I believe he'll need to be sworn in also.

Yes, I will need to swear you in, please.

If you could raise your right hand real quick, thank you.

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

Say I do.

I do.

Well, we feel that the uh petition with regard to moving the having the house moved up is gonna is more in keeping with the neighborhood.

Uh we don't feel that the site line is really an issue as it as you really um as Josh had said, um, so we support it.

All right, thank you.

Um board, any questions for the petitioner?

I have a question for the staff.

Uh why hasn't the city bought the right-of-way for that site triangle?

Is that a fair question?

Unfortunately, I do not know that answer.

That would probably be best directed towards DPW, not being a zoning issue.

I do not know why the city has not bought that right away.

Okay, thank you.

All right.

Um I didn't I didn't see anyone, but is there anyone here today speaking in opposition to this petition?

All right.

Um just wanted to confirm.

With that, uh let's get staff comments, please.

Thank you, Chairperson Nelson, members of the board.

Um, this is the first time staff seen this site plan.

Uh staff does not necessarily object to it.

Um as it is outside of the drive distance clear site triangle.

I believe that's the name of it.

Decision site distance triangle, which for reference is the green triangle as we saw last month, blue triangle on this site plan, red triangle being the clear site triangle, uh, which the ordinance zoning ordinance is based off of.

Um for DBW purposes, the blue triangle is triangle is an absolute no.

Um, and seeing as how the house is outside of that, um, they had previously indicated they were okay with some encroachment into the clear site triangle.

Therefore, um staff has no objection to this, subject to this variance grant being subject to the site plan as submitted.

Um so therefore, if this blue site blue decision site distance triangle is incorrect, they would still have to remain outside of that, whatever however it is placed since we've seen two versions of that with and with that staff would recommend approval subject to that additional commitment.

Okay, thank you.

Um I guess at this point we can go back to the petitioner.

Unless, sorry, board, do you have any questions for staff at this point?

All right.

Then yeah, let's go back to the petitioner for your uh closing comments and um uh comments on on what Robert had given about the commitment to remain outside of the decision site triangle.

Okay, thank you.

Um staying outside of the triangle is not a problem.

Um for the purposes of that specific discussion.

I did not bring a physical copy with me, but I have an email from uh Jill Palmer, who is the engineer with DPW that was here last month, and she stated that the um their decision site triangle is 14 feet west of the curb of East Street at the north property line of 445 and about 131 feet south of the curve of East Street.

Um, and then she drew she provided a picture.

Um, like I said, I just took a screenshot.

This doesn't have the full email details.

Um but staying outside of that decision side triangle is not an issue.

Um we're willing to agree to that commitment.

Um if it changes anything from the board perspective on Southeast Street on that curb lane that's closest to the house.

That is a no parking zone.

So from a from a site or a turning visibility perspective, when you're coming off of Sandra Street and you're looking to the right, there's no cars that are going to be parked there.

You'll be able to, you know, the visibility is there.

Um less obstruction, if if that was going to be a question from anybody.

Thank you.

All right, board, any final questions.

Then I would say consider the commitment made by the petitioner to remain outside of that that that this variance is conditioned on remaining outside of that uh decision site triangle.

Um so if it comes and is measured um by someone and they have the incorrect thing, their their grant variance would be invalid, I suppose.

Um but so long as they remain outside, that is the commitment, and then cast your ballot for petition 2026 DV1.

And the um neighborhood support letter regarding the size of the windows to be included.

Yes, yes, that that as well.

Thank you, David, for reminding me of that.

Um, all right, so consider all the commitments made by the petitioner, and then cast your ballots for petition 2026 DV1 and 001.

David Duncan votes yes, Peter Nelson votes yes, John Walski votes yes, and Jennifer Whitt votes yes.

The variance is granted.

Thank you again, Mr.

Smith.

If I may, I would strongly suggest that you send a copy of this to staff and to your contact at DPW just to get confirmation that the last interpretation of that clear site distance triangle is accurate and in line with their with DPW's thinking.

Just so that you avoid any any misunderstandings on that point.

Yeah, I've sent it to him twice.

Uh Jill has not responded yet.

Um, yeah, but we'll make sure it's coordinated before we go to the permit office.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Case number two zero two six-dv one-zero one zero property address two six zero six Northview Avenue, Washington Township, Council District Number three, zoned D5.

The petitioners are David and Sandra Palambi and Michael Palombi, represented by Matt Barr, requesting variants of development standards of the consolidated zoning and subdivision ordinance to provide for a four foot fence with greater than 30% opacity, maximum of 30% opacity permitted.

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

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

Say I do.

I do.

Oh, I guess it's my turn.

Yeah, just state your name and address for the record.

Sandra Palumby, 432 West Hampton Drive in Indianapolis 46208.

My son Michael lives in this property.

Michael is high functioning autistic.

We never in our lives thought that our son would be able to pay a mortgage on a property.

When he moved in, this is a really cool little indie neighborhood, very friendly.

The woman who lived next door to him was a really nice woman.

Unfortunately, her mental condition deteriorated over time.

She began harassing Michael, and then she began physically attacking him.

She attacked him with a rake.

She continually went across his property, and Michael, God bless him, he called the police for help.

And most of the time, the police were able to calm the situation and remind this woman that she needed to stay on her own property.

Unfortunately, on August 4th of 2024, she came after Michael from behind with a huge rock, and the police arrested her.

And I have a copy of her arrest record, if you'd like it.

She's also been cited, that property has also been cited for other things.

After the arrest, the police suggested that Michael put up a fence.

That he had never tried to deal with the variants, and there have been numerous complaints about him, and then this is the latest letter that I have that he is now being investigated by the disciplinary commission of the state supreme court.

Michael was following the advice of his attorney, and he thought that the attorney was a registered attorney.

Michael would never put a fence up in somebody else's property unless the neighbor agreed.

And so because it seemed aesthetically pleasing to have it go to the edge of the driveway, the fence was put up there.

And I've been there multiple times, and people are walking their dogs and they're walking their kids, and they're leaning over the fence, and Michael's leaning over the fence, and Michael's giving away the eggs that his chicken makes, and he's letting the neighbors' kids pet his bunnies.

The fence has not in any way interrupted the community that is this lovely little neighborhood.

I think in the pictures, you'll see that Josh, and I must say that Josh has been incredibly helpful through this process, suggests a chain link fence.

It's pretty easy to find research that shows that chain link fences, while they do give you more uh opacity, signal problems with safety and security and tend to lower property values.

I do have a list here of realtors and fence um installers who tell you that wood, like Michael's fence, is really the gold standard for creating a true outdoor room.

So this kid this kid was physically attacked twice.

The police advised him to put up a fence.

He was not trying to do anything wrong.

He ordered a four-foot fence.

The fence came in higher.

This is a young man who is navigating a very difficult world that rarely understands him.

He has an independent business, he pays his own mortgage.

He tried to do everything right.

It was all with the right intent.

And I would ask you for your forbearance here.

Thank you.

Thanks.

Um, so I I just want to point out not that I don't think this really impacts anything you said, but the chain lake finits a picture in the staff report.

Isn't a suggestion of what should be placed there, but it's just like they take pictures of other properties in the area that are similarly situated to kind of show give us an idea of what's going on.

So I just thought that might be helpful.

Yeah, well, sorry about that.

And I know that I misuse site specific because it's supposed to be the land is a problem, and maybe it's not the land, but it's the people on the land, but it's specific to that spot.

And he does give away eggs, but don't eat the geese eggs, they're really pretty awful.

All right, thanks.

Um again, I didn't see anybody, but just have to ask to make sure.

Is there anyone here speaking in opposition to this petition?

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

Yes, uh, thank you.

Uh Chairman Nelson, members of the board.

Um as the report points out here, uh the maximum height permitted for a front yard fence in a dwelling district is three and a half feet or forty-two inches.

This can be extended to four feet or forty-eight inches if the fence has an opacity of thirty percent or less.

Um, you will notice in the staff report uh that the uh site plans submitted uh estimate roughly a 50% opacity and a fence reaching nearly 53 inches.

Um we also uh heard from the petitioner a slight um encroachment uh into the uh neighboring property.

Uh while we won't comment on on, I guess, any sort of property matters here.

That is just something to note that if later on down the line a property dispute were to occur, that would have to be dealt with as well.

Um, we will note that the ordinance does provide options to allow for fencing, uh specifically fencing up to four feet if if the fencing material is proper uh that does provide opportunities to secure properties, secure homes uh within the ordinance uh within compliance to the ordinance.

Um last point on that is that a site-specific practical difficulty is uh tied specifically to the land and and how the land itself causes a hardship that can only be uh taken care of via a variance.

In this case, we have shown photos of some other fences across the neighborhood across the street that do provide um examples of what a compliant fence might look like.

Um and so with that uh staff does uh recommend denial of this variance.

Board, any questions for staff at this time?

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

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

Look, he's a good kid.

He wasn't trying to do anything wrong.

He was trying his best in a bad situation.

I mean, could you imagine being attacked by an 80-something year old woman?

I mean, what are you going to do?

And when the police suggested a fence, he got a fence.

The neighbors have not had any problems with it.

Some of them have told him that they really like it.

And it has not in any way disrupted the neighborhood feel.

That's a nice indie neighborhood where everyone gets along and people talk to each other.

All right, thank you.

Um Board, any final questions before we cast our votes?

I guess the one question I would have to be at all sidewall.

Uh that would be right.

You mean push it back closer to his house?

That's an awful lot of his front yard.

That you're asking him to cut off.

I I I think that would be I think that that would be a financial hardship, honestly.

Um no one's objected to it the way it is.

Okay.

Thank you.

All right.

Board, please go ahead and cast your ballot for petition 2026 D V one zero one zero.

On case two zero two six-dv one-zero one zero, David Duncan votes yes.

Peter Nelson votes yes, John Walski votes yes, and Jennifer Witt votes yes.

The variance is granted.

Thank you so much.

Really appreciate it.

Case number two zero two six-dv one-zero one five property address five six zero seven west thirty-eighth street, Wayne Township Council District Number Five, zoned C4.

The petitioner is Palmetto, Indianapolis, West 38th Street LLC, represented by Ed Williams, requesting variants of development standards of the consolidated zoning and subdivision ordinance to provide for the location of a monument sign, being the fourth primary freestanding sign along the 38th Street frontage.

Maximum two freestanding signs per frontage, and with a separation of one hundred and sixty-five feet, two hundred and forty-four feet, and two hundred and forty-six feet from other primary freestanding signs, three hundred-foot separation required.

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

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

Say I do.

I do.

Thank you, Chairman Nelson.

Members of the board.

For the record, my name is Ed Williams.

I'm a consultant representing the petitioner in 2026 D V one zero one five.

My address is forty-four hundred Peggy Hollow Road in Shoals, Indiana.

As indicated, this is a request for a variance of the sign regulations to allow a pylon sign that measures four point two five by eight feet, roughly thirty four square feet, with a 31 and a half foot setback from the right-of-way of 38th Street.

Now the variance is required to allow more than one sign along the frontage of an integrated center and allow those signs to have a separation of less than 300 feet.

A lot of retail businesses are destination type businesses where you know where it is and that's your destination, that's where you're going to.

But drive-through bit retail is a little bit different than that.

They survive a lot upon not just the destination business traffic into their stores, but also commuting type traffic along 38th Street and also passer by traffic along 38th.

The more transient traffic, the sure the the two main types of traffic that would support a drive-thru business, such as Dust Rose Coffee Service, are the commuters, the regular customers, the ones who're going to stop there on the way to work or on the way home.

But there's also that transient business traffic where the motorists may not know the area, they may not know their destination, but they know they need coffee or a hamburger as Jack in the Box next door may need.

And so they're looking for a place, but they may not know which lane they need to be going.

They need to be in.

So the need for the freestanding sign for these types of businesses is to allow the identification out closer to the street where it's more readily visible to those types of motorists.

On this particular situation, we have multiple lanes of traffic going 40 miles an hour, probably slower during rush hour, but the that there's a median also, and in that median, the westbound traffic has to find a left turn lane that is past the actual business.

So that can be confusing for a motorist.

And if they can't find out how to get into a business, then the business is lost.

So we've submitted written findings of fact.

Um I'd just like to touch on each one of those briefly.

Um I think what we've submitted in writing is sufficient to support your approval of this petition.

But I'd also I would like to point out that this sign would support rather than interfere with the public health safety and morals and general welfare of the community.

The request is signed, does offer the the earliest possible opportunity for motorists to find the business, and therefore, because of that, it promotes public or safe driving practices and supports the public health safety morals and general welfare.

The sign is sign design is consistent with retail type development of the area.

Um this particular sign would not be substantial, right to a level of substantial, substantially adverse to the development in the area.

The sign design is almost uh close to meeting the definition of art.

If it wasn't for the being or logo or the actual lettering on it, it could be of art and would be exempt from the ordinance.

The strict application of the ordinance does impose practical difficulties on this property, especially on this particular use of it.

As previously mentioned, the the target is both commuter and transient traffic to better ensure that the business can succeed.

The lack of effectiveness of reaching both of those target motorists in getting them to the point of sale is a practical difficulty.

If you can't get them to the store, you can't get them in the store, and if you can't get them in the store, the business fails, and there's much more, a very much more practical difficulty in that type of situation.

Now the staff recommends the dial and I said I um respect them.

I've I've sat in those chairs, I've sat on your on the board before.

So I appreciate that the position that the staff has taken.

But the written report calls out a citation for the need for motorists to see the business from the road, but that's only half the issue in this particular situation.

The other half is the need goes beyond just the visibility, but to the timing of when that motorist sees the site or sees where they want to be, and then safely maneuver in traffic.

Without sufficient time for that maneuvering, a safety hazard is created rather than a safe hazard, a safe situation.

Now that the board has already approved more than one sign along this particular frontage of this integrated center, it points to, and all of them within 300 feet of each other, points to that a practical difficulty does exist for those sites.

So it's difficult then to turn around and say that it's that same practical difficulty does not exist for this site as well.

Um that there is no such thing as a um supposed the um, I lost my train of thought.

Sorry, old age.

The point my point is the opposite is true.

That the there is a practical difficulty, and it exists for this site as well as the other sites.

If it existed on the other sites, it exists for this site.

The um staff writ staff's written report does mention some alternate options that the um this petitioner could use.

One of those is the multi-tenant sign for the integrated center, which those are effective only for destination businesses.

When you're unfamiliar with an area, to try to sort through all the different signs on an integrated center sign, while you're supposed to be driving safely, just does not work.

Staff mentions Google Maps, which right now as today shows this lot as an empty lot.

Um, and one point out that Google Map updates every one to three years, and areas of high development, they might update in one year.

But this is an area of redevelopment, and this area needs redevelopment.

It has for a long time, but that Google is not going to update a redevelopment area as quickly.

If a business has, especially a new business to an area, they may be able to survive one year of slow traffic.

But after two to three years, they start thinking rethinking their business plan and whether or not they should setter that store.

And this area does not need another shuttered business.

And the written report also mentions that there's 20 other signs already approved, and their permits have been issued for them.

I want to point out that only two of those signs, or actually three, um, would be effective for motorists.

There's two, there's a uh windmill logo and individual letters on the east side of the building, and then there's individual letters on the west side of the building.

Those are the only two signs that are effective for um uh motorists that they can visibly see, but the building's so far back, by the time they see them, they've lost the opportunity.

And some motorists may decide to do a U-turn and go back, but most will not.

So that sets up an a practical difficulty right there.

There is a logo and a set of letters on the front of building, but those are not visible until you've passed the opportunity to make a decision and then safely turn.

The rest of those 20 sides include two menu boards, one for each of the drive through lanes, and then um directional signs.

Those are only effective once you're at the site.

They don't really do anything to get the customer to the site.

In closing, I believe firmly that the written findings of fact, as well as the additional testimony here today, is sufficient to support your approval of this petition.

The board is already determined that a practical difficulty exists for these this frontage of this this shopping center.

So they're willing to work with the staff and the standards, but they still need some deviation from it.

And that's what we're requesting today.

The potential alternatives to this type of sign, um, just they're just not truly viable for this situation.

And I don't think there are any remonstrance.

I haven't heard from any of the neighborhood associations or anything.

So that suggests that there's really not a high level of concern for the request before you today.

Um again, I truly respect the the staff's position that I just professionally disagree with them.

Um I the again the the effect of the board's approval would far outweigh any adverse effect that this sign would would uh um cause.

So I would therefore respectfully request your approval of the petition, and I would be happy to answer any questions you may have.

Um can we go to page I think it's 204 of the staff report?

Please.

For the petitioner, where is the proposed location of the sign?

Is it the red blip?

Um on the site plan.

Or it is.

If you go up just a little bit, yeah, I don't have it in colors.

I did I think when my original filing it was highlighted, yeah.

It should be the red blip on the on the plan there.

Okay.

And so that's it looks like it's 31 feet seven and three-eighths inches off of the right-away.

Is that sound right?

Yes.

Okay.

Right away, we have a thank you.

I think legally they could move it closer.

I'm not sure why they chose that location, maybe utilities.

Or maybe they don't want to get it hit.

Um, I'm Jennifer.

I live on the west side, been going down that street since the the best hibachi grill ever was across the street there.

Um I have a couple questions.

So I know that stake and shake has is no longer there, and they had a large poll sign, and this may be a staff question later.

Um, there is an integrated sign that has all of the businesses of the like rear businesses.

Yes.

So I think Uncle I don't think it's the same shopping center as Uncle Bills, but Uncle Bill's is a further down, similar style sign.

Um I drive that route all the time.

Is the building open?

I'm not sure if it's open yet.

It is there, and all the the approved signs are up.

As someone who drives by it all the time, I haven't seen it.

So I understand the need for visibility in an area that is under reconstruction.

Um, and obviously when they do get open and uh announcing they're there will help lots of commuters go down that road.

I'm a little I don't understand who owns the property there.

So I'm I do have a question.

Why here, and not where the stake and shake sign is, so that people can see it earlier and pull in earlier for safety.

Is it a property owner who owns that space kind of issue?

It would be it doesn't if you don't have an answer.

Yeah, there are all kinds of factors that go into that.

Um, and again, I'm not sure why they chose that location.

Yeah.

Probably because of utilities or something.

Um, and separate.

I think where they chose it along that frontage was to make it more in in the center between the jack and the box and the the integrated center sign.

Um the problem you get into is ownership.

They'd have to lease or get if they wanted to go over on jack and box, that'd be a reconstruction of that sign, which would get into probably another variance, or the as I indicated the integrated center sign really isn't effective for this type of business, it's more for the businesses that are behind.

It also is in need of repair.

So it's not necessarily a lot of things.

And I believe that one predates the current ordinance.

It predates me.

And probably me.

It's pretty old.

So then you get into issues.

Well, can it re be rebuilt?

Right.

Signs are like cars.

You leave them sitting outside, and they rot.

They do.

And and then the ordinance changed, and then you can't reconstruct it the way it was.

Um, as somebody who's in the area, a little south of there, but I drives it frequently.

Um I think what the sign is beautiful.

I I don't have questions.

I'm a little worried is that is it lit facing the road, that side element, and will it be on all night?

There are residents that actually face your screen, so I didn't know if there's um consideration of that, um, how often this business is open if they're 24 hours or not.

You know, I never even asked that question.

Okay, it never occurred to me.

Most of the time though, um, especially with modern signs, they're they're lit with LEDs, and they um LEDs point out rather than like uh tubes, tubes that used to light and would write light radio.

So they have a sensor on them, because it it does no good for the business or anybody else if it's a glaring sign because you can't you see the glare and not the sign.

I'm just heard.

So they put a timer on them or a dimmer so that they they uh I forget the word for it, but it adapts to whatever light there is.

I I appreciate that.

Um I would they be open again.

It is basic residences that are our rentals in a very economic friendly rentals.

They may not have blackout curtains, and as a mom, that's kind of important to me that you know some timing on that sign, um, is just some consideration.

I don't think it needs to be an agreement, just something to take back to the case.

Well, I'm sure they would be willing to agree to that if you would like to make it a condition of your approval.

I appreciate that.

Thank you for answering my questions, and I'm sure our our staff has some comments too.

All right, any any other questions from the board before we move on?

All right, hearing none.

Uh again, just to make sure is there anyone in the audience speaking in opposition to this petition.

All right, seeing no one, we'll go to staff comments, please.

Okay, uh, thank you very much.

Uh Trevor Person Nelson, members of the board for your time and for volunteering to be here.

I thank you to be petitioner for your comments as well.

As mentioned, our staff is recommending denial of this proposal for an additional primary freestanding sign on a corridor where multiple signs already exist, specifically three signs along this section of shared frontage in close proximity to the proposed location of this sign.

Or some side context, it's a commercial outlaw along 38th Street.

I was recent construction completed of the quick service beverage business in 2025, which is open as of April 2026.

I enjoyed a beverage fair myself shortly after concluding my site visit in preparation of this report.

Uh besides within the commercial context, there's an integrated center with a medical clinic to the east.

Other businesses are placed behind it within a multi-tenant center.

Then there's other commercial development along 38th Street, and as mentioned at our apartments on the other side of 38 to the north on the other side of those lanes of traffic.

There are three other signs on this shared frontage, which would extend from the school to the west over to the edge of the medical complex to the east.

Uh each of those three additional signs are within 300 linear feet of this sign, which means that not just a variance for the number of signs would be needed, but also for the proximity based on a 300 foot separation requirement.

Typically, four signs would be contemplated for a stretch of road about 1200 linear feet in length.

This would be about four times the density given there would be four signs within a 300-foot or sort of stretch.

Uh specifically, those signs would be the jack in the box sign about 246 feet to the west.

Uh, the multi-tenant sign to the east as well as the medical clinic sign a bit further out to the east there.

The latter two are visible within photo one, and then the jack in the box sign of a similar height that it proposed is visible within photograph two of staff's report.

Um we would stop.

Would also note that there's a billboard sign on the clinic property and off-premises advertising sign, which doesn't count toward the overall total of signage given it's off-premises as a different category from on-premises advertising sign.

If that did count toward be integrated center total, it would be a total of five total signs.

I would have to check the specific staff reports.

My guess would be that our staff had recommended denial of those as well.

Um I I do think to an extent it's a slippery slope to say that previous variance approvals are justified approval here.

You know, it could be applied out to a fifth sign, a six, seventh, uh supposedly as many outlaws as one could fit.

Um so the sign, as mentioned, there was um a previous approval for this property in 2025 for some of the signs that are shown there.

Several those are wall signs visible from the 38th Street frontage.

Um that didn't include a primary freestanding sign, but as mentioned, there were 20 other wall and secondary freestanding signs.

Um, seeking a variance to allow for an additional sign for the business, which would be an illuminated eight-foot tall monument sign per rendering provided within exhibits.

Uh, the text of that mentions that the Dutch Rose coffee text on the northern portion of the sign would be digitally printed.

I'm not certain if that means would be illuminated.

My initial read of this is that the illumination would be on the sides only.

That's something the petitioner might be able to clarify for if we wanted that as part of a commitment, should this be approved over staff's recommendation.

Um findings provided by the applicant indicate um what they uh characterize as minimal deviation from ordnance requirements, and that the sign would be needed to allow for visibility of the business.

Um, I sympathetic the desire to want to advertise a business as much as possible, but we don't feel that a site specific practical difficulty has been identified here to allow for ordinance deviation to the level of four signs within within this span.

Um we disagree that that would approximate the intent of the ordinance.

Uh, these rules are based on both aesthetics and sign clutter reasons.

You know, we try to avoid like big freeways or arterials with signs littering the side of the road, and also to reduce uh potential distracted driving as well.

Um, also notes alternate methods could be available to advertise without the need for variance.

Uh, that could involve online advertising of the site's location, could involve like placement within uh Google Maps type setting.

Um the aerial photograph in Google doesn't yet show the building, but there is like a little square logo saying Dutch Rose, uh come and get your coffee here.

So if there is already some form of advertising being utilized in that regard, or as mentioned, the other sides are already approved for the site, specifically to wall signs visible from 38th Street that were placed without the need for petition relief.

Given that site-specific practical difficulty is the burden and prevent that sort of difficulty preventing alternate development doesn't appear to be present.

The disvariance is primarily based on the petitioner's desire to advertise beyond the limits set out by the ordinance.

Uh, we recommend denial.

I am happy to answer questions that you might have.

Board, any questions for staff?

So I'm just not familiar with that ownership of this parcel that is very piecemeal, right?

There's the strip mall, there's the individual front lots.

Um as a local person, I would love to see them do some kind of new consolidated sign that gave everybody a really good view.

It doesn't look like that's possible just doing a quick property search.

Lots of different owners, lots of different people there, and this area is very um in need of development.

Um is there anything they can do to make this sign compliant?

I mean, or is there just nothing for a street sign on this property right where they are?

Yeah, yeah, given the proximity to other adjacent signs along the shared frontage.

I don't believe there would be ability to place a compliant primary freestanding sign.

There would be the ability to place you know other types of legal signs, such as wall signs.

I did mention they had talked their client down from a 20-foot pole sign, so an eight version, eight-foot version would likely be preferable to to something taller or like that.

I believe the site was recently replatted to create that new outlet as well.

I'm checking to see if I can find a specific case.

Yeah, and it looks like I'm stick and shake sign has come down now, so that's one less twenty-foot sign, but they may also want one in the future.

Okay.

We can go back to the petitioner.

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

Well, I don't think I'll need a full five minutes.

Um, I would like to point out that, and I'm glad Michael mentioned the billboard that's on the site.

Um I'm not sure if it's exactly on the site.

It'd be nice if Dutch Rose could just put an ad on that.

It'd be huge.

Um, but I don't think that's legal to have a advertise on a billboard that you're part of the the property.

It has to be an off premise advertisement.

So that's just that's not a viable option.

I don't think there are other outlaws left in this particular shopping center.

Um, so that there may be another shopping center adjacent to this one that might have outlocks, but I think this one's full.

So this would be have this would be the last um decision that you would have to make for this particular shopping center.

Um, the the fact that you've already approved uh determined that there are practical difficulties uh for other outlaws in the shopping center.

It's pretty hard pressed for me to go back to my client and say, Well, your yours is different.

Um and we we're trying to make it more appealing, but still be effective.

I think the alternative options are, yeah, that's great, you can advertise on the internet, you can say we're on Google or whatever, but you still have to find the site when you go there.

Um, and that's not necessarily easy when you're dealing with multiple lanes of traffic and a median.

So I think we've met the burdens that that would support your approval of the petition, and we request that you approve it.

All right, thank you.

Board, any final questions?

Hearing none, please go ahead and cast your ballot for petition 2026 DV1 015.

On case 2026-DV1-015, David Duncan votes yes.

Peter Nelson votes no, John Walski votes yes, and Jennifer Witt votes yes.

The variance is granted.

Thank you very much for your time this afternoon.

I hope you have a good rest of your day.

Case number two zero two six-dV one-016 amended property address one four one East Pleasant Run Parkway, South Drive.

Center Township, Council District Number 18, zoned D5.

The petitioners are uh excuse me, Richard Tyndall and Nicole Hubbard, represented by Tyler Oaks, requesting variants of development standards of the consolidated zoning and subdivision ordinance to allow for a rear yard fence to obstruct the clear site triangle.

Not permitted.

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

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

Say I do.

I do.

Good afternoon, members of the board for the record.

Tyler Oakes, Bose McKinney and Evans offices at 111 Monument Circle Suite 2700, Indianapolis, Indiana, 46204.

Here today on behalf of the petitioners, Richard and Nicole Tyndall related to their property located at 141 East Pleasant Run Parkway Drive South, or South Drive, excuse me, here today regarding a variance related to a clear sight triangle regarding the alley behind their house.

So this is a little bit of an interesting piece of property and uh provided in that packet that you've been handed a GIS, which I think is probably the most helpful way to kind of illustrate the situation.

What is supposed to, I believe is supposed to be the case, is you have an alleyway that my client's property is located on, and you have an alleyway that runs north-south, and then next to their property runs east-west.

And we're here today because they had originally built a fence or there was a fence that came with the property quite some time ago.

That fence had become unsightly and dilapidated, etc.

Um, and they made the decision to tear it down in its place.

They've built in 2025 a brand new fence.

I've attached some pictures at the end of the packet.

I've handed you that show what this new fence looks like.

Um I think I would hope that you would agree it's a it's a nice-looking fence, it's made of wood.

There's nothing, you know, crazy about it, it's just your typical kind of standard wood fence in the back.

Now, the issue that arises out of this is because there is this alley that runs next to the house parallel with the property line, and then they're additionally kind of on this curved alley that you can see is you have a what normally would be a clear sight triangle violation with this new fence construction.

However, I think what I'm gonna show you here in a sec, is uh that alley is just simply no longer in use.

I can't speak to how long it's been that way, but again, if you can go back to the the GIS that I provided on that first page, I've gone through each of your packets and kind of highlighted where that alleyway used to be that was right away.

Um, and additionally, I've taken pictures on page two and page three that show what that alleyway, if you tried to drive through it now, what it looks like.

And you can see on the GIS that there is literal permanent structures that now reside in that alleyway.

So it is impossible to drive through it.

There's no way it could be treated as an alleyway to give access to Madison Avenue.

There's no way you could get a car through there based on what the permanent structures that have now been constructed there.

And you can see on the picture on the screen, as well as on picture two in the packet I've given you, which is this, or I should say the the first picture, but the second page, um, you can see there's kind of a a garage parking, um, a trucks being parked there, but there is no way to get through that alley.

I drove there this morning, confirmed it's still the case.

There's no way to drive in between from Madison Avenue to get to that.

So then that begs the question of if this is an alley that's inoperable.

Does the clear site triangle apply?

Staff in their report is telling you yes, and I understand staff position, it's one that's very mechanic and technical.

It's hey, this alleyway, technically, you know, even though it's inoperable, has not been vacated, and therefore it is still technically an alleyway, clear sight triangle would apply.

From a much more practical standpoint, I would argue on behalf of my clients that this simply is not an operable alley, and therefore the clear sight triangle is not applicable.

If we look at the ordinance and you focus on what is the intent of the clear sight triangle, the ordinance itself will tell you it's to promote safety for pedestrians, cyclists, uh, and drivers.

And so if you look based on GIS and the pictures that we've provided you, because no cars are coming out that way regularly, like you would a normal alleyway, this is a driveway.

It is not an alley.

By all functional purposes, this is a driveway.

And so the clear sight triangle should not be applicable to my clients's property.

It doesn't impact anybody, any any public driver driving through that area because it is simply impossible for them to do so.

The only people it could potentially impact is the neighbors next door who have used it as a park or is using it as a driveway.

So just going through the factors of the variance, again, clear side triangle on its face, the intent of that is to promote safety, and we understand that, however, because that that alley is inoperable, there's no safety issue here.

You don't have to worry about cars coming through there frequently.

Um so we don't think this certainly don't think this request is injurious to the public in that in that facet.

Um and then you know, really if we look at this and staff's made point regarding stripped application of the variance or of the ordinance, excuse me.

Uh this is a practical difficulty because you are essentially applying the terms of the ordinance to my client's property while the ordinance itself should not be applicable here because you do not have an operable alleyway.

I understand again staff's position that per, you know, public record and per even GIS that an alley exists there in theory, but the very very practical reality of this is it's an inoperable alley, um, and that the clear site triangle should not be applicable here.

And that's why we're asking for a variance from that clear side triangle.

So with that, I am happy to answer any questions.

My clients are here with me as well, and they'd be happy to answer any questions for you.

And sorry, if I may go ahead.

No, you're okay, go ahead.

I was just gonna add one more thing, and if it makes you feel more comfortable, where my clients have also have discussed with them about doing a condition or a commitment where if that alley ever became operable or if those permanent structures were ever to be removed, then my client uh is happy to to produce the fence so that this the clear site triangle would not be, you know, or they'd be in compliance, excuse me.

I I have a question.

I love some Google Earth.

Um I can see that the fence used to go there, they've replaced the fence.

I I understand doing it in good faith.

Um, and this is probably a staff question when they're done, but if they took out two sections, I know they'd lose some driveway.

Um, would they then be in compliance?

Just a something for staff as they they think through this.

Um I understand not wanting to, so I I see the nice paved drive.

Like I I there's a garage there, like I get it.

Um, but I just want to know what in compliance would be in, and then it is a very odd little corner there.

Yeah.

So it looks like two neighbors actually share the alleyway as a driveway.

Is that okay?

Yeah, and I think too if you because the GIS for me, I think gives a real clear uh representation, it almost acts as two different driveways.

So if you look kind of on the part that comes off of Madison Avenue, you can see cars parked in that kind of portion.

So it seems like some of those houses off of the parkway are using that as a driveway, and then you have the additional one.

So they've basically divided it so it's now become two driveways as opposed to an alleyway.

So it looks like maybe somebody owned that little corner.

Yeah, there was one house, but now there are three houses.

And at some point they closed that alleyway.

Yes, it's a very, very odd and which because no one owns it, it's an alleyway.

So both those neighbors can share it, but nobody gets to own it.

Right.

So I understand why it's an alleyway.

Um I appreciate it.

It looks like they try to do things in good faith, and we'll hear what stock has to say.

Thank you.

I appreciate it.

Anybody else have a question?

They're really pretty fans.

Uh I saw a lot of people with their hands up being sworn.

Is there anybody else with the petitioner that wants to speak while there's some time left?

Nobody wants to speak.

Hi, um, my name is Renee Gilligan.

I live at 2438 Madison Avenue.

I am the person at the end of that driveway.

And we do not have any issues with pulling in or out.

Um there is one other neighbor that lives there and they have a like a garage that's on the one side, right at the beginning of it, and um most of the time they use the carport that is next to their garage, so it's they're just backing out into the actual alleyway or pulling straight forward into the alleyway.

The garage is used for storage, but as far as the actual from where that elbow is, there is a like a turn sign, so you're not really supposed to go straight.

I don't know who put that up.

I've lived there for almost five years.

100 years ago.

But going from that curve straightforward, we operate it as a driveway.

I mean, I have a basketball hoop out there, it is a driveway.

Do you happen to know when the garages were built?

And the homes are quite, it's an older neighborhood, but any idea when the garages were built?

So I the person that I bought my house from had owned both houses, the two houses, and they rented the smaller house and their that was the garage with the with my house that went with the um the house at the on the very end.

However, when it was sold, it was sold for the garage to go with the smaller home.

So the one in front of your home or north of your home, maybe the first one.

So there's like the one in the back, yeah, like right.

Oh, from the alley.

Okay.

On the alley.

And then behind that, um, they had an extension put on from the because where the alley used to go.

The home, even one further.

They had a um addition put on their home that goes through that.

That cut the alley.

So you're 2438.

And 2444 was I can see where that garage went with your house.

Okay, got it.

And then 2434 is the one at the very end of that driveway, the curvy part that you said have to extension.

It was yeah, okay.

I mean, it goes to their I think their garage at this point, or yeah.

Some kind of per very permanent structure.

Okay.

Which there's a red card port that's kind of square in the alleyway.

Which which property utilizes that carport?

I do.

Okay.

All right.

Thank you.

That's crazy.

Did your carport touch 2434?

Touch?

Yeah.

I don't believe Google Earth is deceiving.

Don't worry about it.

I don't believe so.

I mean it should they just had their roof redone.

I would think they would have said something about it.

Yeah, probably.

Okay.

Anyone else from the petitioner?

Okay.

Um, then at this point we can go to anybody speaking in opposition.

Again, um, just as a reminder, before you speak, name and address for the record, and then anybody speaking, everybody has collective up to 15 minutes uh for your comments.

Hi, uh my name is Laura Piercefield.

I'm at 315 Albany Street in Indianapolis.

I'm the co-chair of the South Village Neighborhood Association where these residents are.

Um we have sent a letter of remonstrance or an email um stating that we support the staff's decision for denial based upon just what the city's development codes are.

There was a home not far from me that had this happen similar.

They erected a fence that was too close to the road, not an alley, as our part of the neighborhood does not have alleys, we just have streets.

Um, and it was a chain link fence.

It was too close to the road and it was too tall.

And they erected that without any permits, and neighbors on both sides complained that that impeded them being able to pull into their driveways, which again is a different situation, but it does go against development standards for the neighborhood.

And our position as a neighborhood is the city has these development standards so that people don't just continue to do things, variances or permits are granted, and then we end up with a lot of discourse in the neighborhood.

So just as it stands, we understand that this is a development standard variance request, and that we do understand it's denial for that purpose just to keep you know status quo.

Hi, hi, my name is Kristen Jaden Dolstrom, and I live at 151 East Pleasant Run Parkway, South Drive.

So I live just to the east of the parcel in question.

And I believe you have a copy of my written statement already.

It was submitted last week.

So I won't go over it in detail, but I will hit some of the high points.

So a lot of this could have been prevented by getting a survey done and speaking to neighbors before constructing the fence.

And it shows that actually the this fence is not on their property.

So this where it certifies ownership in their petition, it's inaccurate.

And it is from the Indy Streets layer, and it does show that this is an alley.

This is the only way for people to access their homes because that portion of Madison Avenue, there's no street parking.

The little section that's behind my house has been vacationed, and I submitted copies of those records as well.

So the 151 Pleasant Run Parkway, me, the one um next to me, 2418, has the uh north half of the alley, and then 2434 has the southern half of the alley.

So that's why it is different, and it is actually utilized as a driveway by people on that part of the neighborhood.

Can you explain that again?

Yes.

So look on my map now.

The let's see.

So the little east-west section of the alley that's kind of parallel to Pleasant Run Parkway, that has been vacationed.

I don't know when it was vacationed, but in the back of my packet, it shows the it shows the legal descriptions from the property record cards.

And for instance, the petitioner's plot is simply Stuart's Parkway lot 7.

My um plot is Stewart's Parkway subdivision lot eight and 29 feet west side lot nine, also half vacant alley and adjacent except um part of the north end for the street.

So mine is 151 East Pleasant Run.

I'm one in from the corner.

Yes, and then the one next to me that's right off of Madison, they also have half of the alley, and then 2434 has the other half of the alley.

So that's why there are a south.

Yes.

Just so I understand, is your position that the documentation you submitted vacated the alley from South Delaware Street all the way to where this.

Not from Delaware, it's just the little tiny section behind my house, that little portion.

So it comes from South Delaware Street to the portion of your house that's vacated.

The alley was vacated, and then it picks up again on the other side of your house.

It is vacated.

Sorry, let me see the map.

I think the city map reflects this in the packet.

It shows that the alley stops near 2438, but 2434, they have part of it, and it's in their description as well.

Go ahead.

Is that anything that a little bit of this one?

Yeah, uh, what's that in household?

I think it's one vacation, but there are three plots that it's attributed to.

And then I'm having a further at all.

For the the north-south section, that has there's I haven't seen any record of it.

So I think they're very different circumstances.

Those are actually driveways.

Did you ask your because the surveyor, your survey, I mean it's not an alter survey, but it's a reboundary retracement survey.

It's not reflecting that that alleyway has been vacated.

It just did the original, like the straight lot lines of the original lot, which there's also a copy of the Stuart's subdivision original map in my statement.

Alright, I mean, I don't know how much this really has to do with the zoning matter at hand today, but I I do want to try to understand because it's it's being talked about in the record.

So I do appreciate you answering the question.

So the lot line where it shows that their fence um came into my yard, that line extends all the way down the alley.

That's the same line.

So effectively, their fence is a couple of feet off of their property, into the alleyway and into my um my property and 2434 Madison.

So your house is this one.

Your property line's somewhere over here.

It's this front section that you're concerned about has cut into your property line.

Yes.

But also it might be a little off for into this house.

Yes, and so there's also so the survey was just the lot lines based on, you know, it says I have lot eight and part of lot nine.

It doesn't include this the um half of the alley attributed to my property.

That that's fine.

I just you're just your your point though is that this fence is a little too far east.

Yes, which means it's too far east the whole way down the alley.

Fair enough.

Um okay.

Where you see here.

So on your boundary retracement survey.

You're looking at the southwest corner of your property where they're they noted.

Yes.

So you're saying that their fence is 7.8 feet plus or minus north of the E survey corner.

Is that accurate?

Yes.

And then so that survey corner is just the actual lot descriptions.

It does not include that seven and a half feet, so that extends south, and then the next seven and a half feet go to 2434 Madison in that section.

So there's still a fence that's going on my property, 2434 Madison, and that fence is extending into what is technically the alley.

And 2434 off of that, the structure operating the parkboard.

They do.

So they have, I know right now they have a shed and it was damaged in a storm recently and it's being replaced.

That stinks.

Okay.

I just am trying to understand.

Thank you.

Yeah.

Um the other thing I wanted to draw attention to is there is a map of Stewart's um parkway subdivision.

It looks like this in the written statement.

And it says uh on the second page of that, this is when it was originally created before the alley was vacationed.

Um in the second paragraph, it says this subdivision shall be uh known and designated as Stewart's Parkway subdivision.

All streets and alleys and parts of SAME not previously dedicated are hereby dedicated to public use.

So I'm not an expert, but from what I've seen to me on the city map, it looks like it's an alleyway still and should be treated that way.

Okay, I have a question.

Um were you there when the fence was there before?

Uh yes.

Was it in the same line?

Um it was expanded.

It includes dates.

Um I don't believe it's the same footprint, but not, I'm sorry.

Um, was the other fence on that same plane of existence?

Not how long it was, not how tall it was, not the material, but was it on that line of demarcation?

It was some of it was in the same spot, and some of it has been expanded.

Okay.

Thank you.

Anyone else speaking in opposition while there's remaining time?

All right.

Seeing then, let's go please to staff comments.

Yes.

Thank you, Chairman Nelson, members of the board.

Uh so just a quick recap.

The petitioner is requesting a variance to allow for a rear yard fence to obstruct the clear sight triangle of an alley.

Uh, as the ordinance will state, a clear site triangular area is an area in which uh no buildings, structures, landscaping, or other elements may be located within unless otherwise exempted.

This is intended to prevent potential pedestrian and vehicular conflicts.

Uh, as we've noted, uh parts of this alley are still active, and vehicles do actively drive through the southern part there.

Um a solid six-foot tall fence prevents proper view sheds, posing public safety risks.

Um you'll see in the staff report instructions on calculating clear site triangles and our subsequent uh calculations are um on the uh pages included.

Um getting to the issue of the uh right-of-way, the uh north-south alley right-of-way extends north parallel to the subject property and does connect to that east-west alley off Madison.

Um in consultation with a colleague, um, it is possible uh that the east-west valley is uh excuse me, alley is vacated.

Uh, there are some questions about documentation with the assessor's office on that.

However, uh we have not been able to find any indication in which the north-south alley has been vacated.

Um so that uh while obstructed uh does still continue to operate as an alley, and staff will note that um uh the ordinance is applicable to any and all zoning matters um unless a variance is granted.

A variance has not been granted in this case so far.

So uh the ordinance does still apply to the right of way here.

Um, furthermore, um, with this fence uh potentially being in the right of way, um any variance for a clear site um obstruction would still leave the fence uh subject to enforcement action related to a right-of-way obstruction.

Um so there would still be a need to possibly bring that into compliance on other ends.

Um there has been some indication that uh the fence was rebuilt along a previous footprint.

Um staff will once again note that no easement or vacation exists on record, and any such fence then may have also been noncompliant.

Um furthermore, staff will just note that while the fence is currently the subject of a property dispute.

This is a civil matter in which we'll not we will not comment on, uh, but we will note that any uh required relocation of the fence would provide the petitioner an opportunity to correct the existing right-of-way obstruction.

Uh in staff's analysis, there appear to be no site-specific practical difficulties that would prevent the fence from being located in order to comply with clear site triangle regulations.

Uh given the lack of site specific practical difficulties, the risks posed by clear site obstructions, and the current right-of-way obstructions staff recommends denial of this petition.

I I I get I mean I'm one main question I have that I'm struggling with is we're we're talking about a clear site triangle on let's assume that it's not a vacated alleyway, it's just an alleyway.

I think we can all agree that permanent structures located in the alley would present more of an obstruction than a six-foot tall fence.

And if we're gonna permit those structures, then and that effectively terminates it as a day-to-day use as an alleyway, then what how is a the clear site triangle any more or less of a impedance than permanent structures?

And and like looking past all that, it feels like, and maybe this is just my personal feeling, but like this case is being used as a way to advance the civil matter and not for legitimate purposes.

I mean, most of the testimony that we just got had nothing to do with the clear site triangle, and that's frustrating.

Um I guess the question for staff is why are we focused on that clear site triangle when we have other permanent structures that are more of an issue than that fence?

Yes, I'll say that we can only focus on what is brought here before us today.

Uh this came to us as as a result, I believe, of a uh violation at some point, and so um this is the petition that came before us.

I um am not too aware of too many or of any permits uh for the other structures in the alley.

Um if those were to be found and and did exist, that might be a separate story.

But um if if these are non-permitted structures, those could of course be uh s subject to the same compliance issues as well.

Thank you.

Any further questions for staff?

If not, we'll go back to the petitioner.

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

Thank you again for the record, Tyler Oaks here on behalf of petitioner.

Want to address a couple things.

First, I want to reiterate wholeheartedly that we understand based on a map and based on whatever presumed definition you want to technically use, this is an alley.

Fine.

We have by all intents and purposes, a permanent structure located in the middle of this alley, so that no car could passably go from Madison Avenue and cut through to Delaware Street or cut through on the other side.

It is impossible.

We're talking about an alley that is a glorified driveway that serves two homes.

That's the fact of the situation.

That's where we're at.

And so the clear site triangle application needs to be focused on this driveway purposes.

Is there a safety issue as is staff suggests?

We have one neighbor who uses that driveway that says it's not.

And based on that testimony, based on the fact that's these two people, we we would argue that there is no safety issue here at all.

Um I think a larger issue was the dilapidated fence that was in disrepair that has now been completely replaced.

Um again, I find it ironic that we have a neighborhood association here to discredit a fence being replaced, and I think the fence looks rather nice when it's not my place to say there are other violations going on in the area, but rather my client reacting to the the facts of the situation that my client lives on a property that's in this kind of wonky area, um, and they've put up a fence that in that back part is in the same uh location it was.

It can't be further expanded because of where the driveway is.

So that fence is a butting to the driveway on that on that southeast side of the property.

So there's no expansion there.

I feel an obligation based on testimony we've heard to at least address um some of the parts, although I I would um respectfully agree and reiterate all the things said by um Mr.

Duncan related to the to the proper venue and how wholly inappropriate this is for a neighbor to bring this kind of um remonstrance for a situation that has no impact uh on their household.

If you look based on her own testimony, whether the vacation occurred or not, the fact of the matter is they don't are not impacted by this fence on the south side.

This clear site triangle has no impact on them.

They have a driveway, as we've highlighted off of Madison Ave.

They also have a drive driveway that's off of Pleasant Run.

They don't use that alley, and so for them to come here and make this gripe related with no evidence or anything discussing a clear sight triangle is wholly inappropriate.

Um I do want to additionally address that uh as staff had pointed out, there was a civil complaint regarding uh the fence in terms of what was in the front yard.

Um my clients were receptive to that as of yesterday, May 11th.

The fence company had come back out and moved that portion uh on the property, had moved that fence off of the neighbor's property so that it's no longer there.

Again, that is the forum for a civil complaint that does not impact the clear site triangle.

So we wholly um kind of discredit testimony there uh and and adamantly are against that remonstration, it was wholly inappropriate.

So in closing, again, the m the matter at hand is whether or not the clear sight triangle here is necessary.

And when you look at the totality of the facts, given the design of these alleyways, given the permanent structures that reside in the alleyway itself, and the fact that no cars outside of the people who live there every day, no cars can come through that alleyway.

The clear sight triangle is simply not applicable here.

And as staff said, yes, you know, that's why we're applying for the variance to make sure that clear site triangle doesn't have uh doesn't apply because again, while staff's review, and I can appreciate staff's review is mechanic.

Uh given the situation lower and the definitions located in the ordinance.

The fact of the matter from a practical standpoint is this is not an alleyway.

It doesn't behave as an alleyway, and therefore the clear site triangle should not be applicable.

So we again respectfully request passage of this variance.

Thank you.

Happy to answer any further questions.

I just want to re-reaffirm um the commitment that I believe I heard you mention earlier is that if the alleyway becomes passable, then the fence within that alleyway within the clear site triangle will be removed.

I think we need to actually expand that to say that any portion of the fence within the alleyway will be removed.

Yeah, and the clear site triangle will be cleared.

Yeah, I think I mean, based on the testimony you've heard today, I think that's a that's commitment we'd have to we'd have to agree to.

Okay.

The only caveat there, of course, would be as if it were let's say the alley gets vacation, that's obviously a different story.

But yes, if the right-of-way was open back up fully for people to for public right of way, then yes, we we would agree to all those those stipulations.

Thank you.

Um staff, do you have any questions or comments on that commitment clarifications?

I guess the only comment I'd make is that the alley is still a public right-of-way.

Um, and so in that sense, it I guess that commitment would go into effect immediately.

The alley is still a public right of way and has not been vacated.

I guess the the I guess the nuance is it's not a passable alley right now because there's other permanent structures located within their alleyway that prevent it from being utilized as a thoroughfare.

Um, and so it goes back to what I said earlier about there there's some element of it can't function as an alleyway with those permanent structures located in it, which kind of creates an impossibility.

And so I think I I guess like if I'm the petitioner, right, and I want to perfect this this interest, I'm gonna try to vacate it immediately.

Yeah.

Good afternoon, Bryce Pat's minister uh ministering our current planning.

I I do agree uh in terms of this is a kind of a uh unique situation.

Um reality is for for us as staff, we have to address the petitions that is before us.

Um with that said, uh what we do is we do reach out to other departments when we see other potential issues, and so us not finding any vacation is an issue.

Um and so for for us, we have to take what the petition is in front of us is can we put a uh fence in public right away?

And that is what's before you today with with our variance requests.

So with that said, we're we're gonna be looking further into this, but we have to address what the land use petition is for us today.

Thank you.

I appreciate that.

And to that point, it sounds like all of the neighbors could do with some additional confirmation of their vacationing of this right-of-way, and so perhaps they can work together to figure that out.

Okay.

Yes, and if uh us as staff can help with that, we're happy to do so as well.

Including the one that you guys are like, it says vacated on this, but not maybe in the right records, maybe it would be a good team effort.

Okay, gotcha.

All right, unless the board has any further questions for the petitioner, we can go to the remonstrators and allow them five minutes for rebuttal and closing comments.

I would like to point out that my testimony is entirely appropriate because their petition brings in um between my parcel and 2434 as a blockage to Madison.

And there are records showing that this has been vacationed.

That's entirely appropriate.

Uh and the point of the survey is to show that line extends, and so the fence right now is on neighboring properties and the city's right-of-way where an alley exists.

I'd also like to point out there are shifts in the entire alley because of the fence and the fence before it where it shifts everything to the right.

So part of this mess is because the fence that was there in the first place, just ships everything over.

And again, taking the time to speak to neighbors to get a survey done before installing a fence would have mitigated all of this.

Thank you.

Um, so just to ask this the make sure you understand the question before us today isn't the fence line over the entire southern portion.

It's literally the clear site triangle in what's the southwest corner of their property where that fence is located next to the reported alleyway.

Yes.

So it's not, I mean, it's not the portion of the fence that is immediately adjacent to your property.

Correct.

It's on the other side of the property.

But if my if the fence is off on my property, that line extends all the way down the alley.

So there is a problem at the southwest corner.

It's the same line.

That's my point.

Okay.

Um, I think thank you.

Yeah, and and just the Google Earth say the last fence was on that same line in the back.

I have no idea in the front.

Um it looks like you also have a fence.

Um I don't know if that's in the line or out of the line.

I I've had my fence dramas over the year where I stayed off the line and the neighbor moved theirs over, so like I get it, it's hard.

But I do hope that you take the staff's recommendationslash gentle shove to get the proper vacationing for the alley, and I think that might be a great place to work together.

I mean, so I that's it exists on the property record card.

So I'm paying taxes on it.

I and I totally respect that.

I'm I think there's a couple more things to protect yourself and and the neighbor behind you who's actually built in that alleyway, just to make sure you guys are covered.

So I appreciate that.

Thank you.

Any further comments from remonstrance?

Okay.

Any final comments, questions from the board?

Alright, hearing none.

Um David, do you want you?

We already heard the commitment, but do you kind of want to restate it just so we're Chris, do you got it or do you want me to restate it?

Uh why don't you go ahead?

Okay.

Commitment that the petitioner agreed to is that if the alleyway ever becomes passable, meaning that there are, you know, no permanent structures located in the alley that prevent uh traffic from moving through the alleyway, uh, then the fence located within the alleyway, including the clear site triangle will be removed.

Um the only you know exception that we talked about was that obviously if the alleyway is vacated, then that becomes a moot point.

Okay, yeah, all right with that.

Okay.

And I'll just look to the petitioner to confirm that is agreeable.

See nods from everyone on that side.

So board, consider the commitment agreed to by the petitioner, read by uh member Duncan as you cast your ballot for petition 2026 DV1016.

On case two zero two six-dv1-016 amended.

David Duncan votes yes, Peter Nelson votes yes, John Walski votes yes, and Jennifer Witt votes yes.

The variance is granted.

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

All right, board, lots of findings of facts, so stick around to sign those.

Otherwise, this hearing is adjourned.