All right, good afternoon.

Going to 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, Jennifer Witt, and John Wolski.

Legal counsel for the board today is Chris Steinmetz.

Staff members present from the Division of Planning are Bryce Patz, current planning administrator, Jeff York, current planning manager, Adrian Baker, current or principal planner one, Michael Weigel, Principal Planner 1, Robert Ulenhaig, senior planner, Josh Laveck, senior planner, Piper Gall, office assistant and acting board secretary.

The board has copies of the zoning ordinances that'll 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 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.

Petitioner 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.

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

If 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 example.

These conditions and commitments are an integral part of the board's decision and must be met for the 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 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 business 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 all outside of this public hearing is prohibited.

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

And we'll note we do have four members present today.

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

So we will take this into consideration when hearing requests for continuance.

So if your board if your petition receives an indecisive vote, your petition will be automatically continued to the August 4th hearing.

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

All right.

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

Is there a motion?

And a second.

Duncan second.

Alright, call for a vote.

Duncan.

Duncan, yes.

Wolsky.

Yes.

Witt.

Yes.

And Nelson votes yes.

Okay, at this time we will consider special requests and continuances.

Please, I have a special special request for case 2026 UOV 1014 47711 West 10th Street.

I would like to have a two-day waiver for mailing.

Two days.

Yes, please.

Okay.

All right.

Is there anyone in the audience with interest in petition 2026 UV one zero one four?

7711 West 10th Street that would be in opposition to this two-day waiver.

All right, seeing none, I'll ask staff.

Are we comfortable with this waiver request?

Yeah.

Thank you, Chairperson Nelson members of the board.

Uh given that the primary reason the waiver would be needed with staff's own delay in provision of notice materials with a fairly tight turnaround.

Staff not have any objection to the waiver request.

All right.

Board, we have a request for a two-day waiver of the mailing requirement for petition twenty twenty-six UV one zero one four.

Is there a motion?

Duncan so moved.

And a second?

Alright, call for a vote.

Duncan?

Duncan, yes.

Smolski?

Yes.

Witt?

Yes.

And Nelson votes yes.

Thank you.

For the record, will you please state your name and address?

Oh.

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

Abdulmanam Habib.

Address of the properties that require our waiver or my address.

Your name and address, your address.

Thank you.

Andrew Distalrath, 6302 East Raymond Street, Indianapolis, 46203.

This is in regards to case number two zero two six UV1012.

And requesting similar request, two-day uh waiver of notice requirements.

And you said also a two-day request?

Yes.

Okay, thank you.

All right.

Is there anyone in the audience with interest in petition 2026 UV one zero one two at 2355 Westmore Street and 1211 and 1220 South Primont Street?

That would be opposed to this two-day waiver.

All right, seeing none.

Staff, can we get comments on the waiver request?

Uh thank you, Chairperson Nelson.

Members of the board.

Uh for reasons similar to those described for the previous petition.

We would have no objection to the requested waiver.

All right, board, we have a request for a two-day waiver for the mailing on petition 2026 UV1012.

Is there a motion?

Duncan so moved.

And second.

Wit.

Second.

All right, call for a vote.

Duncan.

Duncan, yes.

Bolski?

Yes.

Witt?

Yes.

Nelson votes yes.

Thank you.

Good afternoon, Justin King and addresses 2722 Manker Street, Indianapolis, Indiana 46203 here before you regarding petition 2026 UV 1002, which is the third item on your agenda.

We're seeking a actually a three-month continuance for this case.

We've worked our way through a lot of the issues that were cited in the uh fire inspection by the Pike Township fire department.

The one outstanding item that has yet to be uh resolved is the fire hydrant issue for this uh property, and so therefore we're filing a variance through the state, and we believe that that process will take two to three months.

And so therefore, we're asking for a three-month continuance to your October 6th hearing, and that would be without additional notice.

Um we've reached out and notified PTRA Pike Township's uh res residence association.

They're aware of this request and they had no objection to the continuance.

All right, thank you.

Anyone in the audience with interest in petition 2026 UV 1002, 5301 West 56th Street.

That would be opposed to the continuance to the October 6th hearing.

Alright, seeing none, uh, can we get staff comments, please?

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

Uh staff would know that this petition has been continued several times previously, but these are relatively unique circumstances given the ongoing discussions with the uh the fire department and the state.

Uh our staff feels would be appropriate for those issues to be resolved prior to the zoning questions being brought.

So uh with the hope that this would be the final continuance needed, we would not have any objection.

All right, board, we have I do I have a question.

Um, I believe the petitioner said it would be without additional notice, and I think that typically is the case when we're not changing anything on the request, but we've got three months of three months of delay here.

Is there any concerns about notice?

Uh, just with the period of time elapsed between hearings.

Um, I I don't believe that our rules of procedure would compel them to mail that new notice.

Um it has been a while.

Um, my understanding is that the Pike Township Residence Association is aware of this case and closely monitoring, so if nothing else they would have knowledge and be able to potentially let neighbors who are interested know about the continuance to the October date.

I they're I believe they're aware of this request and have no objection.

All right, thank you.

And is there anyone from the Pike Township Neighborhood Association here today?

I just know they're fairly active, but that weight and responsibility of notice should not fall to a neighborhood organization, in my opinion.

So, seeing nobody.

We'd be agreeable to sending out new notice if it was prepared by staff.

I don't have any issue with that.

We'd be happy to generate an amended notice with the new date.

Okay, thank you.

I I think that's probably a good call.

Um then uh wit.

So move to uh approve that three months.

All right, wit has uh made a motion to approve the continuance to the October 6th hearing for petition 2026 UV1022.

Um that is with notice as prepared by staff.

Um is there a second?

Duncan second.

All right, call for a vote, Duncan?

Duncan, yes.

Polski?

Yes.

Whit?

Wit, yes.

And Nelson votes yes.

Great, thank you.

Then once again, Justin King and addresses 2722 Manker Street here before you regarding petition 2026 UV 1008, uh, item number four on the agenda.

We're seeking a one-month continuance for this petition, uh, as we continue our conversations with staff as well as the Bates Hendricks Neighborhood Association.

Uh we are making minor alterations to the plan.

We don't think that will affect the notice, however.

Um, and so that would that request would be without additional notice.

Happy to answer any questions you may have.

All right, anyone in the audience with interest in petition 2026 UV one zero zero eight, eighteen fifty-two Shelby Street that would be opposed to the continuance to next month's hearing.

All right.

Staff, how do we feel about the request?

Yes, thank you, Chairman Nelson.

Members of the board, uh staff will note this has been continued a few times, not uh solely by the petitioner, but um I think we are hopeful that this would be the final one is as we work to kind of hammer out the details.

Um, and I will note that um I guess if any changes are substantial, then it would be with new notice as as needed.

Uh but at that uh I guess we're not there yet.

Fair enough.

Um, all right.

So board, we have a request to continue petition 2026 UV1008 to the August 4th hearing.

That is without additional notice unless uh needed as determined by staff.

Is there a motion?

Wit so moved.

Second.

Duncan second.

Alright.

Calling for a vote.

Duncan, Duncan, yes.

Wolsky.

Yes.

Wit, yes.

Nelson votes yes.

Great, thank you.

Uh Caleb Safel for 330 North Arsenal Av.

Uh petition number 2026 DV1027.

Uh we'd just like to request a continuance to next month's hearing in order to provide proper notice.

All right.

Anyone in the interest or anyone in the audience with interest in 2026 DV1027?

330 North Arsenal Avenue.

That would be opposed to the continuance to next month's hearing.

Seeing none, staff.

Your comments, please.

Yes.

Thank you again.

Staff has no objection to the continuance.

Uh we do require the affidavit of legal notice to be submitted.

Um, as I understand this would not require new notice, it would just require the affidavit to be submitted, but I defer to council and the administrator.

I mean, it was sent out in time for today's hearing, but the affidavit was not signed.

That's correct.

Um, if he is prepared to sign an affidavit saying that it was mailed on the date that it needed to be mailed on, that would be fine.

If he can't meet that time requirement on the affidavit, then we'll have to go through this again and request another continuance.

But for now, we can um continue it to August 4th, and that affidavit needs to be notarized, correct?

I'm sorry, the affidavit needs to be notarized, correct?

Yes.

Okay.

All right.

So board, we have a request to continue petition 2026 DV1027 to the August 4th hearing.

Uh that is with submission of the affidavit of the notice mailing.

Um, is there a motion to approve?

Duncan so moved.

All right, and a second.

Wit second.

Alright, call for a vote.

Duncan.

Duncan, yes.

Wolski?

Yes.

Wit?

Yes.

Nelson votes yes.

Tripperson Nelson, members of the board, staff will draw your attention to the first item.

Petition 2026 DB1020, located at 6129 South Emerson Avenue.

This petition was amended, but last month the petitioner mailed the wrong legal notice for this hearing.

Therefore, the petitioners requesting this petition be continued one more month to the August 4th.

That would be with new notice with the correct hearing date.

Staff has no objection to this request.

Thank you.

Anyone in the audience with interest in 2026 DV1020 6129 South Emerson that would be opposed to this continuance request?

Alright, seeing none, board, we have a request to continue petition 2026 DV1020 to the August 4th hearing.

That is with new notice.

Is there a motion?

Duncan so moved.

And a second.

Wit second.

Alright, call for a vote.

Duncan?

Duncan, yes.

Wolski?

Yes.

Wit?

Yes.

And Nelson votes yes.

Thank you.

Staff will draw your attention to item number two, petition 2026 DV102826.

My apologies.

28.

Located at 1019 North Bevel Avenue.

On this instance, the petitioner lives out of town in Florida and was not able to mail the legal notices or put up to sign in a timely manner for today's hearing.

Therefore, they're requesting a continuance as well to the octo, excuse me, to the August 4th hearing, and that would be with new notice.

Staff has no objection to that.

Anyone in the audience with interest in 2026 DV1028?

1019 North Bevel Avenue in opposition to the continuance request.

All right.

Board, we have a request to continue 2026 DV1028 to the August 4th hearing with new notice.

Is there a motion?

Duncan so moved.

And a second?

Wit second.

Alright, call for a vote, Duncan.

Duncan, yes.

Wolski?

Yes.

Wit.

Yes.

Nelson votes yes.

Thank you.

Staff will also draw your attention to petition number five.

Petition number 2026 UV1015 located at 1902 East 46th Street.

After uh publication on docketing of the petition, it was determined additional variances were needed.

Therefore, this petition will need to be continued to the August 4th hearing, and that would be with new notice.

All right.

Anyone in the audience with interest in 2026 UV 1015 1902 East 46th Street in opposition to the continuance request.

Seeing none, board, we have a request to continue.

Petition 2026 UV 1015 to the August 4th hearing.

With new notice, is there a motion?

Duncan so moved.

And a second.

Wit second.

All right, call for a vote.

Duncan.

Duncan, yes.

Wolsky.

Yes.

WIT.

Yes.

And Nelson votes yes.

Thank you, Chairperson.

Nelson, members of the board.

Uh staff will draw your attention to item number nine on your agenda 2026 DV1026 at various addresses on Tallman Avenue and Columbia Avenue.

That was brought to our attention yesterday morning that the notice had not yet been mailed or posted for this project, which will require a one-month continuance to the August 4th hearing date.

Staff not be opposed to that request.

All right.

Anyone in the audience with interest in 2026 DV1026 along Tallman and Columbia Avenues.

All right.

Board, we have a request to continue petition 2026 DV1026 to the August 4th hearing.

Is there a motion?

Wit so moved.

And a second.

Wolski second.

Alright, call for a vote.

Duncan?

Duncan, yes.

Wolski?

Yes.

WIT?

Yes.

And Nelson votes yes.

So I would just point out that there is a ballot in your expedited docket packet that you need to pull out so that that doesn't be signed.

Yes.

Board members, please do note the expedited uh ones that we have noted and make sure we remove these from our ballots when we cast those.

Any other requests for continuances or uh special requests?

Yes.

Thank you, Chairman Nelson.

Members of the board, staff will draw your attention to number 12.

Item number 12.

This is for 2026 DV1030 at 1406 South Capitol.

This case does need to be continued to uh the August 4th hearing as as we did not get an affidavit for this.

Um I believe this one will be with new notice as uh staff does have to discuss um a a uh part of the legal notice blurb.

So this will be with new notice as needed.

Okay, thank you.

All right.

Um anyone in the audience with interest in 2026 DV1030, 1406 South Capital Avenue opposed to the continuance request.

Seeing none, board, we have a request to continue petition 2026 DV1030 to the August 4th hearing.

That is with new notice as needed.

Is there a motion?

Duncan so moved.

And a second.

Wit second.

Alright, call for a vote, Duncan.

Duncan, yes.

Wolsky.

Yes.

Wit.

Yes.

Nelson votes yes.

And one more item.

Uh just to add this into the record on the case number 2026 UV three zero zero nine.

Um staff has received updated commitments as to what was um put in the staff report, and staff will just note that this would also remove item number seven from the previous commitments of um 2012 UV 1004.

And staff is in support of that change to the commitments.

Okay, I will acknowledge the change to those commitments and then let any of the rest of the board uh ask if they would like to see those if needed, but otherwise, so acknowledge to those commitments.

Alright, any other special request continuances.

If not, I think we can proceed to the expedited docket.

Petitions to be expedited.

2026 DV1 012 amended 3675 West 11th Street, Wayne Township, Council District number 12, zone D5.

Manuel Alonzo Marufo via and Maria Elena Marupo by Epifanio Carbajal.

Variants of development standards of the consolidated zoning and subdivision ordinance to provide for the construction of a detached structure with a three-foot set side setback, whereas seven foot is required, a four foot rear setback, five foot required, and a within and within an easement, encroachment into easement prohibited.

2026 D V102 amended 510 West Hampton Drive, Washington Township, Council District No.

7, zoned D5, Michael and Sarah Mitchell, represented by Josh Smith, variants of development standards of the consolidated zoning and subdivision ordinance to provide for a three foot side yard setback and a three foot rear yard setback for a detached structure, seven feet required.

2026 DV1025, 7279, North Keystone Avenue, Washington Township, Council District No.

3, zoned C4, FF.

Midland Realty LLC, represented by Greg Dempsey.

The variance of development standards of the consolidated zoning and subdivision ordinance to provide for the construction of an automobile fueling station and convenience store with deficient north side building facade transparency.

40% required per plan submitted.

2026 DV1027 330 North Arsenal Avenue, Center Township, Council District Number 13, Zone D8, 330 North Arsenal Avenue LLC by all true.

Hyper, this one was continued.

2026 D V1029, 1114 Roche Street, Center Township, Council District number 12, zoned D5, Canal Village 3LP, represented by Joseph C Cose.

Construction of a new single-family residence with a five-foot corner side yard, minimum eight foot corner side yard required, and with the Clifton Avenue slash Roche Street, Collector Street, Clear Site Triangle, not permitted.

2026 D V2018, 2230 East 75th Street, Washington Township, Council District 2, zoned DS, F, Luis Corden, represented by Avouch Contractors, David Stevens.

Variance of development standards of the consolidated zoning and subdivision ordinance to provide for a single family residence with a three-foot west side setback and a nine-foot east side setback, 15-foot side setback and 35-foot combined side setback required, a 40-foot rear setback, 50 feet required, a 30-foot front setback, 60-foot setback required based on average setbacks, to permit two minor residential structures in the front yard setback, not permitted.

To legally establish a utility shed partially within the floodway fringe and to provide for a development with deficient open space, eighty-five percent open space required.

Twenty twenty six UV one O thirteen eighty oh five East Thompson Road, Franklin Township, Council District number twenty-five, zoned DA.

Sergio Pantonia Sanchez, represented by Justin Kingan in Diza.

Variance of use of the consolidated zoning and the subdivision ordinance to allow for a commercial contractor producing canopies, awnings, and a similar fabric material to operate within an existing detached accessory structure, non-agricultural commercial operations not permitted within within DA, and a variance of development standards to permit a four thousand two hundred eighteen square foot barn being larger than the one thousand nine hundred sixty square foot dwelling.

Barns in the DA district may only be larger than primary dwellings if used for agricultural related purposes.

Variance of use of the consolidated zoning and subdivision ordinance to allow for commercial and building contractor uses usage, not permitted in DA, with outdoor storage and operations not permitted in DA.

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

Please state your name and address for the record.

David Stevens 5812 Main Street, Department 408, McCordsville, 46055.

I'm here on the twenty-six DV two-018.

Got a notice earlier from Mr.

York that the affidavit wasn't sent, but it was on May the twenty-sixth, or I'm sorry.

So it was sent in.

Thank you, sir.

We have received that and we're ready to have this heard today.

Okay.

All right.

Just to clarify, there is no one in attendance today that is in opposition of any of the petitions I've just read.

Okay.

Chairperson Nelson, that is the end of the expedited docket.

Alright, thank you.

Um with that, board.

Please do double check and remove the three ballots from our list that have been continued, and then cast your vote for the expedited cases.

Yes, I don't know.

Okay, for twenty twenty six D V one zero one two.

We have Walski yes, Nelson, yes, Duncan, yes, and wit, yes.

This variance is approved.

For twenty twenty six D V one zero two amended.

Uh twenty twenty six D B one zero two two Duncan is yes.

Witt is yes, Nelson is yes, and Walski is yes.

For twenty twenty six D B one zero two five.

Nelson, yes, with yes, Walski is yes, and Duncan is yes.

That is this variance is approved.

For twenty twenty six D V one zero two nine.

Duncan, yes, Nelson, yes, wit, yes, Walski, yes.

That variance is approved.

Next one.

Twenty twenty six DB two zero one eight.

Walski, yes, Nelson, yes, wit, yes, Duncan, yes.

The variance is approved.

For twenty twenty six UV one zero one three.

WIT yes, Nelson, yes, Walski, yes.

Duncan is yes.

And Nelson is yes.

That variance is granted.

Twenty twenty six UV three zero zero nine.

We have WIT, yes, Duncan, yes, Nelson, yes, and Walski, yes.

That variance is granted.

All right, that's the end of the expedited cases.

If anybody was here for just those, feel free to take off if you'd like.

So similar rules apply.

We need three votes.

Um, if if it's an undecisive vote, the petition would be continued to the next month's hearing.

So, excuse my interruption, but on I'm not necessarily opposed to it, but on two zero two six D V one zero two five.

Um, for the Keystone, the North Keystone uh variance.

Uh, I just want to make a point that there is a traffic problem in that area, and would like to see some type of a traffic study done.

Cars often enter that street and block other cars from continuing on Ruth Drive East.

And with the school close by and a bus stop right there, it can be a concern for residents and local people.

My name is Leonard Miller.

2820, Newport Bay Lane, Indianapolis, 46240.

Thank you for uh your consideration.

All right, thank you, Mr.

Miller, for your comments.

Um I I would recommend if you have any any interest in cases on further hearings that you do bring some of those up prior to uh the vote, just so we can take that into consideration.

Um understanding that you did say you weren't opposed to the petition.

But uh thank you for your comments.

Thank you for taking your time to come out today.

All right, Piper, whenever you are ready, we can call the first case.

Uh if I may, um just a quick question, uh Jose Rodriguez, uh representing the annex group 8680 Edison Plaza Drive uh Fishers, Indiana.

I just want to confirm I was in the back, so I couldn't hear too well.

But uh did uh 2026 DV1-030, was that approved in the expedited uh agenda, because that's what we were told, and I could not hear that was approved.

030 at 1406 South Capitol Avenue.

Correct, yes.

That one was continued to next month's hearing as new notice was was needed to be submitted.

So that'll be that'll be on next month's hearing.

And did uh staff make us aware of that?

Uh staff made the request at the beginning of the hearing.

That's what I thought I heard, but did staff make us aware of that?

That I am not sure I will allow staff to respond to that question.

Yes, I think there were um a few miscommunications between myself and uh council, and uh we did not get a legal notice in time that that uh notification for a legal notice is sent out.

Um the affidavit is sent out.

Um I'm aware, yeah, yeah, and so yes, uh there was some miscommunication there.

We did um notify you earlier today that the case would need to be continued as a result.

Do you know who that was sent out to the last question?

Uh I apologize.

I want to make sure that we continue with the hearing.

How about you uh come and talk to staff while we continue with the agenda?

Yeah, yeah.

I appreciate it.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Um and then yeah, so now let's please do move to the first case.

All right.

Item number 16, 2026, D V1013 amended 2440 Lafayette Road, Wayne Township, Council District Number 11, zone C4.

Lafayette Center LLC represented by Sean Mustaine.

Variants of development standards of the consolidated zoning and subdivision ordinance to provide for a six-foot-tall perimeter chain link fence utilizing barbed wire and within a rear yard easement, maximum of 2.5 foot tall fence permitted in front yards, chain link not permitted within front yards, barbed wire not permitted, and crutchment into easements not permitted.

Hello.

I've never done this before, so I'm not exactly sure how to start and get this thing rolling.

Sir, before you start.

We do not have a timer right now, so I'm going to keep on microcom on the clock.

Okay.

Okay, so just uh Jeff, thank you.

Um, if you could just give kind of a notice, wait, raise your hand, whatever.

If if time does kind of come up and expire, so um we can be aware of the time there.

So thank you for noting that.

And sir, if you already said your name, I apologize, I already forget it, but um feel feel free.

Um we we are not unused to new folks in front of us, but I imagine not.

Name and address for the record, and just uh kind of make your case for the petition that you support and why it meets the findings of fact needed to allow us to grant this variance.

Okay, Sean Maston, M-A-S-T-A-I-N with Good Shepherd Fence Company representing Reyes Enterprises.

Um the fence in question is a six-foot tall.

Sorry, address for the record as well.

So we can mail you anything that we might need to.

Oh, address.

Yeah, sorry, thanks.

I'm sorry, 1410 Sheldon Street, Indianapolis, Indiana, 46201.

Could you also please raise your right hand to be sworn in?

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

Say I do.

I do.

Okay.

Are we good?

Um the fence in question is a six-foot tall chain link fence.

Uh the existing property is housing several businesses, a daycare included.

Um they need a fence before the fence, they had numerous numerous police calls to the property.

Since the fence has been installed a year ago, they've only had two instances of police on property.

Uh, it's a protection fence.

I understand about the easement issue.

I have no problem moving the fence in from the easement.

Um, the other aspect is the barbed wire.

I uh mistakenly thought there was barbed wire fencing all the way around other areas of the area, but there is not.

So we can take off the barbed wire if that's amendable.

Uh we're really open to any suggestions, but we'd like to keep the six-foot fence around the perimeter of the property.

Can you um share a bit about what it's protecting and the kind of crime that you've seen?

Um, I did look up the address, and I can see in like 2009, there was tons of outstore outdoor things.

I don't know if the things were.

Um, can you can you tell about your kind of partnership of the neighborhood?

What's your storing, what you guys do?

Yeah, we um it is the history of the property was uh I think it was vacant for a while.

I'm not the property owner, but I from my initial meeting with the property owner, they had a lot of trespass violations, um, a lot of drug use, um, uh, and other things of that nature in their area.

Parking lot was used uh for donuts, that kind of stuff.

So it's really I mean it's an open area, and in the area that it's in, it's not it's not a place that I'd want to walk anywhere by myself.

But the the rampant drug use that they had prior to them putting in the fence.

I mean, it's I think it's important to note that they've only had two calls in the last year.

Okay, thank you.

And I I think they do house a uh I'm sorry, they have a an event center, a daycare, there's a restaurant, I believe there's a laundry mat in the in the plaza as well.

Okay, thank you.

Um so I I grew up in the area.

I do walk there.

Um I know you have tons of bus riders, things like that.

This area actually doesn't have a sidewalk, which makes it kind of tough.

Um, and I know there's some woods behind it, which I think there's houses behind it.

There's houses.

Is there a wooded area between you and the houses?

I feel like there was a water situation there for seniors.

There was, yeah.

Most of the residents have a fence line.

We installed a fence line on this side of that.

So there's still a path back there between the two fences.

Uh, but yes, there's a lot of of camping that was going on back there at one point, uh, unauthorized camping.

Uh, a lot of just the stuff that a fence prevents.

Okay.

Um, and you said uh you you have agreed that you will take down any barbed wire.

If that's what the amendment recalls, yes, yeah, absolutely.

Okay, um, and then obviously you have a daycare there, so neighborhood folks are using the facility.

They are using the facility, yes.

For day care, correct.

Um, and is that day care upgraded 24-7 or is that business hours?

Do you know?

Just business hours only, I believe.

Okay.

Um, and do you know how long the current owner has owned it?

I have all the questions.

And it's okay.

They that I don't know.

Is it a completely validation?

I believe they just bought it a year ago, right?

When we uh installed the fence for them.

I believe they were taking possession at that point.

Gotcha.

Okay.

So you're the the fence installer.

Correct.

Okay.

And so they've seen some of the development in the area and are taking advantage of that by having a daycare business and event center.

Okay.

Thank you.

And I I do just want to confirm as you were speaking, you said you were not aware of the easements, so you are willing to move that out of the easements.

Okay.

Um other questions for the petitioner at this time?

All right.

Hearing none, was there anybody uh here to speak in opposition to this petition today?

Okay.

As they come up, um, anybody who's speaking in opposition, let's make sure they get sworn in.

And then just a reminder before you uh do present your your comments, name and address for the record, anybody or everybody speaking on opposition, total of 15 minutes for for comments.

Please raise your right hands.

My name is Gayla.

Okay, Bertie.

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

Say I do.

I do I do.

Perfect.

Please name and uh address, please.

My name is Gayla Dines.

I'm president of Kessler Park Neighborhood Association, have been for a few years, have lived in the area since when it when this business was a grocery store.

It's basically been a problem for many, many years, with part of the problem in the neighborhood being the businesses that have been there.

I would like to know how many documented police runs have been there within the past year.

That is not something that is in front of this board right now.

Um I don't know if staff can work to get you those comments, but um you can you can go ahead with some of your additional comments in your opposition to this case.

Good afternoon.

I am Doris Mint McNeil.

I'm here to support Kester Gardens, and I'm also president of Westside Neighborhood Association.

Um, some of the concerns that have come to our attention was particularly, and I think we heard them say that uh the conditions of the Bob Warp fence and that the uh they're they're willing to take that down, and we just wanted to understand why they find it necessary to put that particular type of fencing up in the first place.

I mean we live in that immediate area, and uh we know we there have been some crimes there, but we get as neighborhood presidents, we get uh police runs that go to those establishments within our neighborhood boundaries.

And um I would just like to know to be able to compare the documented proof that uh that Bob War has decreased the crime in that area.

Gayla in fact lives right behind the facility, and if that is gonna be a condition that's included, if uh I hear that they do they do agree to take it down, but we just want to be sure that is included as a condition.

Okay, so just to make sure I'm understanding your comments.

You so long as the barbed wire is removed, um that that would be a condition to you being at least more comfortable with the fence being there.

Absolutely.

Okay, thank you.

Um I have a question for for the neighbors.

Um have you spoken with the property owner if they've reached out at all?

Or is that some are you something you're open to?

You tried it.

I I have not spoken with the property owner.

However, my neighborhood association is registered with the city of Indianapolis and has been for years.

Okay, that the property owner, I believe he said a year ago.

Yeah.

They could have approached the neighborhood association because we have a meeting every month.

Okay, and and at no point did anybody come to anybody with the neighborhood association.

Absolutely.

And and as Doris knows, I I live in the area and understand your concerns.

Uh barbed wire is um a signal to others of danger.

It's um rarely used in Indianapolis.

I understand the concern that you're like, oh gosh, they put up barbed wire.

Um I know in some other times we've had people petition um prior to putting up fencing, sometimes there's guidelines and suggestions on what type of fencing.

Um obviously they have an aluminum chain link fence.

They have children on the property, um, which I'm sure some of your neighbors appreciate having child care in the area, and so having a fence, the kids can't get through is probably good.

Um, so other than the barbed wire, is there any other concerns you have?

Obviously, this property's been a problem for years.

They have new ownership, they're investing, those are all positive things.

Um, other than perhaps getting in contact with them, is there any other concerns we should consider as we look at their position for fencing?

I would like to know what their business is.

Okay, and and I think he shared with us.

They have a daycare, an event center, and uh, there's a restaurant or like a bakery and a bakery.

I'm not required the owner.

That's okay.

Uh, but I can tell you that the improvements that they've done.

Sir, sir, if you're gonna provide any testimony, please do it at the microphone.

Sorry, okay.

I know that they've uh I know that they've uh made a lot of improvements.

They've already repaved the the parking lot.

Okay.

Uh and I believe um citizens gas is coming in and putting in drainage in the front as well.

So there are a lot of improvements going into the parking lot or into the facility.

Uh the chain link fence is just more of a protection for what's coming in the future.

Okay.

Um, just from a perspective of somebody who lives there, please talk.

Make sure the the owner gets in touch with some of their neighbors.

Always good, good.

100%.

That's gonna be my first message when I leave.

I love it.

Thank you.

But what what's actually is the business going to be?

I don't know.

It's an event center.

There's a daycare on the one end, and there's an event center on the other, and there's several businesses in between, but I'm not, I don't know what those businesses would be.

Okay.

Well, we've had problems with the event center since the nineties.

There, and I appreciate that.

Um, and I'm sure between you and Doris, you guys will get in contact with that owner and hopefully can make some meaningful changes.

Um, when it comes to the fence, anything else you need us to know other than barbed wire is a big no thank you, and you'd like to have a bit more vision and and safety in your neighborhood?

Yes, absolutely.

And the main thing is that the barbed wire will be included in the conditions to be removed.

Anything else we have?

Um, also with the with the barbed wire being removed, what about the the easement, the utility easement?

Yeah, they have committed to moving that within the easement.

So we'll make sure to take those into account, and when we go to approve this, we'll we'll make the commitments um before our vote.

Thank you so much.

Thank you, Jennifer.

I have one other question.

Yes, ma'am.

I don't even know if it's relevant or not, but I've gotten a lot of chatter about it.

The area between their fence and the houses.

Who takes care of that property that is actually city property?

I guess from where they from on the east, from where they put the fence up to the property owners, it's probably eight-foot strip.

So there's a strip between responsible for that because that's that's some of the neighbors are really upset because they cannot clean that area.

Yeah, that's a great question.

It looks like the petitioner is willing to answer for that.

I believe that's part of the easement.

We didn't take up the whole ease bill.

I believe we just went halfway through the ease event, which would leave about an eight to ten foot difference.

So I believe that that is the property owners.

When we pull the they can't get through because they had fences, I understand.

But when we pull the fence in, that's still going to be the property's owners' responsibility of the plaza.

Will you make sure that they have to do that?

I will talk to them about the maintainer.

Can that be listed within the community?

So what I'm hearing is that there's a concern that the space west of the fencing on the that the property owners would have seen is kind of sandwiched between the two fences.

Clarity that the property owner is going to take responsibility for it maintaining that, keeping it tidy.

That is what I'm hearing.

Up to their property line.

Uh property line.

Which means the homeowner would still be responsible.

If their fence is not on that property line, they would need to go on that side like leady, just like they would would have prior.

Yeah, because the property owners have been very concerned about that.

That's a very good point.

And any time you have a fence that's not quite connected, that can be a challenge.

A lot of the fences that back up against it.

A lot of the fences that back up against it don't have gates, so they can't get out anyway.

They can't get out.

Yeah.

And I think that's a wonderful way for the owner and the neighbors to maybe have a little powwow about it and and have some communication.

Well, honor.

Awesome.

Thank you so much.

All right.

With that, um yeah, let's please go to staff comments.

Um I would also ask.

Um, since there was the commitment to move that within the easement, just kind of make sure that we're aware of how far that would need to be moved in and just kind of the the easement issue there, um, so we can understand that portion a little bit better since they've committed to move that in.

Okay.

Um, miss, um it was noted that your address was not given.

Yeah.

I think I think either was not recorded.

So if you could state both addresses for the record.

Yeah.

Absolutely.

I'm Doris Mint McNeil.

I reside at 1653 North Bellevue, Indianapolis, 4622.

All right, thank you.

And I'm Gayla Dines.

I'm at 2414 North Goodlitch.

Thank you.

4622.

I'm right behind this.

All right, thank you very much.

Thank you.

All right, staff comments, please.

Absolutely.

Uh thank you very much, Chiperson Nelson and the board for your time.

Uh, thank you to the petitioner and remonstrators for your comments as well.

Uh, our staff is recommending denial of D4 variances that were initially requested to allow for this unpermitted vents to remain in place of the subject site surrounding the commercial building.

Um, if the two variances discussed related to the easement and the chain link fence were to be removed, our staff would continue to recommend denial of those two remaining variances.

Uh this parcel is around two and a half acres in size.

It contains a multi-tenant commercial structure.

Uh, tenants appear to include an event center, a daycare, um several restaurants and a clothing store as implied by signage visible at the site when staff made its visit.

As mentioned, there are residences to the southwest and the rear, and it is along the Lafayette Road commercial corridor.

Uh, don't appear to be any immediate industrial uses adjacent to this property is predominantly a mixture of light and heavy commercial.

There's offices, car sales, uh gas station to the east, things of this nature.

Um in September of 2025, uh the fence was installed.

It constitutes approximately 1,225 linear feet placed around the perimeter of the site.

The fence is made out of chain link is six feet in height for the entirety of its run, as far as staff is able to tell.

There's barbed wire placed on the top of the fence.

Um, this fence in particular resulted in three separate uh complaints being made to the mayor's action center, which resulted in investigation cases being opened.

Uh the first two were from homeowners to the southwest, expressing concern about the barbed wire near their homes and near power lines directly above.

The third was from an adjacent business owner at 2450 Lafayette Road to the northwest.

Uh, they were indicating the placement of the fence had a negative impact on trash service and pickup for their site.

Those complaints led to the opening of a violation case in October of 2025, uh, the full text of which is available within staff's report.

It mentioned the fence and other items.

Today's hearing is just focused on questions related to the fence, though.

Other things about signs or the condition of the parking lot would be need to be dealt with separately.

The height of six feet within front yard areas past the front building line, as well as the usage of chain link within front yard areas for a commercial business, and then as discussed the barbed wire and the placement of the fence within the rear yard easement related to power lines within the rear yard.

Per the map that we have pulled up here, it looks like that easement is approximately six feet from their established property line, so that's the area from which the fence would need to be pulled out of running parallel to the southwest rear yard.

The first two rules about the chain link and the height in the front are related more to aesthetics and how the ordinance envisions commercial areas to appear.

You know, vibrant, welcoming, pedestrian-friendly, uh, especially true for commercial corridors.

Uh, there is some multi-use path.

Someone need to ride the east of OS noted, there are not currently sidewalks along the frontage.

Speaking anecdotally, Staff did notice there'd be some level of pedestrian traffic despite the lack of sidewalks.

Uh, the third photo within staff's report shows an aesthetic contrast between the businesses that utilize the space and then the tall barbed wire fence enclosing.

I guess it would be some level of visual impediment, regardless of whether or not there was barbed wire, but particularly with the barbed wire being placed there.

The latter two variants is more directly related to public safety and well-being.

As noted, barbed wire is only allowed in narrow instances throughout the county, such as enclosing of livestock and for penal institutions.

Um barred the placement defense within the rear easement would have also created potential access issues for AES should they need to conduct maintenance on the lines which have a direct impact on community power needs.

Uh, does sound like the petitioners express an openness to withdraw both of those variances from consideration, though.

This property is zoned C4 for commercial usage.

Z4 zone districts is often for regional level commercial uses, bringing in people from outside the direct neighborhood.

Uh similarly, the comprehensive plan recommends it for community commercial uses, uh, neither v zoning ordinance nor the plan contemplate tall front yard fences with barbed wire between frontages and business entry points.

South Alton has the placement of gates here that could fully impede access if closed beyond the psychological impact of a tall chain link fence.

These recommendations are based in part on community feedback for community layout beyond the three adjoiners who had filed complaints with the mayor's action center about this specific fence.

We heard as well from um the two neighborhood representatives echoing concerns about the placement of the fence and in particular with focus on the barred wire and the encroachment into the easement.

The findings from the applicant mentioned the need for security at the site and the surrounding context having similar fences along Lafayette Road.

Staff would note that historically, this has been a commercial corridor of a mix of low and medium intensity uses.

Adjacent properties to this site either don't have tall front yard fences at all, as based on photographs six through eight within staff's report where we can see front yards lacking uh tall fences.

Um or they've had fences installed just within the past five to ten years.

Uh, there's sort of some before and afters shown with photographs nine through fourteen.

Uh those would have been installed under modern versions of the ordinance, um, without verifying the specific zoning districts applicable or the rules as possible that some of those fences could also be citable.

But uh crucially, none of the surrounding fences have barbed wire, and the exist potential existence of non-conformities on surrounding properties would not constitute a site-specific practical difficulty for this property.

Uh staff note that the desire to keep the fence is not based on any specific characteristics of the site, but uh rather the fact that it's already been installed in violation of the ordinance rules.

Um, we would contend that this would be a self-imposed difficulty.

Um we're unaware of any direct support from the community in the form of written letters or phone calls.

Uh, we are aware of the free mayor's action center complaints and the concerns expressed by the neighborhoods.

Uh there are also no evidence of AES support for the easement encroachment provided, although it does sound like they're planning to move that out of out of the easement.

Uh given those concerns, we would recommend denial uh regardless of if the variance is the flatter two variances are withdrawn or not, but particularly if they were to remain a part of the request.

Uh with that, I'm happy to answer questions that you might have.

I have a question.

So, this is two issues for me.

I understand behind their building needing to have fencing for a in this neighborhood and a loading dock area that is not viewable from the street.

Are they allowed to have that without this variance?

For the the rear of the building.

Sure.

So within the pictures of like this gate specifically.

Right.

So areas behind the established front building line.

So if it's running parallel to the building or behind it, they could have a fence up to six feet in height.

The fence could be made out of chain link if it was coated in dark vinyl or slatted.

And this is not this is unfortunate.

It is not.

Okay.

Um then, and this may be a bit.

Is there a play area for the daycare in the front of the building?

Um, I did not notice that upon my visit, and I have not seen anything that resembles a little bit.

That's a kind of a business plan and an update, right?

Yeah, I I don't see evidence of that within aerial photography either.

Thank you.

Um those are my questions about that.

All right, board.

Any other questions for staff?

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

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

Um I think at the end of the day the the property owner just wants to protect their property.

Uh obviously barbed wire is not necessarily needed to do so, but a fence is required to do so to prevent the the foot traffic that they had that they've had to call the police on several several times over the last years.

Uh the dramatic drop in that, I don't know if it's because of the fence or if it's just because of the general uptick in renovations at the property.

But the goal is to maintain a better property than what it was when they took over, and I think that that's what the the uh property owner is doing.

All right, and just so we are making a fully informed decision and we can get everything into the record.

You have said you are committed to removing the barbed wire and moving the fence um out of the easement.

So would you just, I guess, and Chris step in if I'm overstepping here, but can we amend this quickly to remove those two portions from the variants?

So yeah, I think the cleanest way would be for the petitioner to acknowledge that he's with withdrawing both of those requests, the um in the right of the barbed wire and the easement.

And the barbed wire that he's withdrawing those requests, the board uh will acknowledge that and then vote on the remaining request.

Yeah, I think that the the we as a company would be willing to take down the barbed wire and to move the fence out of the rear easement, um, provided we were able to keep it at the six foot height around the rest of the property.

That would that would be our ideal solution.

Okay, so withdrawal of the barbed wire and the encroachment into the easement, and then that is acknowledged by the board.

So we will vote on just the allowance of the fence height and the galvanized the the uh the the chain link fence in the front yard.

There is a six-foot tall chain link fence directly well across the street and down about a quarter of a block.

So it is in the front of that building as well.

And there's several other businesses along Lafayette Road that have the front yard fence.

And I understand when it comes to fencing, I understand not having a front yard fence for residential, but as a commercial property that's protecting their parking their parking lot, the cars, the visitors, the kids that are in the daycare, I think it's imperative to have a fence at the front.

Can we?

And when it comes to I'm sorry, when it comes to uniformity, I think you don't go from four foot chain link to six foot chain link and have it look nice.

Yeah, there's a there's a lot there, right?

There's a there's a the area is changing drastically.

Um I think the community can probably agree that um the investment and uh the goals of that west side neighborhood, um, international marketplace probably drew your new owner.

Um I think the challenge for us as a board is to weigh where it is currently and where it's going.

And if we approve this variance, you have that variance forever.

Right.

And um you also have an uncoded fence, which is not normally allowed.

Um, and we've done it after it's up, and so that leads others to potentially choose to do it without um variance, and I think that's the challenge for us is what makes sense.

I know the neighborhood, I understand the security concerns.

Um, but I also remember I don't remember the grocery, but I remember going to parties there in college, and and I can see that spinning's a problem, and I can I can weigh the desire of the neighborhood to see the development of the positive um engagement.

I am um a little torn on this one, and I think that I almost like if we had clarity to the business plan, you know, if the neighborhood had a little bit more of a voice, that this would be an easier ask.

Um, so I don't really know what I'm asking there, but I I wish I could provide the clarity on it.

Yeah, I understand.

I can tell you that they've invested a ton of money into the property since they took it over, and I think their plan is just to continue to do so.

Um are we allowed to like I know we've done this before where we've said like only this owner can keep the fence.

Can we do that?

So I I just don't know.

This one's a hard one.

I d I don't know.

Um I mean, if you can re you know, impose that commitment unilaterally um if you'd like to as a board.

Generally those are um discouraged because the they're difficult to enforce.

Yeah.

Any other questions for the petitioner at this time?

I think our monster is gonna say something about it.

Yeah, the hot time.

All right.

Um yeah, so we can move to the remonstrators' comments.

Something over here.

Yeah, because yeah, we'll move to remonstrators' comments.

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

Thank you very much.

I just had a couple of questions.

Um my concern is the gate, I believe is locked.

I don't know what the locking hours is, and so it would concern me if something were to go on in there and the uh far department or someone need to get inside, you have to gauge this lock.

Can we know what hours to gauge this lock?

And if the if when he moves the e the gate within out out of the easement, will that be enough room for the uh public utilities to get in and out with their big trucks and so I don't know how that works.

I'm just wondering.

So Doris has a great question.

Um the fire department has access to all gates.

I'm sorry, Jennifer, can you say?

Oh, I'm sorry.

The fire department has access to all gates at all times, locked or not, they're going through it.

So just for the safety purposes, you're okay.

Um as for the utilities, they also were going in, no matter if that fence is there or not.

And it'll be at the uh expense of the owner.

So it knows that the utilities will get in there, and so will the fire department.

But I understand for sure.

That note if we move the fence out of the easement, it's in the easement of the start.

Sir, I'm sorry, you you need to be at the microphone when you're speaking because uh the it's difficult to transcribe.

I uh as far as the easement goes, if we move the fence out of the easement, then that's what the easement is provided for is for that type of access.

I don't know about the locking, I don't lock the gates.

It's not my I don't have an answer for that one.

Well, if the gates are locked, how are they gonna get in?

Because we did have a problem with uh there was a problem.

Because the houses are right behind this facility.

Some of the people lost power.

And power and light was going around the houses.

Correct, excuse me, but that's excuse me.

I apologize.

I need to I need to interject here.

I apologize.

Uh we have these rules for hearings so we can try to be efficient with these.

Uh so you have five minutes for your rebuttal to make your statements, and then we need to move on to a decision.

We need to make sure we're hearing it because we do have other cases we need to get through the agenda.

So if we can honor that, I appreciate it.

And we have a few minutes left for any other comments you have as remonstrance.

Furthermore, I'd like to point out that this is an opportunity for you as a remonstrator to provide testimony.

It is not a uh an opportunity for you to cross-examine the other uh parties to this petition.

So if you could just focus on uh providing the information you want the board to hear and take into account, that would be appreciated.

Okay, thank you.

Thank you very much.

All right, thank you everyone.

Um heard from the petitioner from staff and from remonstrance, the petitioner has removed the request for the barbed wire and for the encroachment into the easements that has been acknowledged by the board.

So board, please cast your ballot for petition 2026 DV1013.

For 2026, DB1013 Nelson is a no wit is yes.

Walski is no.

This is an indecisive, all right.

Indecisive vote, this will be automatically continued to the August 4th hearing.

All right, can we please go and call the next case?

Item 17, 2026, UV 1012, 2355 West Morris Street, and 1211 and 1220 South Traymont Street.

Wayne Township, council district number 17, zoned D5 C4, Hearst Properties LLC represented by Heath Hearst.

Variants of use and development standards of the consolidated zoning and subdivision ordinance to provide for administrative office space not permitted in D5, and for office uses with deficient vehicle and bicycle parking spaces, 10 vehicle and three bicycle spaces required.

Could you uh please raise your right hand?

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

Say I do.

I do.

Please state your name and address for the record.

Andrew Distalrath, 6302 East Raymond Street, Indianapolis 46203.

All right, you can begin.

You have 15 minutes for your initial uh supporting comments.

So this property is uh the old Butler Garden Center down on Westmores Street.

This was purchased probably two years ago by uh the Hearst Brothers, uh and this is Heath Outdoor LLC.

So they shifted the headquarters from Massav.

Uh right where it hits 70.

Um, so switch the headquarters from there down to Westmore Street, which is a much more appropriate location for that type of entity.

Attached to the commercial property, there are one, two, three, four residences that were owned by the Butler family, and that and they were the Butler family's primary residence as well.

They own this business.

So in the acquisition of the property, these residences came along with the commercial property, and the thought was let's go ahead and utilize these as office space.

So that is a portion of the request that's in front of the board right now is utilizing these residences.

It's now three, not four.

One of them was upgraded and sold, and as a side note, is one of the cuter houses on the street right now, if I do say so myself.

Um the challenge from staff, it sounds like there is ample space in the commercial property to create new offices if needed and provide additional parking space.

To an extent I agree with that, however, these residences have uh historically been associated with this commercial property.

It has been the commercial owners who have lived in these properties which are adjacent to the commercial uh activities.

Part of our argument is that utilizing these as office space and admin for administrative operations only, um, creates a buffer between the commercial operations and the rest of the residential community.

Um again, the argument is, well, there should there kind of already is a buffer there.

I would argue if you look at the if you look at the map, two of the residences that that are along Tremont Street, it's the only they are the only residences in that space.

Um it's a uh trying to see if there's a good picture here.

Um Tremont, it is a very little used alley, very little used, and the only thing to the west of it is this commercial operation, and then you come up to these two residences.

So there's this natural uh corner there, which to utilize those as private residences adjacent to the commercial operation, it's a tough sell.

Um that's a tough sell.

Is it doable?

Absolutely.

Uh, I think it makes a heck of a lot more sense to utilize those as administrative space, and I think that the that Tremont Street and the nature of those two residences allow for that.

The third residence in question, 2335 uh West Morris, that is adjacent to the house that we just re-revamped and sold.

Yep, that's the one there.

That one I think I there, and that's the garage back behind it.

Um so I think that one there, there's the strongest argument in support of staff saying that, yeah.

Well, that one I can understand that argument.

However, we've been very respectful in this space.

The neighbors, the new owners of the property next door have had no complaints, they love what we're doing.

They recognize that we're being respectful.

I wish I had uh testimony from them.

I unfortunately do not, but um in addition, the the amount of traffic that's coming through this space back here on Tremont and on this alley, it is very limited.

This is not a thoroughfare.

The only people coming through here are the couple of residences in this space.

Um, and it is it is minimal, minimal.

On top of that, if we're able to utilize this space, there's incentive for us to continue and help maintain Tremont and this alley back here, which are highly neglected.

So, we're asking for use of these three residences as administrative space.

We're asking for um to be able to park some cars here.

We have ample space to park the vehicles.

Um we have ample space to put in bike parking.

Oh, I guess one additional thing I would say there was an argument about well, the only access is from the back from Tremont Street and from this alley.

Um, it it would be possible for us to create access from the commercial space to access that the houses that way.

So if that's a if that's a big sticking point, we can we can solve that problem as well.

I have questions.

Hi.

So this is an industrial area with some beautiful legacy homes and neighborhoods.

Can you tell us a little bit more about the business hearst properties and these um office spaces?

You're not suggesting you're gonna bulldoze the houses and put it in office building.

You're simply wanting to do some in a home office spaces for sales or for what correct.

So the I the idea is the uh 2335.

So I'll buy Morris that would be the accounting house.

Um so finance taking place in that.

Um the one at the uh the center house would be um support and sales.

Okay, and then the house farthest south uh would be for operations and project management.

Okay.

So you you you guys just need some office space, so we just need office space, that's it.

We're not talking about bulldozing anything.

I mean that's the whole and and these houses are not in the best shape.

So they're if they were gonna remain residential or if we were gonna try to flip them, we're talking about a significant investment in these houses in a challenging area.

Understand.

Um, and and while housing is very important, so our businesses are.

100%, 100%.

Totally at that.

Um, I do want to understand because you know I Google Earth view everything.

Um, the actual property that you purchased about two years ago, are those greenhouses on the property?

They were.

There's still a couple, but we got rid of most of the greenhouses.

There's two new buildings up there.

There's a a uh 100 by 150 by 60 building that is primarily for equipment storage, and then there's a an 80 by 60 building that is uh mechanics.

Okay, and and what kind of business do you all do?

It's landscaping and hard scaping.

Okay, and is that like commercial, residential?

Commercial, commercial and residential.

And do you employ people in that area?

Uh yes.

Okay, thank you.

Um I have a follow-up question related to parking, because that is part of the variance request.

Yes.

I mean, obviously, there's gonna be um if they're if the variance is created, there's gonna be employees that are parking at these locations.

What's the plan for parking?

So in these pictures, you can notice um.

So let me see.

Let me back up here.

All right, so photo two shows us a couple parking spots right there at the back of that garage.

Um, which are they're already there.

Okay, um photo three shows us there's two vehicles parked there.

If that building comes out, that small little shed comes out, we've we can put six cars across the back right there.

Which which that's photo three.

Okay.

So if we get rid of that little shed there, I think I'm looking at your landscape plan and trying to park little pen cars on it.

I'm sorry.

I'm trying to draw them on the plan.

Oh, gotcha, gotcha.

Um, then if we look at photo six, that's going that's just to the south of that shed I said we could take out.

So that's drive access right there.

So we could you can see there's the tail end of a Cadillac there.

There's some parking right there.

If we're able, if that's appropriate, we can utilize that space.

If that's not appropriate, we can just keep them pointed east-west where that fence is right there.

We've got three more spots there, and then in photo five, there's at least three more there.

But these so these proposed spots, they're not really shown on the site plan.

Is that right?

Probably currently they are not.

All right, thank you.

Yep.

Any other question for the petitioner at this time?

All right.

Then is there anyone in the audience that is speaking in opposition to this petition today?

Alright, seeing none, let's do please go to staff comments.

Absolutely.

Thank you very much, Jefferson Nelson, members of the board for your time.

Thank you to the petitioners' representatives for your comments as well.

Our staff is recommending denial of the variance of use, seeking permission to remove these three properties from the city's housing stock for use as offices associated with the contractor use to the West without clear indication of parking facilities being in place as required by ordinance for office uses.

As mentioned, there are three subject parcels here: 2335 West Morris as well as 1211 and 1220 South Tremont Street.

Each of these properties are improved with single-family homes with sizes ranging from 13 to 1400 square feet.

There are additional residential uses to the east and southeast.

Properties to the north include a church and a land rezoned for apartments that have not yet been constructed on the other side of Morris Fair to the north.

The access to the Morris site could come from the busier road to the north where street parking is available, but as mentioned, any access to the Tremont properties would involve usage of at least one alleyway from either to south or the east, as is sort of shown within the aerial photograph within staff's report.

The property to the west of the site is occupied by a landscaping contractor use at 2401 West Morris Street.

In 2024, that property was rezoned to the C7 zoning designation to allow for a 22,450 square foot retail store as well as multiple accessory buildings and 14 outdoor storage bins along the eastern portion per the site plan within staff's report.

The overall size of that lot is about 3.88 acres.

It was approved over staff and a recommendation with several commitments in place.

The list of those commitments are within the exhibits if the board is curious.

Some things that staff would call out would be that it was tied to that specific site layout, and that the usage of local streets for commercial vehicle traffic should be avoided.

I believe those commitments were requested by a neighborhood group at the time of rezoning as opposed to being requested by our staff.

We would note that although the properties are adjoining, there's not appear to be any direct access between the subject lots and 2401 Morris based on staff's visit and the site plan.

There's a distinct fence and landscaping area separating them based on those two things.

So vehicle access between the contractor site and subject properties as they're currently constituted would require the usage of those local streets and at least one alleyway for access to the Tremont properties.

As mentioned approval here would allow for use of each of these residences as offices as the primary use, replacing residential use as the primary, or I guess allowing permission for this to be a primary use in addition to allowing for residences to be a primary use.

It wouldn't be changing for zoning, just the variance of use.

It's unclear if that will be concurrently or just in different sort of shifts or phases.

The full plan of operation provided for our review is within the exhibit service report as well.

As mentioned by the petitioner functions might include meetings, project management, scheduling, and coordination type uses within the existing structures.

Both use and development standards variances would be required.

DeMorris property is used residentially, but is actually zoned C4 in a manner if it's not matching the land use.

So technically, no variance of use would be required, no use variants would be required for the Morris property, which is has a zoning misaligned with the current land use of a residential home.

As well as for parking, as been discussed a bit by the petitioner.

Our ordinance requires one parking space per 350 square feet of office uses.

Based on the combined square footage of those three residences, the orders would require 10 parking spaces based on staff's analysis of existing garages or areas that were like paved setup for parking.

It didn't appear that there were adequate facilities on site for either the ordinance requirement of 10 or the maximum number of employees or in a plan of operation of 18 if each drove their own cars.

There was some discussion of adding additional parking spaces by the petitioner.

One thing we would caution is, you know, that might create additional setback issues depending on where those parking spaces are placed.

That's not something that our staff had had a chance to review prior to to this afternoon's hearing.

Um there are also requirements for bike parking for office uses.

Um it was unclear from the site plan if that was met.

So it was added to the Texas divariance out of an abundance of caution.

Does have a breakdown of what appears to be available parking for each property based on our anecdotally on our status that we noted that both on the 1211 South Tremont property and for adjacent properties, parking both in the grass and along the alley, or in some instances, even cars approaching a bit into the alley appeared to be occurring.

Approval of this petition might contribute to that existing trend.

Uh staff notes that the West Indian neighborhood plan recommends these parcels be developed residentially at a density of five to eight dwelling units per acre, which aligns with the current construction on the subject properties, as well as the broader context of development directly to the east of the contractor business on the other side of the fence and planting shown on the site plan.

Uh findings from the petitioner contend that office uses would constitute a buffer between the more intense commercial use to the west and residential areas to the east.

Uh staff wouldn't know that there does appear to be a buffer between those uses that already exists and was established by the 2024 plan approval.

Those fence and trees that we've been discussing that currently have direct access separating the four-acre contractor use from the homes.

Um additional commercial use pests that would in staff speed would constitute an encroachment beyond that line of demarcation in a manner if it wouldn't align with the comprehensive plan or with city goals for the preservation of housing where feasible.

Um we'd also know that even if some work from home was utilized or some staggering of shifts, office uses here would require additional personal vehicles to utilize those narrow alleyways for access.

It seems to run counter to the spirit at least of the requested 24 2024 commitment by the neighborhood.

It's it's possible that approval could result in added congestion for these narrow areas used by residential sites.

Um our staff, well, it doesn't appear the burdens of proof have been met for either the variance of use, given a lack of undue hardship or alignment with the plan, or for the variance of development standards given potential negative externality for additional parking burden in these alley spaces.

We would also know that the petitioner obtained permission from the city in 2024 to utilize their current site of almost four acres for operations related to the contractor use.

Given that context, we recommend denial, and I am happy to answer questions that DeBort might have.

I have a question.

And looking at the property, it looks like it was just historically, it looks like it was owned by this family, maybe old farmland, who knows.

They have their business on one half, and then they actually it looks like they divided out the parcels in preparation to build homes.

So it it's zoned to build homes along where those two houses that they're talking about along the alleyway.

Like there's four or seven, eight eight additional parcels ready to build homes, in in a plan sometime in the past, not your current ownership.

Um, knowing that we have a bit of a housing crisis, especially in Wayne Township, um, but also, you know, want to welcome our businesses.

Um, what I'm missing here, obviously parking, it sounds like you guys do heartscaping.

Like, I think what is a vote, like I i I am missing clarity to like where is all the parking?

How many people and cars do we plan on?

Where are they gonna go?

And like on on this beautiful landscape plan, right?

Um, similar that we would see.

Um, is that I I don't know if I can vote on this without that.

Like I it's I understand not using the alleyway.

I understand you saying, well, we could put a parking lot in.

We could, you know, that that's if that's the no, then how do we make this work?

Um, I think that's my concern.

So staff would they be allowed to put in a parking lot on their existing property that's owned appropriately and utilize an existing building or a new building on that part of the parcel with no problem, correct?

The issue becomes they want to use existing homes that they also own, but are zoned residential.

Right.

So I guess on the 2024 site plan, they called out both the amount of parking that was placed there as well as the minimums that would be required for the contractor use.

It looked like there were maybe two or three spaces above the minimums that were required that could then count toward potential office residential use here.

Um I guess if addition if that plan were amended to show the placement of additional parking, it might require an additional modification petition given to that 24 approval was tied to that site plan.

But I suppose the fact that they are adjacent properties jointly owned, they might be able to if additional parking were added on to the west, that could be considered as counting toward the office uses within the houses to think of.

They would still need variance to change it from residential to primarily office use.

Right, the variance of use would still be required in that instance, and if substantial changes were being made to the C7 property to the West, a modification of the site plan as well.

And I think that's where in the past other petitions we might see like a five-year plan, or if you'd like to to know where where the property's going, so there's uh a more understanding.

Okay, thank you.

Any other questions for staff at this time?

I do.

Um, the the findings effect for the use seem cut off.

I don't know that we can actually view the entire findings.

Yeah, you know, an older version of the report was uploaded.

I apologize for that.

I do have a full version of the use variance findings effect as well as the development standards ones if you like for that to be read into the record, or we might be able to have that printed off very quickly if that would be helpful for the board as well.

I think as long as you the staff has them, we can just incorporate them by reference.

Is that yes, there with within the case file?

The uh findings?

Yeah, yeah.

Were there any specific lines that you need clear clear okay?

All right, any any other questions for staff?

Okay.

Um then we can go back to the petitioner.

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

Well, now learning that 2335, I did I did not realize that it was uh already zone C, so that's awesome.

Um I think that adds to the argument about these other two residents is how they are portioned off by Tremont.

Um I do think it's a natural barrier.

Um I certainly understand the argument um for the need for residences um absolutely.

Also, this space is already there.

I mean, you know, talking about building new buildings, we're we're three million dollars into this project already.

Um so and part of the way the model works is utilizing these these buildings as office space.

We don't have another million dollars to spend on on office space.

Um so that's that's the hardship on our end, really, um, is we gotta gotta jump.

Um regarding encroachment into the residential area, if there are recommendations um from staff or from the board about how we can better make this work, uh, we'll make it work.

Again, yeah, we are our escaping company.

There's no problem with putting in some parking spaces.

Um if we need a new plan that that demonstrates exactly where that stuff is, um, just let us know what needs to be done.

We want to keep this thing moving down the road.

Um vote for me.

All right, board.

Any questions for the petitioner?

I do.

So do you guys own the adjacent property that is not residential?

Correct.

And it's already got a retail slash office.

The retail building did not get built, but we have a a large building for uh equipment storage, and then we have a mechanics shop.

So we do have two buildings there, but they are fully utilized.

There's no office space in those buildings.

Is your goal to have a retail space once the three million is paid off?

The that is one path.

Yeah, that is one path.

There is though there is a retail space that's still associated with property, which is digs, which is at the previous property.

So that's at um that's at the Mass and 10th location there.

So we do have a retail shop in a more retail area currently.

So any other questions from the board?

I I so I I do have one question just about the business.

This is it looks like it's like a hardscape business.

The retail component is it similar to like a Sullivan's hardware?

Uh the retail is primarily just plant sales.

Plant sales.

Yep.

It it's a boutique little cute flower shop.

All right.

And then you obviously sell landscaping materials, mulch, uh like that.

That kind of stuff is not retail.

That's all just for commercial use.

So I mean it's it's on the on the site.

That's on the that's on the commercial site, yeah.

The only retail stuff is just plants and cute little bird houses and stuff.

Got it.

Alright, thank you.

The West Side likes the cute little bird houses.

Yes, they do.

Yes, they certainly do.

Um so you guys have moved to this location to allow space to grow.

You're asking to utilize it for this purpose.

Correct.

Um this is kind of uh, you know, this this area has is mix mixed use, right?

Residential and industrial.

There's a new trail, there's a beautiful sidewalk that not a lot of west side neighborhoods have right in that area.

So um uh as the company that I'm guessing has done some work in the area, we'll continue to um I think the long-term plan is still where I'm a little lost here.

So not to do a retail space, it's to use these as office spaces.

Continue to grow.

That's the plan.

Like what long term is that this is your large-scale commercial operation?

This is the large scale commercial operation.

So growing growing to fill this space, um, and then either move to a new space or or this is where it caps out.

So this is we had outgrown our acre and a half over here, and now we're here.

Thank you.

Okay, thank you.

All right, board, please go ahead and cast your ballot for petition 2026 UV 1012.

For 2026 UV1012, Duncan is no, Nelson is no, wit is yes, Wolski is yes, indecisive.

All right, indecisive vote.

This will be automatically continued to the August 4th hearing.

May I ask a question?

Go for it.

Come on up to the microphone, please.

So this has been continued to the next meeting.

Are there additional requirements um or additional requests from staff or from the board that we need to be prepared for?

I think it would be helpful for you to show where the parking will be.

Yeah.

Yeah, that could be emailed to staff directly if you had a more specific layout.

I we'd be happy to discuss and provide guidance based on that.

And so then next month we come back in and it's just a continuation of this conversation basically.

You would do it all over again.

Yeah, basically.

Okay.

Great.

Great.

All right.

Thank you, everyone.

Thanks.

Item 18, 2026 UV 1014 or 014.

7711 West 10th Street, Wayne Township, Council District Number 16, Zoned C3, EMP property LLC by Abdemo.

Abdalman Habib, variants of use of the consolidated zoning and subdivision ordinance to provide for automobile sales and display not permitted.

Please raise your right hand.

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

Say I do.

I do.

Okay.

Will you please state your name and address for the record?

Abdulmonam Habib, address, uh 0414 Tranquility for Tranquility Court Fishers, Indiana 46038.

You can go ahead, you'll have 15 minutes for your uh comments for your petition.

So I submitted a plan of operation to make this uh lot uh car dealership, small scale car dealership.

Um I believe that the lot is good accommodation for such a business because uh office is at the back of the building.

The building is uh at the back of the lot, and the parking space is in front of the building.

Uh the adjacent property, adjacent property on the west, have already variants, and it's worked as car dealership, and at the east of the property is an office, and we will we will follow the same rules that the West property offered, and this is a smaller size than the West property, and regarding the back, there is uh a visual barrier and vegetation between our property and the neighbor Edzebeck.

That's what thank you.

Any questions for the petitioner?

I do.

Hi, Jennifer.

I live around the corner.

Um, we've seen several car dealerships come and go.

Um, I noticed on your plan of uh for your business that you will turn off the lights at night, and what we've seen currently with the uh there's one car car dealership that's closed.

I'm not sure if that's one right next door to this property.

Yes, it is, okay.

Um they had strobe lights on overnight and refused to turn them off.

Um I see that you've you have a plan to turn yours off completely at night.

Um what we were told was that the concern was crime if they turned the lights off.

How how what's the uh plan to make sure that those are off at night and not disrupting the neighbors?

I will install some security cameras to watch the vehicles during off times, and I will minimize the light as much as I can just to make it easy for the camera to detect any movement or stuff like that.

I the flashing lights are concerned for a couple reasons.

Um there's a fire department right there, um so if there's always a flashing light, people start ignoring it.

Um, and uh I do you want to there is a car dealership next door or no longer?

Yes, uh on the west, there is a car dealership.

Okay.

Is it further?

One of them recently closed, maybe further west?

No, the the lot on the west is already an active dealership.

Yes.

Okay.

And then are you going?

Is this the property that used to have the ice cream shop?

I'm not sure what it was before.

I believe it was a barber shop.

Okay.

Yeah.

Okay.

And it wasn't like wasn't working the same.

I think it hasn't been main it hasn't been occupied actively for more than 10 years.

So I'm not sure, but the property owner tried to rent it for a long time and they.

Yeah.

And will that building remain or will it be remodeled?

The building will remain, but we need small space of the building to be a car dealership office.

So yeah, the building will be remained.

Will be some improvement on it.

Any other questions for the petitioner at this time?

Okay.

Okay.

Um have you talked to any of the neighborhood associations or um worked with any of the neighbors?

Or not yet?

I I talked to the church on the east side.

Okay.

And they have no complaint.

Or they'd be here, yeah.

Yeah.

Okay.

Um I think as somebody who lives around the corner, my concern is yet another car dealership, right?

Um that's kind of the concern.

Um, what makes it different or what what adds value for the neighborhood?

Uh it will make like use of the space.

So it's it's not usable now, and it's empty for a long time.

So, and it's it's suitable for for car dealership.

Uh and it's hard for any other business because the building is on the back.

It's not in front, so anyone passing through the street can see it.

So, but in in case of car dealership, the cars will be on front, so it's not easy to be in another business than car dealership.

Yeah.

Did you look at the C3 zoning ordinance and what the permitted uses are in there?

No.

Okay, thank you.

All right.

I will ask, is there anybody here that is speaking in opposition to this petition today?

2026 UV 1014.

Alright, seeing nobody, I'd like to go to staff comments, please.

Yeah.

Uh absolutely.

Uh thank you very much.

Uh Trevor Snowson.

Um to the board once again for your time.

Uh thank you to the petitioner for your comments as well.

Our staff is recommending denial of this petition seeking permission for an automobile sales operation with associated accessory outdoor sales and display in a zone that does not allow it, and within direct proximity to multiple protected districts, both uh residential uses to the east and to the south, as well as umward fields associated with Ben Davis High School to feed north of the property on the other side of 10th Street.

Uh for context, this lot is around one acre in size.

It is improved with a primary building with two commercial tenant spaces as well as a smaller building on the southwest portion of the lot, as well as accessory parking areas within the front yard between that larger building and 10th street.

But it turns out there used to be a barbershop use here and that there might be a religious use in the main building, which I believe is still active per view petitioner.

Umce that visited the site, it didn't appear that there were many cars there, although there was a sign posted associated with that use, but still appears to be maintained.

Uh, a plan of operation, and there would be two to three on-site employees and space for display of up to 25 vehicles on the site.

It would operate from 8 a.m.

to 6 p.m.

on Monday and Saturdays, with more limited Sunday hours, and uh the offices would be housed on that smaller southwestern structure.

Uh the full plan of operation is within exhibits for your review.

Uh this property is zoned C3, which disallows automobile sales as a primary use.

Uh typically, auto sales is a use only allowed within C5 districts and above.

So this would be two rooms up the ladder of intensity, so to speak.

That's why a variance of use would be required.

The C3 district is intended for neighborhood commercial uses.

It's not designed for uses that involve outdoor display, sales, or storage of merchandise in any capacity.

This use would involve accessory sales and display of up to 25 cars for sale parked outside, which is removed from the goals of the district as outlined within the ordinance.

Additionally, this isn't a case of an isolated C3 district within a context that has a lot of more intense commercial or industrial uses around it.

Surrounding land uses include, as mentioned, the apartments to the east and the south, athletic fields associated with Ben Davis to the north.

There's protected districts on free sides of the lot.

As mentioned, the lot to the west of this site, 7115 West 10th Street previously operated as a vehicle sales lot per grant of a variance of use in 2014.

Based on staff's visit to site, it doesn't appear, but this use is still in operation.

All the cars had been removed when we were there a couple months ago.

Our staff had recommended denial of that petition back in 2014.

It was approved over a recommendation with six commitments that weren't in place.

They were related to hours of operation, lighting at the site, preventing direct access from Tenth Street, a maintenance of the landscape buffer, making sure that no cars for sale would be placed to the south of the existing building on that lot, and then not allowing for a prohibition on additional signage of the property as well.

So those were the commitments placed for the 2014 variants.

Commitments of that nature could be proposed by this body if they so chose, but have not been proposed as a part of this filing.

As mentioned, it didn't appear to cars for parked fair.

So it doesn't seem fair to say that an auto sales lot is part of the current context surrounding it.

It appears that would be a discontinued use in this case.

Staff would note it's solely a variance of use that's being requested for this site.

No requests made about variance of variances of development standards were filed.

So if approved, the site would require compliance with other applicable rules about setbacks for cars awaiting sale, as well as any applicable noise ordinances, outdoor storage or vehicle parts or debris, front yard fencing, things of that nature.

The comprehensive plan recommends this site for community commercial uses.

That would align with the older barber shop and the current religious use, likely not with the use proposed by this petition.

The applicant findings mentioned that the variance should be granted since the lot couldn't be feasibly developed for retail use without additional explanation provided.

For staff analysis, this would not meet the burden of proof for an undue hardship, given that the C3 district allows for 40 different primary use categories by right.

Multiple of those 40 categories also have subcategories listed within them.

For example, uh the light retail use alone mentions 35 different types of stores and retail sales.

As applicant there's a high level of flexibility for an ordinance compliant use at this site, even if utilizing just the smaller building, but especially if utilizing the larger commercial structure that exists there.

Those permitted uses would also likely result in fewer negative externalities when we proposed C5 use wood at this site.

The reason our own is limited these uses to heavier commercial districts is due to traffic generation, potential noise from alarms, exhaust, things of that nature.

There would be less appropriate near sensitive areas like apartments or sport fields associated with schools.

Staff would also know there may or may not be a religious use on the subject site.

Many religious uses are on SU 1 zoned properties, which are also considered to be protected districts by our ordinance.

This one is on a property of its own to C3, but if that use is still active, parking of up to 25 cars on the subject site would likely have an impact on any operations or services for their use that's permitted by right within the district.

Based on the phone call with the applicants of a 23rd, they had expressed that there wasn't any objection by the church for the proposed variance of use.

Staff was not contacted by anyone related to that religious use about either support or opposition or expressing any sort of opinion on this filing.

Staff would contend that alternate areas in the city would be more appropriate for a use of this intensity.

Looks like there are some areas to the west of this property with a lot more additional buffering from residential or school areas with a railroad and a river separating them.

That's just one example.

Areas perhaps with zoning districts more appropriate for the intensity of this use.

But as proposed, a design figure it to be consistent with plan or ordinance guidance, would be a substantial intensity increase from anything surrounding given to the auto sales use to the West appears to have been discontinued.

It doesn't appear to state mandated burdens for approval have been met within the findings, and for that reason, we recommend denial.

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

And just looking at the property, the only entrance would be 10th Street, which is already fairly congested with the issues that left turns.

That's correct.

Okay.

And then for the petitioner, can I ask the petitioner question?

So I noticed the Midwest motors, the one with the flashing light, had no cars a couple weeks ago.

Um is there another plan here?

Like are you're the owner?

No.

No.

There is an owner.

Are they are they trying to like merge the two?

Like what's the intention here?

I just when there is uh several, there's a larger lot already zoned properly just to the west of it.

I don't understand zoning this to do just a car lot next to the church.

It's it's confusing to me.

I am requesting the variance for the only, I'm not for the whole lot, for just the 7711.

The lot is like two buildings.

One of them is half of it a church, and half of it is office and is not used now.

And the other building which I am requesting the variance for is like a house and it's in the back of the lot.

So this is this is why I am asking for the variance because this this house or this building, it's looks like a house shape, it's uh on the back and it have the parking lot in front of it.

It's a barber shop.

Yeah, yeah.

It was used to be a barber shop, and the tenant stopped paying uh, and he have as a owner have to claim and get uh court order to evacuate the barber as a tenant.

That's hard.

Yep, thank you.

Yes.

I do have a question for staff.

You mentioned in the staff report that it is surrounded by protected districts.

I think you touched on it a little bit, but but could you add a little more detail on what a protected district is and how that would differ from any other district that may not make you know the call out in a staff report?

Yeah, absolutely.

Um I can pull up the specific ordinance definition of a protected district just to have that read into the record.

But typically it's areas where a little bit less intensity is desired, includes residential areas, often schools and churches are included as well.

So the specific definition would be specific classes of zoning districts that because of their low intensity or the sensitive land uses permitted by them, require buffering and separation when abutted by certain more intense classifications of land use.

A protected district includes any dwelling district, historic preservation district, hospital district, parks, university quarters, su one, which would be a church district, or SU2, which would be a school.

In this case, there's residential abiding to the south and to the east, as well as an SU2 zoned property to the north, which are the fields associated with Ben Davis.

I appreciate that.

Thank you.

Um any other questions for staff at this time?

All right, hearing none.

Let's go back to the petitioner.

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

Uh I'm trying, as I mentioned before, I'm trying to make this place workable and trying to improve it.

If you please uh take into consideration uh my offer to improve this place, I will be appreciated.

All right, thank you.

Um board, any final questions for the petitioner staff?

anybody?

Alright, hearing none, I will ask the board.

Please cast your ballots for petition 2026 UV one zero one four.

Nelson, no.

Duncan, no.

Walski, no.

And WIT, no.

This petition is denied.

Okay.

Item 19.

2026 UV1016.

1504 South Grant Avenue, Center Township, Council District Number 19, Zoned D 3.

Ashley L.

Ricardo.

Variance of use of the consolidated zoning and subdivision ordinance to allow for outdoor storage and operations related to property maintenance and contractor operations.

Outdoor storage not permitted in the D3 district.

Variance of development standards of the consolidated zoning and subdivision ordinance to allow for a parking area larger than 30 feet.

Parking areas in D3 restricted to 30 feet in width or 50% of the lot width width, whichever is lesser to allow for combined square footage of detached accessory structures to equal one thousand six hundred fifty six square feet when the primary dwelling unit is one thousand five hundred square feet.

The sum of the square footage of all detached accessory structures may not exceed the square footage of the primary dwelling unit.

To allow for an unpaved parking area, parking lots shall provide a durable and dust-free surface area.

Hi.

Please raise your right hand.

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

Say I do.

I do.

State your name and address for the record, please.

Ashley Ricardo, address 1504 South Grant Avenue.

Good afternoon.

My name is Ashley Ricardo, as I mentioned, and I am the owner of the property located at 1504 South Grant Avenue.

Thank you for the opportunity to present my request today.

The equipment materials and vehicles kept on the property are directly related to the services we provide.

The existing layout allows us to safely and securely store our equipment and supplies while keeping the property organized and well maintained.

I have worked to maintain the property responsibly and to be a respectful neighbor.

The accessory structures help keep equipment protected from weather and reduce clutter by storing materials in an organized manner.

The parking area provides a safe location for vehicles and equipment used in the business.

The requested variants will allow the property to continue operating in an organized safe and efficient manner.

Granting this request will not change the character of the neighborhood or create additional traffic beyond what currently exists.

The board believes are appropriate.

I respectfully ask the board to approve my request for the variance of use and of development standards.

My goal is to continue operating responsibly while maintaining a property that reflects positively on the neighborhood and respects those who live nearby.

Thank you for the time and consideration.

I appreciate the opportunity to represent my request, and we'll be happy to answer questions.

Thank you.

Board, any questions at this time for the petitioner?

Can you tell us a little bit about your business?

How long it's been around.

It's been around since 2021, and it's a small business.

The only thing requesting is to be able to park our 20 feet trailer and keep the concrete portion that we put in front of our garage.

Anything with metal.

So you're storing pallets of materials outdoors or they'd be in the barn.

No, we it was just to be able to store our 20 feet trailer and any materials needed, like handheld devices, um, drills, stuff like that.

But that would be indoors, not outdoors.

Correct, or in the trailer.

Yes.

Okay.

So you're not asking to store pallets of material or anything like that.

No, no, no.

Okay.

These pictures were taken before we left our um vacation.

So I have new pictures of um the trailers actually positioned parked on the concrete, not in our drive.

I mean the backyard.

So now that the concrete is done.

You'd like to park it there.

Yes, like right there in front of the garage.

Um, and then do you have like workers that come there to park and ride with you when you go to jobs, or is it just a solo operation?

What's that look like for you and your neighbors?

So sometimes we do have um employees there, but basically it's just our commercial vehicle that we would like to have uh parked there.

Okay, and I ask that because in other petitions right that we've gotten, sometimes if uh landscaping business has like 10 cars come to their house five days a week, something like that, that can be a real heavy burden on the neighborhood.

So it gets brought up.

So when you say once in a while, and so like once in a while one guy might ride along with you to a job or five days a week, three guys, right?

Like what is that right now for you, and what commitment do you are you willing to make, I guess.

So basically it would be um one or two in one in a month.

So it's not something cost, it's not every day.

We're not having five cars of employees in the driveway, nothing like that.

It'll just be one vehicle.

So my mother comes to my house more often than those guys come to your house.

Yes, okay.

One or two guys once in a while.

So that's not the burden that we're trying to address.

Got it.

Thank you so much.

Thank you.

Um, thank you.

Is there anyone here speaking in opposition to this petition?

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

Thank you, Chairman Nelson and members of the board.

I'll note that uh this house uh seems to have been built in 1957.

And uh taking a look, there's been no history of any land use petition to suggest that this has ever been anything but a single family home.

The property is zone D3, and the land use plan classifies it as a suburban neighborhood.

I'll note that parcels in all directions, or excuse me, on the uh east, south, and west um are also zoned for residential purposes.

Um, once again highlighting the residential aspect of this neighborhood.

For further context, D3 uh provides for lower medium intensity residential development.

Um it does not provide for commercial uses, hence the variance of use here.

Uh the typology uh assigned for this property through the land use pattern book is the suburban neighborhood typology, which again is predominantly made up of single family housing.

By contrast, commercial and building contractors, as well as the accessory storage associated with that use are only allowed by rights starting in the C5 district.

The ordinance indicates that the C5 district is designed to provide areas for those retail sales and service functions who operations are typically characterized by automobiles, outdoor display, sales of merchandise, going on a bit, or by activities or operations conducted in buildings or structures that are not completely enclosed.

Staff will know that Grant Avenue is a local district and not a heavy commercial thoroughfare.

And D3 and D5 districts are considered to be protected districts.

Taking a look at this, the intensity ascribed in the C5 district is not compatible with the uses and intensities described in the D3 district or in the suburban neighborhood typology.

The intent of the ordinance restrictions on driveway width and accessory structures is intended to reinforce the character of low density residential neighborhoods.

Large driveways or parking lots can conflict with the low density residential feeling of a single family or two family structures.

Furthermore, accessory structures with more square footage than the primary dwelling unit overshadow the primary residential structure, relegating the residential use to an accessory capacity.

Finally, the standard that all vehicles should be parked on a durable industry surface is intended to ensure that vehicles remain on a paved or gravel lot and do not park in the grass.

While I'll note that it appears that these trailers may have been moved, this also sort of reinforces the point that if a uh driveway is neat needs to be longer than the 30 feet allowed uh for a residential use, then uh this would seem to indicate that maybe the use is not compatible with uh the current zoning district.

Um, based on the analysis above, staff does recommend denial of this petition.

Can we get the um photo three on page 207 of the staff report pulled up?

Is that the view from the street?

Yes.

Yes.

Okay.

And that that's a current picture of the front of the house with the front of the garage.

Yes, that was taken a couple weeks ago.

Okay.

I see the perspective from the aerial view looking down, but when viewed from the street, it doesn't appear that the garage structure is larger than the house.

Um would you agree or is there a different picture that demonstrates that?

I guess I would say from the uh street view, yes, I would concede that point.

I think I did not go on to the neighboring properties.

Um, the intensity of the width and and the combined um size of those uh structures.

Okay.

And the gravel driveway that we're looking at, that's not really the issue of the 30-foot width.

It's when we get back to the new concrete pad that's in front of the garage where it exceeds the 30-foot width.

Is that do I understand that correctly?

That is my understanding as well.

Uh, how is the parts cited by BNS as being wider than the uh thank you?

I appreciate it.

All right.

Uh let's go back to the petitioner.

You can have up to five minutes for any of your rebuttal comments and closing statement.

I would just um appreciate if we would be able to keep the concrete pad that we installed as well as the structure just to help keep all of our materials under there.

And that's pretty much it.

Thank you.

Alright, board, any any final questions?

Hearing none, please cast your ballot for petition 2026 UV1016.

For 2026 UB 1016, Duncan is yes, Nelson is yes, Witt is yes, Walski is yes.

This variance is approved.

Thank you.

Item 20, 2026, UV 1017 amended 1215 South Girls School Road, Wayne Township Council District 17 zoned C3, Elite 9 Investments, LLC by Bill Nymere, variants of use and development standards of the consolidated zoning and subdivision ordinance to provide for the expansion of an existing fueling station use not permitted.

Good afternoon, Chairman Nelson and members of the board.

My name is Bill Neemeyer.

Let me swear you in really quickly.

Certainly.

Okay, you have raised your right hand.

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

Say I do.

I do.

All right.

Please state your name and address for the record.

Bill Neemeyer, 21 East Main Street, Box 441 in New Palestine, Indiana, 46163.

And I'm here regarding item 20, which starts on page 211 of your backup materials.

I represent Elite Nine Investments.

This is a 2.08-acre parcel that's located at the southeast corner of South Girls School Road and West Morris Street.

The property is in a C3 zoning district.

Although my clients have owned this property for less than one year, they have actually been the tenant and the operator of this fueling center for 16 years.

That is the company that built this gas station in 1989.

So my company has great familiarity with this property.

The property being zoned C3 in 1989.

At that time, C3 zoning allowed for a vehicle fueling center.

That means since 2016, and actually, since 2016, this has been a legally existing non-conforming use, which is commonly known as a grandfathered use.

One to install brand new underground storage tanks, and a second permit to install a new larger canopy and additional fuel pumps at the fuel dispensing area.

Both of those permits were issued.

After the fact, they my clients were notified.

They completed the work, they invested more than $700,000 to continue the use of the property that existed since 1989.

When the work was 100% completed, they contacted the city and they were informed that your two permits are now being placed in abeyance because they should have never been issued in the first place.

When you applied for the permits, we should have told you you need a use variance, you need or to rezone the property.

And obviously, my client considered both of those options, and we come before the board requesting the least restrictive change.

We're not asking to completely rezone the property.

My client has no intentions to further develop the property.

I want to note that the property at the north end, there is a fueling center, which, by the way, is less than one block away from a federal express hub that relies heavily upon this corner for its fueling uses.

FedEx trucks are always at this property.

This property is a hub of commercial activity in the community because attached to the fueling center, there is a neighborhood pub.

There's a restaurant, there's a hair salon and a nail salon.

So there are you know a lot of reasons to go to this property for commercial and retail uses.

So again, my client applied for the permits, they were issued, they completed all of the work, they invested substantial money, and then not at the last hour, after the the clock was over, there was no time left.

They were informed uh you can no longer continue to use your property as a fueling center without a use variance.

I will note that we also initially requested a development standard variance uh so that we could avoid putting a sidewalk, and I want to thank both Michael and Councillor Evans.

We had a lot of discussion about sidewalks, and we looked at the elevation, and everybody agrees that a sidewalk is not possible along Girls School Road because right at the curb, there's a very drastic drop-off for a drainage ravine or drainage corridor.

There's a similar drainage facility along West Morris Street, but there is room for a sidewalk.

So, petitioner has agreed to install a six-foot wide sidewalk along the entire length of its property on Morris Street.

So we are not requesting a variance from development standards for sidewalks.

And again, that's with a lot of negotiation back and forth and appreciate all of the input from Michael and Counselor Evans along the sidewalk issue.

So where we are currently it is a hardship.

It was after the fact that the petitioner was told that they needed to uh change the zoning or get either use variants or rezone the property.

This is a clean, well-operated, well-maintained property with ample parking.

Uh it's well landscaped, and the petitioner just simply desires to continue to be able to provide the jobs that exist at this property and that have existed since 1989.

Thank you.

As somebody who lives around the corner, right on Girl School Road, we're very excited about our multi-use path that will be on the opposite side of Girl School Road.

So putting in a six-foot sidewalk to allow the neighbors on the other side of FedEx from you to access that as a welcome addition.

Um this property is known for being well maintained.

I think I've played trivia there a few times, and the upgrades to the fueling station were very welcomed by the community.

Um I do have questions long-term.

Uh this I just want to verify the uh operator for the last 16 years purchased the building.

Yes.

And has invested further in it.

Over 700,000, yes.

Awesome.

And they continue a long-term hold.

This is not they they didn't beautify the property so they could flip it and sell it.

This is their business, this is their livelihood, and they want to continue operating a fueling center there.

Wonderful.

Anything uh that we should know about uh crime usage.

You mentioned FedEx, I know there's an Amazon fulfillment center there, and I'm sure that those folks fill up fairly often.

Um, anything else we should know about that property?

I can tell you that maybe 10 or 11 years ago there was a bar named Sully's that was at the property.

Um Mr.

Sullivan also ran a very top-notch operation, and this is from my experience as working for the company that's owned the property since 1989.

Unfortunately, Mr.

Sullivan retired from the Indianapolis Colts.

Uh, he and his wife stopped operating the pub that was there.

At that time, the new tenant that came in did not do a good job, and there were a lot of problems, there were fights, there were police runs.

It was a bad it was a known issue.

I it was a is not a well welcoming business in the community.

Um that tenant was actually evicted because of those conditions.

Uh the current user, the current operator of the pub is very well invested.

Unfortunately, it's a husband and wife, and the husband passed away about a year ago, but the family continues to operate the business, they pour their soul into it.

So this was not always the condition of the property that it is currently, didn't always exist.

There was a time period where I wouldn't have been safe going there.

I wouldn't have felt safe going there.

I wouldn't have gone there.

I don't know that I ever didn't feel safe, but yes, there was a little rougher for a minute there.

I would feel safe going there anytime now.

Yeah, it's a it's a beautiful property and and loved by the community.

Um so it sounds like they tried to do things right and and missed missed a step that you don't want to rezone because it might signal for additional development and there's no reason to do that.

And that's not the use, not the intention.

Um, out of curiosity, do you know if the petitioner got a zoning confirmation letter or zoning report before they acquired the property?

Not before they acquired the property now.

Okay.

And again, I think it's because they had been a tenant since 2010.

Yep, I know.

They bought it in 2026.

Um in connection with the replacement of the USTs, were was there a leak that required cleanup with item, it was just replacing the well ahead of the latest and greatest, being proactive, and again, wanting to invest, this is a long-term business for the petitioner.

So no, there was not a leak.

It didn't the tanks weren't replaced because they had to, it was an investment.

Yeah.

Thank you.

Appreciate it.

And and fellow council member, it there's a line there, I think as part of it.

They wanted to be able to get folks through a little more swiftly with more modern.

Well, it's too right.

And and I will state that had the petitioners contacted me, I would have advised them instead of doing what was done, and it was of no fault of their own, they wanted to expand the canopy, so they took down the existing canopy.

They could have played games, they could have remodeled it, they could have extended it, and they wouldn't have needed any approvals whatsoever.

But instead of and I'm gonna apologize for my harsh language, instead of half assing it, they did it right.

They took the down the existing canopy, invested in a much nicer one.

They rebranded, it's now a shell station, uh, it looks nicer.

Again, showing their commitment and investment that this is a long-term business for the community, and they just want to continue doing what they've done.

And I know it there have been a lot of denials, then a lot of staff recommendations for denials.

Um I want to point out and appreciate the fact very much that staff is making no recommendation.

Again, I think it's because of the hardship that was not in any fault of the petitioner.

They tried to do everything correctly, they did get permits, they paid for the permits, they did the work, and it was after the fact that they were told they needed a zoning change.

And I also, one last thing I do want to note part of the uh approval process, the subsequent inspection, there are things like a bike rack.

Uh they need to restripe the parking lot to adjust the width of parking spaces.

There are other things that once the zoning is addressed will be done so that any of the issues that remain out there before these permits can be closed will be complied with.

Thank you for your comments.

Just to verify, is there anyone in the audience speaking in opposition to this petition today?

Alright, seeing none, let's go to staff comments.

Absolutely.

Thank you very much, Person Nelson, members of the board for your time once again, and to the petitioner for your comments.

I apologize if any of staff's comments are repetitive, but they did do a pretty thorough job of breaking down the nuts and bolts of the case.

This is an unusual situation for this petition.

Given the context, our staff has no recommendation on approval or denial of the request related to the expansion of a legally non-conforming use disallowed within the C3 Zoning District for reasons that I will explain.

The subject site is near western edge of the county.

The use here is multi-tenant commercial.

Other tenants include a pub, salon, a Chinese restaurant, and as mentioned, the fueling station use began in 1989 for the northernmost tenant, including the fueling canopy as well as the internal convenience store area, presumably.

That meant it could continue operation at the same size and intensity, but any expansion would require approval of a zoning petition.

In October of 2025, applications for two structural permits were made with the Department of Business and Neighborhood Services.

One was for removal and expansion of the fueling canopy, and the other was for the expansion of underground storage tanks associated with those canopies and pumps.

It resulted in an increase in the size of the canopy from 1400 square feet to 3,192 square feet of total area underneath the canopies.

When those permit applications were made with DBNS, they should have had a hold placed for a zoning permit application for an ILP and or be flagged for the legally nonconforming use aspect one or the other, but ideally both.

Those permits instead were issued despite the unaddressed zoning concern.

This is unfortunate and thankfully rather atypical.

This discrepancy wasn't caught until after the installation and addition work was completed in January of 2026.

I think was flagged by an inspector who went out to the site unrelated to the initial structural permit review.

Those permits were placed in abeyance by DBNS in order to allow the petitioner to seek a retroactive ILP and variance of use for the work already done.

They have since made the application for about ILP.

Initial review has been completed by DBNS and the variability to have that ILP release would be contingent on the results of this petition.

The review of the ILP noted that sidewalk placement would be required at a rate of five linear feet per 100 square feet.

But after discussion with staff, they did agree to add it along the entire northern frontage, which meets the five linear feet per 100 square feet of addition and even exceeds it a little bit.

Staff does appreciate the flexibility in that regard.

Approval today would not be exemption from any other applicable dimensional standards.

They're just seeking permission for expansion of the legally non-conforming use.

Findings from the petitioner allude to recent investments at the site per the structural permit issuance as justification for variance approval.

Under many circumstances, our staff would view work done without all required approvals as a self-imposed difficulty as opposed to anything specific to the site.

However, in this instance, uh the hardship of the installation is due to the city having granted permission for the installation by issuance of structural permits that should not have been released.

So it's kind of a difficult situation that this doesn't necessarily rise to the level of an undue hardship as laid out by findings, but it's also not a self-imposed hardship by anything that the petitioner did incorrectly was sort of due to a city mistake in issuance of those permits.

So that's why we're not offering any formal recommendation.

It is likely that if permission were to be sought for this expansion prior to construction, we would be recommending differently, and we do want to be clear this shouldn't be seen as precedent for other expansions of fueling stations in the C3 district for situations that don't involve permits that might have been issued in air.

So we'll leave it to the board's discretion on grant of the variance.

Happy to answer clarifying questions as needed.

Board, any questions for staff?

Alright, hearing none.

Thank you for your comments.

Let's go back to the petitioner.

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

So that the business that has existed since 1989 can continue to do so legally.

Thank you.

Alright, thank you.

Board, any any other questions before we cast our votes?

Hearing none, please go ahead and cast your ballot for petition 2026 UV one zero one seven.

For 2026 UB 1017 amended.

Nelson is yes, Witt is yes, Walski is yes, Duncan is yes.

This variance is granted.

Thank you very much.

Alright, are there any additional business to come before the board today?

I would like to just make one little quick comment if the chair so allows.

Yeah.

Um our hearing today might have not been the smoothest as we might have felt.

Um we had uh a last-minute change to where we had a critical staff member that could not attend.

I want to commend our current planning staff that stepped up and got the meeting done.

Um so especially thank you to uh Jeff York who made this possible, definitely to Michael Weigel, making sure the agenda was uh posted, and to our phenomenal Piper who stepped up out of our comfort zone to uh take on the role of uh hearing specialists so I do want to commend uh current planning staff on making this happen.

And uh as a policy, just so you guys are aware, we are working on uh streamlining our processes to where we build in redundancy to where we can have a smoother process when staff are not here.

So I just want to say thank you, current planning team.

You guys did a great job.

You should be proud of yourself.

Absolutely.

Jefferson Nelson and I did have one final thing.

We have eight sets of findings of fact that all members voted for approval, so we need signatures on those.

Alright.

Thank you.

Does this include the first one?

Does this include the first item of the first hearing?

No, that wouldn't have because it was uh denied.

No, continued.

It was a indecisive, thank you.

Right.

It's been a meeting.

Uh some words escape me.

But yes, board stick around.

Sign these findings of fact, otherwise, this hearing is adjourned.