Metropolitan Board of Zoning Appeals Division 2 Public Hearing - August 9, 2022
STREAMING COPY IN PREPARATION — RECORDING AVAILABLE FROM THE ORIGINAL SOURCE
Metropolitan Board of Zoning Appeals Division 2 Public Hearing - August 9, 2022
The Metropolitan Board of Zoning Appeals Division 2 met on August 9, 2022, at 6:00 PM to hear a variety of variance petitions, including requests for development standard variances, use variances, and digital sign conversions. The board was chaired by Craig E. Von Dalen, with members James Duke, Patrice Ducett Brown, Beth Brandon, and Kirk Farmer present. Legal counsel Chris Steinmetz and planning staff also attended. The meeting included continuances, expedited petitions, and five contested cases, with public testimony and staff recommendations presented for each.
Public Comments & Testimony
- Mauna Wadood (Northwest Landing Neighborhood Association) opposed the use variance for auto repair at 1259 West 29th Street, stating that an auto body shop does not fit neighborhood revitalization aspirations and that 30 members signed a letter of opposition.
- Tom Hanley (CEO of 913 Inc., a tenant at 1271 West 29th Street) urged denial of the same petition, citing four years of nuisance issues, safety concerns (including a homicide, theft ring, explosion, and threats with guns), and improper disposal of hazardous materials. He stated that the property has operated outside zoning for years.
- Pat Andrews (representing Decatur Township Civic Council and Marion County Alliance of Neighborhood Associations) spoke against the digital billboard petitions (2022 UV2-023 and 2022 UV2-018), arguing that the city’s ban on digital off-premise signs reflects community standards and that granting variances would set a dangerous precedent. She also cited safety studies indicating driver distraction.
- Edwin Locke (representing Pike Township Residence Association) opposed the digital billboard at 4900 Robison Road, stating that the area already has a clutter of signs and that the sign does not create a hardship. He also noted that the city council unanimously upheld the digital ban in 2019.
- Lafayette Williams (petitioner for 1259 West 29th Street) briefly rebutted allegations, calling them untrue, and stated he has owned the property for two years.
Discussion Items
- 2022 DV2-009 (1635 South Sherman Drive) – Petitioner Will Gooden requested variances to allow a 3,200 sq ft detached accessory structure and a roofing business with commercial vehicle storage. The existing single-family home is on a one-acre lot in a D3 district. The petitioner argued the structure would be at the rear, not visible from the street, and that the commercial vehicles would be stored inside or out of view. Staff recommended denial, citing the structure’s excessive size, height, and commercial nature that would be injurious to the residential character. The board approved the petition 4-1 (Farmer dissenting) after the petitioner committed to removing two small sheds.
- 2022 UV2-007 (1259 West 29th Street) – Petitioner David Kingan sought a use variance to allow auto repair in an I2 zone. The petitioner proposed an indoor operation with limited hours, letters of support from 23 neighbors, and a plan of operation with commitments including a non-transferable variance. Staff recommended denial, noting the property had been in violation since 2019 and that auto repair is a high-intensity use incompatible with nearby residential uses. The board denied the petition 3-1 (Duke supporting) after hearing testimony from the remonstrators.
- 2022 UV2-023 (5430 Victory Drive) – Lamar Advertising requested multiple variances to convert an existing static billboard to a digital 40-foot tall, 14x48 foot double-faced sign along I-465. The petition sought relief from separation requirements, a front setback, and the digital display ban. The petitioner argued the sign is safe, NDOT permits digital signs, and the conversion would allow Amber Alerts and community messages. Staff and multiple neighborhood groups opposed, citing the 2019 ordinance that bans digital off-premise signs and the lack of a practical difficulty. The board denied the petition 3-2 (Von Dalen and Duke supporting, Brandon, Ducett Brown, Farmer opposing).
- 2022 DV2-022 (1342 Southeast Street) – Petitioner Mark Crouch requested variances to legally establish an existing commercial building within the clear site triangle, provide a second-story addition, reduce parking to 6 spaces, and allow a balcony/awning into the right-of-way. Staff supported the existing building and parking but opposed the balcony due to right-of-way encroachment and proximity to power lines. The board split the vote: Part A (legal establishment and parking) was approved 5-0; Part B (balcony extension) was approved 3-2 (Duke and Farmer opposing).
- 2022 UV2-018 (4900 Robison Road) – Lamar Advertising again sought variances to convert a 38-year-old static billboard to digital along I-465 in Pike Township. The petitioner noted the sign is in an I4 industrial area and that the conversion would allow safety upgrades and community alerts. Staff and remonstrators (including Pike Township Residents Association) opposed, citing the 2019 ordinance, self-created injury, and safety concerns. The board denied the petition 4-1 (Von Dalen supporting).
Key Outcomes
- 2022 DV2-030 (8040-8042 Westfield Blvd) – Moved to expedited docket and approved without testimony (5-0 vote via ballot).
- 2022 DV2-020 (1603 Hoyt Avenue) – Moved to expedited docket and approved (5-0 vote).
- 2022 DV2-009 (1635 Sherman Drive) – Approved 4-1 (Farmer dissenting).
- 2022 UV2-007 (1259 West 29th Street) – Denied 3-1 (Duke supporting).
- 2022 UV2-023 (5430 Victory Drive) – Denied 3-2 (Von Dalen and Duke supporting).
- 2022 DV2-022 (1342 Southeast Street) – Part A (existing building and parking) approved 5-0; Part B (balcony) approved 3-2.
- 2022 UV2-018 (4900 Robison Road) – Denied 4-1 (Von Dalen supporting).
- Continuances: Several petitions were continued to future dates without additional notice: 2022 UV2-009 through 013 (September 13), 2022 UV2-013 (October 11), 2022 DV2-027 (September 6, transferred to Division 1), 2022 DV2-024 (September 13), 2022 DV2-023 (September 13), 2022 UV2-017 (September 13 with additional notice).
- Expedited petitions: 2022 DV2-030 and 2022 DV2-020 were moved to the expedited docket and approved.
- The board also acknowledged a timely automatic continuance for 2022 DV2-029.
Meeting Transcript
Oh, I know. They are upstairs. I don't know if I have them sat in a place that somebody upstairs fine. How about I emailed the thing? So the last thing on the doctor is Lamar actually, so I will just say that we'll have to go by the end of the week. Call to order. This is a public hearing of the Metropolitan Board of Zoning Appeals, Division 2. I'm Craig E. Von Dalen, Chairperson of Division Two. The other board members present are James Duke. He will be arriving shortly. Patrice Ducett Brown. Beth Brandon, Kirk Farmer. Legal Counsel for the Board of Day is Chris Steinmetz. Staff members present today from the division of planning are Eddie O'Neill, Principal Planner 2. Robert Ewanhake, senior planner, Marlene Ayarjeda, senior planner. Genesis Hill, associate planner, Heather Stephen, Senior Specialist and Secretary to the Board. Matt Pleasant is the current planning administrator. The board has copies of the zoning ordinance that will be incorporated by reference into the record of each case heard today. The proceedings of this hearing are governed by the board's rules of procedure. The expedited cases will be heard immediately after all requests for continuances or withdrawals. As each non-expedited case is called, petitioners and remonstrators interested in that particular case will please stand. Those who intend to testify will please remain standing and be sworn. Petitioners should be on your left and remonstrators on your right as you face the board. Those who testify was will state their name and addresses 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. No further evidence, statements, or arguments will be heard unless it is at the discretion of the board. Please limit your testimony and evidence to the matters covered in the statutory requirements, which must be met in order for the board to grant a variance. If the petitioners have failed to comply with all notice requirements as stipulated by the board's rules of procedures, including posting of the notice sign on the 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 would like the petition continued to a lack of proper notice must bring this matter to the board's attention at the beginning of the hearing. These conditions and commitments are an integral part of the board's decision and must be met for a granted variance to be valid. Compliance with conditions imposed by the board must be approved, 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. And a reference to the board's petition number. Forms are available and may be obtained from the board secretary. Please be advised that can contact a members of the board regarding a matter pending before the board outside of this public hearing process is prohibited. Please be courteous and orderly at all times, and please be sure all cell phone ringers are turned off. Is there anyone in the audience who has any questions about our procedures? If not, before we hear special requests, I will ask for a waiver of our rules procedure to allow the board to vote for an ex for all expedited petitions and adopt their findings of fact without any additional testimony from the individual partitioners. Do I hear a motion? Duke's a move. Motion made by member board member Duke. Do I hear a second? Brandon, second. Second made by board member Branded. I will call we'll now ask for a vote. Duke. Duke, yes.
openpublica.com