Indianapolis Board of Zoning Appeals Division Two Meeting - March 10, 2020
STREAMING COPY IN PREPARATION — RECORDING AVAILABLE FROM THE ORIGINAL SOURCE
Indianapolis Metropolitan Board of Zoning Appeals Division Two Meeting - March 10, 2020
The Metropolitan Board of Zoning Appeals Division Two held a public hearing on March 10, 2020, chaired by Mark Young. Board members present included Alicia Ruder, Beth Whitaker, Mary Kelly, and James Duke. The meeting addressed continuances, withdrawals, and three variance petitions.
Continuances and Withdrawals
- 2019 UV 2009 (6401 Zionsville Road) – Attorney Kyle Russeteris requested a continuance for ATT Mobility to finalize a lease for a new location. Granted without additional notice to the April 14, 2020 hearing.
- 2019 DV 2035 (222 Bluff Road & 357 West Raymond Street) – Petitioner Jonathan Imperial requested a one-month continuance to continue discussions with neighborhood associations. Staff expressed concern over multiple continuances (filed October 2019, continued twice before) but did not object, warning that no future continuances would be supported. Continued to April 14, 2020.
- 2020 DV 2005 (1321 Spruce Street) – Fond Square Neighborhood Association Land Use Committee requested a continuance for cause. Petitioner Ronnie Cameron opposed, wishing to proceed for the spring market. The board did not grant a continuance and proceeded with the hearing.
- 2020 DV 2006 (3232 Harper Road) – Withdrawn by petitioner’s representative; acknowledged by the board.
Public Comments & Testimony
- Micah Hill (remonstrator for 1208 Windsor Street, speaking for the neighborhood land use committee) raised three concerns: (1) procedural – the petitioner did not adequately engage with the neighborhood after an initial meeting and declined further meetings; (2) open space – the requested 45%–46% is a nearly 20% reduction from the required 55%, and the lot, while unique, is not unusually small; (3) the revised setback of 4 feet from the alley (down from 8 feet) creates access issues for trash trucks and emergency vehicles. He stated the neighborhood generally supports development but opposes this specific plan.
- Martha Latta (neighbor at 1236 Windsor Street) expressed concerns about alley access, noting a concrete block wall and a hard right turn at the proposed garage location.
- Jen Ayman (neighborhood association member) clarified that the neighborhood remains open to working with the petitioner and emphasized the need for right-sized development due to aging infrastructure and stormwater issues.
Discussion Items
- 2020 DV 2004 (6112 Primrose Avenue) – Petitioner Adam Hart and homeowner Alex Fertle sought a variance to rebuild a fire-damaged garage in the same location with a 1.5-foot side setback (3 feet required). The project would move the garage 2 feet closer to the street to save a large maple tree. Broad Ripple Homeowners Association provided a letter of support. Staff had no comments. The board voted unanimously (5-0) to approve.
- 2020 DV 2005 (1321 Spruce Street) – Petitioner Ronnie Cameron requested variances for a single-family addition: 3 feet between dwellings, a 5-foot front setback, and 43% open space (18-foot front setback or average, 10 feet between dwellings, and 60% open space required). On the record, he amended the open space to 50% as recommended by staff. Staff recommended approval at the amended 50%. The board voted unanimously (5-0) to approve.
- 2019 DV 2041 (1208 Windsor Street) – Petitioner Mark Crouch requested variances for a new single-family dwelling with attached garage: a 5-foot front setback (18 feet or average required), a 10-foot rear setback (15 feet required), and 45% open space (55% required). During the hearing, petitioner acknowledged a revised site plan showing 46% open space and a 4-foot side setback from the alley (originally 8 feet) due to a survey error showing the adjacent garage’s actual setback of 1 foot 6 inches. Staff recommended approval, noting the lot’s irregular shape and reduced size, and that the reduced setbacks match neighborhood patterns. Remonstrators opposed the open space reduction and the alley setback, citing access concerns. Petitioner stated the home would be built for sale, possibly two stories without a basement. After discussion, the board voted unanimously (5-0) to approve.
Key Outcomes
- Approvals (all 5-0):
- 2020 DV 2004 (6112 Primrose Avenue) – variance granted.
- 2020 DV 2005 (1321 Spruce Street) – variance granted as amended to 50% open space.
- 2019 DV 2041 (1208 Windsor Street) – variance granted with 46% open space and revised setbacks.
- Continuances granted: 2019 UV 2009 and 2019 DV 2035 to April 14, 2020.
- Withdrawal acknowledged: 2020 DV 2006.
- Board declined continuance for 2020 DV 2005; hearing proceeded.
Meeting Transcript
So where's your project? We just we do word for like TKW and church and Josh. There's a lot of builders in the area. But yeah, if you've never been in the neighborhood association, they last time I went, they might have that one score up there. What is that? Crossroad. Woodman and Shelby. But yeah, they remonstrated against the last project because of open space. So staff recommended approval and they remonstrated against two. And then they appeal. Huh? Looks like I should imagine. Yeah, shutting down everything. They're gonna do that for Vegas. That's what? Next weekend? Really? That's a lot of money going. Where does she go? They must have been continued. Oh, some of them are down. Can I start now? Then we shall proceed with whatever she can do. Call to order. This is a public hearing of the Metropolitan Board of Zone and Appeals, Division Two. I am Mark Young, Chairperson of Division Two. The other board members present are Alicia Ruder and Beth Whitaker as an alternate to my left and Mary Kelly and James Duke to my right. Legal counsel for the board today is Chris Steimitz. Staff members present today from the division of planning or Heather Steffen, senior specialist and secretary to the board, Larry Callaway, Principal Planner 2, Robert Udenhake, Senior Planner, and Marlena Aretta, uh senior planner. Matt Pleasant is the current planning administrator. The board has copies of the zoning ordinance that will be incorporated by reference into rec into the record of each case heard today. The proceedings of this hearing are governed by the board state board's rules of procedure. The expedite case will be heard immediately after all requests for continuances or withdrawals. Those who intend to testify will please remain standing and be sworn. Petitioners should be on your left and remonstrators on your right as you face the board. Those who testify will state their name and address for the record before beginning to testify. Petitioners and persons appearing in support of the case being heard shall have a maximum of 15 minutes for the presentation of evidence, statements, and arguments in support of the petition. Remonstrators and persons appearing in opposition to the petition shall have a maximum of 15 minutes for the presentation of evidence, statements, and arguments in opposition to the petition. Staff will then present the administrators' comments regarding the petition. The petitioner will then be allowed five minutes for rebuttal and a summation of the case. Rebuttal must be limited to the subject matter of the initial presentations. Remonstrators will then be allowed five minutes for rebuttal of the petitioner's rebuttal evidence and a brief closing statement. No further evidence, statements or arguments will be heard unless it is at the direct discretion of the board. Please limit your testimony and evidence to the matters covered in the statutory requirements, which must be met in order for the board to grant a variance. Petitioners have failed to comply with all notice requirements as stipulated by the board's rules of procedure, including posting of the notice signed on the subject property at least 23 days prior to the hearing. The board may continue the petition. Anyone at this hearing who thinks completing proper notice has not been given and would like the petition continue to lack a 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 of way are examples. These conditions and commitments are an integral part of the board's decision and must be met for a granted variance to be valid.
openpublica.com