Whatever we can do to keep her in house for two more years.

Very limited blood, but she's ready to get allowed.

She just worries the question.

All right, everybody, are we ready?

Eddie was just walked in and then walked out.

He may have gone to the bathroom.

But I don't see any reason why we can't get started.

Marty or your elections, right?

First.

Yeah, we got to do elections.

I don't want to stress Marty out.

Sure, Marty's okay.

He's walking with a little bit of spirit.

See, Jeff York is here.

It's like we're blessed with royalty from the planning staff.

Is it broken?

Yes.

Just put that out.

Good.

Called order.

Good afternoon.

Before we um this is a meeting of the boarding of zoning zoning appeals division two.

I'm Chairperson Craig E.

Von Dalen.

Good afternoon.

Before we begin today's meeting, we need to appoint a chairperson, vice chairperson, and secretary of division two of the Board of Zoning Appeals.

Is there any member that wishes to serve as chair?

I will continue if that is the case.

I don't see anybody else raising their hand.

Do I have a motion to nominate Craig Von Dalen as the chairperson of Division Two Board of Zoning Appeals?

Brandon, so move.

And a second.

Duke second.

I'll call the vote.

Tom Barnes.

Yes.

Patrice Duckett Brown.

James Duke?

Absolutely.

Beth Brandon?

Yes.

And I will I'll abstain.

I think I won.

Is there any minute with member that wishes to serve as vice chair?

Waiting for a volunteer.

I would like to nominate Dave James Duke as Vice Chair.

Do I hear a second?

Brandon, second.

Second.

All right.

I'll call the roll.

Tom Barnes.

Yes.

Patrice.

Yes.

Beth Brandon?

Yes.

I am also a yes.

Mr.

Duke.

Reluctantly, yes.

All right.

You are now the vice chair again.

Um is there any member that wishes to serve as secretary?

I'd like to nominate Patrice Decker Brown.

All right.

I will second that nomination if I may.

And I'll call the roll.

Tom Barnes.

Tom Barnes is yes.

James Duke.

Duke, yes.

Beth Brandon.

Brandon, yes.

I am also a yes.

Patrice?

Yes.

Thank you for serving.

All right.

Let's get started with our regular meeting.

Thank you all for your service and happy new year.

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

I am Craig Von Dalen, Chairperson of Division Two.

The other board members present are Tom Barnes, Patrice Duckett Brown, James Duke, and Beth Brandon.

Legal Counselor of the Board today is Chris Steinman's staff members present today from the Division of Planning are at Ionea, current planning administrator.

Noah Stern yet to arrive, senior planner, Michael Weigel, senior planner, Marty Weistie, senior board specialist and secretary to the board.

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

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

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

Those who intend to testify will please remain standing and be sworn.

Petitioners should be on your left and remonstrators on your right as you face the board.

Those who testify will state their name and address for the board record before beginning the test 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 to the initial presentations.

Remonstrators will then be allowed five minutes for rebuttal of the petitioner's rebuttal evidence in 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.

If the petitioners have failed to comply with all notice requirements as stipulated by the board's rules of procedure, including posting of the notice signed on the subject property at least 23 days prior to the hearing, the board may continue the petition.

Anyone at this hearing who thinks complete and proper notice has not been given and would like the petition continued due to lack of proper notice must bring this matter to the board's attention at the beginning of the hearing.

The board may impose various conditions or commitments as amendments before reaching a decision on certain petitions.

The installation of landscaping and screening, the paving of parking area, and the dedication of rights of ways 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 proved by an affidavit of compliance submitted by the petitioner within 30 days of completion.

Unless otherwise specified, an improvement location permit must be obtained prior to the establishment of authorized improvements.

Failure to comply with any conditions or commitments of a variance grant is a violation enforceable by the Department of Business and Neighborhood Services.

A person may file a written request to receive notice of the filing of petition for judicial review of the decision of the board.

The written request must be filed within five days of the board's decision and must include the person's first f person's full name and correct mailing address and a reference to the board's petition number.

Forms are available and may be obtained from the board secretary.

Please be advised that contacting members of the board regarding a matter pending before the board outside of the public hearing process is prohibited.

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

Board members, you have been provided meeting minutes for our December 9th, 2025 meeting.

If there are no deletions or addition, I will take a motion to their for their approval.

Duke so moved.

Brandon, second.

All those in favor, please indicate by just saying aye.

Aye.

Aye.

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

All right.

Before we re hear special requests, I will ask for a waiver of our rules of procedure to allow the board to vote for all expedited petitions and adopt their findings of fact without any additional testimony from the individual petitioners.

Do I hear a motion?

Do so move.

And a second.

Brandon, second.

I'll now ask for the vote.

Barnes.

Yes.

Ducett Brown.

Ducky Brown, yes.

Duke.

Duke yes.

Brandon.

Brandon, yes.

And I'm also a yes.

We'll now consider special requests and continuances this time.

Good afternoon, board.

My name is Chris Dobb.

I am the owner and residence of 936 North Oakland Avenue on the near east side of this great city.

I would bring your attention to item number six on your agenda, 2025 UV two-017 at 853 North Tacoma in the Springdale neighborhood.

While we received notification of this hearing in mid-December, neither neighborhood, neither NESCO nor St.

Clair Place has met yet this year, and we would ask for a continuance until February 10th.

Very well.

Is there anyone else in the audience with an interest in petition number 2025 UV 2-017 with an address of 853 North Tacoma Avenue?

If so, please come forward.

State your name and address for the record.

Good afternoon, Joe Smoker, with uh near the petitioner, 960 North Rural Street.

I'll just say that we're not in opposition to this continuance, just that it has no additional notice.

Very good, Joe.

And come forward, please.

Name and address for the record.

Trippers von Dalen, I believe she's with a different petition.

Oh, okay.

You get I'm sorry, I thought you were God to hang in there.

All right.

Uh we'll go to comments from staff.

Thank you, Chairperson Von Dale and staff was made aware of this request and has no objection to it.

And that would be without additional notice.

Okay.

Can I get the address or the uh date for our next hearing, please?

It would be continued to the February 10th, 2026 hearing.

Very well.

Then I will entertain a motion to continue petition number 2025 UV 2-017 to our February 10th regularly scheduled meeting without additional notice.

Do I hear a motion?

Do so move.

Second.

Brandon, second.

Call the roll, Barnes.

Yes.

Ducket Brown.

Ducky Brown, yes.

Brandon.

Brandon, yes.

Duke.

Duke, yes.

And I'm also a yes.

Thank you.

Yes, ma'am.

Good afternoon.

My name is Yadira Torres, and I'm here for address 2201 East 30th.

Is that your address?

No.

We need your address.

Oh, my address is the first one.

It's your name and your address, and then you can go on.

Oh, okay.

My personal address?

Uh office address.

The petition address.

I'm sorry.

It should technically I believe be your address of whether it be office or personal.

I'm just coming for this address.

It's not my personal, so well that brings up a good question.

It has to be the an office or a personal residence, doesn't it?

It could be either.

It just needs to be where you where we should send any notices.

To this address that I'm putting the petition was filed for.

The petitioner's address?

Yes.

So I'm representing the petitioner.

Well, that won't necessarily get to you.

Which address would you like to be contacted at?

Well, the 2201 East 30th Street.

220.

Browse does not have a milling to receive mail.

So give your business address.

Okay.

All right.

Then I can give my business address.

That's perfect.

All right.

It is uh 102s uh 55 Commerce Drive, suite to 06, Carmel, Indiana, 462.

Very good.

Thank you.

All right.

So this is for uh address 2201 East 30th, case 205.

I mean 2025 U V two zero one six.

Okay, we don't have that on our agenda.

Yes.

I would like to have a continuance on this case.

Okay.

Which case are we talking about?

It doesn't appear to be on our address.

Chairperson Von Dalen, if I may, the address she indicated was the original address.

So we are talking about 2025 UV 2016.

Okay.

It was amended to a new address, 2949 Browse Avenue, which is adjacent to the original address.

It is still the same petition.

Okay.

And you're asking for a condition.

And she originally referenced the original address on 30th Street.

Sorry.

All right.

Thank you, Robert.

You're requesting a continuance to our next hearing date of February 10th.

Yes, sir.

Would that be with or without additional notice?

Without.

All right.

Very well.

Is there anyone else in the audience with an interest in petition number 2025 UV 2-016 with on our agenda an address of 2949 Brouse Avenue?

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

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

Staff has no objection to this request.

Um that would be to the February 10th, 2026 hearing.

As this petition was just amended, and new notice for the amended petition has already been provided.

No new notice for this continuance will be needed.

Very well.

I entertain a motion to continue to our February 10th hearing without additional notice.

Petition number 2025 UV2.

Brandon, so moved.

And a second.

Duke, second.

I'll call the roll, Barnes.

Barnes is yes.

Ducett Brown.

Ducky Brown, yes.

Brandon.

Brandon, yes.

Duke.

Duke, yes.

And I'm also a yes.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Hello, I'm Don Fisher with Insight Engineering.

My address is 9755 Randall Drive, suite 11A, Carmel.

I'm here for petition 2025 DV2 045.

And I'd like to request a continuance to the February 10th.

The neighborhood association got an hour mat continuance previously when we met with them.

They asked a lot of very specific questions.

And we haven't had a chance to address those yet.

So with or without additional notice?

Without notice.

Very well.

Is there anyone else in the audience with an interest in petition number 2025 D V two-045 with an address of 8083 Georgetown Road?

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

Yes, uh, thank you, Chairperson Von Dalen.

Members of the board, uh, giving this would be the first such continuance requested by the petitioner.

Uh staff has no objection.

Very well.

Then I'll uh entertain a motion to continue to our February 10th hearing without additional notice.

Petition number 2025 DV2-045 do our hearing motion.

Brandon, so moved.

Yeah, a second.

Duke second.

Call the roll.

Barnes.

Barnes is yes.

Ducket Brown.

Ducky Brown, yes.

Brandon.

Brandon, yes.

Duke.

Duke, yes.

And I'm also yes.

Thank you, sir.

Thank you.

Good afternoon, Chairperson Von Dale and members of the board, Justin Kingan.

Address is 2722 Menker Street, Indianapolis, Indiana, 46203.

Here before you today regarding 2025 D V two zero three five, which is the first item on your agenda.

Uh address being 5100 Knowlton Road.

We're requesting a continuance to your April 14th hearing.

Um we believe that we might be headed towards withdrawing this petition.

Um working towards filing a petition to replot the property as well as um working with the planning department and DPW to solve the right-of-way issue.

If we're able to um do those two things, we should be able to withdraw this uh variance petition as variances would no longer be needed.

So uh continuing this case out to April is kind of the reason behind that.

It would allow for the plaque to be heard and for the issue with the right-of-way to be uh figured out.

So uh this would be without additional notice.

Very well.

Is there anyone else in the audience with an interest in petition number 2025 DV2-035 with an address of 5100 Knowlton Road?

None being seen, we'll go to Council Staff.

Uh thank you, Chairperson Von Dale and members of the board.

Uh staff would note that the previous continuance requested here was from uh I believe it was uh November to today's hearing date for a similar purpose.

Uh we don't object to this continuance in our hopeful that a solution can be found to result in withdrawal, but we're hopeful that the time spent here would be able to be utilized for the platinum right-of-way dedication processes.

So no objection, but hopefully this would be the last need for continuance.

Very well.

I'll entertain a motion to continue to our April 14th hearing without additional notice.

Petition number 2025 DV2-035.

Do I hear a motion?

Brandon, so moved.

Second.

Duke second.

Call the roll, Barnes.

Barnes is yes, Ducket Brown.

Ducky Brown, yes.

Brandon Brandon, yes, Duke.

Duke, yes.

And I'm also yes, staff.

Thank you, Chairperson Von Dale and members of the board.

Staff will draw your attention uh to I believe item number five, which is petition 2025 UV1022, located at 4502 East Michigan Street.

Staff is recommending approval of this, and this was listed as expedited.

However, there was a letter of remonstrance submitted to the file.

So this petition should have originally been listed in the public hearing docket.

However, if the board would poll the audience and there knows and there is no remonstrance attend in attendance, then this petition can remain on the expedited petition and be heard.

Very well.

Pull the audience.

Is there anyone in the audience with an interest in petition number 2025 UV1-022 with a street address of 4502 East Michigan Street?

No one is coming forward except for Mr.

King, who I believe is the petitioner.

Yeah, I have an interest in it.

I'm just not going to remonstrate.

Address and name and address.

Uh Justin Kingan, address 2722 Mankor Street, Indianapolis, Indiana, 46203.

Thank you, sir.

No one's here.

Thank you for clarifying that.

It was attended to be posted on the public hearing and moved to the expedited, but I got a little ahead of myself.

All right.

I believe we can get leave it there since no one's here.

All right.

Thank you.

Go ahead.

Staff.

Sure.

Uh thank you, Chairperson Von Dale and members of the board.

Staff will draw your attention to item number three on the agenda 2025 UV 2018 at 1003 West 30th Street.

Of a petitioner indicated to us in writing that a representative with their uh property management team would be unable to attend this hearing date, and as such, we are requesting a one-month continuance on their behalf to the uh February 10th hearing date.

That would be without new notice.

Is there anyone in confused?

Oh yeah.

On this there's identical case numbers.

Uh yeah, we do have identical case numbers from number two and number three.

What's the case number for the one we just talked about?

Eight notices.

Oh, you got yeah, you you guys have the right one for some reason.

We've got 16.

All right, it appears to be 18, correct?

Did I say 16?

You said 18.

Our paper up here says 6016.

That's why we wanted to clarify with you.

Sorry, Mr.

Weigel.

Yeah.

Uh it correct.

So okay, so I'm gonna poll the audience.

Is there anyone in the audience with an interest in petition number 2025 UV two-018 with an address of 1003 West 30th Street?

All right, none being seen.

I will entertain a motion to continue to our February 10th hearing without additional notice.

Petition number 2025 UV 2-018.

Do I hear a motion?

Brandon, so moved.

And a second.

Duke second.

I'll call the roll.

Barnes.

Barnes is yes.

Ducket Brown.

Duckett Brown, yes.

Brandon.

Brandon, yes.

Duke.

Duke, yes.

And I'm also a yes.

Thank you.

Anything else from staff?

All right.

Mr.

Secretary, we can go ahead on to the expedited docket.

These are petitions to be expedited.

Case number two zero two five-se three-zero zero two amended.

Property address three six two zero developers road.

Perry Township, Council District No.

C7.

The petitioner is BMAC Properties LLC, represented by Patrick B.

McGilvana.

Variants of development standards of the consolidated zoning and subdivision ordinance to provide for a wireless communications facility with a 150-foot tall monopole tower and a five-foot lightning rod.

Maximum height limited to 60 feet.

Within 150 feet of a dwelling district, 500 foot separation required.

And without the required perimeter landscape screening.

Minimum 10 foot landscape yard on all sides required.

Case number 2025-UV1-022.

Property address 4502 East Michigan Street.

Center Township, Council District Number 13, zoned D5.

The petitioner is Jose Louis Tapia Camacho, represented by Justin Kingen.

Amended request is variance of use and development standards of the consolidated zoning and subdivision ordinance to provide for the operation of an automobile, motorcycle, and light vehicle service or repair facility and business, professional or government offices uses.

Not permitted.

And a parking area greater than 30 foot wide within the front yards of Linwood Avenue and Michigan Street.

Not permitted.

Case number 2025-UV2-019.

Property address 7543 Terrace Beach.

Washington Township, Council District No.

2, Zoned DS.

The petitioner is Adam Gillietti, represented by Michael Rabinovich.

Amended request is variants of use and development standards of the consolidated zoning and subdivision ordinance to legally establish and provide for the rebuilding of a single family dwelling on a previous foundation in the floodway and a detached accessory structure in the front yard of Terrace Beach.

Accessory structures are not permitted in front of primary building.

With a three-foot north side yard setback and a three-foot south side setback, 15-foot side setback required, with a six-foot aggregated side setback, 35 feet aggregate side yard setback required on a lot with 20 feet of street frontage, 75 feet of frontage required.

Is there anyone here in attendance that is in opposition to any of these petitions?

Chairperson, that is the end of the expedited docket.

Very well, we can cast our ballots.

That was out, yeah.

Yep.

On case two zero two five-se three-zero zero two amended.

Patrice Duckett Brown votes yes.

James Duke votes yes.

Craig Von Dalen votes yes.

Beth Brandon votes yes, and Tom Barnes votes yes.

That variance is granted.

On case two zero two five-UV two-019, Patrice Ducket Brown votes yes, James Duke votes yes.

Craig Von Dalen votes yes.

Beth Brandon votes yes, and Tom Barnes votes yes.

That variance is granted.

And on case 2025-UV1-022, Patrice Dockett Brown votes yes.

James Duke votes yes.

Craig von Dalen votes yes.

Beth Brandon votes yes, and Tom Barnes votes yes.

That variance is granted.

Thank you, Mr.

Secretary.

We'll move on to the regular docket.

These are petitions for public hearing.

Case number 2025-DV2-046.

Property address 2346 Brookside Avenue.

The petitioner is Raul Rosas, represented by Jorge Gonzalez.

Variants of development standards of the consolidated zoning and subdivision ordinance to provide for a single family dwelling with a three-foot east side yard setback.

Five foot side setback required.

Will those who plan to speak on this petition, please raise the 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.

Yes.

Yes.

My name is George Gonzalez or Jorge Gonzalez.

And my address is 4415 East Michigan Street, Indianapolis, Indiana, 46201.

I am Raúl Rosas.

My address is 6305 Sunshine Meadows Lane in Brownswork, Indiana.

Thank you, guys.

You can go ahead and present your case.

You bet.

Okay.

Go ahead, Mr.

Gonzalez.

You can continue.

Yeah.

Give some sign.

Okay.

Um the reason why we brought this, you probably know this chart here, and um it has the zone D eight.

And uh for us, it was for Mr.

Rosses was a little confusing when uh on a D eight zone allows for three feet um setback on the side.

And so he built uh even though he got the blueprints approved for um five feet on each side, he um based on this chart, he built uh the house with only three feet distance between two houses, and we are asking for that um for that variance.

And uh the other reason we um committed this uh or Mr.

Rosses did because the um when we call for inspection, the inspector did not come to um verify that we were in a correct um size of the footing.

Uh and Mr.

Rosa would like to explain uh how he is mitigating the risk of um having a firewall go ahead.

Okay, yes.

So what the city inspector, they say to me that I would like they want to see because they're a little bit close together, to inside Lywood uh fire protection for fire over it's in an hour, plus I'm adding two sheets of drywall inside, so we'll be more than close to one hour and a half rating of fire.

Upside, I'm doing uh another two hours of delayed fire because of the two houses that are close.

So this is one of the re-mediations or the the answer to be in compliance of the fire of the houses that are together.

That's just what the city say to me that I can that I can fix the problem.

But I'm sorry for what happened before.

Once again, what say Mr.

Gonzalez Gonzalez, the city that they never show up to check the foundation, and that's what I was not aware that I did a mistake.

I we followed the the paper that said that was fine, and now they changed their mind.

Right after when I finished the house, was like a 90% down of the house.

That's too close.

Just almost nothing.

But they say, why don't you nothing to me?

Almost 90% down of the house.

Now I'm seven months waiting to finish the house.

I'm paying every month interest.

And I would like to finish the house.

I would like to see if you can help me.

I I have the answer how to fix it, not to be on danger for the families living in the houses.

I remove windows.

I have everything that's in compliance.

I would like to see if you can help me, please.

Thank you, Mr.

Roses.

Is that your entire you you have anything else you want to present at all, or are you good?

Um, that's this is all we have right now.

Thanks.

Okay, I'm gonna ask a few quick questions.

Um as a former builder, I can tell you I feel you.

I know I know what you're going through.

Um so what you you you submitted plans that had the house within five feet of the property line, but then when you built it, it's now three feet from the property line.

Is that correct?

Yes, that is correct.

So you're still within the what would be considered the zoning requirements for D eight.

I'm gonna ask the staff about that same question.

Now you said you've mitigated the concerns as far as fire spreader are concerned by doubling the layers of drywall on the inside of the building, and then what did you do on the outside wall of the building?

Even close to three hours of like what I'm gonna do.

Um I have uh concrete siding.

Yeah.

And I had that flagware that is one hour meeting, and I'm gonna add another layer of type X.

That's the name of the drivewall special drywall, too, and another another set of drywall, like uh uh concrete siding.

Okay, it's gonna be two layers.

And the concrete siding is not flammable.

Correct.

And I'm gonna do two of them.

Okay, and then you you were there's no windows or penetrations.

No, sir.

Okay.

All right, very good.

Thank you.

You've answered my question.

Um, any other questions for the petitioner for members of the board.

All right.

Did you want to say anything else?

Because you still have a little bit of time left.

Um, yes.

Well, uh, the only thing I want to add, I I worked for Mr.

Rosa for a number of years now, and he is investing in Indianapolis.

Uh please uh take that into consideration that right now he's and a burden because he's paying so much uh interest for seven months.

And and the inspectors came and they worked with us every and we're grateful that they they tried to help us mitigating all the risk of on the building.

So yeah, that's uh everything we have right.

Uh we they've been very good to us, but it's taking too long.

Right.

Uh Mr.

Robert, he's been very nice to us too.

Giving um just giving the right information.

He's been very kind to us, Mr.

Robert and the other inspectors too.

Completely completely understand.

Thank you very much.

Mr.

Uh and Haik.

Thank you.

Before we go to that, sorry, don't want to interrupt you.

I apologize.

I probably should make sure there's no remonstrators.

Is there anyone else in the audience with an interest in petition number 2025 DV2-046 with an address of 2346 Brookside Avenue?

All right, none.

Go ahead, Mr.

Eulin.

Thank you, Chairperson Von Dale and members of the board.

Um, before I start, there are several typos with the permit numbers that I would like in the staff report that I would like to clarify.

Go for it.

Um the the house was or the structure was originally permitted under petition ILP 24-00118 that replaces the first one that's indicated in the staff report.

Got it.

And the in the second sentence, the original new construction, two-story, two-family dwelling was permitted under the same petition, ILP 24-00118.

And then skipping down to the last paragraph, when the size of the house was changed, permit ILP 25-0927 was issued and then placed on hold.

Okay.

So for clarification, I wanted to make that.

Uh thank you.

The next petition is similar, and there is some overlap in some of the petitions.

And but for this purpose on this petition, um I think some of the confusion in my interpretation could be arise from if you look at the handout that the petitioner provided you.

Um when you look at the third one down the detached house on the compact lot, um, greater than where the lot size is greater than 2.5 2500 square feet and a lot width of 25 feet.

That's where you get the three-foot side setback.

When this house was the lot size um is measured at 4800 square feet, which would put it south, or excuse me, less than the next category being a small lot, which is five thousand square feet or greater, which requires a five-foot um side setback.

However, the interpretation of the lot falling into the small um lot is derived from the forty-foot width of the lot, even though it is still less than five thousand square foot.

It is believed DBNS uh interpreted the category that this house should be in, would be in the detached house small lot, which requires the five-foot side setback.

Um it is not known why the original um permit was issued, being ILP 240118.

Um but since the permit is has been issued, and um staff does make no recommendation on this as it would be difficult to uh rescind a um uh to find to clarify which uh of the two options, whether the permit was issued correctly or incorrectly at this time.

Thank you, Mr.

Linhake.

Um any questions from staff from members of the board none being heard.

We appreciate your um working on this and trying to figure it out.

Um you have a five-minute rebuttal period, but there's not really a whole lot to rebut.

Um if you'd like to say anything else you can, then we'll go ahead and cast our votes.

You good?

All right, then I think we can cast our ballots.

Thank you.

On case two zero two five-dv two-046, Patrice Duckett Brown votes yes, James Duke votes yes, Craig Von Dalen votes yes, Beth Brandon votes yes, and Tom Barnes votes yes.

The variance is granted.

Yeah, go go get that thing sold and occupied.

There you go.

You're free to go.

Case number two zero two five dash DV two-047, property address two four zero two Brook Side Avenue, Center Township, Council District number eight, zoned D eight.

The petitioner is Braulio Juaregui Barajas, represented by Layla Mirena Pazpineda.

Variance of development standards of the consolidated zoning and subdivision ordinance to provide for a single family dwelling with a two-foot front setback, ten-foot minimum front setback 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?

These cases appear to be related.

Yeah.

Uh I am uh my name is uh Jorge Gonzalez from 4415 East Michigan Street, uh, Indianapolis Indiana, 46201.

And I'm here for Mr.

Braulio Baras.

He's uh I work for him.

Uh he's a framer, and he uh I represent him as well.

And uh Ms.

My name is the Leila Mirena Paspineda.

And my other address is uh For Fortune Linguth Avenue, um Indianapolis, Indiana.

Thank you.

Uh well this uh case we have um this house that is the set back in the front is um three feet and it should be ten and Mr.

Vraulio built his house uh um based on can we provide this uh yeah go ahead and the oh I've got one here too, Marty, if you need it.

I um based on can we provide this uh the oh I've got one here too, Marty.

If you need it this permit was issued uh about a year ago, and with this setbacks, but now they realize that this setback should be 10 feet instead of three.

But we build this house based on the other houses, so we aligned with every house in the neighborhood.

If we go back 10 feet, it's gonna it's not um in our opinion, it's not gonna look um aesthetic.

And so the other setbacks are correct.

Uh an email sent by Adam Cooper who is reviewing this uh blueprints.

He told me that we need 15 feet in the back, and we have 17.

So we are within the standards for the setbacks uh and so we are requesting just a setback in the front to allow us to beat three feet instead of ten.

Thank you, Mr.

Gonzalez.

Um do we have any questions for the petitioner from members of the board?

We have no questions, so we'll go on.

Uh is there anyone else in the audience with an interest in petition number 2025 DB two-047 with an address of 2402 Brookside Avenue.

Um none being seen, we'll go to comments from staff, Mr.

Ulyn Haig.

Thank you, Chairperson Von Dale and members of the board.

In this instance, it's believed permit ILP 2501763 was issued and then placed on hold once it was determined that the front setback.

Umitially there was a rear setback at 18 feet as indicated in the staff report.

That is true.

It was thought that a uh 20-foot rear setback was required, but however, in final in further evaluation, it was determined this was terrace frontage, which allows for 15 rear setbacks.

So the 18 foot became legal at that point and is not part of this um specific request.

It was just added since it was indicated on the site plan for this request on that site plan as well.

The front setback was indicated as 12 feet, uh 12.5 feet or 12.2 feet, I believe.

Um that was submitted to Department of DBN uh business and neighborhood services.

Um however, after that and the permit was issued based on that.

After that was issued, it was determined that measurement was from the sidewalk uh edge of the sidewalk instead of from the the right-of-way line.

There is an approximate 10-foot separation between the right-of-way between the sidewalk and the property line.

So the actual setback was only 2.5 feet.

Umce that was detected, um the the hold was put on ILP and the variance that is before you today was required became required.

In this instance, again, uh, since a permit had been issued uh and allowed for the big the construction, which I believe is pretty much ninety five percent, if not a hundred percent complete, as you see in staff report votes.

Um staff would note that as the petition indicated the front setback as uh as built is is similar to adjacent properties on the block, uh both north, both east and west, excuse me, if this is an east-west oriented street.

Um and is not uh significantly located in front of other dwellings.

It is uh fairly in line with those.

Um the the street does have an above average wide right-of-way width.

Uh typical local street has a 49, 48 to 50 foot right-of-way.

This has a 63 foot width of public right-of-way, as indicated before, ten feet of that public right-of-way width would be between the north side between the sidewalk and the property line, and then there's an additional five feet on the south side between the property line and the sidewalk as well.

Uh in this instance, since again, since a permit has been issued, staff does not make a makes no recommendation on this request.

Thank you, Mr.

Eulinhake.

A question for you.

The on page 67 of the staff report, the bottom picture says photo of adjacent undeveloped lot to the west looking north.

Is that actually the subject property?

Keep going down to the next picture.

Uh 67.

Yeah, it's page 67.

Keep slot.

Whoever's who's Eddie, do you have who's controlling the or is Robert?

Oh, Mr.

York.

Go up a little bit so I can see the picture below that one.

Okay.

So yes, uh, the next photo.

Yeah, that's the subject property.

Is the adjacent no, that is not the subject property.

That is the adjacent property.

The greenhouse to the right is the subject on the for this petition.

Oh, okay.

The house you are seeing is in the middle between the subject site and the previous petition, which is on the left of that, which looks similar.

Ah, there is a house in the middle.

All right.

And if I recall for an addendum, this house was originally standard, uh, was originally um was existing on site and was renovated to look as it was.

So that is a theoretically, it is a hundred year old house with a legally non-conforming side setback.

Got it.

Okay.

I I was that that clears up a lot of my confusion.

Um typically in a D8 zone, when I've always developed or built properties in a D8 zone, it is generally um accepted that the frontage or the front setbacks of the houses be a aligned with the addition the other houses that are already exist in the neighborhood.

This appears to align with that existing house's front setback, which now I understand is a historic house that's been there for quite some time.

Is that correct?

That is correct.

Um I don't know if it shows up in my location map two or three pages up.

Uh I think it does.

Well, it's it's on the in the area, which is the aerial map.

You could see it and then you could see the two vacant lots where this petition and the previous petition were subsequently built next to the that house.

Right.

And as I look at that block, it appears as though most of the houses that are were pre-existing this situation are almost at the right-of-way.

Fairly close, yes.

All right.

That answers my question.

Thank you, Mr.

Eulin Hake.

Any other questions for staff or um members of the board?

Yeah.

All right.

This is a pretty clear case as well, Mr.

Gonzalez.

You have five minutes of rebuttal that you can choose to or not choose to use.

I don't know what you would say, that but if you is there anything you'd like to say at all or no?

Yeah, the only thing I'd like to add is that um we they requested this uh set back after we passed all inspections.

Um you know that's again um a false.

I mean, is we we thought we were doing the right thing, so that's the only thing.

Yes.

Well, yeah, and unfortunately it landed here, and we apologize, and hopefully that in the future we don't have these issues anymore.

Um all right, everybody we can cast our ballots.

It is on case two zero two five dash DV2-047.

Patrice Duckett Brown votes yes, James Duke votes yes, Craig Von Dalen votes yes, Beth Brandon votes yes, and Tom Barnes votes yes.

The variance is granted.

Thank you, Mr.

Secretary.

I believe that is the end of our agenda.

Is there any other business to come before the board?

We have some findings to adopt, and if once we do that, we are adjourned.

Thank you very much.