May I start.

Call to order.

This is a public hearing of the Metropolitan Board of Zoning Appeals Division 2.

I'm Craig Von Dalen, Chairperson of Division Two.

The other board members present are Beth Brandon and Tom Barnes.

Legal Counsel for the Board today is Chris Steinmetz.

Staff members present today from the Division of Planning are Eddie O'Neill, current planning administrator.

Michael Weigel, senior planner, Noah Stern, senior planner, and Marty Weistie, senior board specialist and secretary of the board.

The board has copies of the zoning ordinance, which will be incorporated by reference into the record of each case heard today.

The proceedings of this hearing are governed by the board's rule of procedure.

The expedited cases will be heard immediately after all requests for continuances and withdrawals.

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 administrator's 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 in order for the board to grant a variance.

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 a 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.

Compliance with conditions imposed by the board must be approved 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.

I'm sorry, we 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 and con that contacting members of the board regarding a matter pending before the board outside of this public hearing process is prohibited.

Please be courteous and orderly at all times.

And please be sure all cell phone ringers are turned off.

There are three members present today.

It requires three votes to take action on any request.

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

If your petition receives an indecisive voice, your vote, your petition will automatically be continued to the September 9th, 2025 hearing.

Board members, you have been proved provided meeting meeting minutes for the July 8th, 2025 meeting.

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

Do I hear a motion?

Brandon, so moved.

And a second.

Barnes second.

And I'll call the roll.

Brandon.

Brandon, yes.

Barnes.

And I'm also in favor.

Is there anyone in the audience who any qu has any questions about our procedures before we hear special requests?

I'll ask for a waiver of our rules of procedure to allow the board to vote for all expedited petitions and adopt their findings of facts without any additional testimony from the individual petitioners.

Do I hear a motion?

Brandon, so moved.

And a second.

Barnes say.

I'll call the roll.

Brandon.

Brandon, yes.

Barnes.

Yes.

And I'm also yes.

And we'll now consider special requests and continuances at this time.

Hello, my name is Marcus Crouch.

I live at 1246 Avalon Circle, Greenwood, Indiana.

I'm here today on behalf of 2025 DB2-0 to a Oxford or 415 South Oxford Street.

I'd like to ask for a continuance on this case.

Very well.

Is anyone else in the audience with an interest in petition number 2025 DV2-02A with an address of 415 South Oxford Street?

No one being seen.

We'll go to comments from staff.

Thank you, Chairman Von Dalen and members of the board.

Being that this is the first request for continuance staff has no objection to that.

Very well.

I'll attend a motion to is this with or without notice.

This would be without notice unless otherwise needed.

Okay.

Then I'll entertain a motion to continue without an additional notice and unless otherwise needed.

Petition number 2025 DB2-028.

Do I hear a motion?

Brandon, so moved.

Barnes second.

And I'll call the roll.

Brandon.

Brandon, yes.

Barnes.

Yes.

And I'm a yes.

Craig, just to clarify, that's continued to September 2nd.

I'm sorry, yes, September 2nd.

I apologize.

Or wait a minute.

Were we September agreed on October 14th already?

Oh.

October 14th.

Let's re-roll this.

Yeah, I apologize.

So October 14th.

That's what he had sent me, yes.

All right.

The day after my birthday, by the way.

Happy birthday.

Okay, I undertain a motion to continue without additional notice to our October 14th regularly scheduled hearing.

Uh petition number 2025 DB2-028.

Do I hear a motion?

Brandon, so moved.

Second.

Second.

Barnes.

Thank you.

I'll call the roll.

Brandon.

Brandon, yes.

Barnes.

And I'm also yes.

Thank you.

Thanks, Mr.

Crouch.

Yes.

Hello.

Uh, I say my name first.

Name and address.

Thank you.

I'm sorry.

Jesse Baum, 334 North Elder.

Um, I would like to file for a continuance for DV25.

I'm sorry, 2025 DV2016.

Uh, although Mr.

Dehart said did say he would reach out to us as a community, he did attend one of our neighborhood association meetings.

However, when other developers were faced with some tough questions, he left without speaking to anyone except for other developers.

And we just kind of feel a little left out still.

Um, and we have some concerns still that we've been continuing to raise.

So you're with a registered neighborhood association.

I am a member, not on the board.

On the board which one?

The Stringtown Neighborhood Association.

Okay.

Um is there anyone else in the audience with an interest in petition number 2025 DB 2-016 with an address of 1507 1501?

And 1533 West New York Street.

Please come forward, say your name and address.

Adam D.

Hart, project manager with Keeto Webb Associates.

Our address is at 486 Gradle Drive.

Carmel, Indiana, 46032.

Okay.

Uh you have a registered neighbors association that is requesting a continuance of this case.

Um, do you have any objection to that continuance?

Yes, we do.

And um they're asking because they feel like communication has not been an established between you and the neighborhood association.

I believe they have a right to ask for has this been continued already?

Yes, sir.

But did they was it continued by you?

I'm sorry, I'm not gonna ask staff.

Who's staff on this?

No, no, yeah.

Thank you, Chairman Mondale and members of the board.

The remonstrator filed an automatic continuance uh in July to this hearing date.

A remonstrator.

Uh that was the uh Stringtown Neighborhood Association, Jesse Baum.

Okay.

Um so they're asking uh please come forward, whoever the man who asked for the continuance.

Okay.

Um so you've already asked for one continuance.

You're allowed a continuance.

You're asking for an additional continuance at this point.

Yes, we just feel again, we've been reaching out several times, proposing our concerns, and nothing in the plans has changed.

We have not spoken to anyone.

They sort of said in an email that they would have someone reach out to us.

That never happened.

Okay.

It's just leaving us feeling with bad taste in our mouth.

Okay.

Um it looks like there's someone else that would like to testify as it pertains to the continuance.

Please state your name and address for the record.

My name is K Romero, 332 North Elder Avenue, also um part of actually the secretary of Stringtown Neighborhood Association.

Okay.

And I'd also like to um for continuance, please.

Ask for continuance.

Okay.

And another gentleman.

Please come forward, say your name and address.

Richard Dufour, 1523.

Sorry, West New York Street, Indianapolis.

I'm also a member of the Stringtown Neighborhood Association, and I would like to ask for a continuance as well.

Okay.

Um I have submitted this morning also a letter of remonstration.

Okay.

Just this morning.

Correct.

All right.

Let me go to council real quick.

Mr.

Steinmetz, uh bit of a quandary.

We've got a neighborhood association that's already asked for continuance.

The there are various members of the community and also members of that organization that would like a further continuance against the the wishes of the of the petitioner.

Um is it our discretion or what do you think?

I would so you need to take into account what each side is saying is why they why they're taking the position that that they are.

Okay.

And then um it is up to uh board member to make a motion one way or the other.

Very well.

I'm gonna go to comments from staff though, prior to that.

So do I have any comments from staff, Mr.

Walk Mr.

Noah?

Thank you, Chairman Mondale and members of the board.

Um staff has uh urged both sides uh a few different times to get together on this matter.

Um sounds like that has not been the case, at least not uh to their liking.

And um staff is ready to go today, but um given the situation is not opposed to the continuance.

Okay, very well.

I'll entertain a motion to continue to our next regularly scheduled hearing, which appears to be the day after my birthday, October 14th.

No, without additional notice.

Oh, I'm sorry, September.

I'm sorry, I'm not on the road.

When's our September hearing?

That's September 9th.

September 9th.

I'll entertain a motion to continue to our September 9th hearing without additional notice.

Petition number 2025 DV2-016.

Brandon, so moved.

Second.

Barnes say.

Okay, I'll call the roll, Brandon.

Brandon, yes.

Barnes.

And I'm also a yes.

Can we continue?

I would encourage you to get with your remonstrance and at least have some conversations about the project.

There's additional background that we've got to do.

Yes, sir.

Good afternoon, Mr.

Chairman, members of the board for the record, Russell Brown, Law Firm of Clark Quinn 320 North Meridian Street, suite 1100.

We represent the petitioner in 2025 UV 2011 5380 North College Avenue.

We need to make a request for a two-day waiver of posted and mailed notice.

And we uh staff with we provided that notice as soon as it was given to staff from staff, but it was uh two days beyond the deadline.

Thank you, Mr.

Brown.

Oh, is there anyone else in the audience with an interest in petition number 2025 UV 2-011 with an address of 5380 North College Avenue?

None being seen.

I'll uh go to comments from staff.

Sure.

Uh thank you, Chairperson von Dalen, members of the board.

Uh, staff has no objection to the request given to primary reason for the need for the notice waiver is delay in provision of those notice materials.

Very well.

I understand a motion to grant a two-day waiver of notice to the petition number 2025 UV 2-011.

Do I hear do I hear a motion?

Brandon, so moved.

And a second.

Barnes second.

Call the roll, Brandon.

Brandon, yes.

Barnes.

Yes.

And I'm a yes.

Mr.

Chairman, members of the board, I'm David Deering, 921 East 86 Street, Suite 203 in Indianapolis.

On case number 2025, DV2027.

I'm requesting a one-day waiver on the uh deadline for posting the R the orange yard sign.

Uh when staff got the sign ready.

Uh my client was out of town, so we had a little delay in getting it posted.

One day waiver in the yard.

One one day waiver.

Okay.

Um is there anyone else in the audience with an interest in petition number 2025 DB2-027 with an address of 5227 Knowlton Road?

Please come forward.

But yeah, come forward and state your name and address for the record.

This is pertaining to a one-day waiver of notice.

Just want to make sure you don't have an objection.

Your name is I don't have an objection.

I please state your name and address for the record.

My name is Dorothy Feibelman.

I am representing the Homa Deckelbaum Trust at 5117 Nolton Road.

And you have no objection to the one-day waiver of notice.

I don't care that it was put out one day late.

Is that what you mean?

Yes.

Sorry, I'm not legal.

I have no idea what you ask.

Neither am I.

I'm just doing the best I can.

Okay, yes, me too.

I've never done this before.

Excuse me.

Was the address you gave your personal address?

Yeah, that's okay.

All right.

Then uh go to comments from staff on the waiver.

Uh thank you.

Is that it?

For now.

Yeah.

Yep.

Uh thanks to the chair and members of the board.

Staff has no objection given the primary reason was uh minor delays in provision of those materials.

You bet.

Then I'll entertain a motion to grant a one-day waiver of notice to petition number 2025 DV2-027.

Brandon, so moved.

Second.

Barnes.

Call the role, Brandon.

Brandon, yes.

Barnes.

Yes.

And I'm a yes.

Thank you.

Waivers granted.

Hello.

My name is Josh Myers from uh 5658 West 73rd Street, uh, Indianapolis 46 uh 278, uh representing Loving Missionary Baptist Church for the variance of 2025-UV2-010.

Uh we filed a continuance in July 8th for this meeting and have been working with the Metropolitan Planning Department to get staff approval.

From my understanding, given staff approval, we should have been put to be an expedited hearing, so a petition, so I was just confused.

Well, let's find out.

Is there anyone in the audience with an interest in petition number 2025 UV two-010 with an address of 802 Roche Street?

None being seen.

We'll go to comments from staff.

Mr.

Uf.

Thank you, Chair President Baudale and members of the board.

Yes, this petition should be expedited.

As staff is recommending approval.

It has been amended, and the expedited petition is the amended petition, which is indicated in the staff report, but not in the docket.

Very well.

Um staff is not aware of any objection to this request.

All right, then I will entertain a motion to move to our expedited docket petition number 2025 UV two-010.

Brandon, so move.

Second.

Barnes second.

Call the roll.

Brandon.

Brandon, yes.

Barnes.

And I'm also yes.

Thank you.

You're welcome.

Uh very quickly to explain why it was not on the expedited uh agenda.

We did not learn that it would, or I did not learn it that it would be expedited until after the printing order had been made for the agendas.

So that's why.

Thank you, Mr.

Secretary.

Continuing on with special requests.

Anything staff.

Thank you, Chairman Von Dalen, members of the board.

Staff would draw your attention to item number 10, 2025 DV2029 at 5907 Birchwood Avenue.

A registered neighborhood filed a timely automatic continuance for this case.

Acknowledged.

Thank you.

Are there any other special requests?

Yeah, please come forward to say your name and address for the record.

It is time for the score case.

I'm not sure what exactly.

No.

Okay.

This is if you uh want to request a continuance or a waiver of notice for a case.

All right.

Thanks.

Okay.

All right.

We will move on to the expedited docket.

Mr.

Weigal, please read the cases in.

Or weasty, I'm sorry.

Mr.

Weigel.

You're not our second.

We got so many W's.

All right, which one was moved?

These are petitions to be expedited.

Case number 2025-DV2-026.

Property address 5547 North Delaware Street.

Washington Township, Council District No.

7, zoned D4 MSPC.

The petitioners are Theo and uh Elizabeth Muscari, represented by Vince Brown.

Variance of development standards of the consolidated zoning and subdivision ordinance to provide for the construction of a detached garage with a three-foot south side and rear yard setback.

Four and five feet required respectively.

Case number two zero two five-UV2-010 amended property address 802 Roach Street, Center Township, Council District No.

12, zoned D5.

The petitioner is loving Missionary Baptist Church, represented by Josh Myers.

Variance of use and development standards of the consolidated zoning and subdivision ordinance to provide for a freestanding monument sign, not for a residential community, not permitted, with a five-foot front yard setback from Franklin Place.

10 foot setback required.

Case number 2025-UV2-011.

Property address 5380 North College Avenue.

Parcel address 651 East 54th Street.

Washington Township, Council District Number 7, zoned C3 slash D5 TOD.

The petitioner is 5400 College Avenue LLC, represented by Elizabeth Bence Williams.

Variants of use of the consolidated zoning and subdivision ordinance to provide for the operation of a bar within 10 feet of a protected district.

100 foot separation required.

There we are.

Cast our ballots, which I think we already have.

Mr.

Weastie.

On case 2025-DV2-026, Craig Von Dalen votes yes.

Beth Brandon votes yes, and Tom Barnes votes yes.

That variance is granted.

On case 2025-UV2-010, Craig Von Dalen votes yes, Beth Brandon votes yes, and Tom Barnes votes yes.

That variance is granted.

And on case 2025-UV2-011, Craig Von Dalen votes yes, Beth Brandon votes yes, and Tom Barnes votes yes.

That variance is granted.

When you're ready, Mr.

We see you can go ahead and call the first case or regular schedule docket.

These are petitions for public hearing.

Case number two zero two five-dv two-zero one nine property address three eight seven zero Broadway Street.

Washington Township Council District No.

7, zoned D5 TOD.

The petitioners are Carlos Garcia and Martha Rivas.

Variants of development standards of the consolidated zoning and subdivision ordinance to provide for the location of a six and a half foot tall fence within the front yards and clear site triangles of Broadway Street and the front yards, clear site triangle and encroaching within the right of way of 39th Street with nine and a half foot tall fence posts, maximum height three and a half foot tall fence permitted, fence posts limited to one foot taller than maximum fence height, encroachment of clear sight triangles not permitted, encroachment of right of way not permitted.

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

Do you swear or affirm that the thank you?

Do you swear or affirm that the testimony you will give is the truth and nothing but the truth?

Yes.

My name is Rebecca Garcia, and my address is 6511 West 15, straight in the Napoleonela 46 to 14.

And I'm just returning uh like we did in the previous month just to talk before my parents uh house is uh the build the fence was built with good purpose.

Uh we have collected more letters with from neighbors that are in support of it, and I also brought a letter from my sister and I just acknowledging how my parents take care of uh our uh sons, two-year-old and a four-year-old, and how the fence is in good uh for the neighborhood and also for our family protection uh uh mainly after the shooting that happened last year.

Thank you, Ms.

Garcia.

Is there anything else you'd like to state or are you?

No, I also well I'll I also have not been contact by the city by any of the uh like suggesting anything uh that can be fixed uh or anything to make uh the funds better for the city.

Okay, so no one from the city of Indianapolis has contacted you or the petitioner over the last 30 days.

No.

Okay.

All right.

Um is there is there anyone else in the audience that has an interest in petition number 2025 DV2-019 with an address of 3870 Broadway Street?

None being seen.

We'll go to comments from staff.

Will you like the letters and uh oh yeah, you can you can hand those to the secretary and he'll he'll circulate them around to us.

Thank you very much.

Staff thank you, Chairman Von Dalen and members of the board.

Um as you recall this case was continued at the meeting of Division 2 last month due to um is questions surrounding uh the fence height related to grade.

Uh staff did have a discussion with the enforcement officer and supervisor of um enforcement over at BNS and determine that they measured the grade height from of the fence from inside the location of the fence with which um uh is roughly 50 inches.

Staff would go ahead and earn say 51 inches in height, uh just to be on the safe side.

Uh that would just be just taller than four feet two inches.

Um however, in further review of this request, staff would note that uh the retaining wall was installed at some point over the last three years, as evidenced on exhibit 10, page 57 of your staff report, and um uh the fence installed at some point after that fact, at which point uh BNS received a complaint and was sent to the site um both in February for the initial enforcement action as well as um back in April in order to document any remediation.

Uh the fence height inside the fence is shown on exhibit 12 within page 58.

Given that the fence height uh exceeds any exception afforded to dwelling districts, which in some instances does allow for a four-foot tall fence.

Staff does view the request to be self-imposed and also posing a safety hazard given the degree to which it encroaches within the clear site triangle, and for that reason, staff is recommending uh denial of the request.

Um however, should the board opt to approve it, staff would strongly encourage that the board do so with a commitment that the fence be uh removed from the clear site triangle and that the fence heights be or the fence posts uh be cut down to be no greater than one foot taller than the height of the fence.

Thank you, Mr.

Nea.

It appears as though this case got a little more complicated.

Um so the retaining wall was added just recently over the last three years.

Correct.

According to Street View, we don't have any permits or anything to designate exactly when it happened, um, but we know that it happened at some point between August 2022 and June 2024 based off of Google Street View.

Do you need a drainage uh permit in order to install a retaining wall like that?

I didn't wasn't aware that you did.

I'm not aware of an uh of a need for that, but drainage requirements live outside of the zoning ordinance.

It appears that the fence is sort of a slat fence.

Would and you they measured from the inside of the fence and came up with you said 52 inches from grade?

51?

It it looks to be about 50, but I say let's call it 51 inches.

Well, I mean, how do you determine grade?

The is the grade where the grass is or is grade where the top of that paver that's turned on its side is like difficult to tell.

The grass.

The grass?

Okay.

Um so if the petitioner were to remove perhaps one board on the at the top of the fence, they would be pretty close to being in compliance with the ordinance.

They'd be pretty close, but uh again, the encroachment.

Encroachment is a concern, I agree.

Um as far as the clear site, but the but the retaining wall is probably even more of a problem if you're in an automobile versus a or you're not very tall.

I would agree.

Um however, because of the orientation of buildings both across this both streets, uh the the fence height limitation would be three and a half feet for this.

Right.

In that case, no remove, but you'd still want it removed from the clear site triangle, even though it's only three and a half feet.

Yes, because the retaining wall it's can you can you can you I guess maybe I'll let's make it a little cleaner question, Eddie.

Can you have a fence like that in the clear site triangle as long as it's in height compliance?

Well, because encroachment begins at two and a half feet, no.

Okay.

So what do you mean by that?

I don't understand.

So the the clear sight triangle is the triangular area in any structures or even landscaping within it that has a height greater than two and a half feet to up to eight feet in height.

What how where what's uh and refresh my memory?

What's the distance of the clear height triangle from the from the right of way?

I'm trying to decide how much they need to amend this fence if they do want to be in compliance, because it seems like they should be able to bring the fence into compliance.

One moment.

And Madam Petitioner, I hope you're pay attention here.

I'm trying to help you figure out a way to make your fence comply so you don't have to worry about the thank you for your your patience and Eddie, thanks for looking this up.

So from the center line of 39th and Broadway north, they'd have to draw a point that would extend 120 feet, and then going west, an extension I would have to go uh 75 feet.

So the clear side triangle would be uh quite large, and even if the fence were removed out of it, the retaining wall itself would still be within the clear side triangle.

Well, the chances of them removing the retaining wall are pretty slim considering it's a retaining wall.

Right.

Um but is there a compromise that we can reach with the city perhaps if they took out the first two panels of fence and put a 45 degree fence in in there in its stead to allow for some vision around the corner, would that be something the city would find acceptable?

Well, uh uh the city's concern is that it's self-imposed and that recommending approval of it.

Um here's the thing though, they can have a fence there according to the ordinance if they take if they make it shorter.

There's children that play in this front yard, and there appears to be about a 30-inch retaining wall that they could fall off in off of and then into the onto a sidewalk below.

I'm just as an architect, I'm just thinking about like safety for some kids, and also is there a way for us to do this without because at this point it if they just lowered the fence, they could be potentially in compliance with the zoning ordinance.

From the fence, just the height perspective, yes.

It still leaves the clear sight triangle, but again, staff's position is that it's self-imposed.

I I get what you're trying to say, but I'm just trying to figure out a way to make sure kids don't fall off this retaining wall, and also it it's at least close to complying with the zoning ordinance because at this point we also have a pretty serious safety concern.

Yeah, um I mean again it it it's self-imposed.

I get it, I know it's self-imposed, but those children aren't any party to that self-imposition.

Well, it's staff's position if they don't meet the threshold of the finding, so it maintains its denial recommendation if the board were to offer, you know.

Did you did did anyone from staff contact the petitioner over the last 30 days to discuss the problem with them and see if they could come up with a compromise?

Whether Kaya did or not, I'm not sure.

However, staff has maintained its recommendation of denial consistently throughout this case as well as similar.

You can deny this, but in the long run, there are going to be children playing in this front yard.

Okay.

I can't conscious in my good clean clear conscious consider that and look at this and deny a variance that could potentially remove a barrier from a child getting hurt.

All right.

I understand the ordinance and I understand the law, but I'm not going to sit here and and listen to if you guys could come up with a compromise that would work, it might actually save a kid's life.

Why wouldn't we do that?

Well, I understand the concern.

Um staff's concern is that if we recommend approval of full encroachment here, you don't have to recommend an approval.

You just have to come to a compromise with the petitioner that allows them to modify the fence so that it's also safe for the children that are playing in that front yard.

I'm not asking for a denial or approval recommendation.

I'm asking for a compromise that ensures the safety of the children that are going to be playing in this front yard.

That's all.

Is that a possible?

Is that a possibility?

I mean I'm a volunteer sitting up here looking at a situation where this could be dangerous for children if I deny it.

And put you're putting me in a very difficult position.

Would the commitments proposed at the beginning of the cases hearing be sufficient?

Well, there need to be relief at least for the retaining wall for the encroachment of the clear site triangle.

However, if the petitioner were to remove the top two boards all the way across both frontages, staff would be willing to switch it to recommendation.

Thank you, Mr.

O'Neill.

Now I have another question, just as a clarification.

At this intersection, is it a four-way intersection, stop intersection?

Is there one, you know, is there a stop one direction or another?

I don't think there's a stoplight there, right?

There is no stoplight.

It is a four-way stop.

It is a four-way stop.

Okay, that gives me some comfort because at least somebody, whoever is entered rendering that intersection has to come to a complete stop regardless.

And I I think that's certainly a little bit of help as far as a clear sight triangle is concerned.

And by the way, we relieve people of that obligation in urban environments on just regularly.

Um okay.

But what you see what you said is your compromise, that is can I see if that's acceptable to the petitioner?

Yes, but that would be staff's final compromise.

Thank you, Mr.

O'Neill.

Ms.

Garcia, can you please come forward?

Can you repeat the compromise again, Mr.

Ms.

Ronan?

Removal of the top two boards all the way around both sides, both frontages of the fence.

And then you want them to cut the posts down too?

No greater than one foot taller than the one foot taller than the top of the fence.

Is that something that would be acceptable to you as the petitioner?

For sure.

It would be.

Okay.

Thank you, sir.

Thank you, ma'am.

Um we can uh move to the rebuttal period, but I think we've reached a compromise that's probably gonna work for everybody, so I'm gonna go ahead and call a question and let everybody vote on that.

That compromise is now entered into the record.

Is that correct, Mr.

Steinmatz?

Um so they will have to record a commitment.

Okay.

Does she need to come forward and make that statement?

Well, the board can impose it as a commitment.

Okay, we're imposing it as a commitment.

So that the theory will be removing two the two top boards on the fence and cutting all the posts to within one foot of the height of the of the fence itself, correct?

And your vote is subject to our vote is subject to that commitment.

All right, thank you very much.

Then we can go ahead and cast our votes.

Yeah, come please come forward to the dais.

For my clarification on the in the sound if this is the fence, the end of the fence, then it's one foot on top of that, or just I like one foot ab above the top of the fence.

Okay, just to make sure.

Thank you that's for the posts only.

Okay.

Yeah, for the post.

And then for the to take off the the top two.

Right.

Okay.

Thank you.

Thank you.

And Mr.

O'Neah, thank you very much.

That's been very helpful.

I'm glad we worked that out.

I appreciate it.

My my conscience feels better.

We're casting our balance.

On case 2025-DV2-019, subject to the commitments just outlined.

Tom Barnes votes yes.

Craig Von Dalen votes yes, and Beth Brandon votes yes.

The variance is granted subject to those two commitments.

Case number 2025-DV2-021, property address 1144, Navajo Trail, South Drive.

Washington Township, Council District No.

2, zoned D2FF.

The petitioner is Harriet Greenland.

Variants of development standards of the consolidated zoning and subdivision ordinance to provide for the installation of an eight-foot tall fence along the rear lot line.

Maximum height of six feet permitted.

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

Any anyone who plans to speak on this petition, please raise the right hand.

Do you swear or affirm that the testimony you will give is the truth and nothing but the truth?

Yes.

You can hand those to the secretary.

Indianapolis, Indiana, 46260.

Okay, I go ahead.

Give you uh a few minutes maybe to look over that.

Um this is regarding the rear fence in my yard.

Um, and I put some photographs in there of the original fence, which did seem to have more coverage at the time.

Um what occurred here was um I had this fence up for maybe 14 years before uh the um rices moved in way before that, and um although the rices used that fence to keep their dog in because it was there, and it helped do that.

After um him Mr.

Rice putting it back up a couple times, one of the panels, he couldn't do it anymore and asked me if I would fix my fence for his dog.

And although I did say yes, and I I didn't, you know, do a major rehaul of it.

I just shorted up, and he didn't like it, so he said he had put his own fence up, which was great.

So he put his own fence up, but he had his folks cut my fence down without my knowledge or discussion or anything.

And when I came home one morning, I looked out and it was gone, and there's a photograph of it there.

So there were some not so great behaviors that went on in these last two years.

This has been going on two years, and um, although I didn't put those in there, some harassment and some uh accosting of me with obscenities, and he also has done that with another person in the neighborhood.

And I have put up because it was the size that I could find, an additional uh two feet of lattice, which I thought would be decorative, and the rices wouldn't mine, but apparently they did.

But I don't really believe it's about the fence.

Um, because there's been a lot of as I mentioned, unkind comments and behaviors about it, even though it affects nobody.

The people that have supported me here, they see the fence, they don't have a problem with it.

Both next door neighbors on either side of me have commented there in the uh in their submission that they do not have a problem with the fence.

In fact, right next to us, there are people that have an additional fence put up in small area, but they've never complained about that, even though it's right next to them.

So what I'm requesting is to leave, and it's this is only in 32 feet.

The rest of the fence is six feet.

This is just in the middle to discourage unpleasant behaviors, and for me to have the privacy, security, and safety that I had for 23 years before this started.

So it really impacts no one.

More privacy for me, more privacy for the races as well.

So I'm requesting that this variance be granted.

And um, all the neighbors, now they were gonna come, but most of them are working and couldn't make it here today, so they wrote letters.

Um that's my request is just to leave the 32 feet up.

Thank you, Ms.

Greenland.

Um, is there anyone else in the audience with an interest in petition number 2025 DB two-021 with an address of 1144 Navajo Trail South Drive?

Please come forward, state your name and address for the record.

I assume you're are you speaking as support or remonstrance?

Remonstrance.

Okay.

Go ahead and say your name and record my name is Robert Rice, 11145, Timberlane Street, Indianapolis, Indiana, 46260.

Very good.

Go ahead.

You you have 15 minutes to speak in again in opposition.

I'd like I'd like to give you these photos here.

You can give them to the secretary, he'll distribute them to us to take a look at.

You can go ahead and group testimony.

We'll look at them while you're talking.

Okay.

Uh well, this actually started two years ago.

Um we have a fence, or she had a fence to her yard, and we have adjoining fences on the other side.

I fixed her fence numerous times.

Yes, we do have a dog, and numerous times.

I even let her my drill so she could fix her other falling down fences.

Well, um we talked, she said that she didn't have the money to fix the fence.

I said, Well, okay, then I'll put up a fence, which I did.

She said she didn't need a fence.

So I figured, well, she didn't need a fence.

I would cut the top off to make it look nicer for our fence.

Well, that didn't really happen, and I'm sorry she thinks that we've been bad neighbors and whatever, but we have been over backwards for her a lot of times.

I mean, um, and the lattices she put up, I think, she didn't even replace the whole fence.

There's 20 feet missing from the west side of her property, and she never did replace that.

She put up the lattice right in front of our house.

And as far as the neighbors go, nobody can see that fence other than us.

So I don't know where she comes up with that.

So I know it says right here.

Sorry.

Sorry.

It says in Marion County, Indiana fence heights regulated by zoning districts and locations.

Generally, fences in the front yard are limited to 3.5 feet, 42 inches in length in height, while fences on the side and rear can be up to six feet.

There are exceptions with such with decorated fences or fences exceeding 500 feet of frontage on a street.

She is over the six feet.

And an ordinance is an ordinance.

Um I don't have anything against Miss Greenland.

She's a nice person.

As a matter of fact, we first moved into the neighborhood within a week.

I suppose she fed the birds, and we feed our birds too.

I took over bags of seed.

You know, that was me being new to the neighborhood.

So I don't know why she's kind of being hateful, but she is.

That's about all I have to say.

Thank you.

All right, thank you, Mr.

Rice.

Um, as long as there's no one else that would like to testify, we can go to comments from staff.

No.

Thank you, Chairman Mondale and members of the board.

Uh the petition would allow for the installation of an eight-foot-tall fence in the rear yard of the subject site, which is zone D2, and is improved with the single family residence.

Uh, the fence in question uh contains a two-foot lattice element that sits atop the central portion of the six-foot fence.

Uh, while a different material than the six-foot fence, the lattice element would still be considered an addition per ordinance definition, thus triggering the need for this variance approval.

Uh, the petitioner has indicated uh to staff that extreme vandalism has been one of the main reasons for adding this two-foot uh element, two-foot lattice element.

Uh staff is sensitive to unique situations and to the property owners' desire for reasonable privacy.

Uh further staff does believe that other methods such as trees, hedges, or other deterrent landscaping, could be utilized to achieve uh similar levels of privacy that would not require the requested variants.

Additionally, staff generally finds that six-foot-tall privacy fences allow for a sufficient level of privacy for residential property owners.

And lastly, uh therefore staff does not find there to be true practical difficulty for needing the fence edition.

Uh so therefore is not in support of the request, but is happy to answer any question that the board may have.

Thank you.

Is there a definition of a spite fence in the ordinance at all or not?

I thought wasn't there at one time.

There is not now, nor do I believe there was one prior to 2016.

Okay.

All right, that's my only question.

Any questions for staff or members of the board.

Nope.

All right, we got a rebuttal period.

You get five minutes each.

Okay.

Um I agree with Mr.

Rice.

I have nothing against them.

I just um know from what's gone on that there hasn't been a lot of respect of my boundaries.

And the fence was already there, which gave privacy, but he cut it down.

So I have rebuilt the fence.

I do have three more panels to put up.

He's correct there, but they're at the very end of the fence.

And this gave gives me more privacy.

I garden back there, I live alone.

I like that, and I just want to encourage the privacy.

There are a lot of really not very pleasant behaviors that don't need to be illuminated here, but this definitely has given me more privacy, more safety, and more security, and that's what I'm requesting.

Thank you, Ms.

Greeland.

Is that all you is that the have you completed your rebuttal?

Yeah, I believe that's the thrust of it.

Is this really doesn't impact or change anything?

It's just this couple more feet.

And that's what the size of the lattice was.

I actually thought it was uh, you know, be decorative, and I didn't realize at the time that it exceeded the code, but you know, I've since found that out.

That's why I'm here to request the variance because I think you can see it there.

Is that it?

Yeah.

It's just in the middle.

The rest of it is six feet.

So it's 32 feet in the middle, which allows me to not see what they do or them to see what I do in my yard.

Very well.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Mr.

Rice, you have a five-minute rebuttal period.

First of all, thank you for uh listening to us.

Um I did not cut her fence all the way down.

I want to make that clear.

I took off one foot at the top of the fence, make it equal to the fence that we put up.

She said she didn't want a fence.

She told me to do whatever I needed to do, which we did.

I went and spent money for a fence because she said she couldn't afford it, and basically that's what it is.

And I don't know where she's come up with this vandalizing and all this stuff.

So she's digging the straws because that is not what happened.

Um she has lied to a lot of neighbors.

She's lied to you in here, she's lied to us.

I mean, I want to be nice, but she's bringing this up and six foot is six foot.

It is not pretty, but she says it's pretty, it's not pretty.

And there by the way, there's plywood, that's against the ordinance too, but you have photos of.

She says she has two more out to put up, but as of today she didn't plus the sign, the public notice sign, was not put in the front yard like it's supposed to be.

She had it up against her garage, and then I called that gentleman over there, I think, wasn't it?

Mr.

Stern.

Right, about the problem there, and he said he would contact her.

Well, she moved it about three feet back to her garage, and then as of this morning, this sign was completely taken down.

This is what we're dealing with.

Thank you for hearing me.

All right, thank you.

If are there any questions for staff or petitioners or remonstrators from members of the board?

Well, then we can cast our ballots.

On case 2025-DV2-021, Tom Barnes votes no.

Craig Von Dalen votes no, and Beth Brandon votes no.

The variance is not granted.

Case number 2025-D V two-022 property address 1337 Olive Street.

Zoned D5 TOD.

The petitioners are Brandon Spitz and Christina Presley, represented by Charman Fry.

Variants of development standards of the consolidated zoning and subdivision ordinance to provide for the construction of a 23.624 foot tall carriage house where the primary dwelling is 22 foot tall.

Accessory structures may not be taller than primary buildings.

With a three-foot northern side yard setback, five feet required.

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

Do you swear or affirm that the testimony you will give is the truth and nothing but the truth?

Yes.

Good afternoon.

I am Charman Fry.

I reside at 2025, 2028 Wolfgang Drive, Indianapolis, Indiana.

And I am here on this variance for Mr.

Spitz.

Well, he is here, but I do have a copy of a letter that he wrote on behalf of his petition.

Okay, and we um do understand um the the stab's recommendation for denial.

We would like to request an approval from the board because this this development in this neighborhood that we're requesting for this home is it goes along with what's going on in the neighborhood already.

We um have approval from the Fountain Square Neighborhood Association.

Um I did not receive any um letters or complaints or anything from any of the neighbors in the anybody in the neighborhood.

Um the home directly next door to him to the left facing the front of the house, um 1333 Olive Street.

It has the exact same setup as that we're requesting for Mr.

Spitz.

It is the shorter house with the taller um detached um carriage house in the back, and we're just asking for the same um recommendation or approval as the neighbors got.

Um most of the homes in the neighborhood do have these carriage houses.

Now I do understand that those houses are taller and the carriage houses are different, but again, the home directly next door to Mr.

Spitz's house has the exact same setup that he's requesting.

Um we feel like the project is expected to enhance the property's appearance and functionality of the home.

He's gonna have this as a family this is a family home.

He's not gonna be air beaming this out or renting this out.

Um, he just wants to beautify his home along with the neighborhood.

Um we feel like that this petition falls in line with the development of the neighborhood, and especially on his street, like every other house has a carriage house on the back of it.

Um we just hope that you would grant this, and this you know, we would assure that um the requested variance.

We would I'm sorry, I'm so nervous.

Granting the requested variants will ensure the property's development remains in the keeping the established patterns and accommodating the research reasonable needs of Mr.

Spitz.

I'm sorry.

I'm shaking.

There's only like 10 of us in the room.

It's all right, Sherman.

Hi, uh Brandon Spitz, 1337.

Uh so I also uh read in there in the uh report.

Um I will say that uh I made a mistake.

Uh I was reading the demolition, it says I did not pull the permit.

That is correct.

I read the city's form, and it shows that under 532 or something square foot, the homeowner is allowed to tear down a non-residential without any worry about how far it is.

I just skimmed over needing the permit.

I came to the office last week.

I talked to a young man there.

I said, Hey, I made a mistake.

He said file the permit.

I filed the permit.

He said it happens all the time in construction.

People and forget the permit, they come in and they do it.

So that has been taken care of.

Uh in regard to the width, the previous garage was three foot off the north property line already.

The and so all I'm asking is to just be right back there where that was.

I think that the irony of the situation is if I read the zoning correctly, I'm supposed to be 10 feet total off the line, which can be a minimum of four.

Um, so I could be four and six, you know, four and a half, five and a half, five and five is kind of the standard because it would be right in the middle.

So I could actually go four foot off that and six foot on the other side and still be in compliance.

But the thing is is the the south side garage, which is the green one.

If you have pictures of the colour, yeah, there's let me find our pictures are in black and white colors in the arts.

It's the shorter one, the shorter the shorter garage.

That's the I believe it's page 70.

Oh, okay.

The one to the south of your property?

The one to the south of my property is actually right on the property line.

Yeah.

So the funny thing is to me, uh funny, is that I could build it six feet to the north off the line and four foot off the south, be four foot from that building and be completely in compliance.

Obviously, I do not want to do that.

So I'm like to do is maximize the size of the of what I can do, be five foot off of that, which is the standard off of the south one, that one, and then on the north, I would be three foot off the line.

So I'm just asking for the two feet.

The if you look at the white two-story, I believe it's on page 77.

Page 77, it is the bottom picture.

Uh, I believe it's for this.

Yeah.

So that is the property to the north of me.

The one uh, and if you look at the picture above it, uh directly above it, uh, the picture above that one, you'll see the fronts of the yard the houses.

But so that that one right there is the carriage house that has been put into the north of me, and that is five feet off the line, which if you add their five feet plus my three feet is actually eight feet, which if you followed all the code, you could legally do eight feet in between buildings.

So I just asked that I'd like to put the garage wall right back where the old garage wall was at three feet off the line.

Um, and as regard to the height, again, the building uh next to me, that's obviously a two-story ADU garage, and uh the developer told me he was gonna bury the lines, and then he didn't.

He has put a big telephone pole in my backyard, which I'm not real jazzed about.

But uh from the front of the houses, if you uh look at the picture directly above that, uh, is they are both uh the my house is the yellow house.

It looks like it's a two-story house.

Um I didn't know it wasn't a two-story house until we started this, and then you know, I've been in the neighborhood since 2008.

I know what a one-story house with an attic looks like.

Like I've I've toured many houses, I look on my board all the time just because I'm a big nerd like that, and I it's like, oh yeah, it's my house doesn't look or feel like one of the traditional 19 1890 traditional American with an attic conversion with a tiny little you can touch that.

I have a very large upstairs from the outside of the house, it appears to be a two-story house.

Uh whereas obviously the house to the north of me 1333 is very much very, very much a one-story house that has approval within the last two years.

I believe that was 2023 for the height variants.

And I do provide a picture of the full we can't hear you without the microphone.

I said I did provide a picture of the full carriage house to show the two-car garage and the height.

Um, I emailed it.

I don't know if it got so that two-story um uh T additional dwelling unit uh garages behind the one-story house that's correct.

Okay, all right.

Very good.

Um, are you guys anything else you'd like to say?

Well, I would say that um, yeah, in the report, it says that it feels like it would overshadow the size, the house, you know, the lot next to it.

It's it's I don't see how it can overshadow something that's the same size.

Um, so I would disagree with that assessment.

Um, because it's it's literally already a two-story ADU.

I planned the um windows.

We planned the windows to look the extent from the inside of my unit, it will look north at that wall.

It won't look into any lawns.

The south side has no windows uh to not look into any of those neighbors' lawns.

So the windows are going to be looking at trees and the side of that ADU.

Okay.

All right.

Thank you, Mr.

Spitz.

Sharman, anything else?

No, that's it.

You're alright.

Okay.

Yes, I'm sorry.

All right.

Is there anyone else in the audience with an interest in petition number 2025 DV2-022 with an address of 1337 Olive Street?

None being seen, we'll go to comments from staff.

Mr.

Stern.

Thank you, Chairman Von Dalen, members of the board.

Uh, as noted in the staff report, staff is recommending denial of the petition, uh, which would allow for the construction of a 23.6 to 4 foot uh carriage house uh where the primary is 22 feet, and the three foot northern side yard setback five is required.

Uh the subject site is zone D5 TOD.

Um, and previously contained an accessory garage, which was demoed to allow for the proposed detached garage and secondary dwelling unit structure.

The site is approximately 36 feet wide, 65 6,540 square feet, and is therefore of sufficient lot area and lot width for the D5 standards.

The submitted site plan and elevations indicate that the structure would be uh taller than the primary, and the height standard for accessory structures is in place to uh limit over development, uh promote quality design and maintain residential characteristics.

Um staff finds the proposed height of the accessory structure to be out of character for the area and represents an unnecessary deviation from the ordinance.

Um staff does not find there to be any practical difficulty for needing the height variance, as staff believes that a height compliance structure is able to be built uh on this property.

Um staff would note the um detached structure uh directly to the north, uh, which is um also a two-story ADU was um did receive permits, and staff has determined that that was an error, as that would have also required a height variance since that is in fact taller than the primary structure that is located on that lot.

Um, with regards to the north side yard setback request, uh the proposed location of the accessory structure, which is to contain a two-car garage would be three feet from the north side lot line.

Um as staff noted, this lot is of sufficient lot width, and also that the proposed structure is far wider than what is needed for the storage of two vehicles.

Staff would note the standard width for residential parking spaceships parking spaces is eight point five feet, and therefore staff believes that uh the storage of two vehicles can occur on site without needing uh the side setback variances, and that's uh something staff uh commonly sees a two store uh two-car garage in the rear uh with a ADU on top that is not as wide as the proposed structure is further.

Staff uh does have concerns about potentially overwhelming uh the adjacent properties with this structure not only being taller than permitted, but also closer to the lot line than what is permitted.

Uh staff finds this proposal to be uh less than quality development that goes directly against the infill high infill housing guidelines and uh does urge the petitioner to alter the plans to show compliance as staff believes that is indeed possible on this site and therefore recommends denial of the petition and can't actually can't answer any questions the board may have.

Thank you, Mr.

Stern.

Any questions for staff?

Would the proposal for the new carriage house be taller than the other one next door?

Uh I would need to double check what the height of that was.

Um I don't have that offhand.

Okay.

Do you know?

There's no way it's taller.

That one looks pretty tall.

It's the same same height or shorter potentially.

All right.

Um I have some questions for staff.

Are you done?

Yeah, I'm supposed to.

How did you determine the height of the actual um the the main dwelling unit?

I believe that was done at a docking level.

To me, it looks like it's actually taller than I mean just from my experience, it looks like it might be taller than 22 feet.

And considering each story is probably nine feet, and there's a bit of quite a bit of gable above the the second story.

Um I just it looks like it might be taller than 22 feet.

Do you have a measure the homeowner?

Do you have a measurement of the height of the it also appears to be on elevated grade of about two or three feet as well?

So this would have been listed on the hold for the ILP issuance.

What's that?

The the height as measured by BNS would have been listed as a hold on the ILP.

I can't um the height of the existing residence?

The height of both structures.

Okay, because I I'm just trying to determine because yeah, it can't be taller than the existing structure, but it appears the structure itself, these the main house is a two it is a two-story home, and it appears to be taller to me, two taller than twenty-two feet.

I I am seeing the ILP has the hold on there, so that would have been determined by the permit office.

Okay.

The height of both structures.

So as long as he keeps his garage lower at the top than the existing structure, his the primary dwelling unit, he's okay.

From a height perspective.

Yes.

Yeah, I I don't I don't know that you you might want to check and see if you actually need a variance in that particular case.

Because it's just it if I were if if I were to guess, you may not.

Regardless, it's not difficult to change the pitch of the roof on the EDU to get it to be in compliance.

Food for thought.

There was there was also a version of the application that declared the heights of the existing house and the proposed structure was listed as almost 24 feet, which would have matched up with the hold placed on the ILP.

Almost what?

Almost 24 feet.

The existing structure?

The proposed structure.

The proposed structure.

Yeah, the house was specifically declared as 22 feet.

Was specifically declared 22 feet by who the petitioner?

Was it on the uh application?

The uh the applicant, yes.

I believe it's just the 22 and yeah.

Okay, well, we can get the um the exact measurement.

As it pertains to the three-foot side yard setback, we've been granting we've granted a quite a few variances on the three-foot side yard setback in the past.

As there any is there reasoning for for and I don't remember whether or not they were under staff recommendation for approval or not, but is that something that we're backing off on, or is there a reason because the three foot aligned with the fire separation in the building code in the actual state building code?

Is that something that we're changing now?

Well, the standard is five feet.

That's the zoning ordinance.

That's the zoning code.

But we've been approving variances in the past for three feet and have quite a few, and and that was partially because it aligned with the state building code, which required a three feet separation between structures uh to a property line at least, so that you didn't have to provide a firewall.

Um is this something that's changed from a staff um position?

Well, I I don't I can't speak on other cases specifically unless I review those, but I mean typically if the historically if the lot is of sufficient lot width, didn't they?

Yeah, generally we're not gonna be in favor.

I mean about the we take every case on a case-by-case basis, but if the lot is sufficient and lot area and lot width, I will ask unlikely we'll recommend a proof of the right.

I will ask the petitioner.

This is a pretty generous size garage.

I mean, one of the garage bays for a single car is 14 feet.

Is there any reason why that has to be the case as opposed to I would like narrowing it but press the button and take our bikes out the back, and she is not gonna be moving cars and getting crazy?

And it just gives us additional square footage up at the top as well.

How wide are your garage doors that you're building on it?

I don't know the answer to that.

And the current and the new yeah, the new ones and the proposed, yeah.

Wait, what was the question?

How wide are the garage doors?

Oh, let me see.

Well, there's not on the plans.

I mean our um aging was supposed to be here.

Oh, that's all right.

Uh I just uh I just additional storage like to use a garage like a normal personality.

Yeah, I mean it's I can understand that, but uh 14 feet is a pretty wide single car garage.

I mean 12 feet, the one is 12.

I mean it appears to be as though you could cut two feet off of this and have it still be pretty generous.

Right.

So I mean I'm I'm just trying to get you through this process because I mean the the staff's argument is cogent.

Um the the issue I've got there is like you've got a pretty they've got a pretty good argument that you it's a it's a hard sh it's not a hardship for you.

The height, however, it seems like you probably should be able to be in compliance with.

So there might be a possibility you could just do this and not have to have any variances, which would be which would be good.

So I don't know if this is something you want to continue in order to find out what the height of your actual primary structure is.

You guys in a big hurry.

No, I you I would like to be in a hurry to start.

Well, you're the homeowner, yeah.

I gotta do this in December.

I mean, like, you know, so you will want to you have to have a hardship for the three-foot setback.

Okay, and also for the height.

So you're not uh you know, I need to be able to see.

Oh, there's no way I could fit this on, but it's a pretty wide two-car garage, so I'm not seeing a particular hardship.

The height is reasonable if it because you're trying to do an additional dwelling unit, which I think is honorable and we need more affordable housing in Marion County, definitely.

Um I'm just concerned that your house might actually be taller than 22 feet, so you don't necessarily need a variance for the height.

Okay.

Um in that regard, is it possible to do like a a partial approval where we can split it up?

Approve a height variance because I mean, obviously looking right next to me.

Yeah, that one's giant.

That's pretty mammoth, and it didn't get a permit, did it, Mr.

Stern.

So or it didn't get a variance.

It got a permit and that was an yeah, without a variance.

So right, and it's just frustrating because that's uh uh uh an investment company with a construction arm.

And he's a developer and he's developing all over the neighborhood, developing two-story ADUs.

In fact, he did one just across the street from me, where they put a little three-foot sidewalk in so that the two-car garage belongs to the house, and now all their tenants are dumped into our street parking.

I get it.

So that's really frustrating to see that a developer and a well we don't we we don't have any control over our neighbors.

We've seen a few of those cases just today.

As a uh yeah, as a uh owner owner occupant to see an investment company get it get you know build that and then to be denied a height variance is would be frustrating.

If you would like to separate the height from the from the setback and and just have us vote on the height today and continue the rest, is that okay with staff?

That that'd be up to the board.

Um staff is recommending denial of both, but that's the board's decision.

Yeah, it'd be better if we knew the height of your house.

Okay.

Um I think that might be in your better, and I'm sorry for the delay, but it might be in your best interest to find out the actual height of your house.

Because just from my perception, it looks like it might be higher than than the height of the garage the structure you're trying to build, and then give good hard thought to whether or not you want to pursue the variance to the for the side set back.

Or look at alternative designs.

But we wouldn't need a variance.

Or you wouldn't need a variance.

Okay.

All right.

Uh is a continuance okay with you.

That that's what we would need to do to staff, Mr.

Stern.

Yes, given that this is the first continuous.

Oh, yeah, we did we've never seen this before.

This is brand new.

Okay.

All right.

All right.

I'll uh I'll entertain a motion to continue petition number 2025 DV two-022 to our next scheduled meeting in September, which is what again?

September 9th.

September 9th.

September 9th.

Um, without additional notice.

Brandon, so moved.

Second.

Barnes second.

And I'll also I will uh call the roll, Brandon.

Brandon, yes.

Barnes.

Yes.

And I'm also a yes.

See you next month.

Let's see if we can figure it out.

Okay, thank you.

Thank you, Noah.

Okay.

All right, we have one more.

Mr.

Weestie.

Case number two zero two five-dv two-0 two seven property address five two two two seven Knowlton Road.

Washington Township, Council District Number Six, zoned DS FWF.

The petitioners are John and Karen Puffer, represented by David E.

Deering.

Variants of development standards of the consolidated zoning and subdivision ordinance to provide for the construction of a pole barn within the front yard of Knowlton Road.

Not permitted.

Those who plan to speak on this petition, please raise their right hand to be sworn in.

Do you swear or do you plan to speak on on this petition?

Yes.

Okay, you you will need to be sworn in still, so please raise your right hand or whichever hand.

Thank you.

Do you swear or affirm that the testimony you will give is the truth and nothing but the truth?

Yes.

Yes.

Um, Mr.

Mr.

Chairman, members of the board, I'm David Deering.

My office is at 921 East 86th Street, suite 203 in Indianapolis.

I'm representing Mr.

John Puffer seeking a variance of development standards uh to construct a pole barn for a workshop uh in the front yard of his property at 5227 Knowlton Road.

Uh we are in a complete agreement with the staff report.

I don't often get to say that, but it's true here.

Um staff recommends approval.

Uh as the staff report points out.

The pole barn will be very heavily screened from the right-of-way of Knowlton Road.

This is a very heavily treated property.

Um be very little, there'll be little or no visual impact from other properties or from the road.

And also by putting the pole barn in the front, we avoid taking out additional trees in the back.

The backyard is extensively forested, or the whole property is really extensively forested as the uh staff report points out, in particular the backyard.

It's over 30 percent forested or covered in natural vegetation, consistent with a comprehensive plan, and it will stay that way even after the pole barn is built.

So by putting in the front, we preserve the integrity of the forested area in the back, including at least two heritage trees.

So I would ask you to incorporate our findings of fact, proposed findings of fact into the record and grant the variance.

Thank you.

Thank you.

And you have a lot more time.

Does your thing you come forward, say your name and address for the record?

You have to come to the microphone.

My name is John Puffer.

My address is 5227 Knowlton Road.

You've been sworn in, you can put your hand down.

Thanks.

Um I'd like to uh tell you a little bit about the property first.

Um I speak as uh somebody with a degree in biology with the emphasis on botany and microbiology.

I understand the property to a certain extent, at least.

The front of the property is in floodplain, it is a vernal swamp.

Make that assessment based on the soil types.

It has a muck type soil.

I know I've got my tractor stuck in it before.

Um there is skunk cabbage, and there used to be uh numerous green ash trees.

There is only one surviving tree, which is a rare, and I have avoided cutting that tree down.

Um I might have to top it as a safety hazard.

Um the back of the property is pretty much all hardwood forest.

It is an early stages of forest succession, uh, primarily 90% black cherry trees, which is indicative of that.

It's probably been coming around a hundred years or so.

It was probably farmed or something like that, would be my guess.

Um, when I moved into the property, I cleared the property of honeysuckles and other invasive species.

It's an ongoing effort because there are other honeysuckles in the area, so it's something that I have to continue to do.

Um I don't want to have to build the barn behind the house.

More of the property lies behind the house, and it is pristine at this point.

Um, so I prefer not to impact that.

On the side of the house, I have a sewer line that comes up to the northeasement for the sewer.

I also have an electrical easement that cuts through the property.

Even though there is no electrical line on those overhead poles anymore, there is still fiber optic cable.

So that complicates the I would have to go further back, in other words.

There is also an electrical junction box there where the buried line now comes in.

Um, putting it where I I want to put it, I will just basically have to connect the apron of the of the its garage to the existing driveway.

So no roads have to be built or anything of that nature.

In addition to that, if I put it in the back, I have to clear a certain section for the builder in order to stage building materials as it is right now.

I can use a part of my driveway for that without having to do that as well.

Um Miss Biebelman wrote a letter.

Um I think it primarily references issues with building in the floodplain, which I'm not going to do.

Um, he's testifying, please.

Um, and uh so you know, I just don't think that some of those concerns are relevant.

Um she is correct though that it is a floodplain, and yeah, as I mentioned before, it is a vernal swamp.

Um, so I think that's it.

Well, if you have any questions, let me know.

All right, are we having questions for the petitioners from member of the board?

None being seen.

Is your time's you still got time, but you you're good.

All right, you guys are done.

All right.

Uh anyone else with an interest in petition number 25 DV2-027 with an address of 5227 Knowlton Road, please come forward.

Say your name and address, and you may begin your testimony.

Bottleman 5117 Knowlton Road.

Please have respect for us.

Sorry, speak directly into the microphone and speak clearly so that we can understand.

My name is Dorothy Feibleman, 5117 Knowlton Road.

I appreciate that.

Thank you.

You may begin your testimony.

Um, well, I didn't know anything about it being a workshop.

That was not obvious from any of the materials I was sent.

Okay, to whom it may concern.

Um I would like to present my thoughts against the construction of the pole barn.

Um I'm against giving it a zoning variance, and uh his filing for zoning variants does not include the exact location of the proposed building.

It does not specify the size of the structure or the depth of the poles.

The pole barn could be another home, a warehouse, a tool shed, um another building, apartments.

That's not stated.

No data has been attached to the application regarding the time frame to the completion of this project.

No consideration addresses the problem of noise pollution, dust pollution, removal of everything.

And um also the turbidity increase in the bacteria that it will cause in the creek.

Um no consideration, no, there's no mention of adverse effects to the ecosystem, including endangered animals, plants, insects.

There are special wildflowers such as Trillium.

Actually, I tried to buy his property when I was 15 years old.

My parents wouldn't let me, so I've played in that area quite a lot before the Roths bought the property, and I do know the area very well, and I know about the various salamanders, and we used to play with hellbenders.

I mean, we used to pick them up out of the creek, and um you know, there were red salamanders back there, and there's all kinds they were even like um before it got all marshy, after all the building uh in the Carter property that was the um uh cornfield that's now been turned into a housing estate area um or subdivision, whatever you recall it.

Um anyway, um before the reconstruction of the bridge, also that that sort of added to some of the problem of the marshiness, and it just seems like every time there's any kind of construction going on, it just gets worse and worse.

When I used to play in the grove, that it I didn't need to wear boots, and there were lots of wildflowers, and it's over the years it's just become very marshy.

Um there's no mention about the wind alteration that will cause uh if any trees are removed.

And um with this last storm, um uh one fell on the garage um, but it kind of missed it.

So um anyway, according to state law, uh federal records, his property is in a flood zone.

My understanding that this designation requires an environmental impact statement to be filed before the zoning is approved of or granted.

Um and uh both federal agents FEMA and Indiana Environmental Protection Agency require notification of any construction on the land that is designated.

The impact statement should include construction effects of subterranean water flow, drainage, including erosion prognosis, and installation of poles.

Um actually the there wasn't a lot of explanation about actually how deep they have to build uh deep for the poles, and actually the next section at all.

How many minutes do I have left?

About 12 minutes left.

Okay.

Um the impact statement should include construction effects of subterranean water flow and drainage, including erosion prognosis.

If the installation of the poles or the piles will alter the creek banks, the water flow should be stated.

Also, the EIS should acknowledge sewer system effects and integrity of the foundation of Knowlton Road.

The road gets flooded quite often.

Um the property I'm personally concerned with, 5107 Knowlton Road is right next to his property and is often soggy like marsh-like, and the runoff from 5117 flows directly in his direction theoretically, but it's kind of obviously stopped because it's getting very more marshy.

At least since the 1950s, I used to play in that area as a child, and it wasn't marshy, and I didn't need to wear boots.

Um quite a few years ago, he cleared a lot of trees.

Um actually he put in a practice what's it called?

A practice um BMX track, and it got worse after that.

And I don't know if he had planning permission for that or not.

Um, quite a few years ago, um, any removal of large trees will affect the soil moisture and underground drainage runoff even more.

Placing piles or poles will definitely alter the subterranean water flow and affect 5117 and all the areas around it.

Since the early 50s, I have observed the topography.

It has definitely changed in the last 70 years, possibly because of the various housing and apartment developments on 51st Street and Michigan Road.

Sometimes because of the flooding, parts of Knowlton Road are covered in excess of runoff water.

Any construction will add to this problem.

Okay.

I have some more comments that I didn't that are like included in your clipped bit here.

Some identifying information.

I mean, you obviously know, but maybe people who are not sitting here don't know.

At the yeah, at the hearing, what I want to emphasize is the importance of recognizing the concerns of the construction and why the zoning variants should not be allowed.

According to Indiana State and Environmental Protection Area, it's a the areas of floodplain or flood zone.

The difference between, for your knowledge, and mine and everybody's floodplain and flood zone as follows.

The floodplain is an area or land that is next to the river or a body of water Crooked Creek, which may flood or have increased water flow in heavy rain and accumulated.

You've got a lot of pictures there dating from 1976 to 2011.

The one on the front is 2011, and it doesn't give the whole that that's like next to it's across the um bridge from his place, and it's two houses down.

Most of the flooding other pictures are right next to the creek.

Um and they had to raise their house.

Um they had to raise the foundations of their house because of the flooding, and they had to be rescued by a boat in 1976.

Anyway, um let's see, Crooked Creek.

Um a flood zone is designated land by FEMA, and parts of Knowlton Road are designated as both.

John's property is very close to both of these areas.

Certain sites say it isn't a floodplain, and some say it is in flood zone.

Carla Fraun Felther at the Land and Natural Resources said this area was in both, and she uh and it should have an environment packed statement before building.

Sometimes sections are underwater.

Myrtle Bryant's former home, 5319, has had floods inside of her home and outside of her carport for years.

She and her husband had to raise the house on the foundations, and they got a grant from a loan from Pike Credit Union.

I have photos of the floods.

You've got them all, uh, well, some of them.

Um 76 and 2002 on her property, and the there's a um an endangered um northeastern mud turtle that there used to be, I don't know if they're still there.

Um haven't looked in I haven't gone on his property, and I haven't looked in the last five years, let's say.

Um, but I've approached from uh Myrtle Bryant's property.

Um I have photos, yes, okay.

We've said that, and okay, the terrapin found on her property.

Construction projects on Mr.

Puffer's property will increase flooding and uh water runoff.

The sewer at three five three four five.

I talked to him a couple of days ago, and he said it's backing up already, anyway.

Recently had issues.

Uh poorly planned drainage and subterranean moisture with increased water flow will impact the floodplain and surrounding area.

It may also impact the sewer system.

Um Crooked Creek banks direction may uh banks and direction may erode and change with construction project and large concrete slab, which the foundation of 1,440 square feet of the pole barn, no indication or details of the depth of the poles uh was given, no specifications on the cement size of the footings and the adverse effects of each of the 21 footings.

No specifications to allow for proper drainage or runoff, no indication of how many trees in the area will lose will be lost for this structure.

The proposed hearing variants should be aware of these risks and problems of the construction might cause.

A flood zone is a federal designated area by FEMA.

Construction projects, including large trees, uh 80 feet and uh to 100, um, removed will alter the subterranean water flow and soil moisture and increase erosion over time.

It is a high-risk area.

The word risk should be emphasized.

Um risks of future erosion and flooding may occur in flood zone and floorplain areas and nearby community, and it's gonna affect all the land and the road.

Removal of tall trees, this is important.

Trees serve as a windbreaker as well as their roots provided strength and moisture absorption removal will cause increase in wind speed and absorption of the windstorms, um, which can be 140 miles an hour, um, like a tornado will maybe there.

It's um trees in the immediate area are collapsing already, and one actually fell on the garage.

Um the proposed garage garage is uh but it sounds like it's not a garage, it's something else.

Uh it would be a structure that would be visible to anyone and change the wooded area and beauty of the community.

According to Mr.

Puffer, it will be 15 feet fronting the road.

Um in my research, I found that um a residential property should be 25, a garage on residential property should be 20 feet from a public way, which Knowlton Road is a public way.

According to Mr.

Puffer's plans, the garage will be 16 feet tall.

That's very tall, it's like basically two stories.

Um the square footage of the interior of the proposed building is larger than a two-car garage and higher than a normal two-car garage.

It's enough to turn a city bus around in or park two city buses in.

Um, or an earth moving equipment or other heavy vehicle vehicles.

I mean, I have no idea what's in you know, proposed there.

Um that's how big spatially it is visually if it's allowed.

Uh 1,440 square feet of concrete slab, that's actually um quite um bad for drainage.

Um it's not stated how this drainage uh will affect uh it's not stated how this will affect the drainage.

I didn't see any plans for drainage.

How many trees will be cut down, or that isn't stated either.

Structure of footing and how the that affects the water flow in the air is not stated.

I believe the environmental in fact statement needs to be provided before allowing zoning variants.

The hearing board should determine that these facts that I presented will adversely affect the environment of this area.

Without proper planning of the drainage, it can lead to more serious problems in the area, and impact statement should be provided and before the variance.

Nothing is stated in the plans about this.

Footing is not listed in good enough detail, drainage specifications were not listed, or the material in the material available.

Um it the type of electricity singular three phase is not stated.

Um it's too big for two-car garage mentioned above as um the structure is equal to a two-store building, and you know, you can park two buses in it.

By allowing a variance without all of these things considered, it's a problem.

And I really don't know how this could be any kind of hardship.

Anyway, uh the amount of the building is will not only detract from the environment of the street, but it will cause wind to change and the subterranean water flow to change, and the removal of any more trees will affect the water absorption by the trees being removed.

There are no plans on the information I was sent by the city about drainage plans or electrical plans about you know a single or three-phase.

No environmental impact statement was supplied, and he already installed a BMX track, which he pulled down a bunch of trees that are right next to the 5117.

Um quite a long time ago.

I have no idea if he applied for permission for that, ages ago.

I think this project inclases the serious risks of flooding and of kind of all the surrounding properties, basically.

And I had one more thing I wanted to say.

Yeah.

High risk area, hazard area.

I don't know what the hardship would be.

And the turbidity increase in the uh creek is a problem coming from the slab being laid there.

So basically, it's wet enough already.

Um, and you have pictures of historically like what happens.

How many more minutes do I have?

You've got under two minutes.

Okay.

Did you want to ask any questions or is that next?

If you're done, we can if you're done, we can ask questions.

Okay, I'm done.

Okay.

Do we have any questions for the remonstrator?

None being seen.

We've got a comments from staff.

Mr.

Weagle.

Of course.

Uh thank you very much, uh, Chiperson Vondale, members of the board for your time.

I'd like to thank the petitioner and remonstrator for their comments as well.

Uh, staff is recommending approval of this variance given to practical difficulties that would result from placing the structure inside or rear yards and the likelihood that rear side yard placement would deviate from the intent of the environmentally sensitive overlay of the comprehensive plan.

As we've gone over in some detail, this proposal relates to 5227 Knowlton Road.

That's residential property with a single family residence, approximately 5.5 acres inside of a home that's currently bare is set back 318 feet from the western front property line.

The site is heavily wooded, as is evident from the aerial photography and site photographs shown within the exhibits, and the petitioner gave some more context there as well.

Sounds like he's somewhat of an expert on these sorts of things.

Uh, the owner is seeking to construct a new detached garage, it would be comprised of two bay doors.

The overall size would be 1,440 square feet, and it would be 15 feet in height.

Commercial uses would not be allowed, and if they were being conducted, Vareve would be sighted.

Any space between the established front building line, so that'd be that front building line 318 feet back and the front property line would be considered the front yard of the site.

Ordnance disallows placement accessory structures within the front yard.

Therefore bearings would be needed for their proposed location or for anywhere to the west of that 318 foot front building line if it's been established.

It appears that the structure complies with other standards for accessory residential structures.

It's smaller than the primary.

Setbacks in open space are met, things of that nature.

The side yard to the north is the closest that it comes to a required boundary, and that would be 70 feet away from the property line to the north.

It would be about 285 feet away from the front property line, but still in front of the residence.

That's to allow for low density estate style development.

The site is partially within the floodway and the floodway fringe since Crooked Creek runs along far to the west of the portion.

I apologize that I didn't include a map showing the floodplain boundaries within staff's report, but it would be approximately 170 feet away from the western property line.

So you have your property line here, 170 foot is the floodplain cut off approximately, and then 285 feet is where the building would be.

So approximately 115 feet to the west of where the floodplain area ends.

However, since a portion of the site is within the floodplain boundary of flood permit issuance would still be required from business and neighborhood services prior to construction.

My understanding is that both drainage and infrastructure and flood reviews would be needed prior to them breaking ground.

Hopefully that would address some concerns in the remonstrator, and there would be a structural review of the foundation and proposed polls as well.

But comprehensive plan recommends the site for rural and estate neighborhood type uses, similar to the zoning.

It's also within the environmentally sensitive overlay per the pattern book of the comp.

That isn't meant to be a prohibition on all development, but it indicates that environmental sensitive areas should preserve or add at least 30% of the parcel as tree canopy or naturalized area.

It seems like that would be the results regardless of the disposition of this petition.

The site is extensively wooded.

I'm including the rear yard.

The applicant did make some mention of a BMX path at the site.

That wasn't something that staff had noted within our aerial photography or when visiting the site along the perimeters, although it is pretty well wooded back there.

If it does exist, I think permits would have been needed at a minimum if it's within the front yard, potentially a variance of development standards for having an accessory sort of game court area within the front yard as well.

But uh subject that today's hearing is related predominantly to the proposed garage structure.

Um there are likely heritage trees on the site, as mentioned within the petitioner's findings.

Uh the remonstrators' letter and testimony also mentioned that are flowers and salamanders native to the area that could be impacted.

It seems like both sides are aware of potential environmental impacts here, and those are concerns shared by staff.

Uh, we feel that development that limits the amount of tree removal and environmental impact would be optimal, and ordnance compliant development within decided a rear yards would likely result in additional removal beyond the 0.145 acres of disturbed area that's shown on the site plan.

The applicant provided.

For context, that would be only about 2.5% of the site being disturbed or about 140th overall.

The 1440 square footage would of course be smaller than that disturbed area, is the portion surrounding.

It sounds like would partially include the driveway, which is already described.

Um, as it said, utilize an existing driveway minimizes the disturbance instead of clearing new area, and your removal of heritage trees wouldn't be allowed per ordinance.

Um that doesn't feel there should be a blank check for any type of development within the front yard, but what's shown here is 285 feet away from the front property line, and the site is well screened from Knowlton and from adjacent properties.

Uh, the main reason for the rule about front yard accessory structures is the limited visual impacts of placing accessory structures within the front yard.

And given the size and screening of the site, uh staff doesn't feel the um the proposed structure runs substantially counter to that ordinance guidance.

The height is 15 feet, which is also presumably less than the primary structure's height.

Uh staff feels that the petition is supportable given that practical difficulty and the likely additional negative environmental impact of place at the accessory structure within a rear yard instead of a front.

You have the board sees fit to impose commitments on that approval to incorporate some concerns from the remonstrator, tie the approval to that specific site plan, some sort of tree preservation admin approval.

Uh that would be up to the board's prerogative, but uh staff feels comfortable recommending approval and that the statutory findings have been met.

Uh with that, we're happy to answer any questions that you might have.

With that, we're happy to answer any questions that you might have.

All right.

Any questions from staff from members of the board?

You guys are heavy?

Okay.

I have a couple.

Um is the location of this barn anywhere near the um most recently established FEMA 100 year floodplain or floodway.

Um it is approximately 115 feet to the east of where the um floodway floodway fringe boundary cuts off.

So it's not shown on the map there.

I apologize.

But the portions that are floodplain itself are to the west of the site, but any, even if one centimeter of the site encroached in the floodplain, they would still need a flood permit from the yeah, they still got to get a permit from the D.

Correct.

Okay.

All right.

Uh anybody else have any questions?

All right.

Uh Mr.

Petitioner.

Yeah.

She can she's got five minutes and a few minutes, she can talk.

Uh ma'am, you you have five minutes of rebuttal after the petitioner's five minutes of rebuttal.

Ah, yes.

Petitioner, you have five minutes of rebuttal.

Uh thank you.

We supplied the um the board with the uh survey that shows the location of the um project and also with the uh specs for the building.

Uh I provided those to the loss of later uh at least two weeks ago with her request.

So she's had them the the whole for at least two weeks.

Umplained that there's no data on the time frame to complete the project or the working hours.

Uh I think that's something that's beyond the scope of this proceeding.

Uh she complained about uh that's insisting that there should be an environmental impact statement.

Environmental impact statements is required only when there is a state or federal action significantly affecting the scope of the environment.

And there's no state action here, no federal action involved.

So the EIS requirement, neither the state nor the federal EIS requirement is relevant.

Uh with regard to endangered species, uh my office called DNR.

Uh DNR said they don't have specific locations throughout the state where endangered species are present.

Um they just have a general list of endangered species for plants and animals.

Uh they have no record at all, however, of endangered species at this specific site.

Uh with regard to the wind patterns, um, I'm not really sure what she's talking about there.

There's no showing that she's got any expertise to make that sort of assessment, and she's not cited any scientific evidence for that or for any of her uh complaints about the effects of the project on the overall environment.

Again, the staff emphasize this work is not going to take place in a flood zone.

Uh with and again, with regard to drainage, that's beyond the scope of this of this hearing.

That's for to be determined uh with with the improvement location uh permit project uh aspect of this of this project.

Uh I ask Mr.

Puffer if there's any of the specific factual allegations he wants to address.

He said he does not have a BMX track there.

Yeah, thank you.

Um I'd like to first address uh uh Dorothy's um mention of removal of trees.

Um I think she may be referring to my mitigation of the extensive honeysuckles that were throughout the property, um, or perhaps the dead green ash trees that I did bring down at one point, um, but they were stone dead.

Uh other than that, you know, I I don't know what she's talking about there.

Uh there has never been a BMX track on my property.

I did put a trail around my property that I'll ride my mountain bike on.

It is not a BMX track, does not have a start gate, does not have finish line, it does not have multiple jumps and all that kind of stuff in it.

Um the purpose of the building.

As you know, I do a lot of work on my property.

I do all this stuff myself.

Uh I have a tractor, I have tractor implements, I have chainsaws, I have pole saws, I have two little kids now, I have bikes in my foyer.

Um I need I want to turn my garage, which is climate controlled, into their playroom, put the bikes and all that stuff in there.

I'd like to have all my chainsaws, hand tools, wood chippers, the tractor, my vehicles out of that.

So that is the purpose of the uh construction.

And I also mentioned that uh yes, the front of the yard is wet, it's marshy.

Um Dorothy has uh referenced salamanders.

Uh they require that environment.

It probably has not gotten any more marshy based on what I said before, the species and soil types there.

Um, and in fact, that marshiness contributes to their life cycle because predatory fish can't get them, like in the creek when they're reproducing it over a slump.

Thank you.

Dorothy, you got uh five minutes of uh rebuttal to the rebuttal.

Okay, well, yes, I'm not I'm not a scientist.

I designed toilets, so you know.

Um that's difficult.

Yeah, yeah.

Well, anyway.

Oh, actually, I've designed some uh I I've trademarked uh space steak, because I've designed a new way to make structural steak out of stuff they're going on the space station and um actually be able to chew it and eat it.

They can have it, I don't want it.

Well, anyway.

Um, yeah, actually, this pole barn is going to make the value of the whole uh Indiana State is or Indiana City is gonna get less tax because it's gonna make the value of all the houses go down.

So it's gonna reduce the amount of tax you collect from this area.

That's one thing.

But um, yeah, it just with everyone ma'am.

We're only going to be discussing in the rebuttal period things that have already been presented in the previous testimony.

Okay, I'm not a lawyer, so I think that's a good idea.

So please keep your testimony in the rebuttal period just to things that have already been discussed.

Thank you.

I'm terribly sorry.

That's right.

Okay, well, I guess that's it.

And it just it's just the falling down of trees, which is really disturbing, and which in the last year is like really been extreme from the wet, they've fallen over.

So thank you.

Yeah, thank you.

All right.

Any questions for anyone from members of the board?

No.

Then we can go ahead and cast our ballots.

Oh my easier to say.

Craig Von Dalen votes yes, and Tom Barnes votes yes.

Variance is granted.

Um Mr.

Secretary, do we have any additional business today?

Yes, we've got findings of fact to adopt.

All right.

Do we need to read those off or are we good?

All right, we are adjourned.

Mr.

O'Neill, you're gonna make your four o'clock.

All right.