Well you need to ask too much.

Well, that's good to know.

Now that I don't work all time, I have no time.

So I would like to see the trade.

I know there's something who's the data.

Oh, it's probably fine.

That was the success story.

Yeah.

Now who do you think these people are?

Yeah, I have a Robert Stock.

Robert will come in as soon as I start.

There's Robert.

Right there.

There's Robert.

He made it.

They'll overrun her is he will be here.

Call the order.

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

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

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

Noah Stern, senior planner.

Michael Weigel, senior planner.

Marty Weistie, senior board specialist and secretary of the board.

The board has copies of the zoning ordinance.

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.

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

Those who testify will state their names and address for the record before beginning to testify.

Statements and arguments in support of the petition.

Remonstrators and persons appearing in opposition to the petition shall have a maximum of 15 minutes for the presentation of evidence.

Statements and arguments in opposition to the petition.

Staff will then present the administrators' comments regarding the petition.

No further evidence, statements or arguments will be heard unless it is at the discretion of the board.

Please limit your testimony and evidence to the matters covered in the statutory requirements, which must be met in order for the board to grant a variance.

If the petitioners have failed to comply with all notice requirements as stipulated by the board's rules of procedure, including posting of the notice signed on a 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 continue 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, the screening of a park 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 the 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.

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 a petition for judicial review of a decision of the board.

The written request must be filed within five days of the board's decision and 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 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.

Board members, you've been provided meeting minutes for our December January 13th, 2026 meeting.

If there are no deletions or additions, I will make a motion for their approval.

Brandon, so moved.

And a second.

Duke second.

I'll call the roll.

Ducket Brown.

Ducky Brown, yes.

Duke.

Duke, yes.

Brandon.

Brandon, yes.

Barnes.

Barnes, yes.

Yes.

All right.

Is there anyone in the audience with questions about our procedure?

If there are none, before we hear some.

Oh, we do.

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

Thank you.

My name is Jason Pogue.

And uh I just have a quote.

Your address too, please.

Oh, sorry.

851 North Tacoma Avenue is my address.

Very good.

Um, I just noticed that uh number six on the agenda is slated for expedited.

I just want to make sure that there will be a spot for me to make comments as a remonstrator.

Absolutely.

In fact, we were just discussing that.

So we'll we'll if you're here, then we're going to pull it out and have it be part of our regular document.

Excellent.

Thank you so much.

You're welcome.

All right.

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 to adopt their findings of fact without any additional testimony from the individual petitioners.

Do I hear a motion?

Duke so move.

And a second.

Brandon second.

And I'll call the roll, Ducket Brown.

Ducky Brown, yes.

Duke.

Duke, yes.

Brandon, yes.

Barnes, Barnes, yes.

I'm also a yes.

Okay.

We will consider special requests and continuances at this time.

Good afternoon.

My name is Yadira Torres.

My address is 10255 Commerce Drive, suite 206 in Carmel, Indiana.

Thank you.

Um the case number is 2025.

UV2016.

Yes.

And um, we will like to withdraw the petition and keep the existing variants.

You would like to withdraw the petition.

And then what was the other thing?

We would keep the existing um variance.

Keep the existing variance.

Well, I can acknowledge the withdrawal.

I'm going to go to comments from Mr.

Ullen Haig for a comment about the existing variants.

Go ahead.

Thank you, Chairprincy von Dalen.

The existing variance is a 2002 variance that legally establishes the current use as unrelated to this petition.

So the withdrawal of the current one allows the can use to continue with the existing variants.

It was more a side note than related to these matters.

Very well.

We acknowledge your withdrawal.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Nothing else from the audience.

Go ahead, Mr.

Yuli.

Chairperson Von Dale and members of the board, staff will draw your attention to the item that was addressed previously.

Petition number six, 2025 UV 2017, located at 853 North Tacoma Avenue.

Staff did receive a letter of remonstrance.

However, that letter did indicate that that person was not going to make it.

Therefore, that's why this petition was placed on the expedited list.

However, it does appear there is a remonstrator.

If you would like to confirm that by polling the audience, this petition could be moved to the continued portion of the docket.

I think we have a remonstrator, so there's no need to poll the audience, so we'll go ahead and move it to the regular docket.

Staff will also draw your attention to item number one, petition 2026 DV2001, located at 1781 Sloan Avenue.

The petitioner has agreed to amend this petition to add an additional variant.

So therefore this petition needs to be continued to the May 10th, 2026 hearing with additional notice.

And staff has no objection to that.

Is there anyone else in the audience with an interest in petition number 2026 DV201 with an address of 1781 Sloane Avenue?

Do you have an interest in this particular petition?

Please come forward and if you do.

I'm sorry, I'm new to this.

That's all right.

Just give me your name and address first.

Okay.

Um and thank you for letting us come.

Uh my name is Julia Streer.

I live at 1826 South De Quincy Street, 46203.

And my front yard and backyard will be adjacent right next to where the parking lot was going to be.

Very good.

And I had just two concerns.

Okay, before we get into that, all we're going to discuss right now is they have asked for us to move this hearing for this particular case to our May 10th hearing.

Oh, so we'd come back.

Yeah, you'll I'm sorry, did you say May or March?

March, one month.

Okay, March 10th.

So you'll have to come back next month.

Do you have any objection toward to them going ahead and moving it to next month?

Oh no.

No.

That's great.

That's really all we we need to decide.

All right, very good.

Um that being the case, I will entertain a motion to continue to our March 10th hearing with additional notice.

Petition number 2026 DV2-001.

Do I hear a motion?

Brandon, so moved.

And a second.

Duke, second.

Thank you.

I'll call the roll, Ducket Brown.

Ducky Brown, yes.

Duke, yes.

Brandon, yes.

Barnes.

Barnes, yes.

And I'm also yes.

Thank you.

Uh thank you, Chairman Bondale and members of the board staff would draw your attention to the uh special request item at the very top of this afternoon's agenda 2025 UV two zero one eight at 1003 West 30th Street.

Uh, my understanding is that the petitioner intends to have this petition withdrawn and then to refile uh the request as a rezoning of the property instead of as a variance of use.

I believe the petitioner is in attendance this afternoon and might be able to confirm or provide additional information.

Very well.

If you have an interesting petition number, 2025 UV2-018, please come forward, state your name and address.

Uh yes, Your Honor.

My name is uh George Gonzalez, and I'm from 4415 East Michigan Street, Indianapolis, Indiana 46201.

Um I was contacted by Mr.

Michael.

Uh I hope I'm saying right, uh Mr.

Wiegel or Weigel.

Weggle.

Okay, thank you.

And yes, we we would like to request for a refund of the money, and then uh reapply for a rezoning pronus from a seed three to a D5.

Okay.

So you're with your I'm gonna you're withdrawing the current petition.

Uh well yeah, we are we are requesting a refund for but you're but prior to that.

I just need your withdrawing the current petition to get a refire in the is that correct.

Yes, that's okay.

I have to acknowledge that.

So you've withdrawn that petition now.

You would like a refund of those the fees that you've paid to be applied to a new petition, correct?

That is correct, yes.

All right.

I'm gonna real quickly see if there's anyone else in the audience that has a concern with this petition, and then we'll go to the staff and get their their recommendation.

Is there anyone else in the audience with interest petition number 2025 UV 2-018 with an address of 1003 West 30th Street?

None being seen.

Mr.

Weigell, what's the scoop on the on the refund?

Uh thanks, uh Chairperson Vondale and members of the board.

Um staff would not add an objection to a transfer of funds that have already been paid for disuse variants going toward the funds applicable for a rezon.

I don't know that we would process it as a full refund of the entire fee and then having them repay that from scratch.

But since we are recommending that they pursue this alternate petition back, we wouldn't have an objection to the transfer.

So okay.

So I'll entertain a motion to transfer the fees paid already for the petition number 2025 UV two-018 to a new petition that will be filed here in the near term, correct?

Do I hear a motion?

Duke so moved.

And a second.

Brandon, second.

Thank you.

I'll call the roll.

Ducket Brown.

Ducket Brown, yes.

Duke.

Duke, yes.

Brandon.

Brandon, yes.

Barnes.

Yes.

And I'm also a yes.

You got it.

All right.

We'll see you again in a few months.

Okay, we'll see you later then.

Thanks.

Yep.

All right.

Uh thank you, Chairman Bombanium.

Members of the board staff would also draw your attention to item number three on the agenda this afternoon, 2026 UV two zero zero one at 1927 North Capitol Avenue.

Petitioner was unable to be in attendance this afternoon.

Therefore, staff is requesting on their behalf a one-month continuance to your March 10th, 2026 hearing date.

This is the first such request that they have made, and our staff would not have any objection.

Very well.

Is there anyone in the audience with an interest in petition number 2026 UV two-001?

With an address of 1927 North Capitol Avenue.

Brandon, so moved.

And a second.

Duke, second.

Thank you.

I'll call the roll, Ducket Brown.

Ducket Brown, yes.

Duke.

Duke, yes.

Brandon.

Brandon, yes.

Barnes.

Yes.

No.

So yes.

Any other things from staff?

Nope.

All right.

Then we can go move on to our regular regular uh docket.

These are petitions to be expedited.

Case number two zero two six-d v two-zero zero two.

Property address five three seven five Graceland Avenue.

Washington Township, Council District No.

7, zoned D5 F F.

The petitioner is Scott Brady.

Variance of development standards of the consolidated zoning and subdivision ordinance to provide for a building addition, resulting in a 16-foot rear yard setback, 20 feet required.

Case number 2025-DV three-036 amended property address 2065 Columbia Avenue.

Variance of development standards of the consolidated zoning and subdivision ordinance to provide for the construction of a freestanding building with a 29 and a half foot southern transitional yard, 40 feet required.

And case number 2026-UV2-002 property address 4560 Ocean Avenue.

Washington Township, Council District Number 8, zoned MU2W1.

The petitioner is Monon 46 JVLLC, represented by Daniel Fair.

Variance of use of the consolidated zoning and subdivision ordinance to provide for the operation of a bar and lounge within 25 feet of a protected district.

100 foot separation required with an indoor recreation and entertainment use not permitted, subject to the filed site plan of operation.

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

Excuse me.

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

Chairperson, that's the end of the expedited docket.

Thank you.

If there's no one here that has an uh opposition to these, we can go ahead and cast our ballots.

On case two zero two six-d v two-00 two, Patrice Ducket Brown votes yes.

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

That variance is granted.

On case 2025-D V three-036 amended, Patrice Duckett Brown votes yes.

James Duke votes yes, Beth Brandon votes yes, Craig von Dalen votes yes, and Tom Barnes votes yes.

That variance is granted.

And on case 2026-UV2-002, Patrice Duckett Brown votes yes.

James Duke votes yes.

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

That variance is granted.

Thank you, Mr.

Secretary.

We can go ahead and move on to petitions for public hearing.

These are petitions for public hearing.

Case number 2025-DV1-061, property address 9000 Shetland Lane.

Pike Township, Council District No.

Zoned DA.

The petitioners are Rebecca Bolton and David Padrick, represented by David Gilman.

Variants of development standards of the consolidated zoning and subdivision ordinance to provide for the construction of an accessory residential structure on a lot that is not developed with a primary building and lacks street frontage.

Accessory structures on lots without primary buildings not permitted.

Minimum 125 foot street frontage required.

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

I do.

Thank you.

Board members for the record.

My name is David Gilman.

My office address is 211 South Ritter Avenue, suite H 46219.

I represent Rebecca Bolton and David Pedrick on this petition.

The property is located at 9000 Shetland Lane.

That address is a an access easement and adjacent subdivision.

But as you'll see when I go through our slides, the access to the property is actually from a different public road.

The petitioners own two lots in a subdivision in the northwest part of Pike Township called Thoroughbred Farms.

And then they also in 2024 acquired the adjacent seven acres.

So if you go to the first tab in the handout I've given you, the first tab, the first page of the first tab, depicts a colored site plan.

And the purpose of this is to provide the board some perspective of the amount of green space surrounding the proposed building and its nearest neighbors.

Everything in green is a wooded site.

This is an aerial to provide you a representation of how dense this area is wooded.

The closest residence as I've shown them in Saddle Ridge, 300 feet to the property line, and 400 feet to the property line of the folks in Saddle Ridge that would abut this property.

Given the dense coverage of the treed area and the location and the placement that the storage building would be located, it wouldn't be visible from virtually any residents surrounding it.

But to further blend in with the wooded environment, the building proposes earth tone colors to improve its compatibility.

The site in white is where the proposed building would be located.

It's already cleared.

That's the dead end of the gravel drive that gets to it.

It's just a uh a small building pad, which means that the remaining trees will be preserved.

My client is only removed small underbrush, invasive trees just to clean up the property, but it's not removed any trees of any substantial growth.

Tab two.

This tab has a lot of information on it.

If you go to the top, going down, to the left is Hendricks County, to the right is Marion County.

You'll see the shaded seven acres that I've put in the center of the property and the proposed storage building.

The access drive is completely located in Hendricks County.

It's about 1200 feet long, and it gets access from Thoroughbred Boulevard.

That land containing the access is actually owned by the petitioners.

Again, the petitioners own two residential lots in Thoroughbred farms, as I've shown about the center of the page.

Mr.

Padrick and his wife live on one lot, and their daughter is planning to build on the other vacant lot adjacent to theirs.

They can access this proposed storage building with a golf cart from their homes, or they can drive to it from the access road from Thoroughbred Boulevard.

The small blue area is important to note.

This is an easement to the seven acres through the Saddle Ridge subdivision, but it's controlled by the Saddle Ridge HOA.

Access to Shetland Lane over the years has been legally disputed in court from the HOA.

And with our conversations in that neighborhood, it's not likely that the HOA would prove access to this property through their subdivision.

The second slide in tab two.

The purpose of this slide is to show the origin of the basically the seven acres.

This was right of way from 1959 as part of an I-65 road project, but my understanding it was designated to be a future rest stop area.

The seven acres was eventually abandoned and sold in 2005.

My client purchased this property in 2024.

It's not platted, it's not included in either subdivision as a residential building site.

As a result, and through the years, this property, setting undeveloped, has been a subject of illegal dumping and trespassing.

Tab three.

Um, that may or may not be reflected in the site plan in the elevation in the staff report.

So tab four.

These are the written findings.

And I just really think I believe we don't cause anything that would be injurious to the public by allowing a stowage building on the seven acres.

So I want to focus in on the third finding.

Leaving the site undeveloped has led to ongoing problems with trespassing and illegal dumping.

Conditions that are directly tied to the property's isolation and lack of active use.

Allowing a storage building provides the owners with a lawful low-impact use of their land while providing or while also introducing regular presence and maintenance, which will significantly reduce opportunities for illegal dumping and unwanted trespassing.

We believe these unique physical and situational constraints demonstrate that strict enforcement of the ordinance would prevent any reasonable use of the property without some relief.

They compliment the design of the building, and they also agree that this would help correct some of the past nuisance that this properties had in the uh in the past, and that this would prevent that.

We then reached out to the Saddle Ridge neighborhood association.

I spoke with the neighbors on one side of the access easement.

My client has spoke to the president.

We've received no objection from that neighborhood association.

One thing that was mentioned that it's wanted to make sure that only one building would be constructed, and access would not come off of Shetland Lane.

And both again, those are going to be part of our written commitments.

We then presented to the Pike Township residents association.

And we've agreed to six written commitments to that association.

So Tab 5, you'll see the letter from PTRA, which attaches the six written conditions.

I would note in item number one and two, the date October 25 needs to be December 16th, 16th, to reflect the adjustments that we made to the building to be compliant with the side yard set back and to the um height of the structure to be compliant with the height standards.

Those commitments we agreed to the site plan.

We agreed that the building would be in compliance with the elevations.

The owner agrees that the proposed storage building will be strictly used for their own personal storage and will not be used for any commercial activity whatsoever.

I would note that again, this property, the seven acres, the building will be part of an estate with Mr.

Padrick and his family, so it will be in their family, hopefully for a long time.

The owner agrees that only a single building will be constructed, and there will not be any drives or access roads to Shetland Lane, as our commitment to Saddle Ridge.

The building will only be one story.

And again, there'll be no outdoor storage on the property other than what's contained, and everything would be contained within the building that's being approved.

We believe that we've demonstrated that the property does have some unusual circumstances.

We think that it does meet your findings of fact.

We offer our findings to be incorporated with our case filing.

We offer the six commitments that we've presented to the neighborhood association, and we appreciate the support that they've given us.

And with that, um, I think I'd open it up for questions that board members would have of me.

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr.

Gilman.

Um, are there any questions for the petitioner for members of the board?

Good thorough presentation.

All right.

Does there anyone else in the audience with an interest in petition number 2025 DV1-061 with an address of 9,000 Shetland Lane?

Uh none being seen.

You still have time left.

Did you want to use it at all, Mr.

Gilman, or are you good?

All right, we'll go to comments from staff.

Absolutely.

Uh thank you, Chairman Von Dalen, and thank you to the board for your time and for volunteering.

Uh, thank you to the petitioner for their comments as well.

Um, staff is recommending denial of the variances to allow for construction of a large storage building on a lot without a primary building and with deficient street frontage.

Um, as mentioned, this is a site at the far northwestern edge of Marion County.

It is somewhat unique in that the property lacks frontage and currently is solely accessible from a private drive in Hendricks County, just to the west.

The property is addressed to Shetland Lane, which is to the southeast of the site.

As mentioned, there's no direct border, but there is an undeveloped um access parcel owned or operated by the HOA to the southeast of this site.

Surrounding land uses include the I-65 freeway to the southwest and residential surroundings, otherwise in a sort of the state-style low density type environment.

Umers of this site also own the residents of the north of the property.

Um it's not directly contiguous.

There's about 150 feet separating it with another HOA-owned parcel.

Uh 9104 paddock is the address there, and it sounds like there might be a second address there as well.

Um, historically, um, this site has been improved with heavily wooded areas and a dense tree canopy.

Uh, there's currently not any buildings on the site.

Um, in 2024, um, clearing of trees was conducted at the northwest corner of the subject site per aerial photography that's shown in the staff report.

A substantial number of trees to the northwest were removed to allow for a uh a paved or sort of gravel area that currently exists there.

Uh the site is accessed by that gravel drive through Hendricks County uh per staff's recent site visit.

Per staff's recent site visit, there are several personal recreational vehicles that are stored on site.

We noted a boat, a trailer, would appear to be a race car similar to those used in the Indianapolis 500, as well as like a more traditional RV.

Photos of those exist within the exhibits of the staff report as well.

We visited the site on a rather snowy morning back in, I believe it was December.

My understanding is there's gravel paving underneath.

Difficult to prove either away, unfortunately, without knowing the extent of or the species of trees that might have been there.

Per the per decite plan, I believe the most recent version is the one included within the petitioner's packet there.

It would be accessory storage of personal nature, per the applicant, presumably of the vehicles that currently are parked at the site.

Two variances in total would be needed.

The first would be for development on a lot that lacks street frontage.

And then the second would be for an accessory building on a lot that's not developed with a primary residence.

Staff would note that even if the lots were contiguous or would be considered as one lot with the current 9104 paddock, the need for variance would still exist given the size of the house on that lot being 4,520 square feet.

So there isn't a variance here for the accessory structure being larger than the primary.

If these were you know a joint or contiguous lot situation, that is a variance that would have been needed.

In general, that's um larger than is contemplated for residential areas given the fact that it's square footage would exceed the size of the house.

Um, both the parking of commercial vehicles and the outdoor parking of personal recreational vehicles within DA zoning.

Uh, the latter would be the case here.

A maximum of two personal recreational vehicles are allowed to be parked outdoors on any given uh lot or parcel.

Um staff under the current site doesn't appear to be in compliance with that zoning standard either.

Uh we are within the DA zoning district, which is envisioned for agricultural development or for large lot estate style homes.

Uh the surrounding context here appears to be the latter.

Uh the comprehensive plan recommends similarly for rural and estate neighborhood type uses, as well as within the environmentally sensitive overlay given the density and quality of trees at the site.

Um, Josh, um, the exhibit on page 59, it shows a more zoomed-out aerial view.

Uh, the most direct path to accessing this site from Lafayette Road comes from Thorough Fair Boulevard running through the existing neighborhood.

That's relatively narrow and one-lane road with a steep grade change, uh, but it's also shown within photograph 10 within the exhibits.

Um, if this petition were to be approved over staff's recommendation, uh, we feel that a commitment should be in place that might limit site access by the somewhat large recreational vehicles to coming further from the northwest on Lafayette off of what's labeled as County Road 1071 on that aerial that's being shown at somewhat wider, but it's an access point slightly further into Hendricks County, but would prevent the need for some of those large recreational vehicles from using the steep uphill entry point that's a little bit closer.

Um beyond that, um, findings provided for uh staff review uh failed to identify a site-specific practical difficulty to justify grant of this variance.

A deferred finding references the lack of frontage for residential development and the fact that the building would be needed to discourage trespassers and would serve as a benefit to the neighborhood.

Uh, with regards to the former point, uh staff does know that the access parcel with a width of around 50 feet does exist to the southeast of the site, uh currently owned by DHOA.

Um it sounds like there might be some complications with obtaining that, but if it were to be obtained, um that would allow for joining the deparcils and for some frontage onto Shetland to the southeast.

For the preparing process to take place for as many trees to be preserved as possible for the placement of the residential of a residential property fare, which could be a path to productive use of the site beyond placing the large um structure not permitted by ordinance.

Um PTRA did provide a letter of support as well as a list of six suggested commitments.

Um if this were to be approved over staff's recommendation, we would recommend incorporating those as well as the language about the site access not utilizing uh for a fair boulevard as staff mentioned.

Um overall staff wouldn't consider the recent clearing of trees of the northwest portion of this site, uh, which would run counter to the environmentally sensitive recommendation from the plan with possible heritage tree removal or the parking of four personal recreational vehicles here, which would be an uncited ordinance violation to serve as justification for variance approval of two additional ordinance exceptions, seems that those are conditions imposed by the property owner on the site, and that alternate options for storage of recreational vehicles might be feasible through a variety of ordinance compliant methods such as um alternate sites.

Um reasons we recommend denial and would be happy to answer questions that the board might have any questions for staff from members of the board.

Um I may have I'm trying to formulate like how to ask this question.

It seems like this is sort of a weird leftover piece of property that the state left behind.

I mean, I can kind of see how it was originally formatted for a uh a rest stop.

Um but the as there is no access to utilities because of the HOA owning the easement, um, what would be a use for this property if you can't really build a house there?

Right.

I suppose residential development of some kind utilizing that access parcel in terms of access to things like water or sewer.

I guess I'm not certain if those existing homes on Shetland utilize city sewer services or if they're on septic, but utilizing uh similar methods to the residences that currently exist, or if maybe a slightly longer driveway leading through about 50-foot-wide parcel might be an alternate productive use of the land.

Yeah.

Okay.

Um next question.

All right, the and this is kind of a more serious one.

Um a fire protection standpoint, how if that structure were to start on fire, how does the fire department get to the property and how do they respond to that fire of a potential residence from that access or from the proposed structure by the applicants running the fire, yeah.

The suppose assuming we give them the the variance to build this structure.

Sure.

It's a barn, it starts on fire.

How does the I mean one of the services provided in Marion County is fire protection, fire fire department services?

How do they even get to this thing?

Right.

Well, um the site access would come from that private drive to the northwest through Hendricks.

Um it reaches a roundabout point there, which I think is shown in photo nine of staff's report.

Um within that ferebridac neighborhood itself, which I believe falls in between the two county lines, right?

So that's where the roundabout access point would be.

If they take sort of and head to the east off of that, sort of to the right of where Josh's cursor is, that's a very relatively narrow one-lane road with a steep incline.

Um when I visited the site, it was still pretty icy and unplowed.

Um alternatively, where Josh's cursor is now moving up further to northwest, that access road there, which I think is 1070 or county road 1071 east, is wider.

Um I assume that would allow for fire truck access just based on my recollection of having driven that.

I guess it does open up a more interesting jurisdictional question.

Well, yeah, that's where we're responding.

Right.

Because the site is solely accessible from Hendricks, but it's within Marion County.

Um that is my guess is my guess that it would be Marion because that's where it falls in, but I do not know.

That is a good question.

Yeah, that's just one that popped into my head.

It's like how do you even fight a fire?

I mean, uh, barns tend to burn periodically.

And how do you even fight a fire if that's right.

I think there are some other homes on the Marion County side of the line that are solely accessible from the Ferrow Fair or the Ferrowbred Acres access drive.

Yeah, there's there appears to be, yeah.

Okay.

Right.

This wouldn't be the only building within that scenario, but it's possible to predict.

So there are houses though that are also only accessible from thoroughbred acres, but thoroughbred acres by for case is bifurcated by the county line.

So right.

I mean, I think it's worthwhile question at some point to have an understanding.

Come on.

We may ask Mr.

Gilman the same question.

All right.

That's that's all I got.

Any other questions for staff?

All right.

Uh rebuttal time.

You get five minutes, Mr.

Gillen.

Thank you.

Um part of the reason to have the storage voting on the property is obviously there is an indie car, there's a trailer, there's some things that Mr.

Padrick and his family have out on the property that will be in the building.

One of the commitments that we've made is that there will be no outdoor storage.

So anything that staff has noticed outside would certainly be removed in place under roof uh permanently.

The again um we have not removed any heritage trees.

Uh Mr.

Padrick has removed what we call some brush.

This property was cleared in 1970.

It's just grown up over the years.

It's not uh planted with you know forced heritage uh trees uh native to Indiana.

There are some, but he has not touched any of those.

He has no intention to remove anything like that.

The um the access, that's that's a good question.

And and when this was first brought to me, I actually was a Hendricks County planner in my early days, and I remember when Marvin Miller developed Thoroughbred farms, half in Hendricks, half in Marion, and then he developed some of the things down on the opposite side of 65, strictly in Hendricks, how we thought the same questions you're asking.

Who's gonna fight a fire and and who's gonna pass a baton?

And I'm gonna let my client answer that.

But the property to get to it, you go Lafayette Road to County Road 1070, County Road 1071, which is Hendricks County, which is aka Thoroughbred Boulevard, and that terminates into a cul-de-sac, and then Mr.

Padrick and his family have a long piece of property that borders I-65 to get to the building.

Now, I'm going to let my client answer the questions because obviously this is important to him as well of how an emergency or a fire would be responded to this property if if you would let me have them up here.

David?

Hi, I'm David Padrick.

We we need your name and address first and then go.

David Pedrick, 9104 Paddock Court, Indianapolis.

Um I've met because we have we don't have fire hydrants up on top of that thing.

We've done meetings with both Whitestown and Pike Township, and they both know how to access the site.

Uh they know how to run hoses from Lafayette Road up to into the neighborhood.

They've done that before.

Uh there was one fire many, many years ago that they used tanker trucks on.

Um but I meet with them every few years to make sure everybody knows where things are uh just because of the difference of the neighborhood.

And we do only access that property in the back off of County Road 1071.

We're actually going to build a gate at the front on Thoroughbred Boulevard because we have problems with delivery trucks going up that road, and we have a weight-limited bridge across that, and we own all of our roads, the neighborhood association does, so we maintain them, and that's the way we access that property is from County Road 1071, which is on the Hendrix side.

So is there any other questions I can answer?

No, that's a good answer though.

You're being proactive about it, so that's good.

Thank you.

Mr.

Gilman, I think you may still have some time.

Yes, I'm gonna close very quickly.

Um, as far as the access easement to Saddle Ridge subdivision, um the HOA has control over that access easement, primarily because their streets are private, they maintain their own streets.

So they absolutely have the right to say who can and cannot have access to the roads, and we appreciate that.

It doesn't make sense for us to provide access to this property from Shetland Lane.

I believe one thing that we would do upon a grant of uh variance to build any structure there is to request a new address be assigned, and hopefully that address would correctly guide people to the access that we use, and then I'm sure my client will put a large address, reflective address uh placard at the entrance.

Um we do appreciate the the staff uh comments.

Um again, we believe that there's a lot of benefit to having a building care.

Um my client has access to this building.

The other benefit um is that my client uh he's been a a uh a member of Pike Township for 30 years.

He's been a resident and very involved with Thoroughbred Farms Association.

Um he provides them access.

If you go back to one of my earlier slides, you'll see a common area between his two lots and the seven acres.

That's their collective community mound septic system, and they get access through my client's property to maintain that, and they're very appreciative of that.

That will continue.

Um Mr.

Padrick is is again um he he values his community.

He thinks that um hopefully that's why he acquired the property so that he could keep it up, maintain it, put something there that his family could enjoy for years to come.

We we think that the neighborhoods support it, and we ask that you would support it as well.

Thank you.

All right, your five, you nailed it.

All right, good job.

Um let's see.

There are any other questions at all from members of the board.

Let me see.

Yes, sir.

Yeah, I believe uh staff uh stated that if this would be approved, you would have some commitments that the uh petitioner would uh commit to.

Could you repeat those, please?

All right.

Uh well, there would be the six commitments posed by PTRA within uh the petitioner's exhibit book.

Uh staff had also mentioned it might be wise to have a commitment in place.

Uh staff had also mentioned it might be wise to have a commitment in place, um limiting or disallowing the uh personal recreational vehicles to access the site using the Farrow Fairfurrow Bread Boulevard Turn-in off of Lafayette Road instead using that East 1071 county line access point instead.

Okay.

Uh Mr.

Gillman, um you're in agreement to that commitment?

Yes.

What about the other six commitments that were provided in your document?

We all six plus the additional one that recommended by the staff is either in agreement.

Is that good enough or do I need to read those in, Mr.

Simon?

We're good.

Thank you.

All right.

That being said, and all that being done, we can go ahead and cast our ballots.

On case 2025-DV1-061.

Patrice Stuckett 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.

Subject to the agreed upon commitments.

Thank you.

Case number 2025-DV2-045 property address 8083 Georgetown Road.

Pike Township, Council District No.

Zoned D2.

The petitioner is Raul Flores, represented by Donald W.

Fisher.

Variants of development standards of the consolidated zoning and subdivision ordinance to provide for the construction of a 4,000 square foot accessory building and a 2,591 square foot accessory building, both being larger than the primary building, not permitted.

And the 4,000 square foot building being located within the front yard of the property, 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 under penalty of perjury that the testimony you will give is the truth and nothing but the truth?

Say I do.

I do.

Okay.

Hello, my name is Don Fisher.

I'm with Insight Engineering.

Our address is 9755 Randall Drive Suite 101A Carmel 46280.

And I am here representing the owners, uh Raul Flores Diaz on their uh residence at 8083 Georgetown Road.

The site, I believe you can see from the package that there's a uh essentially a five-acre, five and a quarter acre piece that was split off from the um uh property that fronts Georgetown Road.

And that in 1983, uh appears that occurred possibly to develop that.

There's surveys that divide that property into tracks.

It was never subdivided that I found, but there is an access easement through uh the 8101 property on Georgetown Road for the driveway that's there.

That was one of the questions from PTRA that was brought up.

Um the owner wants to be able to have a hobby farm at this location.

He felt that it was uh kind of a miracle that he found five acres in a residential area.

Um that he could do that.

He's in fact already planted uh fruit trees along the driveway.

And what is requesting to build a couple of barns?

One is on the east end of the property, and that one he wants to have a chicken coop inside, and the um have a yard inside the building for the chickens, and then the other half of the building.

He wants to have hydroponics growing system, primarily to grow feed for the chickens, and then on the um western part of the property, a building to have vehicles, tractors, equipment, so forth that would be needed to operate a uh small hobby farm.

The um one of the some of the questions when we met with PTRA was where are the animals located and going to be located in, and we were planning um gardens, where would those be located?

And so I met with the owner and we came up with another exhibit, so I didn't get it to the staff in time.

So the buildings are shown in the same position they are now.

Um there were questions.

Okay, so the he started building the east building already and was uh cited for that and stopped construction.

He had hired another consultant who designed the building for him and was getting it permitted, and it was on his under the owner's understanding that he was good to start construction.

When he got stopped, he walked away from that consultant and found me and asked me to continue the permitting upon the time I discovered he was going to build a building that didn't comply with zoning, so that's where we are today.

Um the um the there's an existing building in between the house and the um Georgetown Road, which normally would be considered a front yard.

There is no frontage on the uh roadways except for the easement.

So we're calling that the front yard.

I've worked with uh Mr.

Weigel on that, and we are requesting to have a variance to have the building in the front yard, even though by the definition of the ordinance, there is no front yard for this.

Um we asked originally to rezone to agriculture, zone it back to agriculture, which would then eliminate the need for variances, but the um comprehensive plan calls this for neighborhood development.

This site has no access to sewer, water, or a roadway for to construct a um a subdivision.

My belief is when that was originally purchased the and the guys people started looking into it, they quickly realized the cost to put in a road and utilities and so forth far exceeded what they would be able to develop the property and uh for, so it remained as it is, excuse me, as it is.

Um there's a couple other comments from staff here that I'd like to address.

Um they say we're willing to because we can't we're not gonna support they're not going to support zoning to agricultural.

We were willing to stay with D2 with the scope of the farm is such that the allowed animals for a dwelling district are suffice for what they want to do at this location.

Um the owner does own a framing business, and he's kind of uh victim of his own success.

Of course, he probably started his business with a truck at his house, and um has been uh has grown his business since then.

He has bought commercial a commercial office uh business location on East Washington Street to run his business from, and um he's willing to commit that he's not gonna run his business out of this location because he doesn't intend to do that.

Uh staff said there were dumpsters on the site.

The dumpsters had letters about this tall that said that um yard waste dumpsters.

I made a comment to Mr.

Weigell.

I'm glad I don't have five acres of that needs that needs to have yard waste dumpsters to get rid of the waste.

Those have since been removed.

There is a piece of equipment out there that he was using to set the trusses on the building that he started construction.

There's that, it's the orange piece of equipment on the picture.

Um expensive to relocate.

He was, of course, hoping to uh be able to finish that construction before and build the other building before he relocated that equipment to his commercial facility.

Um there is a a um zoning issue that D2, the definition for D2 properties does not include a five-acre property unless it's being subdivided and developed.

Um this creates a uh complication.

How do you use this property?

They would like to use it for hobby farm.

He's got children, grandchildren, and they want to be able to grow vegetables, have chickens, and um they like to share their food with friends and family, and the have place for the children to play and so forth.

But because of the house is not exceedingly large, um the two buildings proposed combined are smaller than this room.

The um so they because the site is not developable as D2, but the comprehensive planates that it be a dwelling district, the puts the owner at a disadvantage, it's um it would and excuse me, to uh be able to maintain the property and have uh useful um place.

He's got he's he's already installed some raised beds and they want and composting, they're trying to be very environmental about their work, trying to remove as few trees as possible.

They don't want to clear it and have you know livestock on the site, um such as like cows or pigs or horses.

Um they are willing to commit to the um the um the maintaining the personal livestock list that's in the zoning ordinance and staying within that size and keeping the chickens enclosed in the building and uh following the guidelines from the from the city and with that I would open up to questions.

Mr.

Fisher, are there any questions for the petitioner from members of the board?

None being seen.

Do you how much does he have much time left?

Got some time, and you are you done, or was there anything else you wanted to present, Mr.

Fisher?

Um let's see.

I was trying to address everything that the oh um we did get a letter of support, and one and it says except for they don't want us to have access through any of the neighborhood streets, and um Mr.

Diaz owns a house adjacent to this property.

It's in the that picture that's up now, the upper left-hand corner, and he doesn't he's willing to commit to not putting a driveway through that drive through that house property onto this property and just maintaining the easement that's is existing for the site and willing to um commit to no business at the site and so those are the issues I saw from the or I took away from meeting with PTRA um the the goal here is just to have something that they is uh unique for Indianapolis.

Um a nice five and a quarter piece of acre piece of property that allows them to uh have their own little utopia of a farm, um grow vegetables and egg, have eggs and from their chickens, and um just quiet enjoyment of the property, but to do that you need equipment, you need a tractor, you need mowing you need you know there's things that require um effort there, and there is no there's house that currently is on a well in septic.

It would maintain, it would stay on that.

There's no way to no easy way to get to that except through somebody else's property.

So with that I'll wrap it up.

All right, I've got a real quick question.

Okay, there are no design drawings for these structures like elevations or anything like that, just the cycling.

Yes, there is the design drawing for the one that they started constructing.

Um did I not provide that to you?

I thought I did not in our package.

Not in our package.

Oh.

Height restrictions.

It has to be shorter than the house.

It's a two-story house, approximately 28 feet tall.

The maximum height allowed anyway is 24.

Proposed building is less than 24 in height.

I'm trying to see what I might cut in.

It looks like the elevation rendering for the building on the east was not included with the filing documents, but I did find a copy of it within the applications they made for permits, sort of after the fact after construction has started.

And it looks like we're indicating the height of 17 feet for that structure.

17 feet six inches.

Okay, very good.

Thank you, sir.

Is that the end of the time for the petitioner?

No.

Three minutes.

Anybody else or are you good?

I'm good.

All right.

Then we will go on to remonstrance, those that was to remonstrate against petition number 2025 DV2-045 with an address of 8083 Georgetown Road.

Please step forward.

State your name and address for the record and go ahead and start your remonstration.

Good afternoon, Chairperson Bondellin and members of the board.

I'm Susan Blair, president of the Pike Township Residence Association.

I'm sorry.

Yes, I was getting to that.

Susan Blair, President of the Pike Township Residence Association addresses post office box 40458 zip four six two four zero.

At PTRA's December 10th meeting, the board of directors voted unanimously to oppose the variance request before you today, located at 8083 Georgetown Road.

And with the um with our uh exhibits, the very first page is a uh taken from Map Indy.

This is the property in question, and PTRA notified all the neighbors along here and up here and along Georgetown Road.

And at our meeting, many of them attended.

And they were all opposed.

We might ask ourselves what brings us here today.

The answer is in 2024, the owner of 8083, Georgetown, Mr.

Diaz, received a stop work order for the construction of an accessory building without first obtaining permits or zoning clearance.

At our December meeting, the petitioner's representative, Mr.

Fisher, stated that the purpose of two additional accessory buildings, one at 4,000 square feet, the other at 2,591 square feet, both being larger than the primary dwelling located on the property, was to house equipment for a hobby farm, a hobby farm that would include livestock, primarily chickens and goats, possibly, and crops.

However, a very few other property tells a different story.

Mr.

Diaz, who also owns a residence at 4621 Ashwood Drive, that abuts the 80-83 Georgetown Road property, and that too is on the first page of our exhibits.

Please refer to page one through page three of PTRA's exhibits.

The arrow view of page two shows the long gravel driveway with expanded parking areas near the dwelling.

Page three is a photo of the long gravel drive.

The property owner of 8101 Georgetown told me that when he purchased his home, he was told that an easement was granted that permitted the property owner of AD 83 to have access through his driveway.

Upon my next visit to the City County building, I went to the recorder's office to determine if a legal easement had been recorded.

No such easement exists.

The owner of 8101 indicated he's grown weary of trucks traveling up and down his driveway all day long.

It often starts at 7 a.m.

and continues to dark, especially in warm weather.

He also believes it's a safety concern for his home, family members, vehicles, et cetera, especially his six-year-old daughter who likes to ride her bike in the driveway.

Mr.

Diaz is the owner of a construction company, Diaz Framing and Construction.

Please refer to pages 4 through 7 of PTRA's exhibit.

The website gives an address of 6716 East Washington Street, which is also a residential property zoned D5.

According to Marion County property records, in January of 2020, Mr.

Diaz purchased a residence at 4621 Ashwood Drive, which again abuts the subject property of 8083 Georgetown, and then subsequently purchased 8083 Georgetown in October of 23.

The 6716 East Washington Street residential property was purchased in January of 25 under the name of Diaz Investments LLC.

Then in December 2025, it was transferred to another Shell Limited Liability Corporation under the name of MR Properties LLC, with a billing address of 8083 Georgetown Road.

Copies of the three property records is page 8 through 10 of PTRA's exhibits.

Page 11 through 13 are photos of what is actually occurring on the property.

You'll note a van in photo one with lettering of Diaz, framing, siding, windows, and trim.

Photo 2 is of several commercial style dumpsters.

Photo 3 is excavating type equipment along with large commercial grade trucks.

The last few pages of PTRA's exhibit are letters from adjacent neighbors opposing the variants request.

The enjoyment of their homes has been compromised since Mr.

Diaz purchased the property.

One resident said her walls vibrate from the large diesel trucks that are started at approximately 7 a.m.

The neighbors have indicated that Mr.

Diaz is also using the residential property at 4621 Ashwood Drive for his business.

Until recently, and I saw it myself, a semi-trailer was parked in the front yard of his residence at 4621 Ashwood.

It has since been moved to 8083 Georgetown.

PTRA believes the buildings will not be used for a hobby farm as suggested, but rather to support and store materials for the construction business.

Commercial business operations are not permitted in the D2 zoning classification.

Finally, the findings of fact are not met.

Finding one, the grant will be injurious to the public safety or public health, safety, morals, and general welfare as evidenced by our findings.

Finding two, the use or value of the area adjacent to the property will be negatively affected in a substantially averse manner by property value decline and loss of property enjoyment.

Finding three, there is no practical difficulty.

The property can be used as it is currently zoned.

Any practical difficulty is self-imposed.

Mr.

Diaz prefers to use a resident residentially zoned property rather than obtain a commercially zoned property that is more suitable for his business operation.

The comprehensive plan recommends suburban neighborhood, not a construction business.

And with that, PTRA respectfully requests your denial of this petition, and there is a neighbor here that would also like to speak.

Obviously, many of them have work obligations.

The one lady who told me her walls vibrate, she is recovering from hip surgery and was unable to attend.

My name is John W.

Boyer.

I reside at 48601 Ashwood Drive, Indianapolis, Indiana, 46268.

It adjacents the 8083 Georgetown property.

Yes, that is correct.

We are opposed to any change in variance.

We will add totally agree with that.

Also, I have pictures of what is going on in the area.

I have two sets.

The next one shows a little further where the road is just damaged totally.

Also, the third one shows a orange lull.

A lull is a piece of equipment to put framing members in, and it has been sitting there for months.

Also, the dumpster is there also.

That picture was taken today.

And I have not met a neighbor yet that is in favor of the hobby farm.

We are opposed to the hobby farm because of general principles.

Also, I would contend that he is not going to use this for a hobby farm, that he is going to use it to run his construction business like he was out of Avery out of Ashwood Drive.

He just moved it to Georgetown Road, which has a contested access.

And our concern is that he would go through the property on Ashwood Drive, where those roads are not suitable for construction, and it is a neighborhood with small children.

With that, I will yield my time.

All right.

Is there anyone else who would like to speak in opposition to the petition?

None being seen.

Are there any questions for the opposition?

You you're the petitioner, right?

You need to wait until your rebuttal period.

It'll be the minute.

Are there any questions for the remote students?

Let me see.

We'll go to comments from staff.

Absolutely.

Thank you very much.

Uh Chairman Bonneyland.

I believe this remonstrator may have had another comment.

Did you want to make another comment?

Sir?

No.

Okay.

Okay.

Okay.

Sorry about that.

Thanks to the board for your time.

Uh thank you to the petitioners representative and the remonstrators for their comments.

Uh staff director in denial of this variance request related to the placement of two buildings that would exceed the primary single family residences in both size and scope.

This is residential lot with a size of about five and a quarter acres.

As mentioned, it's totally enclosed by other privately owned lots, uh, one of which apparently is owned by a B Same property owner to the northwest there, with front to John Ashwood.

Uh the access to this site comes from Georgetown Road to the West.

It's a gravel drive shared with 8101 Georgetown's property owner.

This property is zoned D2.

Uh surrounding residential uses around the east on the eastern side of Georgetown or D2 and D3 in nature, so this would match that.

Um if you sort of zoom out by and large, it's not an agricultural area.

Uh there is a history of zone enforcement at the property.

Uh the case bio two VIO 24-006966 was opened in 2020 August of 2024 based on an anonymous complaint made with the mayor's action center.

Uh that complaint related to the partial construction of a 70-foot by 40-foot pole barn on the eastern portion of the site, and a stop work order was summarily issued.

Uh, the framing of that building is still up at the site and remains uh partially built but not fully built.

Uh, that's within photo 7 and 12 of staff's exhibits as well as within aerial photography.

Um approval of this variance would allow for completion of that structure as well as for the construction of a second accessory building uh further to the west on the subject site near the west property boundary.

Uh there would have square footages of 2,591 square feet and 4,000 square feet, respectively.

Both of those would be larger than v1, eight hundred and sixty square feet of the primary residence.

I had sort of put that in there just as a form of protection in the future, just sort of playing it safe because it feels like it's the front yard since it's closest to the point of access.

I do think the petitioner has a point, but um per the strict application of ordinance terms that there would not be a front yard for the site.

So if they felt so led that variance could likely be withdrawn, we put it in there just sort of as a better safe than sorry sort of thing.

They also indicate that the um height requirements for the accessory structures being shorter than the house would be met.

So they're just seeking a variance to development standards for the areas of those two buildings.

Uh nothing related to the use of either structure.

Uh per the applicant, both of those structures would be used in service of a hobby farm for the site.

Um previous correspondence with them had mentioned uh chickens, fruit trees, uh bees, and as well as a hydroponic system in the eastern building.

Uh the Western Building would have um parking and workspace for agricultural equipment, vehicles, tractors, as well as an office in support of that.

Uh this property is not zoned DA, so therefore um agriculture is a primary use or agricultural uses as primary use is disallowed within the zoning district, which is D2.

That also matches the suburban neighborhood recommendation by the comprehensive plan.

Um accessory uses of personal gardens and livestock would be allowed at this site.

Under our limits on the number of animals that could be stored there.

Uh they can't do production for commercial purposes, just for themselves or I guess for family and friends.

Uh the applicant claims that they would meet those use specific standards within the ordinance, so that's why they're not asking for a use variance for the agricultural components.

If the scope or nature of agricultural use exceeded what would be allowed as an accessory use, that could be citable by a future violation.

Um additionally, there have been concerns that have been expressed by uh PTRA, the neighbor who attended today, as well as by multiple neighbors expressed concerns to staff about operation of a commercial contract or framing business being operated from the site.

Uh we we received four emails in total, uh, three of which indicated opposition and mentioned those specific concerns.

Um expressed a lack of opposition as long as they kept um the access solely from Georgetown.

Um it looks like the PTRA packet had several emails but did not make their way to staff prior to this afternoon's hearing.

Um on our visit, we noted the present the presence of a truck advertised into framing business, um, as well as the trailer, cherry pickering commercial dumpsters that we have been mentioned previously.

Um staff would also note that um there's no component related to the use within the violation case that's open here at the site.

Um that doesn't construct permission, obviously, if that use existed or would exist within any new buildings, that's the sort of thing that could be cited.

It is not specifically speaking the subject of today's hearing.

Um staff doesn't feel that a site-specific practical difficulty would exist at this site to justify granted variances that they are seeking, which are related to the square footage of those buildings.

Uh rather we feel that it would be self-imposed by the applicant's desire for facilities of this large size, somewhat irregular within the site's D2 context.

Um staff had asked for information on areas set aside for crop growth and animal placement.

Um it looks like those were specified to PTRA previously, but unfortunately we didn't get a chance to review those before uh just very recently during this afternoon's hearing.

Um it's not immediately clear to staff why a personal garden and livestock of an accessory nature couldn't be maintained in building a building or buildings of compliance size, or even within some sort of indoor outdoor mixture, respecting the accessory nature of the proposed use.

Uh we were also contacted by the neighbor to the west whose driveway uh would be utilized at Gravel Drive.

Um they contacted our offices on December 9th.

It sounds like they spoke with Susan with VTRA as well.

Uh they had expressed their opposition to your variance given the amount of large vehicle traffic already utilizing that drive.

They mentioned um risk of increased traffic if variance approval granted, and they did mention the the daughter on the bicycle as well.

Uh staff would view that as a um negative externality created by that property.

Um so it feels that that might be an impediment to the meeting the first of the three required findings of fact.

Um staff does feel that there could be a risk that might exist of a new structure is being utilized for either commercial agricultural or contractor operations, but that's not what our recommendation is primarily based on.

Um in either those cases, the several large buildings would be on the scope contemplated for the D2 residential areas and would introduce an increased intensity to surroundings without any identifiable site-specific practical difficulty.

Um for those reasons we recommend denial, and I'm happy to answer questions that you might have.

Thank you, Mr.

Wagel.

Any questions from the members of the board for the staff?

I have two.

There was some question amongst the remonstrants about whether or not the easement for access to the property was legally established.

Does the city have any understanding of whether or not they have a legal easement to access this property?

No, I was pulling that the wrong direction.

I apologize.

Is there a recorded easement?

I am not certain of the answer to that question.

I'd done an initial search when reviewing and that and seeing a record of it.

That does not mean that such an easement does not exist in essence of the other.

Yeah, yeah, I get it.

I just didn't know if they'd done that.

All right.

Second, has the applicant been cited for a use violation at all, or is it just the only violations the the construction without a permit?

They have not been cited for the use.

I believe the text of the notice of violation.

Oh, I meant to put that under report.

I apologize.

They were cited solely for it was a building violation, not a zoning violation.

It was for construction or partial construction of the building to the east without permits in place.

Very good.

Thank you, Mr.

Weigel.

Any other questions for staff?

No.

All right.

Mr.

Petitioner, you get five minutes of rebuttal.

As I stated earlier, there is an easement.

It's instrument number 83-75537.

And there's a further uh easement and agreement later, 97-0067491.

So I think that puts that to rest.

Also, that site uh 8101 with the girl riding her bike in the driveway.

That property has two driveways, one to their house and one to this house.

And um it's a non-exclusive easement, so they can use it.

They use it to access their large barn that's by far bigger than their house on the east side of their property.

Um we're willing to, as I stated previously, make a commitment to not operate framing business from this property and to follow the guidelines of the animals that are allowed for the dwelling district.

While I was there with uh Mr.

Weigel, we met a neighbor on the South property line who said he likes the Diaz family, he thinks they do a good job maintaining he had no problem, except he's like he said, Well, I guess I don't really care to look at another building, but you know, I can understand why they might need one.

And um we um also got uh the letter that I think um Mr.

Weigel provided you also of a support or not not support, but not opposition from the neighbor to the north of us.

Um the framing business is such that many people don't understand it's not like a plumber or a HVAC contractor in that the material is delivered to the site, it's not hauled to the site by the contractor.

Well uh like a heating and air conditioning company needs to have a warehouse so they can store water heaters and furnaces and and condensers, and then they load their vans and haul their and a framing company just has their labor and their tools, and they show up and and the material, the fra wood, lumber and so forth, and trusses are unloaded at the site and they install them.

Um so that negates the need of a normal contractor vision of they need a warehouse to store all their stuff in and so forth.

Um they do need a place to operate from, and like I stated earlier, um Mr.

Diaz has purchased a commercially zoned site on East Washington Street.

He does own other residential properties that he remodels and resells.

Um that uh maybe some of the things that uh uh Mrs.

Blair is has found the record of.

And uh obviously that's the nature of that business is the limited liability corporation.

Each property is generally an LLC, as all developers function that way.

And anybody that is in the that kind of business tends to uh make each project stand on its own.

The um we we do believe that there is somewhat of a hardship in that you have a large piece of property that um is not uh conducive to development.

It's not feasible to develop, but it is feasible to use for your own enjoyment, and their enjoyment includes wanting to um have the abode to raise chickens and and uh crops.

With that I'll see the rest of my time.

I think Mr.

Fisher, did the petitioner want to say anything or my name is uh Raúl Guadalupe Flores Diaz.

I'm the owner on 8083 Yorston Grove.

Address, that's your address.

Yeah, that's my other first.

I will not say uh I'm sorry for my neighbors.

Uh like my neighbor said, we only got a meeting on December last year, and I got informed on these issues.

I'm trying to fix one at the time, but the winter don't let me.

Uh I'm willing to fix my driveway from the Ashwood Drive.

Um I'm willing to fix the Osmin with papers.

Uh, I'm trying to get I sell the dumpster already.

I'm kind of trying to move everything the issues are from there.

I don't understand the uh my neighbor now.

You know, um like I say, you know, I just bought up properties.

If it's an issue, get the two properties together.

I'm wanted to sell the other property, that doesn't matter to me.

You know, like I say, and and I can uh your time is up.

I apologize.

Yeah, you only get five minutes, so thank you.

Thank you, sir.

All right.

Uh the remonstrance gets five minutes of rebuttal.

Thank you, Chairman.

Um in PTRA's packet of exhibits, and this would be Diaz Framing and Construction, and the very next page, I this was taken off his website, lists the address up here in the corner at 6716 East Washington Street.

The next page is taken from Indy Maps.

The blue lines are all D5 zoned properties.

His property is right here, which is in the D5.

So I suggest to you that that is not commercially zoned property.

And if you look at the next photo, this was taken from Google Maps.

That's the photo of the of 6716 East Washington Street.

I would suggest that Mr.

Diaz has a history of buying residential property.

Wait, wait a minute.

If you're going to do that, I would like for at least the the petitioner to be able to answer if that's actually where his offices are, because you're kind of casting a bit of an aspersion and if that's not where his offices are.

So it did at least give the petitioner a chance to tell us if that's really where he's operating his business from.

Mr.

Fisher, could you answer that question?

He was operating from there, not realizing of the zoning things, and he has recently bought, like I said, a commercially zoned property at 9047, 9042, East Washington, right next to a bone-dry roofing.

Okay.

All right, thank you very much.

So he's operating out of a commercial property.

You can continue.

Thank you.

The property uh again, uh I went to the recorder's office and the customer service representative that uh assisted me.

We looked at um all the properties along Georgetown Road for any recorded easement, and she found none.

So while I can't dispute Mr.

Fisher, he is under oath.

I would think he would should have provided you copies of those documents.

Like I said, they didn't find any.

The property owner of 8101 Georgetown Road told me in a phone conversation that he tried to buy 8083 Georgetown Road, but unfortunately Mr.

Diaz uh paid more for it than he had offered.

Again, um we don't believe.

I mean, he might do a hobby farm on this property, but I don't know why you need a 4,000 square foot building and another one almost 2600 square feet for a hobby farm.

It doesn't take that much equipment storage for uh a small site, which is approximately five acres.

At PTRA's meeting, we asked how they plan to contain the animals that they were going to have.

They didn't have an answer for that.

We asked them if they were going to put up a fence, so they're not running all over other people's property.

There was no indication that they were going to put up a fence.

PTRA wasn't aware of it because the property is hidden.

And had we been aware of it, we do have a code compliance committee that we report infractions to, we would have reported it.

Now that we know about it, we will be watching it.

And in regard to this is the photo that was taken yesterday of the access.

This is 8101.

This is the only access off of Georgetown Road.

And this drive belongs to this house.

And this is the disputed easement.

Is there a dispute about this easement?

You're saying it I want to make sure that this is very clear.

Is there a legal easement to this property?

Because it you you keep saying that as an argument against this variance, but I don't I I'm not sure that we've it is disputed.

We've got a recording numbers for it.

So he does, but he didn't provide any copies.

I would ask this question to staff.

Is there a requirement for a petitioner to provide legal documentation proving an easement in this particular situation?

I don't think that would have been a requirement for filing.

Okay, I suppose staff could have asked for in advance of the hearing just to verify.

Okay.

Let's keep going with your it let's not dwell on this legality of the easement because it sounds like there is a recorded easement.

I would be shocked if there wasn't.

Okay, well, uh, other than the letters of the neighbors and uh the end the photos that show uh what is really transpiring on the property.

We again respectfully request your denial of this variance.

Thank you very much for your time and thank you.

Is there anyone else you any time left on rebuttal?

All right.

Uh you've got 30 seconds left.

Does anybody else want to say anything more?

All right.

We from any questions from staff from members of the board.

All right, we can go ahead and cast our ballots.

On case 2025-DV2-045.

Tree Stuck at Brown votes yes.

James Duke votes no.

Craig von Dalen votes no.

Beth Brandon votes yes, and Tom Barnes votes no.

The variance is not granted.

We have one more case.

Thank you, Lord.

Case number 2025-UV2-017 property address 853 North Tacoma Avenue, Center Township, Council District No.

The petitioner is a near East Area renewal, represented by Joe Smoker.

Variants of use and development standards of the consolidated zoning and subdivision ordinance to provide for the construction of a three-unit row house, not permitted, each with a minimum main floor area of six hundred and twelve square feet, a front building line of twenty feet from Tacoma Avenue, and a five-foot corner side yard setback.

660 square foot main floor area required, maximum 19.9 foot building line permitted, eight-foot corner side yard setback required, with deficient parking per site plan filed.

Please raise their right hand to be sworn in.

Do you swear or affirm under penalty of perjury that the testimony you will give us the truth and nothing but the truth?

Say I do.

Good afternoon, members of the board.

My name is Joe Smoker, 960 North Rural Street, and I do work for Near East Area Renewal as a petitioner.

The proposed project in front of you began as an application to the City of Indianapolis DMD community investments team and was supported with C D B G funding, community development block grant funding.

So our history is primarily affordable housing for homeownership.

We've done over a hundred homes with that in mind, many in this St.

Clair Place neighborhood.

When we reached out for the funding for this project, we did receive support from the neighborhood association at that time for a three-unit building.

We're tentatively awarded that from the city and then have brought it forward to planning staff for this zoning petition.

Typically we've been a single or two-family type of development, so this is a newer product for near.

Three-unit building on this site we thought was appropriate.

It's a corner lot.

The units do face both Tacoma Street and Ninth Street.

So the staff did point out in their report that the conference did plan does contemplate developments of this type in the traditional neighborhood type of development, as well as within a block of uh 10th Street and Rural, which have higher frequency bus lines, and then the upgraded bike lanes that are on Michigan Street and New York Street to the south.

So what what you have proposed in front of you again, um three-unit building, it would be developed basically in a condo format, so everybody will own their own unit, and then the land that's to the east would be open space common area for those those owners.

Um we believe that it is in character with the buildings surrounding it within the neighborhood.

Um we did develop properties immediately to the east, uh, the smaller homes facing 9th Street, as well as um Mr.

Pogue's house to the south, who will speak um on this petition here in a second.

Um we have been in communication with the neighborhood throughout our existence on development plans in the neighborhood beyond just this one project.

Um we would ask that the requests before you are relatively minor in terms of the scope of the zorning ordinance.

Um if that lot were the same width as the lots to the south, we would not need that setback variance.

Um it does meet the traditional five-foot setback on that south side property line that it need to meet if it were an infill lot.

Um the 19.9 foot front setback, I think is just sort of a drawing snafu at point one foot from Tacoma Avenue.

Um so there's it's not a significant request from that regard.

Um we're not asking for any height variances, we're not asking for any clear site variances, we're not asking for any open space variances.

Um we feel that it's uh a project that's very needed in this neighborhood in our city.

Um and I'll just say that is as it is partially funded by DMD.

Not only does it go through this body for zoning and through standard permitting, um DD has an architectural reviewer that reviews these projects and also does follow-up inspections on the project as well.

Um so we ask for your support on this project.

Um we do have um a community member that issued a support email.

Um councillor Brown, who represents this district submitted a letter of support, um, and then we did meet with the neighborhood association once again, specifically for the variances um Thursday of last week.

That was one of the reasons it was continued.

Um and they vocalized their support.

I'm not sure if they've submitted that to staff or not.

Um so again, we ask for your support, and I'm happy to answer any questions.

Thank you, Mr.

Smoker.

Any questions from members of staff or the members of the board?

All right.

I do have one quick question.

Uh these are are these these are two-story townhome type of correct.

So that they will not have any uh folded underneath parking.

Um it'll be living area on the first floor and then bedrooms on the second floor.

How many bedrooms per unit?

It's three bed, two bath, um, about 11 11 or 1200 square feet per unit.

Three beds, two baths.

Correct.

There's a full bath on the first floor and then a full bath on the second floor.

In so they're obviously more than six hundred some square feet.

Uh I think it it always ends up being how the staircase gets applied, calculated top or bottom.

Um we built basically the same product um a year ago in the Willows are.

Is that per floor?

Yes.

Okay, I was gonna say if you could fit three bedroom apartments with six hundred square feet, I'd like to hire you.

So each each unit would be six hundred and twelve feet on the first floor and then six hundred feet or so on that second floor.

Ah, okay.

Um then you're separating them with a two-hour firewall.

Could you don't you have to have a sprinkler in a building with more than two?

So the residential code, these would fall under typical residential code, it would not require a sprinkler, but they would have to have the firewall.

The two hour firewalls.

Okay.

All right.

How are you handling parking?

So uh parking is permitted on 9th Street, um, being 163 deep lot, that would be more than enough for the three required parking spaces.

Um and there are neighbors that use ninth or uh yeah, ninth street to park on already as well.

And then you're selling these units in a uh vertical proper or uh uh one of the state's smallest HOAs.

Um they would all buy into it and have an ownership in that HOA.

Okay.

All right.

Um that's all I've got as questions.

Anybody else's questions?

All right.

Uh Ramon's your time, you have time left, Joe, if you want to do anywhere you're gonna be.

All right, there you go.

We got another 15 minutes.

Name and address for the record, please.

Yes, hi, Jason Pogue, uh, 851 North Tacoma Avenue.

Appreciate you guys um flexing with me.

I didn't think I'd be able to make it today, so apologies uh to Mr.

Ulanake and the board and Joe for didn't mean to surprise anyone, but appreciate your time.

Um yeah, so I live on the property that shares uh the South Line with this development.

Um, you know, I I made it clear with Joe, like I support NIER.

Uh I'm a beneficiary of NIER's affordable housing, so you know I'm grateful for that and support everything they're doing in the neighborhood.

Um I don't uh I do support responsible infill and affordable housing initiatives in the area, and I know it's a really important need right now uh with where we're at economically.

So um but I also feel like we need to uphold the standard of why zoning exists for these certain areas, and I do think there's a very real and tangible impact on surrounding neighbors in the area.

So first of all, I'm making sure I'm understanding all this as I'm learning many things through this process.

Um so my understanding is zone is D5.

Uh and this is both a use variance for the three-unit row house, and also the development standard variances for some of the geometric issues there.

Um the reduced main floor, uh the very minute building line, uh corner side yard setback from eight feet to five feet, and the deficient parking per the site plan.

Um so I would argue that this is not a minor uh this is kind of the largest thing on the docket today in terms of how many aspects here with the variances.

Um it's my understanding that there's five uh five findings that they need to meet to meet the variance uh requirements.

I I don't know that they met any of those, but I'm just gonna try to talk to three of them briefly here.

Uh so first the practical difficulty.

Uh the key question whether these variances are justified by practical difficulty inherent to the property.

Um based on the plans, the lot can be developed under D5 standards.

Um what it cannot accommodate is this particular combination of a three-unit structure uh building with uh without the layout um without the relief that they're requesting.

Uh so the need for the use variance and the multiple dimensional variances to me demonstrates that the difficulty is actually arisen out of the design uh and not out of the property itself.

As I have many neighbors on all sides that are multifamily units that fit fine within D5 zoning standards.

So this uh requested package of variances is driven by their design preference and their commitment to that intensity rather than a constraint unique to this parcel of land.

Um, I don't uh you know, I I hear that it and even I read in the fact of finding that it's not gonna have any adverse impact, and I would uh definitely disagree with that.

Um it's a corner lot, right?

Why are setbacks greater on corner lots?

Uh particularly with um you know the intersection connected to it.

It's my understanding that openness visibility and transition in that intersection is uh more important on those corner lots.

So reducing that corner side yard setback uh by almost 40 percent really intensifies the visual and functional impact uh of this property on the surrounding neighborhood.

In addition, the site plan shows deficient parking, and um you know that is concerning to me.

I understand that we can park on 9th Street.

Um, but even now I wish I'd brought pictures, but if cars park on both sides of that street, it essentially becomes a one-in-one out kind of through way.

Uh so it's impeding uh, you know, kind of um right of way there for the public and could impede other things like you know emergency services and whatnot.

So this is obviously gonna push that uh requirement for parking and congestion onto the right of way, and that's also gonna further impact you know visibility at that four-way intersection.

So I do think that is is a very real concern.

Um so in short, you know, it's it's creating more street congestion, limited sight lines for vehicles approaching the four-way intersection.

Uh in addition to that, the dimensional impacts reduce setbacks on the corner lot.

It's gonna affect light privacy and quiet enjoyment uh not as subjective concerns, but as um predictable outcomes when a building of this kind of mass and intensity uh is approved and placed within a closer proximity than the standards would normally allow uh for adjacent properties.

So uh these are to me exactly the types of impacts that set back standards are intended to mitigate.

Um all in all, this to me shows that it's clear the variances will have a tangible impact.

It's not gonna not affect neighbors in the area.

Uh and then last thing I'll speak on is uh the spirit and intent of the zoning for the area, you know, D5 and and even the near East Sides Plan, uh near Indies Plan uh is to design to encourage redevelopment that fits within the clear dimensional rules and and conforms with the surrounding properties.

And so I think granting a use variance together with multiple development variances does not provide narrow relief.

It kind of rewrites you know the standards for a corner lot and um to approve that is kind of opening the door for saying anyone who has a who argues they have a narrow lot can push the standards here.

So real quick, I wanted to speak to the neighborhood association meeting.

Uh was unfortunately unable to attend uh due to work and um I submitted a letter, but uh you know, as um dues paying member I support their role and the value of neighborhood input.

Um I would note that you know the vote can I think there were maybe eight members there that voted in the neighborhood, and to my knowledge looking at the attendance list, I don't think any of them were in the immediate surrounding area.

Um I understand the uh letter from the counselor's support, all of which I I think kind of minimize the impact, and um, but most of all, you know, just to I I think all of these are advisory, right?

And the main thing here is the question of whether they have met the findings to qualify for a variance.

Um and in my opinion um they're kind of minimizing the impact and maximizing the good at will it would create, right?

And I I'm not I'm ceding that point, right?

That it's good affordable housing is something that I want to.

Um, but there is gonna be an impact to the surrounding neighborhood.

So um I support the development of 853 North Tacoma.

I've I've looked forward to it to have more neighbors there.

It's been an empty lot for a while.

Um, and I support affordable housing.

I think there's a lot of ways those goals can be achieved on this property and uh with a less intense design that doesn't require variances at all.

Uh so based on the record, I don't believe the required findings, particularly practical difficulty, adverse impact, and consistency with the spirit and intent of D5 zoning.

I don't believe those have been met.

And in light of that, I would respectfully ask that the board would deny the request for these variances.

So thank you for your time.

I'll see the rest of my time.

Thank you, Mr.

Pogue.

Is there any questions for the remote students?

Then we can go.

Is there anyone else that would like to speak?

All right, we can go on to the comments or staff.

I assume that's Mr.

U Mr.

Regulinh.

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

Um variance of use requests were a three-unit row house per the site plan.

Therefore, if the variance is granted, um it would be subject to that site plan as indicated on page 39.

The remaining portion of the lot is to remain undeveloped as open space.

Um, which uh as you can see, no on-site parking is being provided, therefore um street parking is being provided on 9th Street and Tacoma Avenue if needed, however, that would be on the west side of Tacoma Avenue as there's no parking on the east side of Tacoma Avenue.

Um the subject side is on D5, which does permit or allow for a two to four unit multi-unit house.

It does not allow for row house, um, two to four units in the D5 district.

However, in staff's opinion, excuse me, this would be similar in use between the two.

Um the subject does uh uh site is a deep but fairly narrow um parcel, which in staff's opinion would could create a difficulty in developing the multi-unit house that would be normally permitted in the D5 district.

Um staff believes the proposed use is similar to other development in the area.

There is a large uh duplex to the east, excuse me, to the west.

There's another duplex to the north, and there are I believe five small parcel homes to the west on a slightly larger lot, original lot, or was or on two original lots.

Um these uh fit into the comprehensive these types of uses fit into the comprehensive plan of traditional neighborhood.

Therefore, staff does not feel the request would be a deviation from the comp comprehensive plan.

Uh the request for the 612 square foot main floor area would be a seven percent deviation from the 660 square feet main floor, not total square footage, but main floor only that is required for two-story development or townhouse development in this instance.

Um again, due to the depth and coronary orientation of the lot um with two of the units having frontage on 9th Street.

Steph Lease, this would limit the building depth and main floor area square coverage.

Um which would uh which leads to creating less first floor area available for living area.

Um however, they would have sufficient overall total square footage for the the dwellings proposed.

The request for the 20-foot setback from Tacoma area Tacoma Avenue would be a 1.2 inch deviation as maximum 19.9 feet is required, and they're asking for uh 20-foot deviation.

This 20-foot that they are requesting is smaller than the duplex to the north, which has a 24-foot setback from uh Tacoma.

Therefore, staff does not find that this would be a detriment to the area if needed, the one additional inch above the 19.9 would be helpful in uh allowing for additional clear side triangle uh on that right turn um onto 9th Street from Tacoma if needed.

The request for the five-foot north side setback uh were on a corner lot 20 feet or excuse me, eight feet is required on the side guard on a corner lot.

That's typically because a parcel line is built up to the sidewalk.

However, in this instance, there is a 10-foot right-of-way between the sidewalk and to the parcel line.

The right-of-way from the north to the south is approximately about uh 63 or 53 feet.

Uh so the the street is built to the width of a typical uh local street.

It's not anticipated there would be any future expansion or need for that 10 feet right-away on the south side.

I believe there's an also an extra five feet right-of-way between the sidewalk and the parcel line on the duplex to the north as well.

Therefore, staff believes that the requested five foot along with the existing ten-foot right-away would provide an adequate side yard separation from the sidewalk and would also keep the site lines open um for any clear side triangle, which no variance is requested for the clear side triangle, so all development is outside of that.

Um staff's opinion the requested variances are minimal.

Um deviations from the development standards and does not have any impact on the surrounding neighborhood as it would be similar to other development in the area.

Therefore, staff does recommend approval of the request as filed, and my co-worker Eddie Mr.

Honea would like to have additional comments as well before staff turns it back over to the board.

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

Um first, staff would like to underline that it is recommending approval of this request, but it is not recommending approval of this request based on or largely due to the fact that the department is supporting incentives for this project.

Um staff would like to point out that uh Indy rezone is a zoning ordinance, uh, for which I am very proud of, but it tries to do quite a bit.

It tries to allow regulate development both, well not both, but in urban areas, um, in suburban areas and in rural areas and in areas that are in transition in between the three.

Um however, there are instances where there's just not going to be uh one size fits all, and this type of area is a prime example of one of those areas.

Uh St.

Because you didn't really start seeing zoning ordinances in the United States and till about 1916, and we didn't get it in Indianapolis until 1922.

So our ordinance today does impose a corner side setback of eight feet.

However, you know, developers didn't really react to setbacks in relation to corner lots until the 50s or the 60s, and that's why uh new subdivisions and plats around that time you begin to notice that corner lots are noticeably larger because they have to account for the fact that they are corner lots.

Uh that aside, um, you will know that you know you can recall there being past filings of staff recommended denial of corner yard encroachments and similarly old platted subdivisions.

And um without getting the merits of specific cases, that's usually because they are taking the presence of a practical difficulty and stretching that to basically ask for whatever they want.

But with what we are seeing before us today, we are seeing in staff's opinion, in field development that is uh respectful and reflective of the context of not just its block, but its general broader area itself in terms of its mimicking the general size.

Yes, the property directly to the south is a bit smaller, but that would be the abnormality.

But for the most part, it is maintaining the same setbacks as the other lots to the south along that same block and also to the north across 9th Street.

Uh you'll note that the front building line, as blurbed in the request is for 20 feet, and that's because it's not a general setback like you're probably used to hearing about it's a building line requirement.

Uh, but the actual setback is right at about 15 feet, which is indicative of what you see along that block.

So um that 20 is is uh measuring where the building begins, not where the front entry feature begins.

Um and in terms of the use aspect of this case, it is a three-unit um townhome, basically, uh, which our ordinance, our walkable neighbor neighborhood districts was written with the typical pattern in mind that they would be side by side and not be located on a corner in front on different streets.

Uh so there is a little bit of a hole there that we need to review.

Um, but more importantly, I would underscore the fact that it is reflective of similar size developments, and that the D5 district actually does allow for more housing types that would allow for more units with more occupants.

And so with that in mind, um the staff that staff came to the conclusion that uh supporting a three-unit townhome uh was a reasonable deviation from the ordinance that didn't uh no ordinance predicts every scenario, but there was definitely a hole identified there, and with that, staff would be happy to take any questions that the board may have.

Any questions for staff members of the board?

Mr.

Barnes.

Question about parking.

There's nine bedrooms there, so there's potential for twelve cars to park along ninth street.

Yeah, so um our zoning ordinance only requires one parking space per single family dwelling unit.

It's not based on bedrooms.

That's a fight that we typically have.

Um and it's low in order to allow for single-family developed lots to be able to have recreational space on site in addition to our open space requirements, and to help underscore that, we also allow for any legal on-street parking to satisfy off-street parking requirements.

Uh so in this instance, we do not believe that parking is going to be an issue.

Okay.

And it's also not far from a frequent transit line, I would add.

Any other questions?

All right.

Mr.

Smoker, you get five minutes, and then after you're done, I've got a question to you for you too.

Uh thank you again.

It's hard to build much on staff's technical expertise that they offered you.

Um, just again, say that we believe this is very much in keeping with the neighborhood in character with the work that we've done and experienced in the neighborhood.

Um I just want to add that the parking situation, there's three larger trees on the site, one of which would be right where that parking would be situated off the alley.

Um, so it is an attempt to try and preserve that tree.

Um I don't know that how it would be formed, but we're happy to work with the city about limiting parking to one side of 9th Street, um, if that's what the neighborhood would want, and that's something we could assist with.

Um say ninth street in this section, I think goes about four blocks.

It's it's not a major through street, um, but we can certainly see how there could be impacts.

Um so we'd be happy to make work with with neighbors on that possibility.

Um otherwise, I would say that you know the overall height of this proposed building is actually less than the adjacent structure to the south.

Um we're not asking for open space, clear sight, uh, no height variance.

We feel that it is appropriate to the neighborhood, and we'd certainly ask for your support.

All right.

I have my quick question.

Are these housing units intended to be provided for families with small children?

Uh so the funding we use restricts household income to be 80% of area median income.

Um, what we've generally seen in the houses we've sold, it's usually uh single individual that's probably out of college into their first career style job, or a family of two or three.

Um the way that income functions, it's very difficult for two or three adults who have full-time jobs to meet that maximum 80 percent of area media income.

So we would expect it would be either a a small young family or a single individual that would use these.

Okay, as it pertains to the off-street parking, my concern would be that by not providing off-street parking, you're making families have to unload small children in a right away.

Is there some way you could potentially accommodate some off-street parking in that case?

I just know as a guy who grazed four kids, that can sometimes be a real problem.

Um we I mean, we we can provide that off-street park at the three spaces.

I think if if you have nine or ten feet wide for a space, uh it should fit on that side without bumping.

Yeah, it's just something to think about.

I mean, it that's not a necessarily a requirement that the city's got, but just if you're intending to provide housing for people with small children, sure.

It can be a real problem.

I'd be happy to say that to the extent we can work around that tree.

We're more than happy to provide that to three.

I mean it's something to think about.

Um yeah, we're happy to agree to that, however that may be for.

Thank you, Mr.

Smoker.

You done?

I am you done with your about you get five whole minutes.

I I hear you.

I'm just happy to answer questions or respond to it.

Any other questions for the petitioner?

All right, very good.

Mr.

Remonstrator, Mr.

Pogue, you have five minutes.

Thank you.

Um yeah, I appreciate the time.

Um I I do still think the findings of fact are wanting, uh, which is really what it comes down to is will this actually uh negatively impact the surrounding community.

Um I would argue that a duplex uh, you know, uh my neighbors right across the street, they have a fairly large duplex.

I would argue that's characteristically different than a two-story three unit row house.

Um so I don't know that it's in concert with the form of the street if you go in any any direction a block distance, other than up to obviously right off 10th street.

We have some apartments and whatnot.

Um I would say uh speaking to the older plaiding and the difficulty navigating that with a narrow lot.

Uh again, I don't think that speaks to though.

This is all design related, right?

They could have chosen a different design that would not require the variances.

Uh to me that's a self-created hardship.

Um parking, I think will most certainly be an issue.

Um I don't even know that making one side of the street uh no parking will resolve that because now you're gonna have even less parking spots for that many units.

Um Joe can certainly speak to this.

I believe they had discussed parking, uh, but we're concerned it would feel more like a parking lot due to how big the structure is, which again I think points to the design flaw.

It's it's not characteristic for the neighborhood.

Um so I think all in all, there's a commitment here to the value of affordable housing, which I think is amazing.

Uh, but I think they're so um gung-ho about their mission, which is a great mission that they're overlooking how the design has led them to request these variances rather than thinking through how they can responsibly develop this property uh in a way that doesn't negatively impact neighbors.

So uh to me, uh, based on their lack of meeting these findings, I would again ask that the board deny this petition or at least uh request some significant changes to the design.

So with that, I'll see the rest of my time.

Thank you all uh for your time and uh hanging in there for this whole meeting.

So thanks.

Thanks, Mr.

Prog.

Um any questions from the board at all?

Nope, we can go ahead and cast our ballots.

On case 2025-UV2-017, Patrice Stuck 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.

Leasty.

That is the end of our docket.

Do we have any other businesses come before the board today?