All right, good afternoon.

Going to call this meeting to order.

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

I am Peter Nelson, Chairperson of Division 1.

Other board members present today are David Duncan and John Wolski.

Legal counsel for the board today is Chris Steinmetz.

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

Adrian Baker, Principal Planner 1, Michael Weigel, Principal Planner 1, Robert Ulenhag, Senior Planner, Josh LeBec, Senior Planner, and Marty Weiste, 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 presentation of evidence statements and arguments in support of the petition.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Um I guess I have been notified there may be a city councilor present today.

So if there is during the petitioners, we'll get you in after the petitioners and remonstrators.

City councilor time is unlimited.

So I will get there if we come to that.

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

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

The installation of landscaping and screening, the paving of parking areas, 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 the 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 attained prior to the establishment of the authorized improvements.

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

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

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

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

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

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

I will note there are three members present today, and it does require three votes to take action on any request.

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

If your petition does receive an indecisive vote, your petition will be automatically continued to the July 7th hearing.

Board, you have been provided meeting minutes for our May 12th hearing.

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

Duncan so moved.

And a second.

Wolski.

All right.

Call for a vote.

Duncan.

Duncan, yes.

Walski.

Yes.

Nelson votes yes.

All right.

Meeting minutes approved.

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

No one.

All right.

So before we hear special requests, I will ask for a waiver of our rules of procedure to allow the board to vote on all of the expedited petitions and adopt their findings of fact without any additional testimony from the individual petitioners.

Is there a motion?

Duncan so moved.

Second.

Walski.

Alright.

Call for a vote.

Duncan.

Duncan, yes.

Walski?

Yes.

And Nelson votes yes.

Alright.

At this time we will hear special requests and continuances.

Good afternoon.

My name is Brent Bennett.

I'm here for case 2026 DV1023.

We're asking for a three-day waiver of legal notice.

All right.

Anyone in the audience with interest in petition 2026 DV1023 4000 Michigan Road?

Alright, seeing none.

Um staff, are we comfortable with the three-day legal notice?

Uh thank you, Jefferson Nelson.

Members of the board.

Uh, given that the primary reason uh this maybe we would need would be staff's own delay in provision of notice materials to the applicant.

Uh, we would not have any objection to the minor waiver request.

Thank you.

All right, thank you.

Board, we have a three-day waiver request for the legal notice for petition 2026 DV1023.

Is there a motion?

Duncan so moved.

Second.

Walski.

All right, call for a vote.

Duncan.

Duncan, yes.

Walski?

Yes.

Nelson votes yes.

Good afternoon, Justin Kingan.

Addresses 2722 Manker Street, Indianapolis, Indiana, 46203.

Here before you on a few different petitions.

The first one being 2026 UV 1002.

It's the fourth item on your agenda.

Addresses 5301 West 56th Street.

We're seeking a one-month continuance.

We have had this case continued a couple different times in the past.

As noted in the staff report, we have had a fire inspection done of the property and have addressed many of the issues that were brought up in that report.

The one outlying one that still remains is regarding the fire hydrant.

Either filing of variance with the state or installing one on the property.

So this one month continuance, and we're also supposed to appear back before the Pike Township residents association next Wednesday.

So this one-month continuance would allow us to finalize and complete both of those tasks.

This request would be without additional notice.

Anyone in the audience with interest in petition 2026 UV 1002 opposed to the continuance.

Alright, seeing none, staff, are we comfortable with the continuance request?

Thank you, Chairperson Nelson, members of the board.

Uh, given the context of the pending fire inspections.

Uh staff has no objection to the additional continuance request.

Thank you.

Board, we have a request to continue petition 2026 UV 1002 to the July 7th hearing.

That is without additional notice.

Is there a motion?

Duncan so moved.

And a second.

Wolski.

Alright, call for a vote.

Duncan.

Duncan, yes.

Wolski?

Yes.

Nelson votes yes.

Thank you.

Then once again, Justin King and address 2722 Manker Street here before you regarding the fifth item on your agenda, 2026 UV1008.

Also requesting a one-month continuance on this petition.

Uh we've met with staff and we had a meeting as well with the neighborhood land use committee.

Um we need to have further discussions with both parties.

This one-month continuance would allow for that, and that would be without additional notice.

All right, anyone in the audience with interest in petition 2022 UV 1008, uh opposed to the continuance request.

Alright, seeing none, staff, um, can we get your comments?

Yes.

Thank you, Chairman Nelson and uh members of the board.

Um, yes, we are waiting for um a bit more information on this specifically around state building codes and also just to kind of uh discuss this further.

So no objection there to the one-month continuance.

Thank you, board.

Board, we have a request to continue petition 2026 UV108 to the July 7th hearing without additional notice.

Is there a motion?

Duncan so moved.

Second.

Walski.

All right, call for a vote.

Duncan.

Duncan, yes.

Walski?

Yes.

Nelson votes yes.

Great.

Thank you.

Then finally, petition 2026 UV 1013.

Once again, Justin King and address 2722 Manker Street.

This is the sixth item on your agenda.

And we're requesting a one-month continuance of this petition.

Again, to allow further discussions with staff.

We're actually scheduled to meet on this later this week to discuss moving this petition forward.

I would also note that we need to request a two-day waiver of the legal notice mailing requirements.

Happy to answer any questions you may have.

This continuance would be without additional notice, though.

All right.

Anyone in the audience with interest in petition 2026 UV1013?

Opposed to the continuance or the two-day legal waiver notice.

All right.

Staff, can we get your comments?

I am curious.

Do we need to waive the two-day legal notice since we are continuing, or is that something we should be doing next next meeting?

If if we do continue it to the July 7th.

Thanks, Chris.

Go ahead.

Thank you.

Can we get staff comments on both of those then?

Yes.

Again.

Chairperson Nelson.

Members of the board.

In regards to the uh two-day waiver of notice, there was a delay in docketing on that.

Uh so we just had a very tight window in getting that notice out.

Uh, and that and so staff would support the two-day waiver of notice on the continuance again.

Yes, uh, we are planning to meet on Thursday to discuss this further, and so a one-month continuance.

I'm allowing us to touch base is also supported.

All right, thank you, board.

If you have any concerns about taking these two requests as a single vote, let me know right now.

Hearing nothing, we'll do a single vote.

All right.

Uh board, we have a request for petition 2026 UV 1013 to continue it to the July 7th hearing uh without additional notice and uh have a waiver for two days of the legal notice.

Is there a motion for those requests?

Duncan so moved.

And a second.

Wolski.

Alright, call for a vote.

Duncan?

Duncan, yes.

Wolski?

Yes.

Nelson votes yes.

Great, thank you.

Good afternoon.

Josh Smith with RG Development.

Uh offices of 1073 Oliver Avenue 46221.

I'm here on item three on your agenda two zero two six DV1022.

Uh we are amending the plans on that proposal to have a site and rear setback variants instead of just a side variance.

And so we're requesting a one-month continuance to be able to send new notice and get everything to staff.

All right, any interest in petition 2026 DV1022?

Uh that would be opposed to the continuance request.

All right, seeing none, staff.

Can we get your comments?

Thank you, Chairperson Nelson.

Members of the board.

Uh staff would not have an objection to the one-month continuance request to allow for amendment of the petition as well as the mailing of new notice.

Uh, this would be with new notice.

All right, thank you.

Uh board, we have a request to continue petition 2026 DV1022 to the July 7th hearing that is with new notice.

Is there a motion?

Duncan so move.

Second.

Walski.

All right.

Call for a vote.

Duncan.

Duncan, yes.

Walski?

Yes.

Nelson votes yes.

Thank you.

Good afternoon, board members.

My name's David Gilman.

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

Um please draw your attention to the second agenda item, 2026 DB1020, address 6129 South Emerson Avenue.

We've been working with the staff.

We're going to make some amendments to our petition and our variance request.

So we would ask that you continue this to your July 7th hearing with new notice.

All right, anyone in the audience interested in petition 2026 DV1020.

That would be opposed to the continuance request.

All right.

Staff, we comfortable with the continuance.

Thank you, Chairperson Nelson, members of the board.

Staff has no objection to continuing this petition with new notice to July 7th.

Thank you.

Board, we have a request to continue petition 2026 DV1020 to the July 7th hearing with new notice.

Is there a motion?

Duncan so moved.

Second.

All right, call for a vote, Duncan.

Duncan, yes.

Wolski.

Nelson votes yes.

Thank you.

Thank you, Chairperson Nelson, members of the board.

Staff would draw your attention to the very first item on your agenda under B Special Request stock at this is 2026 D V1018 at 3101 North Norfolk Street.

The subject site had several violations opened upon it, one of which the property owner had applied for but below variance.

After discussions with staff, we helped them identify some pathways to compliance with that applicable development standard.

And that and the other items mentioned in violation are going to be addressed outside of this variance proceeding.

This would allow for a petition to be withdrawn per year acknowledgement.

The applicant is here this afternoon.

I believe they can confirm the accuracy of that.

All right, so acknowledged.

Thank you.

Um our staff would also draw your attention to item number one on the Docket 2026 DV1013 amended at 2440 Lafayette Road.

This petition received a timely automatic continuance request from a registered neighborhood organization, thereby automatically placing it on your July 7th, 2026 hearing date.

Uh this would be really required for board's acknowledgement.

So acknowledged.

Thank you.

All right.

Any other continuances, special requests at this time.

All right, seeing none, we will now proceed with the expedited docket.

These are petitions to be expedited.

Case number 2026-DV1-019.

Property address 1630 East 18th Street, Center Township, Council District number 8, zoned D5.

The petitioner is Day Spring Properties LLC, represented by Josh Smith, requesting variants of development standards of the consolidated zoning and subdivision ordinance to provide for a building addition with a four and a half foot west side yard setback, five feet side setback required, and a nine-foot rear setback, 20 foot rear setback required.

Case number 2026-DV1-021.

Property address 8080 Broadway Street, Washington Township, Council District number two, zoned DS.

The petitioners are Kevin and Ann Casey, represented by Eric Jensen, requesting variants of development standards of the consolidated zoning and subdivision ordinance to provide for a building addition, resulting in a five and a half foot side yard setback, 15-foot side setback required, and a 21-foot rear setback, 25 feet required.

And case number 2026-DV1-023, property address 4000 Michigan Road, Washington Township, Council District number 7, zoned SU 7.

The petitioner is Art Association of Indianapolis, Indiana, represented by Brent Bennett, requesting variants of development standards of the consolidated zoning and subdivision ordinance to provide for the location of two monument signs along the 38th Street frontage and one monument sign along the Michigan Road frontage, being the second and third primary freestanding signs along 38th Street, maximum two signs permitted, with heights of nine feet and twelve feet, maximum five feet permitted, and with a separation of seventy-five feet between the 38th Street signs, 300 foot separation required, and a canopy sign with a projection from the wall exceeding eighteen inches, maximum eighteen inches permitted.

Is there anyone in attendance today that is in opposition to any of the petitions I have just read?

Chair President Nelson, that's the end of the expedited docket.

All right, thank you.

Board, please cast your ballots for the expedited cases.

And Peter Nelson votes yes.

That variance is granted.

On case two zero two six-dv one-zero two one, David Duncan votes yes, John Walski votes yes, and Peter Nelson votes yes.

That variance is granted.

And on case two zero two six-d v one-zero two three, David Duncan votes yes, John Walski votes yes, and Peter Nelson votes yes.

The variance is granted.

So anybody that was just in for those can feel free to exit.

And then Marty, as the room clears, feel free to call the first case.

Case number two zero two six-dv one-zero one two amended property address three six seven five West 11th Street.

Wayne Township Council District Number 12, zoned D5.

The petitioners are Manuel Alonzo Marufo Villa and Maria Elena Marufo, represented by Epifano Carvajal, requesting variants of development standards of the consolidated zoning and subdivision ordinance to provide for the construction of a detached garage with a three-foot side setback, seven feet required, a four-foot rear setback, five feet required, and within an easement, encroachment into easements prohibited.

Accessed by a driveway, resulting in a thirty-three foot width of parking area in the front yard.

Parking areas limited to 30 foot widths in front yards.

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

Excuse me.

I am the petitioner.

You're the petitioner.

Okay, I need you to raise your right hand so I can swear you went.

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.

Thank you.

Thank you.

All right, you'll have up to 15 minutes for your comments.

Thank you.

My name is Epifanio Carvajal, 1338 Fletcher Avenue, Indianapolis, Indiana.

Requesting the variance of developing the standards.

Can we please see the side side plane?

Okay.

Thank you.

If you see the farther eastern part, we have uh 35 feet.

What is required is five feet.

But the just very small portion of the western side is where uh we have only four feet instead of uh five.

Uh and there, so it's just a little corner.

Um, on the eastern part of the structure, um, we encroach into the east main one foot.

We have three feet, a seven feet is required.

Um we have obtained a letter from IS having allowing us to do that.

Um if we can see the aerial map.

Uh, right there.

Um, all of the existing accessory structures on that street are pretty much within three feet of uh side setback.

Uh that is on the case.

I know it's that's in justified those guys building or starting to build that proposed structure with a permitting.

Um, we also I'm also aware that there were so many violations on this case, um, which they have been resolved, most of them.

Um the parking from um commercial vehicles, they've been relocated.

Um the storage of uh the equipment is being gone also.

So um we're working with them to bring the property into compliance, helping to solve uh all those issues, do you have any other comments at this time?

No, I think that should be that.

Is there anyone else speaking in support of the petition today?

And then is there anyone here in opposition to this petition?

2026 DV1012.

All right, just wanted to confirm.

Uh let's go to staff comments, please.

Okay.

Uh thank you, Chairperson Nelson, uh, members of the board uh for your time, and thank you as well to the petitioner for your comments.

Um, our staff is recommending denial this afternoon of the four requested variance, seeking to retroactively justify placement of unpermitted improvements at the subject site.

Uh, this is a triangularly shaped residential parcel, so somewhat irregular in that regard.

It's about a quarter of an acre in size, and it fronts on 11th Street to the north.

As of 2023, the site contained a single family home and detached garage to the west of the house accessed from 11th street.

Um that's known in the older aerial that's right up there on the screen on page 50 of your packet.

Uh, properties within a residential context, uh the only ability to access the site is via multiple local streets of our appear to be homes to the north end to the east, as well as a rail line to the southwest, and there are overhead power lines that run roughly parallel to the eastern property line as well.

Uh several recent improvements were undertaken at the site without permits in place, um, a gravel driveway and parking area were added along the eastern portion of the site in 2024.

No driveway permit was obtained, and that gravel drive was in addition to the existing detached garage and paved area in front of the house, as shown on the diagram there.

Additionally, in 2025, construction began on a second detached scratch within the southeastern portion of the site with a size of approximately 1,188 square feet.

No permits for software out addition either.

Photos of the partially constructed building are within the exhibits of the of your staff reports, and that construction resulted in the opening of a violation case.

In addition onto the house, the setback encroachments from the new detached garage, the outdoor storage of miscellaneous debris in vehicle parts, commercial vehicle parking, the width of drive areas in the front yard, as well as unpermitted commercial contractor operations.

So this variance does not mention all of those things, obviously.

If not mentioned within the variance blurb, this approval today would not allow for those improvements, uses, etc.

to remain.

And to be very clear, approval today would not be permission for additional commercial activity, which could remain citable if unresolved.

Based on discussion with the petitioner, that violation and staff's review, it appears that the following four variances are would be required or are being sought today.

The first two relate to setbacks.

I think that should be seven, actually, my apologies.

And three feet from the southwest property line when five would be required from there as well.

Photo number two within staff's report shows the power lines along the eastern property line.

Because of those overhead power lines, there's a four-foot easement that runs parallel to the boundary.

This garage was partially built into that easement.

There are additionally rules within an ordinance about the width of paved parking areas and front yards.

A maximum of 30 feet would be allowed.

Currently, there's 59 feet of driveway area within the site's front yard per that diagram that was provided on page 51 of your staff report.

The petitioners indicated that they would reduce the eastern driveways width from 19 feet to 10 feet, and they would also remove some of the paved area in front of the house to reduce the overall front yard paved area from 59 feet to 33 feet.

Disapproval wouldn't exempt them from fixing other areas of the violation.

It also wouldn't exempt them from DPW rules about the number of driveways for residential properties.

Even if this variance were to be approved today on the zoning front, my understanding is that a driveway permit likely couldn't be issued to allow for a second access point off of 11th from the property, and not enforcement issue might remain in place.

This property is zoned D5, which is one of the city's walkable neighborhood districts.

The near west neighborhood plan similarly recommends it for a residential density of five to eight dwelling units per acre.

Another portion of our comprehensive plan, RV infill housing guidelines, which indicate that setbacks should reflect the existing spacing on the block, and the front yards should utilize trees, landscape, and green areas for both aesthetic and sustainability reasons.

Don't identify any site-specific practical difficulty to justify grant of these variances.

Permanent review could also confirm that the structure would be meeting applicable building codes, fire codes, and then applicable drainage or driveway requirements as well.

It seems like of those at minimum, the driver requirement might pose an issue for keeping this property as it's currently developed.

Setback regulations more generally exist for adequate separation between structures on adjoining lots of reasons of public safety, maintenance, settings, and privacy.

The triangular shape of this lot is irregular, but staff does note a couple things here.

There is a substantial rear yard setback exemption that exists for detached structures in residential zoning areas, five feet instead of a typical 20 that might be applicable.

And the unpermitted garage placement doesn't appear to either meet the standard 20 foot or even that extensive five-foot exception.

The size of the garage placed here is, as mentioned, 1,188 square feet, which is comparable to the size of the primary structure.

And a smaller garage could likely have five feet of separation to the east and to the south.

Commercial functions with the bait at the site, and there is also a different detached garage already existing on the property.

No specific ordinance requirement requires the placement of two detached garages or the number of parking spaces shown.

Staff feels that pathways might exist for placement of a detached structure in this area that might meet setbacks and not be reliant upon a second driveway access point.

It would create the compliance issues both with the front yard paving areas as well as with the DPW rules.

To the extent that any difficulty might exist from the odd triangular shape, we feel to grant these variances at minimum wouldn't constitute minimal relief from ordinance rules.

As mentioned, both setback concerns are also have a related variance for placement within the easement.

Typically development with main easements is disallowed since improvements there might interfere with maintenance or access to power lines by AES or other related entities.

We received a letter in May indicating their support and that letters within staff's report as well.

With regards to the driveway variants, we do appreciate the removal of some of the front yard paving areas to better approximate the 30-foot standard.

But again, we note the DPW would be unlikely to grant permission for the second driveway from the property anyway.

And that's not something that would be able to be approved by this body or by zoning relief.

We also note contrast between the amount of paving there and neighboring properties to the east where front yards appear to be uh predominantly made up by by grass or uh landscaped areas.

Um ultimately we don't feel that site-specific practical difficulty here exists to justify deviation from the ordinance to this extent.

For those reasons, we recommend denial and are hopeful that alternate options could be explored to allow for some form of smaller structure, maybe not utilizing a second unpermitted driveway for access.

And happy to answer questions that you might have.

Board, any questions for staff at this time?

I have a question.

Um, you know, looking at the site plan, I can see what the proposed uh concrete patio and uh the new proposed driveway in front of the existing garage, and then obviously the proposed gravel driveway with the secondary curb cap.

But my question is on the existing garage structure on the west side of the property, west side of the residence.

Do we know what the pre-existing driveway look like?

And if we don't approve this, how how do we how will we know what it's supposed to go back to, or how would the petitioner know what it's supposed to go back to?

Well, um, I guess aerial photography would exist to in some part verify the extent of paved area that would have been in front of the house and of the driveway.

Um, slide page number 50 on the staff report shows what that looked like in 2023 before it appears an unpermitted additions began to be placed at the property.

Uh, my understanding is that the petitioner is also proposing to remove some paved area to reduce the overall width from the 69 feet shown on page 51, just one page down from there, Adrian, to being 33 feet in general.

So a narrow drive to the east, and then reducing some of the paved area to the west there as well.

Okay.

And then I just have a follow-up question.

So the southwest corner of that existing garage, is that a five foot four setback or six foot four?

Either either way, I think that's more than five feet, correct?

This would be the existing garage set of west of the house.

That's correct.

It looks like it has a legally non-conforming setback.

My guess is that it would be substantially less than five feet, but I I don't know that's specific measurement.

It might be marked on the site plan.

All right.

They're calling it six six four, maybe.

That's what I there's a there's a number there, but I just wanted to make sure I understood what that number is.

Just looking at the aerial, it appears that that would be closer than five.

Um, thank you.

All right, at this time we can go back to the petitioner.

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

Thank you.

Uh the homeowner is aware of um all the violations that he has.

Um, he admits that he done wrong.

He knows his property, but he's not being his property, he's not allowed to do whatever he please.

Um he's willing to bring the property into compliance as soon as possible.

Uh permit applications for ILP for the addition to the uh existing uh primary structure has been uh applied for everything right now, it's been applied for.

Um this uh the new structure is holding uh the ILP for everything.

So as soon as if uh the variance gets granted, I will say within the month, month and a half, he should everything should be in compliance.

Um otherwise we have to re um resubmit everything for the proposed detached garage, and it will take probably a couple of months or so.

Um I don't know what he plans to do, but he's okay with not having another driveway to the to the garage.

I don't know what use he's gonna have for.

If it's storage or whatever, but he says like if the 10 feet wide proposed driveway uh will not be accepted that he's fine with that taking it out.

Um, there we are, the real setback, uh say 90% of it complies with the code, except that little corner right there, all right.

Any other comments?

Any questions from the board?

All right.

Then board, I'm gonna ask you to go ahead and cast your ballot for petition 2026 DV1012.

On case 2026-dv1-012 amended, David Duncan votes no, John Walski votes yes, and Peter Nelson votes no.

The vote is indecisive, so the petition will be continued to the July 7th, 2026 hearing.

Thank you.

Case number 2026-UV1-009 property address 3002 East 56th Street, Washington Township, Council District Number 3, Zoned C3.

The petitioner is Siobhan Watson, represented by Table Holdings, DBA Every Day Auto requesting variants of use of the consolidated zoning and subdivision ordinance to permit an auto sales business not permitted in the C3 zoning district.

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

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

Say I do.

I do.

Thank you.

Uh I will remind members of the audience that petitioners and remonstrators will have a total of 15 minutes of testimony and five minutes of rebuttal.

I would also like to excuse me.

I would also like to confirm, is there a city counselor present today speaking on this petition?

Okay.

So generally we go petitioner remonstrators for their totals of 15 minutes, and then we can go to you for an unlimited time.

Similar after staff comments, rebuttal, petitioner remonstrators, and then you can speak again.

Of course, I'm willing if the board has no concerns.

If you want to chime in, or join the petitioner remonstrators' comments, but generally there's a lot of people here, so yeah, we'll uh we'll we'll try to get there 15 minutes and then let you have your time as well.

So thank you.

All right, um let's go start with petitioners' name and address for the record before anyone begins to speak, please, just so we can get that and then total of 15 minutes.

Thank you, everyone.

Good afternoon.

Siobhan Watson, 3004 East 56th Street, Indianapolis, Indiana, 4620.

We presented, we filed a petition for the um auto sales.

We also included, I noticed that in the petition overview, it does not include the commitments that we were willing to make.

We did submit this to uh DWD in a timely fashion to add to that information.

So I just like to explain what we the commitments were.

Um we asked for a maximum of 10 vehicles kept on site at any time.

All vehicles will be located on the east side of the building.

That site plan is also included.

Sales will be conducted by appointment only, so no walk-in traffic.

Test drives will be directed to East 56th Street, um, toward Keystone Avenue to avoid neighborhoods.

That was one of the concerns that were mentioned.

Um, no additional signing for the auto sales besides the monument, which is already there with the individuals present in the building, so we wouldn't weren't going to add anything different.

Um hours of operation were limited to nine to six Monday through Saturday, still scheduled by appointment only.

There were going to be no outdoor events, promotions, or amplified sound on the property, and the property will always be meant to maintain as it has been in a clean and orderly manner with no storage of inoperable inoperable vehicles or car repairs, and exterior lighting would be low intensity and directed downward to prevent impact on other neighbors.

One of the things we did add was uh we had a community meeting uh to discuss these commitments, so that was shared, but one of the things we were asked is if we would be on test drives with uh the customers, and we said no at that time.

I shared with councilman uh Dan Boots that we would ride with the uh drive testers.

Um again, one of some of the information that was in the uh information scene was just high intensity.

How is this going to affect the traffic, things like that?

Um again, because it's only 10 vehicles, we would only appeal to a probably a marginal uh group of people.

Initially, and we do anticipate one one day opening up a larger dealership, but because we have such a large space, there's 54 parking spaces.

Um we again we only intend on using 10 for the vehicles, but we have 66 staff members right now.

Um, we did a poll, and it probably 25 percent don't own vehicles.

Um, we've as a company we've paid so much for Ubers to have our staff get to their clients' homes and things like that.

So we can definitely help those people to acquire vehicles at a lower cost because of the you know the overhead, we don't need to earn a whole lot on a vehicle.

So we can help out in that way, but also the general public, so anyone is able, but again, because we have limited space for vehicles, only ten, we don't foresee um this impacting traffic in any way as far as um where our task test drivers travel, whether they're going down residential roads, we will be with them to make sure that that does not occur.

Um so we will be able to monitor speed and the flow of traffic.

Um while I don't see that a car dealership helps the the trail that we're on or it helps um in that regard, aesthetically we plan on improving the build-in phase, which adds to it.

I just don't believe it takes away from the goals of the community.

Also, we'd like to add to um camouflage those vehicles to add shrubbery and some just nice things like that to um take away from the display.

If you're able to go to the site plan, so the vehicles will be hot held on the east side of the the building.

There is currently 17 parking spaces on that side.

Only 10 will be used for vehicles.

Um there's a green space just to the east as well in front.

So we would uh that is where we would put the shrubbery and things like that.

Also in that grassy area to the front, that's where the monument sign is currently, and we would just only be adding everyday auto to the sign, nothing in addition.

So there will be no other signs indicating a lot we would our sales will be conducted or shown really online, and people who are interested in what's online could come in and test drive a car by appointment.

That is all I have.

Is there anyone else speaking in support of the petition today?

All right.

Any any questions from the board?

I have one question.

Um I just want to make sure.

So we were provided a copy of the plan of operation that had the commitments that you enumerated.

And I just wanted to make sure so the commitments that are in this plan of operation, together with the two you mentioned, which I'll restate state, an employee of the petition will be will be present in all test drives in the vehicle with with all test drives.

Yes.

And a landscaping plan to be approved by staff administration if this is approved.

Are you in agreement with those commitments and that those can be memorialized and recorded against the property?

Absolutely.

All right, thank you.

All right.

Um then at this point we can move to remonstrance.

So anyone in opposition um can come up and speak.

Again, total of 15 minutes for anyone speaking in opposition.

Um, so yeah, go ahead and then name and address for the record before you begin speaking.

Members of the board, my name is Greg Zubek, and I'm an attorney with Woodeman Zubet offices at 10475 Cross Point Boulevard Indianapolis, Indiana 46256.

I represent PolyPanda Preschool and Child Development Center Inc., which operates a preschool at 2944 East 56th Street in Indianapolis.

Uh with me today is um Heather Hutchinson, who is an administrator with PolyPanda, and who can answer any questions, should you have any uh for our part of the remonstrance.

I understand that there are lots of people here uh who want to speak, so I'm gonna try and I will leave some time for them to come up.

I don't know how many people there are that want to speak to this, but looks like quite a few.

Um as I mentioned, uh PolyPanda is across the uh immediately across the street from the subject property, just west on Parker.

The first, I've only I've given you um just a couple of uh aerials to show what the property is.

You can see in the first aerial, which comes out of the staff report where the property is located, it's outlined in blue.

PolyPanda is immediately to the left or to the east of that uh sub of the subject property.

Uh it has been there since uh uh 1984, it is continuously operated there.

PolyPanda is a permitted use uh at this property.

It has children aged under one to uh pre-kindergarten enrolled there.

Uh uh the second uh uh document here shows I've cross-hatched in red the subject property, which is zone C3, you'll see, and then across uh the street across Parker Avenue to the west is uh my client's property, the polypanda property.

Um the subject property is approximately 0.98 acres, and per the property record card, the public record, it was acquired in November of 2025 by uh Ms.

Watson who just spoke for 750,000.

The subject property is zone C3, it has an office building thereon.

Uh as I say, that's outlined in blue on the first uh exhibit, the aerial.

Uh polypanda is across the street.

Uh after about five months of purchase uh of the subject property.

This petition was filed uh for the um car oper car lot car sales.

Uh the petitioner has stated, at least it's in the public record that it's been submitted that uh Ms.

Watson has leased space here for three years prior to the purchase.

So she was obviously uh familiar with the subject property at the time it was purchased for uh some $750,000.

As the Board of Zoning Appeals knows, uh there are five tests for a use variance that have to be met.

Uh this is a pretty substantial uh deviation from the use that's permitted.

Uh, it would take a C5 zoning to have a car lot.

This is zone C3.

You can see from the second um exhibit that I've given you that there's a lot of residential around the subject property.

Uh there's my client is zone C1, uh and and there's really nothing uh that is uh as intense as the C5 near there.

Uh the five tests have to be met.

I'm gonna I'm gonna talk about those because I don't think that the findings of fact reflect reasons to uh to grant a variance in this case, but I'm gonna talk particularly about three, four, and five very quickly.

Three says the need for the variance arises for some condition peculiar to the property involved.

There's nothing uh peculiar about this property.

It's an office building on a rectangular parcel uh that's.98 acres.

It's been used as an office building.

It was purchased in November of last year for $750,000 as an office building.

Item four, the strict application of the terms of the zoning ordinance will constitute an unnecessary hardship if applied to the property for which the variance is sought.

The strict application does not create a hardship.

It has been an office building, it still is an office building.

Uh the law, as you I'm sure is aware, is that economic opportunity or loss cannot enter into a determination of unnecessary hardship.

Five, the approval does not interfere substantially with the comp plan.

Uh and I'll say the petitioner really makes no statement relative to the comp plan.

The petition was filed, not on the forms that we're so used to seeing, uh, and and a reference to what the comprehensive plan says.

Uh, the comp plan is two things, as you know.

It is a it is maps for wash here in this case in Washington Township, and then it has the pattern book, and the and the the property is uh zoned for uh commercial office C3.

Uh the the map show the current use as office commercial and the typology in the comp plan is office commercial.

The pattern book is recent, passed in 2019.

This is not some ancient document that's been around a long time.

It's right in the staff report, and this C5 use is not at all compatible with the comprehensive plan.

It's it's incumbent upon the petitioner to meet these five tests.

We don't think that they have met any of the five tests.

The staff report in the petition overview section comprehensively and painstakingly points out how vehicle sales do not fit in this neighborhood.

And I will leave it to Josh and the planning staff to expand on that and talk about that in this in the staff report because time is is so uh precious here today, and other people want to speak.

Uh, I'll say, penultimately, there is no support for this variance.

As I understand it, there has been an online petition.

I didn't put it together, but when I was out there on the property on Sunday, the neighbor to the um north of the property.

Um, when I was out there walking along the property and taking some pictures, that neighbor indicated that there had been a website developed uh against this, and some 400 people have signed a petition.

Perhaps someone's gonna speak uh to that today.

So there is a total lack of support uh for this for this uh petition and this business.

Uh certainly I'm I and Josh indicated to me that he had some 28 or 30 uh letters that had come in uh to staff, all opposed to this.

Uh councillor Boots uh has written a letter uh also um where he is uh stated in no uncertain terms his opposition uh to this rezone.

Finally, as you are aware, uh it is up to the petition to meet the five requirements for variance of use.

Uh, that has not been done.

Even if the petitioner were to be deemed to have met the five requirements, it is still in the discretion of the Board of Zoning Appeals to grant a variance.

And in this case, there is no reason for the grant of the variance.

There is light, this is there is light commercial and residential nearby.

The nickel plate trail, which has been uh obviously developed very recently, is almost adjacent to this property, um, and and the um petitioner bought this property with its current zoning and should now uh should not now only five months after the purchase complain that the property can't be used in accordance with proper zoning.

Uh we respectfully request that the Board of Zoning Appeals deny this petition.

Uh as I said, I think as I understand it, some 400 people plus have signed uh a petition that's been generated by the neighborhood uh against this.

Uh with that, I'm gonna there's some time left.

I want to leave it for others who've taken the time to come down here and speak.

Uh, I expect that they will reiterate much of what I've said.

Thank you for your attention to this matter.

We respectfully request that the BZA deny this request for use variants, which is wholly incompatible with both the current development, the zoning, and the comprehensive plan.

Thank you.

Good afternoon, members of the board.

My name is Dr.

Keith Pierce.

I'm a resident of 5735 North Parker Avenue, which is 10 residential houses away from the proposed variants, 2026 UV 1009.

Additionally, I'm a pediatrician and a founder of the poll petition online of the against the proposed variants and represent those in part who couldn't attend this hearing today.

Um, appreciate your time and your service to the city.

So I'll keep my thoughts very brief.

Um, as you know, in your position, it is very difficult to get anybody to agree on anything.

Um, and in the two months since this proposed zoning appeal, we have collected now to the counselor's point 526 signatures.

Um, a majority of them with individualized comments and reasons for uh uh being against this variance.

Many of those are parents uh of uh parents of children at the daycare and at the preschool, which is immediately west of the proposed address of the variants.

And I have shared that list um both with the council um and with councilman Boots and Barth by email yesterday.

Um we obviously don't have time to go through 426 comments, um, but in summary, the opposition is grounded in the properties of existing C3 zoning, which does not permit auto sales, the proximity to Polypanda Preschool at 2944 East 56th Street and the adjacent nickel Plate trail, and as well as the traffic and slight line concerns at 56 and Parker intersection.

I appreciate your time and your service to our city and uh in this manner and encourage you to deny the request of variance 2026 UV 1009.

Um thank you.

I yield the remainder of my time to other speakers.

Hello, my name is Dr.

Lauren Windling, and I uh serve as the president of North Kessler Manor Neighborhood Association, the neighborhood that's directly adjacent to the Brockt area where the slot is proposed.

I'm also the mother of a three-year-old daughter who attends Polypanda Preschool, which is located directly across from the site.

Um so I'm speaking on behalf of parents from PolyPanda and the North Kessler Manor residents who oppose this proposed rezoning.

Real quick, sorry, uh could you state your address for the record as well?

Oh, I'm sorry, yes.

No, you're fine.

Uh 2625 East 57th Street.

Thank you.

Go ahead.

Um, so the request is especially concerning because the property appears to have been purchased with the intention of using it outside of its existent zoning.

The applicant also does not appear to have meaningful experience operating a used car business, yet is asking for approval for use that would directly affect nearby homes and a preschool.

Uh the combination raises concerns about foresight, planning, and the reliability of the commitments being offered.

Um data also suggests that a small used car lot of approximately 10 vehicles would not necessarily dramatically alter the surrounding neighborhoods, but it does support a more limited and important conclusion that this type of property is used to create localized negative impacts in the immediate area.

Um data from the um from a lot of different sources, which I can share with you, indicates that property values from the immediate area would likely decrease by an average of 2.5%.

Uh, crime and nuisance activity would uh in the immediate area typically tend to increase on an average of 5%, and traffic accidents and incidents in the area in the immediate area uh data suggests would increase by an average of 6%.

Um so these figures are just planning estimates uh derived from local traffic safety data and general land use data, um, not specific measurements for that exact plot.

However, um there are also serious concerns about enforceability.

Um, we've heard a lot of optimistic insurances about restricted growth and limited inventory, lighting controls, test driving behaviors, but there are no real meaningful guarantees that this will the customer will avoid neighborhood streets and that the business will remain small in practice.

Um so our position is that the application should be denied, but if the board is inclined to approve it, uh then approval should not be unconditional.

Um it should include specific enforceable protections for the neighborhood and for the preschool directly across the street.

Um I have a handout of what our neighborhood, North Kessler Manor, would like to see in any commitments that are um or that any commitments would be uh included in an approved petition.

Um so the concern is simple.

If the use is placed here, it should come with real safeguards that prioritize child safety, neighborhood compatibility, and quality of life.

Um so I thank you for your consideration.

Hi, I am Audrey Spear.

Um I live at 5638 North Axert Street, 46200.

It's two streets over a street next to Parker, so the Botton neighborhood.

Um I encourage you to deny this reverence request, specifically C3 states, car auto sales are not allowed.

And then there is a section 732 215A, where um exceptions are allowed due to the type of business, and auto sales is not included in that session under the code.

Um I sent a letter to the councilman and the city here.

Um, I walk that trail, it's adjacent to this building.

It was 30.

I walked Sunday.

It was 35 steps from the driveway to the trail.

Um there's no reason for auto sales.

It's gonna attract crime and decrease from our neighborhood.

And on my section of the street from 5600 block to the fifth 5700 block, there are at least 20 kids.

Our neighborhood is walkable, and we like to continue to keep it walkable and safe.

Lindsay Rowland, uh Lindsay Rowland, 5621 North Parker Avenue.

Um I'm directly behind and I share the fence line with this property.

I'm here on behalf of um the neighbors that can't make it to speak.

Um we ask that you please deny this.

We're uh concerned it will bring crime and blight and uh threaten the awesome neighborhood we uh love and are grateful to be a part of.

Uh we're concerned about our property values declining.

Um I work in auto sales uh for over 10 years.

We have nonstop problems with crime, just the the vehicles attracting crime.

Um that's a huge concern in our neighborhood.

Uh thank you.

All right, that is time for remonstrance comments.

So at this time, uh we can go to the city councilor comments.

Um your comments are untimed.

Thank you, Chairman, and thank you, members of the board.

Uh, my name is Dan Boots, and I am the city county counselor for district three.

Um this subject property is located in that uh my district.

Um I won't bore you with just a regurgitation of all the other points, just a couple highlights.

Um basically, this is just the wrong use in the wrong location, uh, in our opinion.

Um it's besides the nickel plate trail, which has been the biggest economic development effort in my area.

Um it was a result of uh a $400,000 study by the Department of Metropolitan Development on how to revitalize Northeast Corridor of Marion County, and uh the primary catalytic recommendation of that study was a nickel plate trail.

Uh putting a used car operation within 60 feet of that trail is not consistent with that effort, and we think would undermine uh the efforts that are currently uh undergoing um to revitalize the area and to uh make the nickel plate trail as commercially successful as we can.

Um this property is also immediately adjacent and restricted protected area.

Uh it has a contiguous border with the homes and uh immediately north of it, uh immediately west of it, right across the street has been has been stated as a uh polypanda preschool.

A lot of cars coming and going, children around, and also there's an issue there of a the intersection of Parker and 56 is an elevated site, or if you will, the topography, and there's a hill that leads from uh the west up to Parker Street right where the preschool is.

And if you're coming out of Parker onto 56th street, there is a blocked line of sight to the east, right where the school is.

So there are cars coming over a hill immediately, then you hit Parker.

So coming out of Parker can be a dangerous intersection, and adding more traffic, any traffic there, uh, is a detriment and potential danger to uh particularly the children at Polypanda and the parents and families there.

As has been stated, it's currently a C3 area.

Auto sales are not recognized and not encouraged whatsoever in this zone, um, not until you get down to a Z5 or C5, rather, is auto sales a matter of right, and that is a big issue.

With the uh preschool environment, again, used cars not in line with that setting.

Uh outdoor inventory of vehicles is always an issue.

I know there are some even car repair shops in the area that will not allow you now to leave your car there overnight for the fear of catalytic converter theft.

So having 10 cars out there every night in that area can only encourage potential crime.

So that is another issue that gives us some concern.

The biggest risk here is not to the petitioners.

They bought the property with full knowledge of the restrictions to it.

Taking their risk and adding it and imposing it upon the families and the kids and the nearby families and residents is contrary to the intent of zoning and why we're here today.

So we think this is counterintuitive to allow such a thing.

Enforcement is always an issue as well, as we know, particularly in zoning, and uh anybody within BNS will tell you that.

Uh, business and neighborhood services that we we can write all the rules we want, uh, but until they're enforced and how they're enforced, uh, and the additional burden that places upon public resources.

Uh, just to enforce these rules, is also I think a reason to deny this.

Um, it does not again advance the trail corridor at all.

It does not meet the comprehensive plan.

Um, it is so near the protected district of the homes nearby that it I think adds an additional and heightens the burden for the petitioner to prove the suitability of this.

Um, and I think with all these reasons and and possibly more, um, I encourage the board to deny this uh petition, and I appreciate your time.

Thank you.

Thank you, counselor.

Um, at this point, we can go to staff comments, please.

Yes, thank you, Chairman Nelson and members of the board.

Um, half will just point out, starting uh with the fact that this parcel is zone three zone C three, excuse me, and uh the land use plan contemplates this parcel as office commercial, as we've heard earlier.

Uh the uh petition request here is to allow for auto sales within a C3 district, as we've also heard automobile sales are not considered a by right use until the C5 district.

As we take a look at the ordinance, uh they label the C3 district as a neighborhood commercial district, and I'll quote from that.

It is for the development of an extensive range of retail sales and personal professional and business services required to meet the demands of a fully developed residential neighborhood.

The ordinance does go on to say that it does not allow those businesses that require the outdoor display, sale, or storage of merchandise, or require outdoor operations.

In contrast, the C5 district is designed to provide areas for those retail sales and service functions whose operations are typically characterized by automobiles.

When we take a look at office commercial, that is a far deviation from that definition.

And staff will note that while there are some adjacent properties, as there is to the east, which houses a concrete manufacturing and distribution center that is zoned I2, this property does predate the ordinance, and as such would be considered a legal nonconformity.

Um as we take a look at the surrounding context, East 56th Street itself does not give the appearance of a heavy commercial corridor.

Furthermore, the ordinance indicates that the C5 district should avoid locating near protected uses, and that also means the uses of a C5 district.

The property sits directly south of a D3 district with D5, D2, and D3 further along East 56th Street in both directions.

A variance of use to allow such intensity would go against the ordinance's intention to buffer heavy commercial and residential uses.

Finally, a variance of use is intended for situations where use has not been contemplated in the ordinance, or the personal in question has no other viable use.

The current C3 zoning district, the office commercial land use designation, and previous use as an office building all point to a variety of by-right uses available to the petitioner.

Staff will also note that the ordinance makes no distinction between the number of vehicles on a lot, a a automobile use is an automobile use, whether that be 10 or 50 cars, it is the intensity of the use uh that uh brings us up to a C5 type district.

Given that this request isn't is not compatible with the land use plan, would go against the ordinance's intentions to buffer heavy commercial and residential districts, and the fact that there are a number of buy right uses available to the petitioner, staff recommends denial of this petition.

However, if this petition is approved, uh despite this, uh staff would ask for the commitment on landscaping to be subject to admin approval.

Board, any questions for staff?

Um just on that last point, did do you feel like what the petitioner committed to in their testimony, the last point was sufficient to address landscaping being subject to admin approval, or do you think that we need something further on that?

I think maybe just from a compliance aspect and also just to make sure it meets uh standards.

I think yeah, the admin approval would be great.

Thank you.

All right.

If there are no additional questions, we can go back to the petitioner.

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

Um I'd like to just reiterate uh something I didn't mention.

My husband and I live have lived about 15 years, just eight minutes away.

So we are in that area.

Again, we purchased the building recently, but we've been in the building for three years.

I'd like to think we've been great neighbors.

Um, we throw back to school uh bashes, and it everyone in the community has benefited for that.

This will be our third year in August doing it.

So we've been great neighbors.

As far as enforcement, we don't plan to do anything that is going to draw attention or reflect on us in a negative way.

Um, one of the other things is hardship was mentioned.

It is not a hardship for us directly per se, but when you think about the people and the staff that we could help, that can't be quantified.

Um I'd share with some members here or people who are here.

My own daughter got a car and she paid a 18% interest rate.

Unbeknownst to me, but I would like to prevent my staff from having to do that.

Um that's not something she can even afford to pay or things like that.

So if we can help in a way, that was the whole premise of doing it.

Um if I'm not mistaken, I believe Pali Panda was maybe rezoned at some point, so and they provide a good service for the community, and I think we will as well.

We have reviewed other options to use the space for, but because of the manufacturing company and the debris, the pollution is not ideal for a lot of things that we would have been interested in, would love to do.

So that's one of the other things.

Um, and again, it's just low intensity.

I know, like the like he said, it's a dealership, um, nonetheless, but it is low impact, low intensity, it will not take away from the community.

Um we plan to do some aesthetic upgrades and things like that again.

Um, plants uh re uh surfacing the building, things like that to add to the atmosphere.

Um I think that is all we have.

Um, and I appreciate your time.

I I have a question if you don't mind.

Um, so is this the only proposed use of the building, or are there other occupants, tenants, users of the building and its current we mainly purchase it for ourselves.

Um, once everything's done, there would probably be two empty offices we could rent out, but again, with uh with the pollution, it may be hard, I'm not sure.

Um, we plan to have an adult day center, and we currently, right now, have a home care office in the building.

Okay.

Um, so that that when I was looking at the site plan, there are a lot more parking spaces than just 10, and it looked like the building kind of had subdivided premises within the I don't know that is divided per se as far as parking.

Um right now, R T Lee is in the building.

They use with their staff about 16 of those parking spaces.

They plan to move actually this month.

So my staff, there's about five of us in that office already.

So with the 10 cars and our five, we'll with the adult day center.

We uh we'll probably add about three to four cars just with people we hire and um buses.

We would probably get one or two buses to uh transport, but for that particular business, usually the seniors don't drive.

Yeah, um, we will be picking them up.

So we would I mean once RS is gone, it'll be maybe 10 to 12 of our own work vehicles on the lot and then the others.

So there's probably 25 spaces left after that.

Okay, thank you.

Um, and then I just wanted to follow up on staff's comment and just reiterate that you this is a question.

Okay, you're in agreement that if this is approved today, it would be subject to the to the staff administrators' approval of a landscape plan that complies with the ordinance.

Yes.

All right, thank you.

Thank you.

All right, we can go back to remonstrators again, up to five minutes for uh your your comments.

Greg Zubek again for polypanda, and again, I'll be short to leave time for others uh who may be requesting uh an opportunity to speak.

Uh interesting that the petitioner said it is not a hardship for the petitioner.

Well, you know, the zoning ordinance talks about where is a hardship.

It says the need for the variance arises for some condition peculiar to the property involved.

There's nothing peculiar about this property.

It's a rectangular piece with an office building that's been there for years and years, and the petitioner bought it that way with several office tenants.

Uh the sign that that uh is I think in the staff report shows uh uh a half a dozen uh different uh occupants that are on that sign at least.

Uh the strict application of the terms of the zoning ours will constitute an unnecessary hardship if applied to the property.

Again, we submit that there's no hardship here.

It's an office building, it's zoned for an office building, it's zone C3.

There are a lot of different retail uses that could be put in as Josh pointed out that fit under C3.

This is C5.

This is very intense, a long way from C3, and then we talk about the uh comprehensive plan, and this is far from the comprehensive plan.

So uh I don't think that there's a hardship.

Uh it yeah, she she uh mentioned about other uses.

There is there is the one industrial use, the concrete uh uh company, and oddly, not oddly, but not even ironically, it's adjacent to the railroad, and I would expect that's that years ago when it went in because it predates the zoning of April of uh 1969.

Uh, that I would expect that the railroad going right past that property has something to do with that industrial development.

The railroad is no longer there.

Uh, it's been developed residentially and very low-level commercial.

So we I I I think Counselor Boots said it well.

Wrong use at this location.

So we respectfully request again that uh that the petition be denied.

Um others may wish to speak as well.

Good afternoon.

I'm uh Mark Lawrence and I live nearby and live there for over 30 years, and I've grown up in this area all my life.

So can you state your address for the rest of it?

Okay, my address is 5337 Shorewood Drive, just a couple blocks south of the uh adjacent property, but I know it well.

We walk it um all the time, and I just want to say um I appreciate the fact that they're willing to make concessions for the neighborhood and all that, but it's just the wrong use.

I think all the legal reasons and the hardship reasons and everything else, zoning-wise, it just it's very clear the use is not compatible.

I think the plan is kind of starting to come to fruition with the trail coming in, and certainly we get more trail-friendly um activities along there, which is happening, so and we've seen it happen on the Monon, and I think it's gonna happen on the nickel plate.

But anyway, I just want to say from the neighborhood, and I think pretty overwhelming that our entire uh neighborhood around Lake Max and Hall is in uh not in support of this in any way.

My name is Daniel Miller, uh address is five two five nine Evanston Avenue.

I am a parent of two boys at the preschool across the street.

Um all the zoning reasons and everything that's been laid out before you kind of all you know really resonates, I think.

But at the same time, I think it just comes down to we're excited for the two businesses that they do plan on starting.

They seem very qualified out running those businesses.

Um we want good businesses in our neighborhood.

They don't seem qualified to run a car dealership, they've never done it before.

And you know, the location is one thing.

I just don't think we need it.

And I think as a as a neighborhood, we would welcome in a number of other businesses that would fall into that zoning that's currently at.

So thank you very much for your time today, guys.

And uh please vote to deny.

Anyone else speaking with the remaining time in opposition?

Alright, seeing no one, we can go back to the oh, go ahead.

Go ahead.

Sorry.

I'll just be very quick.

Um, Chris Jacobson, 2630 Ryan Drive.

Um, all of the reasons have been reiterated here.

I believe all the people who stood up at the um initiation who raised their right hands are people that are in opposition to the um granting of this variance, and again, comprehensive plan, nature of the use, um, all of the things that everybody has reiterated, and the fact that even at the community meeting that was held by the petitioners, they indicated that if they did not get this variance, it was not going to be the end of the world to them.

So I think that clearly cuts against the issue of any hardship as to the petitioners, and I think also the 50 uh polypanda's letter indicated, and they had indicated at the community meeting that they would do test drives towards Keystone, which would exactly go by PolyPanda um facility.

So I think that those are other reasons that haven't necessarily been highlighted.

That's all.

Thank you.

Okay, thank you.

All right, at this time we can go back to the counselor for your closing comments if you have any.

Thank you, Mr.

Chairman and Dan Boots again.

Um I won't take much time.

Uh again, I just think this is the wrong use at the wrong location.

Um the petitioners have exercised good faith.

They were willing to meet.

Um I think they do have an aspiring business and they have a good business plan with respect to the adult daycare and the uh in-home care service.

Uh combining that though with an auto-use auto dealership there uh makes no sense to me.

Um, and it makes no sense to the community as has been stated.

Um there's been numerous um contact from the community, many petitioners.

I've received dozens of messages, uh, all in opposition, none in support of so um we're here to support new businesses um that fit the area.

We just do not believe this one does.

Um I also just wanted to confirm that the counselor uh adjacent my district, counselor John Barth at his letter that I think just came in today, got made part of the formal record.

Okay, so we have uh at least three uh two letters from counselors and one letter from Polypanda, and then I know there were I was copying on various other messages from uh residents and uh that hopefully were added to the file as well.

So I just respectfully uh urge the the board to uh deny this petition.

Thank you.

All right, thank you.

Um board, any any questions for anybody at this time?

All right, hearing none, um I would have the board consider the commitments made by the petitioner as stated in the conditions of operation, plus the additional two read by board member Duncan and agreed to by the petitioner as you um consider and then cast your ballot for petition 2026 UV one zero zero nine.

On case two zero two six-UV one-09, David Duncan votes no, John Walski votes no, and Peter Nelson votes no.

The variance is not granted, case number two zero two six-UV one-zero one one property address three nine two two east twenty-sixth street, center township, council district number eight, zoned D5.

The petitioner is fancy towing LLC, represented by Nile Odom, requesting variants of use and development standards of the consolidated zoning and subdivision ordinance to provide for a gravel parking lot to store recently towed vehicles, not permitted, parking areas must be paved with zero foot front, side and rear setbacks, ten foot front setback, five foot side setbacks, and twenty-foot rear setback required, and a six-foot privacy screened fence surrounding the site, maximum three and a half tall fence permitted.

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

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

Say I do.

I do.

Thank you.

Hello, everybody.

My name is Nina Odom.

I'm the petitioner for the property at thirty nine twenty-two East 26th Street.

Uh I'm requesting approval for a limited variance to allow temporary vehicle storage in connection with my tone company.

My goal is to operate in compliance and to use this property responsibly.

Under the current zoning, the property is limited to residential use and based on its location and surrounding conditions.

This is not the most practical use of this property.

What I'm proposing is not a high intensity or industrial operation.

This would be a controlled low impact use involving temporary vehicle storage only.

There would be no dismantling, no repair work, no ongoing activity other than placing and removing vehicles.

This site will be fully secured with privacy fence screen, and I'm aware and understand the staff recommendation and concerns, but I believe this proposal is much more limited and controlled than it may appear, and can operate without changing the characteristics of this area.

My goal is to use this property in a way that reflects how it would how it functions while being responsible to the surrounding community.

You have any other comments at this point?

No, sir.

Alright, anybody else here speaking in support?

All right, is there anyone in opposition to this petition here today?

Okay, seeing no one, I will go to staff comments, please.

Thank you.

That gravel parking lot would have a zero-foot front, side and rear setbacks.

And would also have a six-foot privacy screen fence surrounding the site.

The property is zone D5 and is adjacent to D5 zone parcels on all three sides to the west, north, and south.

Excuse me, east to the south, adjacent property is zone C7.

The purpose of the D5 district is to provide for medium large-scale housing formats, primarily for detached single-family dwellings, but may incorporate small-scale multi-unit buildings as well.

Two properties to the north do have residential dwellings on them.

The two prop adjacent properties to the east and south do not.

Um the proposed use as a commercial parking lot is permitted in any commercial or industrial district, only with the granting of a special exception.

It is not permitted by right in any of those districts.

Staff believes that the proposed use would have an increase in intensity between the existing D5 zoning and its proposed use, including the number of vehicles as outdoor storage, the number of vehicles, tow trucks coming and going.

Staff believes that the approval of this request would overdevelop the site and facilitate the intrusion of other heavy commercial uses into this residential portion of the neighborhood that is north of East 26th Street.

Strict application of the terms of the zoning ordinance does not constitute a practical difficulty.

There are surrounding proper parcels that are also zone D5 and that are zoning compliant as they are developed with residential uh uses.

Therefore, this property could be developed as in a similar manner without the need for any variances.

In regards to the variance of development standards, the proposed use of the site isn't is a non-permitted use, and that non-permitted use also requires the following variants of development standards which are not permitted in the D5 district, that being gravel parking, zero foot front side and rear setbacks for a commercial establishment, and a six-foot privacy screen fence surrounding the site.

As proposed, as the proposed use is noncompliant, so are those these requested accessory uses for that non-compliant use.

The subject site is similar in size to other nearby properties that are zoning compliant and do not need the um and the the size of the lot or the lot itself does not require the need for the variances.

They are basically self-requested for the purpose of the proposed use.

For these reasons, staff does recommend denial of the requested variances along with the requested variance of development standards along with the requested variance of use as well.

Um I would point out that if the property was zoned for light industrial commercials being as the comp plan recommends being um I1 or I2, there would be a limit on the number of outdoor storage and that use as well.

And it would still require a special exception for a commercial parking lot as proposed.

Therefore, staff does recommend denial as proposed and be happy to answer any questions the board may have.

Board, any questions for staff?

Yeah, Wolski.

Uh I have a question on.

Did you say the comp plan recommends that turning into a I2?

It recommends light industrial, which would be equivalent to I1 or I2.

Okay, thank you.

That was similar to my question.

I mean it seems like if if we petitioner were proposing a D5 development, that would be inconsistent with the comp plan.

And it seems like this might be a middle ground step up to getting closer to light industrial.

And so I was wondering instead of just like did objecting to the petition based on the D5 current zoning.

Does it make more sense to propose conditions that would align the proposed use more consistent with light industrial, which is what the comp plan recommends?

If the board is f is compelled to do that, they're welcome to do so.

Upon staff's discussions, we included long-range planners who do um create the comprehensive plan, and it was their position that we protect um the D5 zoning and that the comp that the light industrial in this instance adjacent to the residential to the north would be out of character.

Thank you.

All right, we can go back to the petitioner.

Up to five minutes for your rebuttal and closing comments.

Okay.

Well, I disagree with the activities that I'm proposing.

We'll be out of character for the area for that area.

Directly across the street from this property, there's a uh dump truck company that house 30 something dump trucks, uh, which is uh south of this location.

Uh to the west, I'm sorry, to the uh yeah, to the west of this location, there's already heavy equipment that's being stored to the east location.

There's five properties with heavy equipment already being stored there, and directly to the rear of me, uh there's an alley, and then farther that farther uh that's east, I believe.

There is a couple of homes there.

Uh, but this my hours of hours of operations is from nine to six.

Now overnight activity again.

This is a low intensity operation.

The activity will be low.

I only have one tow truck.

Uh the property, the property only can hold probably 20 vehicles at one time.

Uh and again, the activity that's already been done there now has been been going on for a good at least 20 years.

So uh again, this is my first time found a variant, so a lot of stuff he said I didn't understand, but that's it.

All right, board.

Any questions for the petitioner?

Any other questions, comments from anyone?

If not, uh board, please go ahead and cast your ballot for petition 2026 UV1 011.

On case 2026-UV1-011, David Duncan votes yes, John Walski votes yes, and Peter Nelson votes yes.

The variance is granted.

Thank you.

All right.

Any any other business to come before the board today?

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

Otherwise, this hearing is adjourned.