Indianapolis Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting – August 13, 2019

The Indianapolis Board of Zoning Appeals met on August 13, 2019, at 18:00 to hear requests for variances of use and development standards. The meeting included continuances, transfers to the expedited docket, and a contested variance for a dog daycare and training facility. Board members present were Leisha Ruder, Margaret Banning, Mary Kelly, James Duke, and Chairman Young. Legal counsel was Chris Steinz, and staff from the Division of Planning provided comments.

Continuances & Transfers to Expedited Docket

• 2019 DV2017 (1401 Leonard Street): Continued to September 3, 2019, without additional notice.
• 2019 DV2025 (6462 Avocado Drive): Continued to September 10, 2019, without additional notice.
• 2019 DV2022 (3500 Lafayette Road): Transferred to the expedited docket.
• 2019 UV2014 (4831 Oaknot Drive): Continued to September 10, 2019, without additional notice.
• 2019 DV2020 (1555 English Avenue): Transferred to the expedited docket.
• 2019 DV2021 (409 East Minnesota Street): Transferred to the expedited docket.
• 2019 DV2024 (623 East Minnesota Street): Transferred to the expedited docket at the request of staff after revised site plan was submitted.

Expedited Cases – Unanimous Approvals

All of the following petitions were approved unanimously (5–0) with no remonstrators or staff objections:

• 2019 DV2013 (1431 North Colorado Avenue): Variance for deck addition, fence, and garage (zero-foot setbacks, clear site triangle).
• 2019 DV2023 (826 East Minnesota Street): Variance for single-family dwelling with reduced setbacks and open space.
• 2019 UV2012 (1040 East 75th Street): Variance to legally establish a single-family dwelling encroaching 15 feet into right-of-way.
• 2019 UV2015 (2319 Distributors Drive): Variance to board and train service dogs, subject to two commitments (site plan/plan of operation dated June 1, 2019; remove barbed wire within 60 days).
• 2019 UV2016 (5740 West Minnesota Street): Variance for limousine service, subject to four revised commitments (site plan, trail easement, paving, barbed wire removal).
• 2019 UV2017 (953 & 1005 Harrison Street): Variance for remodeling dwellings and constructing garage with various setbacks.
• 2019 DV2022 (3500 Lafayette Road): Variance for floodplain compensatory storage at off-site location.
• 2019 DV2020 (1555 English Avenue): Variance to legally establish existing dwelling (zero-foot side setback) and construct detached garage; commitment that if demolished, rebuilt to current code.
• 2019 DV2021 (409 East Minnesota Street): Variance for room additions and detached garage; same demolition commitment.
• 2019 DV2024 (623 East Minnesota Street): Variance for single-family dwelling and detached garage with reduced setbacks and open space; site plan revised to meet staff recommendations.

Public Comments & Testimony

• Mark Stalitz (120 West Stop 11 Road) and his wife spoke in opposition to 2019 DV2014 (111 West Stop 11 Road). They built their home across the street two years ago. They provided a list of eight stipulations to the petitioner the day after the initial hearing, but only four were addressed. They expressed disappointment that communication was poor and that the revised plan of operation was not provided until the day before the meeting. They were not in favor of the variance, citing concerns about noise, number of dogs (30 outside), lack of privacy fence, and signage.

• Jennifer Parker (president of Alex and Alley Foundation) and Victor Pear (representative) spoke in support. They apologized for communication issues and stated their intent to be good neighbors. They emphasized the mission of employing young adults with developmental disabilities and argued the dog daycare would be a high-end, neighborhood-friendly use. They offered to pave the driveway and install privacy fencing, but were reluctant to limit total dogs on site, preferring a limit on dogs outside (20 at a time).

Discussion Items – Contested Variance (2019 DV2014)

• Petition: Alex and Alley Foundation requested a variance to operate an outdoor dog run and training area at 111 West Stop 11 Road (zoned C3). The use required a variance because outdoor dog activities are not permitted within 100 feet of protected districts (residential). The property is adjacent to two single-family dwellings to the west; the petitioner’s plan placed the outdoor area zero feet from the nearest protected district.
• Staff Report: Staff recommended denial, citing concerns about noise, odor, traffic (10–30 customers daily on gravel driveway), dust, and the incompatibility of outdoor kennel operations adjacent to residential properties. Staff noted that the site could be used for indoor commercial uses without a variance, and that the practical difficulty was self-imposed.
• Petitioner’s Argument: The outdoor area is essential for exercise and training. The foundation plans to employ adults with disabilities. They agreed to pave the driveway, install privacy fencing, and limit total dogs to 50 (20 outside at any time). They argued the use is more compatible than a strip mall, which was previously approved for the site.
• Remonstrators’ Argument: The Stalitzes insisted on all eight stipulations, including a total dog limit of 20 and a privacy fence on the entire west side. They felt the petitioner’s response was insufficient and that outdoor operations would disrupt the neighborhood.
• Board Deliberation: Board members discussed the need for enforceable commitments. Counsel suggested tying commitments to the plan of operation, an amended site plan showing paved areas and privacy fencing, and limits on dog numbers. The board voted on the variance subject to three conditions: (1) plan of operation dated July 2, 2019; (2) amended site plan (subject to administrator approval) showing paved maneuvering areas and upgraded privacy fencing; (3) maximum 50 dogs total on property and 20 dogs outside at any time.

Key Outcomes

• All expedited cases (listed above) were approved unanimously (5–0).
• 2019 DV2014 (111 West Stop 11 Road) was approved on a 3–2 vote (Duke, Kelly, Young: yes; Reuter, Banning: no). The variance was granted subject to the three commitments described above.
• No further business was conducted; the meeting adjourned.