Yes, and it's uh referred to work.

Perfect.

And um, I have to read the orders, and that's the one that's required for exercise notes.

I should want to sell it for that.

Oh, wait.

Okay.

Um, yeah, we have side seven.

Or, uh, I actually reworked.

Of course, we appreciate it.

Um, they're asking for the right.

Okay, we're going to see that.

This is called 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 Patrice Duckett Brown, Beth Brandon, Tom Barnes, and Rod Bohannan.

Legal counselor of the board today is Chris Steinmetz.

Staff members present today from the Division of Planning are Jeff York, current planning manager, Adrian Baker, Principal Planner one, Michael Weigel, Principal Planner One, Robert Ulenhake, Senior Planner, Josh LeBec, Senior Planner, Marty Weistie, Senior Board Specialist Secretary to the Board.

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

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 as to the matters covered in the statutory requirements, which must be met in order for the board to grant a variance.

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

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

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

The installation of landscape being in screening, the paving of parking area, and the dedication of rights of way are examples.

These conditions and commitments are an integral part of the board's decision and must be met for a granted variance to be valid.

Compliance with conditions imposed by the board must be approved by an affidavit of compliance submitted by the petitioner within 30 days of the 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 have been provided meeting minutes for our April 14th, 2026 meeting.

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

Do I hear a motion?

Brandon, so moved.

And a second.

Thank you.

I'll call the roll.

Duckett Brown.

Dougie Brown, yes.

Brandon.

Brandon, yes.

Barnes.

Barnes.

And I'm also yes.

Roderick, I don't know that you have to vote since you were not part of that meeting.

Is there anyone who has any questions about our procedures?

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

Do I hear a motion?

Brandon, so move.

Second.

Barnes segment.

Thank you.

I'll call the roll.

Barnes.

Barnes, yes.

Brandon.

Brandon, yes.

Ducket Brown.

Ducky Brown, yes.

Bohannon.

Bohannon, yes.

And I'm also a yes.

Thank you.

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

Hello, board members.

I'm Ashley Hummer Holmes speaking on behalf of 1527 South East Street.

Okay, we need your address.

Sorry, what was that?

We need your address.

For the property or just for you, your legal address.

641 East 84th Street.

Thank you.

Yes.

We are asking for a four-day waiver of notice, just to give some context.

There was just a break in communication with the planner and we received clarifications four days past the deadline for our next steps.

We immediately got our notices out that same day and resolved the matter.

This is why we are requesting a four-day waiver.

Or I'm sorry, a four-day waiver of notice.

Very good.

Can you repeat the case number and addressing it?

Case number, so sorry.

Um if you could give me the address, I could find the case.

Yeah, it's uh thank you.

It's 2026-U-006.

1527 East Southeast Street.

Yes.

All right, is there anyone else in the audience with an interest in petition number 2026 UV 2-006 with an address of 1527 Southeast Street?

That means seen we'll go to comments from staff.

Yes.

Thank you, Chairman.

And uh members of the board, uh, staff does support the four-day waiver of motion to grant a four day wedding, and uh, I think you know, I just kind of notice to petition number twenty twenty six UV two-006 do I hear a drop in communication there, so no issues on our part.

Congratulations.

Thank you.

Brandon, so moved.

And a second.

Barnes second.

Thank you.

I'll call the roll of Barnes.

Barnes, yes.

Brandon Brandon, yes.

Duckett Brown.

Ducky Brown, yes.

Bohannon.

Bohana, yes.

Also, yes, you've been granted.

Thank you can grant it yeah exactly good afternoon chair person von daylet members of the board Joe Calderan beloved South Meridian here in Indianapolis I call your attention to uh 2026 D V two zero one seven that's nine twenty one east sixty six street it's uh agenda item number one on the continued portion of your um docket today uh we are requesting a continuance to June 9th uh with notice when we originally filed the petition um we were subsequently made aware of a um business and neighborhood services permit review letter that triggered uh a couple more variances so we actually have sent out notice uh for the June 9th hearing and posting and mailing so just I think Robert can uh confirm all of that very good um is there anyone else in the audience with an interest in petition number 2026 db two-017 at the address of 921 east eight is east sixty sixth street unbeing seen we'll go to comments from staff Mr.

Ewanhake.

Thank you Chairperson Dalen members of this board and Joe uh staff has no objection to continuing this request to the June 9th 2026 hearing for reasons as stated by Mr.

Colton very well I'll entertain a motion to continue to our January or our June 9th regular hearing with additional notice petition number 2026 D V two-017 do I hear a motion Brandon so moved a second Barnes second thank you I'll call the role Barnes yes Brandon Brandon yes brown yes and I'm also yes thank you.

Good afternoon members of the board my name is Steve Ferrucci I'm with the law firm of Clapferrucci in Indianapolis the address is 9795 cross point Pulivard suite 100 Indianapolis 46256 I'm here on petition 2026 DV2013 the address is 2001 North only we're seeking to move this petition to the expedited uh calendar you the this is the 2001 North only street yes okay is there one in the audience that has an interest in petition number 2026 D V two-013 with an address of 2001 North Albany Street non being similar to comments from staff yes thank you again uh chairman von Dalen members of the board I was just uh wanting to make sure no last minute uh remonstrance came in on this and as such um none has and it is um therefore code on our end for the expedited uh docket all right then I'll undertain a motion to move to our expedited docket petition number 2026 dv two-013 do I hear a motion barnes so moved second ducky brown second and I'll call the roll barnes barnes yes brandon brandon yes brown ducky brown yes bohannon bohanon yes and I'm also yes thank you you welcome trippers on daily members of the board staff will draw your attention to item number two twenty twenty six db three zero one zero amended one oh two John quill drive this petition was mistakenly continued to this board from board three due to board three having um lack of quorum the petitioner has requested that this be continued back to board three so that would be continued and transferred to next week's hearing be in March 26 2026 that would be without notice staff has no objection to this request very well is there anyone in the audience with an interest in petition number 2026 D V three-010 amended with an address of 102 junk wheel drive.

None being seen.

I will continue a motion to continue and transfer petition number 2026 D V three-010 to the March 26th hearing of board three without additional notice.

Do I hear a motion?

For the May 26th.

I'm sorry, it's May, yeah.

Why did I write Marsh?

Did Mr.

Ullenhake say March?

Yeah, okay.

So okay it's sorry.

I'm gonna amend my uh my uh proposition.

So I would like to entertain a motion to continue to the May 26th hearing without additional continuing transfer to the May 26th hearing of Division 3 without additional notice.

Petition number 2026 D V three-010.

Do I hear a motion?

Brandon so moved.

And a second.

Barnes second.

Thank you.

Barnes.

Yes.

Brandon.

Dougie Brown.

Dougie Brown, yes.

Gohan and also yes.

Thank you, Chiperson von Dale and members of the board.

Staff would draw your attention to the special request item at the very top of the docket without a number next to it.

This is 2025 DV2035 amended at 5100 Knowlton Road.

The petitioner had filed for this petition as well as separately for a plat petition to be heard before the plat committee, having those related petitions going before two boards had caused some level of confusion.

So based on discussion with staff, they have decided to withdraw both of those petitions and then refile for a combination petition to be heard before the hearing examiner.

That finally has not been finalized yet, but is in progress.

I was hoping they'd be here to make this request themselves, but that staff would request a withdrawal of it, which I believe would merely require the board's acknowledgement.

Acknowledged.

Thank you.

Uh staff would also draw your attention to item number three on the agenda.

This is 2026 UV2007 at 1375 West 16th Street.

Um the petitioner has continued dialogue with staff about this petition, which resulted in amendments being made to the text of the request.

I believe that was just to remove uh one of the requested uses.

However, I don't believe the initial notice was ever mailed.

So it will allow time for adequate notice to be sent.

Uh staff will request on their behalf a continuance to the June 9th, 2026 hearing date of division two.

That will be with new notice.

With the notice.

That's my understanding.

Yeah.

Is there anyone in the audience with an interest in petition number 2026 UV 2-007 with an address of 1375 West 16th Street?

None being seen, then I'll entertain a motion to continue petition number 2026 UV two-007 to the June 9th hearing with additional notice.

Do I hear a motion?

Brandon, so moved.

And a second.

Barnes second.

Call the roll, Barnes.

Yes.

Brandon.

Brandon, yes.

Dougie Brown.

Dougie Brown, yes.

Gohanna.

Oh, Hannah, yes.

I'm also yes.

Okay.

Thank you.

And I would finally draw your attention to item number five on the agenda.

This is 2026 DV2015 at 5662 Georgetown Road.

I believe the version of the agenda that was sent to printers and provided to you makes reference to an internally illuminated poll sign for dislocation.

The petitioner had amended this request based on consultation with staff to be for an internally illuminated monument sign as opposed to a poll sign, which was instrumental in staff's recommendation of approval.

The staff report reflects this language accurately.

We just wanted to have it stated for director.

Acknowledged.

Thank you.

All right.

I think that's the end of special requests.

So we'll go ahead and move on to the expedite doctor, Mr.

Secretary.

You may go ahead and call that out.

Case number 2026-D V two-014.

Property address 1618 East Market Street, Center Township, Council District Number 13, zoned D8 TOD.

The petitioner is infinite batteries incorporated, represented by Josh Smith, requesting variants of development standards of the consolidated zoning and subdivision ordinance to provide for the construction of a duplex on a 3,449 square foot, 32-foot wide lot, 7200 square foot lot size required, 60 foot lot width required.

With a parking pad having four foot side setbacks, five foot side setbacks required.

Case number two zero two six-d v two-zero one five, property address five six six six six six six six two Georgetown Road, Pike Township, Council District number six, zoned C three.

The petitioner is KFC Corporation, represented by Kendra Morton, requesting variants of development standards of the consolidated zoning and subdivision ordinance to provide for the location of an internally illuminated monument sign, internal illumination not permitted in C three, being the second primary freestanding sign along the Georgetown Road frontage with a separation of 230 feet from another primary freestanding sign, 300 foot separation required.

Case number two zero two six-d v two-zero one three, property address two zero zero one North only Street, Center Township, Council District number thirteen, zoned I three.

The petitioner is DMC Real Estate Holding, LLC, represented by Chisel Millworks, requesting variants of development standards of the consolidated zoning and subdivision ordinance to allow for the outdoor storage of materials within the transitional yard, not permitted, and to allow for a fence with barbed wire, not permitted.

And case number two zero two six-UV two-006, property address one five two seven, Southeast Street, Center Township, Council District Number 18, zoned C one slash C three.

The petitioner is John Hoyt, represented by Ashley Hummer Holmes and Hummer Homes.

Requesting variants of use of the consolidated zoning and subdivision ordinance to permit a secondary dwelling unit in a C one slash C three district.

Residential uses not permitted in C one or C three.

And to permit a secondary dwelling unit when the primary dwelling is not a single family detached dwelling.

Not permitted.

Is there anyone here in attendance that is opposed to any of the petitions I've just read?

Jefferson Von Dalen, that's the end of the expedited docket.

Very well.

Members, you may cast your vote.

Beth Brandon votes yes, Craig Von Dalen votes yes.

Patrice Ducket Brown votes yes, and Rod Bohannon votes yes.

That variance is granted.

On case two zero two six-d v two-zero one five, Tom Barnes votes yes, Beth Brandon votes yes, Craig von Dalen votes yes, Patrice Stuckett Brown votes yes, and Rod Bohannon votes yes.

That variance is granted.

On case two zero two six-d v two-zero one three, Tom Barnes votes yes, Beth Brandon votes yes, Craig von Dalen votes yes, Patrice Duckett Brown votes yes, and Rod Bohannon votes yes.

That variance is granted.

And lastly, on case two zero two six-UV two-zero six.

Tom Barnes votes yes, Beth Brandon votes yes, Craig von Dalen votes yes, Patrice Stuckett Brown votes yes, and Rod Bohannon votes yes.

That variance is granted.

Thank you, Mr.

Weesee.

We'll go ahead and move on to the regular docket.

Go ahead and call the first case.

Case number 2026-DV1-014 property address 9200 Keystone Crossing.

Washington Township, Council District Number 4, Zoned C4.

The petitioner is KATC property LLC represented by Joseph D.

Cauldron, representing variants, excuse me, requesting variants of development standards of the consolidated zoning and subdivision ordinance to provide for the installation of a second skyline sign on a building elevation.

One skyline sign per elevation.

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 to tell the truth and nothing but the truth?

Say I do.

I do.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Good afternoon again, Chairperson Vondela, members of the board.

Joe Calderon, 11 South Meridian, Indianapolis, 46204.

My client is actually Duchar McMillan Associates, which is a tenant of property commonly known as 9200 Keystone Crossing.

It is the essentially the northernmost office tower in the Keystone Crossing office portion of that development.

KATC property is the somewhat recent owner of that property and a couple of the other office buildings within Keystone Crossing.

They've spent quite a bit of money to date, kind of refreshing those buildings and in recruiting tenants.

Duchar McMillan is an office tenant, they do various services, they focus a lot on property tax as part of their work.

So what they are pursuing today, and my guess is that some of you have heard what a skyline sign is, and probably some of you don't.

So let me walk you through.

And I think Robert did that in a staff report.

But what we're proposing today is a pretty simple sign.

Nothing flashy.

If you turn to tab three of your exhibit book, you can see it's basically a logo sign.

DMA obviously the initials for the tenant.

So you can see that the sign fits rather nicely in its desired location.

It doesn't overtake the uh elevation on which it is proposed.

Now, here's the rub.

Our sign regulations are pretty generous when it comes to building signs, wall signs, which this is.

They're significantly more restrictive when it comes to signs that are quote skyline signs, which is any sign that is placed above the 26 foot level.

And therein the skyline sign prohibitions say you can have one per elevation, and no more than four per building.

One for each elevation, assuming a four-sided building.

Uh, for a different tenant located on the east portion of the facade.

And if you turn to tab four, you can see that sign as it sits.

It's the IMG sign, it's on the complete opposite side of the building.

And that sign is a also a pretty subdued sign in terms of square footage.

It's a little more than 56 square feet.

The other thing that is important to understand, just from a sign regulation standpoint, is that when the sign regulations say you can pick and choose amongst wall signs, it gives you a certain amount of coverage of the entire width of the elevation and a total amount of square footage based upon the square footage of the elevation height times width.

This is a big building.

So if you turn to tab six, and this is kind of how I presented this to both Nora Northside and Greater Allisonville Community Council, is to say that look, we recognize that there are restrictions on signs, but this sign, the only tripwire there is, is the fact that it's located on top of the building instead of at 26 feet or below.

So if you look at continue to look at uh tab 7, you can see total permitted sign square footage.

If the north elevation is a front elevation, it does have an entrance door, you can have literally 4,318 square feet of signage.

Crazy amount of signage, right?

But that's what the regs allow.

If it's considered a rear elevation, you can have 2159 square feet of signage.

In this particular case, the IMG sign that I showed you, which is the other skyline sign, it's 56, little more than 56 square feet.

The proposed sign is 11.8 square feet.

There's a triple A logo sign on this building that shows up also on towards the back part of tab four.

It's a little more than 40 square feet.

That sign is not a skyline sign, but it's a wall sign.

So it counts towards that cumulative amount of signage that you're allowed to have.

Furthermore, the sign regulations allow you to cover 80% of the building facade.

So a huge amount of percentage.

One of which is skyline, the other that isn't, and the proposed sign, the proposed sign, all three signs together, rather, is less than 5% if you consider the north side of front facade, and less than 10% of the total signage allowed if it's a rear facade.

So the basic pitch is this is a normal sign arrangement, particularly for taller office buildings.

It is very consistent with the number of buildings that are within Keystone at the crossing, and you can see a number of pictures that are identified in tab five that indicate multiple signs on buildings.

Um River Crossing, the newer office buildings to the east, you can see in the photos that are taken.

So what we're proposing is really not unusual for Keystone at the crossing because they are, with few exceptions, all taller than two-story buildings, and that's kind of the whole skyline premise: 26 feet when you think about it.

We understand certainly, staff's position, and in part of what they're saying is that the skyline provisions help reduce sign proliferation on an elevation, but do they really?

In this case, we are a tiny percent of what would one sign could cover and be significantly larger and longer, and would that really reduce the amount of sign distraction?

No, it wouldn't.

This is a subdued sign.

It, together with the existing signs, are part of a uh marketing plan to help this office building, and this total sign square footage is significantly less, and the total building coverage, in other words, this the width of the signs is significantly less than what is otherwise permitted.

By staff's argument, I could have signs all over the place 26 feet or below.

Would that really reduce distraction?

No, it wouldn't, but that would be permitted.

So we think what we're asking for is a pretty minor deviation of the ordinance.

It helps an office building that um is being refurbished.

Uh it does help identify a tenant uh from the main travel way on 465.

Otherwise, you have to see it uh internally, uh, which is kind of a second best scenario.

Um, you can see in Tab 7, we presented this both to Greater Allisonville uh community council and or north side, both of whom support or don't object to the sign.

Nobody else has had any questions or comments uh following the notice, and again, we would encourage you to um approve this variance request, and with that, I'm happy to answer uh any questions that the board may have.

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr.

Colderon.

Are there any questions for the petitioner for members of the board?

None being seen, we'll uh see if there's any is there any anyone else in the audience with an interest in petition number 2026 DV1-014 with an address of 9200 Keystone at the crossing.

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

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

I think Mr.

Cauldron did a very good example of explaining what a skyline sign is for you.

So I'll try not to repeat that as well.

Um, but I will give you a little history.

In 2019, the sign ordinance was updated to limit the skyline signs to one sign uh per elevation.

That's not per building, but per elevation.

Four elevations on this building means they could have four skyline signs, one on each elevation.

If it's a multifaceted building, it could have a multi, you know, it could have a skyline sign on every facet of that building as an example.

With the revision of the sign ordinance in 2019, it was determined that at that point two skylines were signs were permitted per facade, and that was too much.

The sign ordinance reduced it to one skyline sign due to the proliferation of uh multiple skyline signs on buildings, and that is the ordinance we have before you today.

One of the buildings referenced by Mr.

Cauldron that has multiple skyline signs, I believe that might be 8,900, as shown in his report, those predate 2019, and they are considered illegally non-conforming.

If one of those were to be removed, they would have to come back and face the ordinance as we have today.

Um that's why that building has two signs.

The other sign has a reference that Mr.

Cauldron referenced 88 88.

Um Keystone Crossing, I believe, had uh two skyline signs.

One of them was removed, and they came back and requested a variance for that.

Staff did recommend denial, that was approved.

They came back for a third skyline sign, staff recommended denial, that was approved.

They came back for a fourth skyline sign, staff recommended denial, that was approved.

By which board, I'm not sure.

The point being is at what point do you stop, or how many is enough skyline signs?

Is one skyline sign enough, or is five skyline signs enough?

Or is two, which is the matter we have before you.

The ordinance feels that one skyline sign is enough, and staff agrees with that.

That's what why we are recommending denial of this.

There's no practical difficulty for the second skyline sign.

There are no skyline signs on the east, west, or south elevation of this building, which this sign could be located to.

They specifically chose the north elevation where there is already another skyline sign.

Specifically, by my guess, is because it's facing the interstate 465 and it acts as a billboard to advertise the the client location in that building.

Not for directional use.

As you see on the photo on the screen in the staff report, there is a ground sign that directs people to the building and locates the tenants that are located in that building.

This ground sign is easily visible from eye level and car level.

Skyline signs are not visible from inside a car typically because your roof line typically breaks that uh the sideline, unless you are lucky enough to have a convertible and have the hood down for that reason.

Not all of us, unfortunately.

The point being is at what point do you say no?

Staff recommends that you say no after one sign because there is no practical difficulty for locating this second sign on the north side as I indicated.

It could be either located at 26 feet, where yes, multiple signs can be located, but those are at eye level, and those are not considered billboard-style sign or um distracting and could are more um directional oriented to the building, whereas skylines are act more as advertising signs, and one would be appropriate per facade, and this sign could be located as I indicated before on the east, west, or even south.

And by the way, the the primary entry into this business park is from the south.

So if you want people to find your building, you would uh orient the the sign towards the primary entry, which will be on the south side of the building.

However, this is oriented on the north side, which would not be totally effective in locating the building uh for that reason.

Therefore, staff does recommend denial of this, and we'll be happy to answer any question the board may have.

Thank you, Mr.

Ulan Hake.

Are there any questions from members of the board?

Besides me, I have a few.

Okay.

The new ordinance um limits the uh um skyline signs to one per building, uh, one per facet of the building.

In the in the ordinance commentary, did they mention any reason for this?

Or is uh what was the logic for limiting it down from two to one?

I'm not sure if it mentions it, but the logic as conveyed to me is it was to reduce the amount of proliferation of signs.

Okay.

Uh they felt the previous ordinance that allowed two, which I would believe may have been adopted in 1993 or at least 10 years earlier, under different standards, different economy, maybe for whatever reason, uh, would have permitted two signs at that time.

At this time, uh we looked at the number of signs, and we felt that two per facade, not per building, because they can still have four skyline signs on this building, but it's per facade was too distractive, and therefore, if we still had that, we would have eight skyline signs on this building instead of four by right, right?

I think we have to be honest that a skyline sign is advertisement, it's on premises, it's on-site advertisement, not off-site advertisement.

I mean, that that the reason they want their name on the top of a giant building is so that people will see it and recognize their corporate identity in that location, correct?

You repeat the question.

I think we need to recogn realize that the that a skyline sign is advertisement, it's on site as opposed to off-site advertisement.

But I mean it is an opportunity for a corporate for a company to put their corporate identity on a building to both identify their location but also to show that they're they're present in the community.

Correct.

If I reference the billboard, that was mistaken not to imply it was off-premise, it isn't on on-premise advertising sign, which any building is allowed an on-premise sign, which acts as an advertising sign in staff's opinion.

Um which any building is is allowed by right to have uh an uh a facade or on surface sign to specific certain percentages per facade.

Okay, um there is a practical reality that there is a glut of office space in Marion County right now, and they're trying to lease this office space as as best they possibly can.

That particular location would compete with a neighboring community of Carmel for the use of that office space.

Do they have a similar ordinance that they can only have one skyline sign on their buildings?

I'm not familiar with their skyline, their ordinance specifically with their skyline, but in regards to pole signs and monument signs and other signings, I believe they are much more restrictive than we are.

Um, but uh specifically regarding uh skyline signs, I do not know their specific ordinance to the adjoining county or municipality to the north.

Okay, thank you, Mr.

I don't have any other questions.

Anybody else, um you mentioned you know it's per facade, and when we're looking at this building, this building has the front or the the north facing facade, and then this like curve around, and then the next facade well the next portion of this facade, um, which is where the proposed sign is going.

Is there any part of the code that talks about how we're defining the facade?

I don't know.

So you have your north facing facade, and then there's like the glass windows that curve around, and then it changes the depth, and then you have the next portion of the facade.

Is there any part of our code that defines what the facade is to state that it all has to be at the same depth on the elevation or anything like that?

Uh this price pass administrator of current planning, yes.

Our decode uh also with the definition of facade as well as the signage regulation, does uh give measurement directions on facades.

So that is treated within our zoning ordinance.

Okay, great, thank you.

Follow up on that.

So they don't describe different facade planes, they just say overall facade.

Uh there are uh within the calculations of facades, it does uh provide from the uh view shed of the building itself.

So if even if there's curvatures, it's still treated through the calculations, one treatment of us of the facade.

So there is direction within our zoning ordinance, both in the definition of facade, as well as the calculations of signage in the signage ordinance portion that gives us the direction on how to treat facades.

Very good, thank you.

Patrice.

I just I think I'm trying to clarify.

So based on the square footage or how large the building is, it tells us how many pieces can go up or how many skylines can go up, and based on this building, only one.

Is that what you're saying?

Based on the size and what the regulation is, only one that could go up on this building.

So what we're saying by facade, not building itself.

Yeah, and then Robert uh uh within the staff report gives that.

But Robert, you would like to clarify that.

I think I think I can help here a little.

So they can do as big a they can do a much larger sign, but they can only do one sign per elevation of the building.

Yes.

Correct.

So within our uh signage ordinance, while um uh Robert pulls that up.

Again, it gives us uh directions how to calculate.

So it is by the size and scale and percentage of the facade on the side.

So you can have multiple skyline sides, but we're talking about on the facade, not the building itself.

If that helps clarify.

I have a file.

Go ahead, Roderick.

I I have a follow-up too on that.

I thought I heard that if they put on a south sided building, it would be okay.

Did I hear that correctly?

Robert, could you please jump in?

I'm sorry, repeat that.

I thought I heard that they put it on a south side of the building, which you said the entrance into the and the complexity, it would be okay.

The entrance to Keystone Crossing uh coming off of 82nd Street would be on the south, south southeast um side of the south-southwest of the building.

But the primary drive is um oriented to the south, yes, and uh there's a circular drive at the north end of that primary drive, and this would be located at the northeast of that circular drive.

So then with the move it to the south side of the building, it would be in compliance.

It would it would be permitted and it would be visible from that entrance drive.

Was my intent what I was indicating previously.

Thank you.

But follow up on that, you did say that a skyline sign is not as effective at a as identifying a building from a car when you're approaching the building, unless you have a convertible as a sign that's on the building lower on the building, correct?

There are times when you are a significant distance away that you that the elevation of the building is within your um parameters of your windshield, that the sign would be visible, but that would not be upon approach of the building where a ground sign or monument sign as indicated in the staff report that already exists in front of the building would be at eye level, um from a distance, a skyline sign would still be an elevated sign at the top of your windshield, if you will, per se, or depending on how far away you are, but again, there would be some time or distance to get to that building to locate it.

The visibility of the sign itself from a distance would not be a locational standard, that's staff's opinion.

Okay, but we all agree it's a practical reality that a skyline sign is on site advertisement for a tenant within the building, uh the existing sign, yes, on the north on the adjacent corner of the north facade, correct.

And there's a significant difference between the north side of the building and the south side of the building from a traffic count standpoint in that particular location, correct?

Um excuse me.

My apologies.

That was lovely.

Unrelated to the ordinance, yes, I would concur with your assessment of that.

Okay.

All right, very good.

Thank you.

Any other questions?

Mr.

Calderon, you have five minutes of rebuttal.

Thank you.

Don't introduce any new evidence.

I'm just gonna reiterate kind of how I led.

The practical difficulty is created by the ordinance itself.

You've just heard kind of twists and turns for justification.

Look, the ordinance changes over time.

Here's the real fact.

If this sign was 26 feet or below, no issue, we wouldn't be here today.

In fact, if I had 15 signs that covered 80% or less of the entire north elevation width at 26 feet or left less, permits for each and every single one of them, and then they're distinguishing and saying, well, you can only have one up high, which makes zero sense.

If you look at tab six, what you really need to follow is simply this, the sign square footage between the proposed sign and the existing two signs on the north elevation, all of which count towards total, even though triple A is not a quote skyline sign, is such a minuscule percentage of the overall signage that is allowed on that north facade, that you'd have to conclude that the ordinance makes no sense.

If the goal is, well, we don't want proliferation, then it should have been one side per facade, period, and not distinguish it between 26 feet height and taller height.

These are tall, tall buildings.

The ordinance is inconsistent on its face, and therein is practical difficulty.

We all understand that yes, this particular tenant does appreciate having the opportunity to be on the north side, not north side of the building, which by the way is where the parking lot is.

As Robert himself said, the south side is a circular drive.

So you really have two entrances.

This is the parking lot entrance of the store of the office building.

465 is up higher, so yes, you do have a much better view of the building from that height differential between the height of the interstate and the building.

So yes, it is designed to maximize the view shed.

But so have many other buildings at Keystone of the Crossing, which have been approved either by permit or variances.

This is not abnormal.

The neighborhood groups have considered this.

Some of which are aging.

So understood where the ordinance is, I just point out the inconsistency because the overall sign percentage is minuscule compared to what it's permitted.

It really shouldn't matter whether it's at a hundred and ten or twenty feet in the air or twenty six feet in the air, in my uh humble opinion.

So this is not going to lead to an overprolific proliferation of signs as staff is concerned about.

Thank you.

I do have a question.

So the fact is uh staff did state that there have been repeated acts for new signs to come up and be put up onto the building.

Is there a capacity that the property owners have for that top level of um signs, or is it just for that one um leaser that that will be the only space that they will obtain for advertising?

Well, this is specific to this particular tenant.

Uh the board always has a an ability to condition an approval on no more than X number of signs on a facade if it's a skyline sign, and that's your prerogative.

So if the board is so inclined to say, I don't want more than three, I don't want more than four, I don't want more than two, that would have to be your own uh motion.

But keep in mind, there still are other limits that are natural barriers to sign proliferation, i.e.

the square footage and the percentage of width of the facade as well, which are all in the sign regs and and kind of encapsulated in my worksheet and tab six for you.

So basically the the owner of this property doesn't have a limit of who goes where how many signs go up.

No, the sign regulations provide a limit, and if there are justifications, then the restriction can be asked to be varied.

So we're asking for a restriction or a waiver of one to allow a second sign.

The owner may or may not have other tenants that are desiring to do different things and ask again, but as a board on this particular sign, you could say we don't want any more than this, or we don't want any more than three, whatever number you think is appropriate.

Keep in mind this is a very an eight and a half by eleven photo does not really justify how big this building is, and we want, frankly, we want tenants to be excited to locate it in Houston at the crossing.

And just anecdotally, if you drive up Meridian Street in Carmel, you'll see on all those buildings clustered around 116th sign sign all over at the upper levels.

I haven't done a sign in Carmel in quite some time, but uh did do one in a hundred at uh uh Carmel Drive and Keystone to have an extra sign.

I think it was for United Way.

So all right.

Are you asking for an amendment or do you want to just yeah, I think I'd I would like to have some type of statement because I I am I do hear the stats hear staff when they're stating that they're coming back for multiple signs.

I would like some kind of statement to state that there is a limit for that top level skyline space so that we don't have to have them keep coming back asking and coming to different boards, asking for new signs to go up.

If we have a limit in our regulation, then we need to make sure that it's documented.

And then there they know that they can't keep coming back for more if it's approved.

I think the ask is for the petitioner to agree to a commitment that there would be no more skyline signs on that facade of the building if this were to be approved.

I don't have that authority.

Um, I think you could make that a condition or make it a condition that I get a commitment and I could take it back to the owner, Mr.

Steinmetz.

Yeah, I mean, uh uh commitment has to be signed by the owner of the building, and if he if he's saying he doesn't have that authority, I don't know that um the board could require it.

I think you could include it as a condition attached to the request when you when you uh place your votes.

I will posit the motion that we add a condition to this variance.

Can I do that?

Certainly.

Upon its uh upon its if it is voted it in favor that that would that the uh condition is that the building would be limited to no more than two signs on the north facade of the building, skyline signs.

Skyline signs on the north side of the building.

I posit that as a motion.

Do I hear do I hear a second?

Do I hear a second?

A second.

I've got a second.

We'll go ahead and call the roll on it.

Um, Barnes.

No.

Brandon.

Brandon, yes.

I'm yes.

Doug Brown.

Dr.

Brown, yes.

Oh, no.

Uh it passes.

So as a condition of this variance, if it were to be found in favor, you will be have that additional condition that there will be no more than two skyline signs on the north side of the side.

All right.

Um, any other questions or comments from members of the board?

We can go ahead and cast our ballots.

On case 2026-dv1-014.

Rod Bill Hannan votes yes, Patrice Stuckett Brown votes yes, Craig Von Dalen votes yes, Beth Brandon votes yes, and Tom Barnes votes no.

The variance is granted.

Thank you.

Appreciate it subject to the condition imposed by the board.

Correct.

No more than two skyline signs on the north facade.

And I will say that I think that that was an in a very interesting conversation and and debate that we had on this.

I think that was in uh I think that's good.

I think we had a pretty good thorough debate on it.

So thank you.

All right.

Case number two zero two six-UV3-005 property address two five two five East 38th Street, Center Township, Council District Number eight, zoned C3 T O D W five.

The petitioner is Garcia's Heating and Cooling Incorporated, represented by Donald Fisher requesting variants of use of the consolidated zoning and subdivision ordinance to provide for the operation of an HVAC commercial contractor not permitted per plans filed.

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

Do you swear or affirm under penalty of perjury to tell the truth and nothing but the truth?

Say I do.

I do.

Hello, my name is Don Fisher.

I'm with Insight Engineering.

Excuse me, my office is at 9755 Randall Drive, suite 101A, Carmel, Indiana.

And I'm here representing Garcia Heating and Cooling, the owner of the property.

And I apologize that I didn't get these exhibits to you in advance, but I did bring I believe enough for everybody.

One of the staff comments was not having a potential floor plan layout.

So one is excuse me.

And the um typical use that falls in line with the neighborhood or community commercial that's proposed for this area.

Um for decades at least, has been lined with businesses and for the most part uh residential right behind the business.

The proposed use is a uh small heating and air conditioning company.

Um they have approximately 17 employees.

This the employees come to the site in the morning, load their vehicles, uh many times inside the building, sometimes outside, then they can leave for the day, go to their job sites, and then return at the end of the day and park their vehicles and drive home.

So we have essentially 17 people coming and going twice a day.

The um we believe that the um the practical difficulty is in the classification of this kind of business as a uh something that needs to be in the C5 district, which staff points out is something that utilizes um much outdoor uh facilities, storage, and work and display like a used car lot.

Um the C3 and many other C4 C5 uses, but C3 in particular, because that's what this site is, allows bar, taverns, restaurants, pawn shops, light retail, all of which could have three to five hundred cars a day coming into the site, providing uh significantly more uh traffic than what we are proposing, and should be considered a higher intensity.

These um the plan I show provided um shows for what we show as offices.

We're thinking of those are like neighborhood commercial, nail salon, haircutting, um, insurance office, whatever could fit in a small office like that with a common restroom, uh restrooms for them, and then the fifth office would be for the Garcia Heating and Cooling.

Uh Garcia does not have customers coming in off the street.

They don't have visitors to the site, as you if you have had your heating system replaced.

Unfortunately, you know that they typically come to your house to look at the unit and then give you a price you don't usually like.

Um, and then um but typically Garcia's work is through general contractors.

They don't do repairs and maintenance at this time.

The building I'm showing in this plan is larger than the one that's in the staff report, primarily because when we were trying to come up with a something that would be more uh neighborhood friendly and add the offices, we ended up needing a little more space to be able to store the uh heating and air conditioning equipment indoors.

Um so this building is larger.

Um the owner has come to uh agree that and understand that the building in the C3 on 38th Street in the TOD has significant restrictions and requirements for the look of the building.

He can't just build a metal warehouse.

So we plan to design the building to fit in with those requirements, and um not have any uh requests for changes there.

The um along the uh south side, there's a uh dwelling district, and that is there's a house there on the other side of the alley, and we plan to put a wall, first of all, recognize the eight-foot transition yard off the alley to have landscaping, then a solid wall to create a barrier for visibility and uh sound for the residents.

Many of the residences along 38th Street, existing in zone D5, have businesses, signs for businesses, parking, the whole uh properties paved already.

There's also uh significant commercial uses right next door is a gas station, uh convenience store, a closed restaurant.

Um the uh owner believes that the umd district and the busy commercial corridor is a benefit to not only his employees but also to customers of the other businesses to be able to use transportation and walking to get to site and for amenities in the area, restaurants and so forth.

Um excuse me.

The um again, we believe the intensity proposed is significantly less than what's allowed.

Um I wanted to make comment about the W, the well-field protection district.

Um I have been working with that well-field protection district since it was first implemented and with the technically qualified people in my work with uh the oil companies in the past.

Um, this is not something that's really an issue for this site because they don't store chemicals.

They don't store uh cleaners and they don't store or use or sell uh toxic or hazardous things that could be included in some other uses that are allowed.

And so that would not be there's a quite a significant portion of the staff report that goes along with the uh well-field protection district, but I don't feel that's applicable to this use in any way.

Um would excuse me with the small shops.

We don't believe we'll be generating more vehicle traffic in the area, but we are providing excuse me, sorry, um parking on the south side of the building, which would be since we are on the south side of 38th Street, which would be behind the building, which is the desired position for the uh To D businesses and district, and that will be secured parking for the nighttime parking and be available for uh customers during the day if they um choose to drive to the site um with that i would open it to any questions thank you mr fisher um are there any questions for members of the board for the petitioner yes you mentioned um on the south end of the lot that there would be there's the parking lot a wall then a transition yard yes and then the alley yes want to make sure that i have that in the that's correct okay thank you and can you also describe for me what is being stored on this site specifically if that is in conflict of what this you say is stored in the what would be stored is um they have uh oh sorry and I also didn't describe the vehicles they have vans and small box trucks and their their deliveries come in small box trucks also no semis um because I had to know that for site plan layout the um the um the equipment on site would be typically the uh air conditioner units heating units um any uh you know probably screws nails well not nails but screws metal ductwork um and probably tools I don't believe that um they would have any um it I suppose it probably might have uh refrigerant but you know if that's released it evaporates it's not it's not supposed to be released but if it is it's if it's evaporative and not a liquid no no when you say these things are stored on site they're stored outside no no in the building that's why we have the back side of the um building is shown as kind of a warehouse uh space right here with four garage doors so the trucks can uh access the the stored equipment so everything is stored inside except for the vehicles but overnight there will be overnight storage of vehicles correct okay they don't drive their vehicles home that means they don't drive the company vehicles right how many vehicles uh right now they have 12 vehicles 12 good all right any other questions from members of the board all right is there anyone else in the audience with an interest in petition number 2000 2026 UV 3-0 zero five an address of 2525 east 38th street none being seen we can go to comments from staff chair present bondal members of the board the subject side is zone c three which typically represents or permits neighborhood commercial uses uh these are uses that uh service the adjoining neighborhood um uh or and are not considered as regional or distance based the proposed use uh as a con commercial contractor would be allowed in the C5 C7 um I1 and I2 uh districts these districts are significant in that they allow outdoor storage which is why commercial contracts are contractors are oriented towards those districts as they need that type of use this site would not allow the outdoor storage so it appears that the contractor is adding a 9100 square foot warehouse on the back side of the building to store his equipment inside the 12 vehicles it is not known if they would be stored inside as there are two overhead garage doors so presumably or if they would be stored outside in the parking lot.

Petitioner indicated staff would drive to the site and then pick up the the vehicles 12 vehicles and then go off site to the job sites this would result in them leaving their vehicles on site, taking up part of the the parking lot as well, or the parking lot would be basically oriented just for the commercial contractor.

There's no connecting uh sidewalk or passage from the parking lot to the proposed commercial uses identified as offices on this on today's submitted site plan.

In addition, the parking lot has a 40-foot wide gate off of the East Drive, which, in staff's opinion, even if it is left open during the day, um, is kind of restrictive for commercial traffic for the office, and not typical of a commercial shopping center, uh, especially when the other entry is only one way entrance.

Um, that's not clear or effective use of a commercial um zone property in staff's opinion.

Um, therefore this by all appearances appears just to be a use for the commercial contractor with only six sixteen hundred square feet on the office, which would only be fifteen percent of the size of the building, where eighty-five percent of the building would be used for the commercial contractor, certainly the majority are significant uh intensity of the use.

And again, we're not talking about an adjacent con um permitted district, you know, such as uh uh jump from C3 to C4.

We're jumping from C3 to C5 NC7 and I2.

Residential uses are adjacent to the south, they are separated by the alley.

The petitioner indicates an eight-foot rear transitional yard.

However, a 10-foot transitional yard adjacent to an alley would be required.

Um staff believes this there's no practical difficulty for this.

It's an undeveloped site, it's owned C3.

It could be developed with the proposed neighborhood commercial uses.

Um there's no need for the commercial contractor on this site, as there are plenty of vacant uh industrial offices elsewhere that could accommodate this type of use where a parent that are not adjacent to residential properties or that are not neighborhood oriented.

Given the increase of the intensity between the existing zoning and the proposed use, including the number of commercial vehicles as outdoor storage or on-site storage, approval of the request would overdevelop the site in staff's opinion to facilitate the intrusion of heavy commercial uses into an established neighborhood, commercial corridor.

This is also on the transit-oriented development, which is uh focused on pedestrian oriented development, which commercial contractors does not facilitate and would uh inhibit the development of that designated transit oriented development corridor.

For these recommend for these reasons, staff does recommend denial of this petition and feel this would be uh uh an extreme intrusion into the neighborhood for the proposed use for the HVAC commercial contractor and does recommend denial.

Staff will be happy to answer any questions the board may have.

Thank you, Mr.

Ulan Hake.

Are there any questions for staff or members of the board?

None being seen.

Mr.

Fisher, you have five minutes of rebuttal.

Thank you.

Um, one of the first comments is that there's no connecting path, and we clearly show a path here from the handicap to the public sidewalk, which then we come around to the entrances to the shops.

So that's is on the plan provided.

The eight-foot transitional yard we thought we pulled from the ordinance.

We if it's 10, we'll make it 10.

That's not uh condition.

We we thought we were in compliance there.

So if it's 10, we'll change it to 10.

Um the one-way entrance, entry only, is an existing uh driveway entrance constructed by the city in the recent reconstruction of 38th Street, and um I we placed that on there because it is there.

Um the owner's not sure if he actually wants to use that drive because he doesn't think it has much uh uh value.

He would rather he told me at one time he would rather have a grass area, but I told him the city built the drive there, so we would have to remove it if that's the case.

We'd have to spend the money to remove the drive that the city built.

If you drive down along 38th Street, you never feel that you're in a residentially oriented uh corridor.

It's it's business, it's been that way for decades as long as I can remember.

I've driven through there.

Yes, there are adjacent residences.

If you look at uh map Indy on the south side where this is, pretty much the whole street is lined with businesses, an alley, and then residences, just like this location.

That's no different than almost anywhere along 38th Street.

So we're not changing that character at all.

Um the uh thought that this is an increased intensity.

I think I proved that 17 people arriving and leaving uh twice a day, in and out, is uh significantly less than what could be there.

A restaurant would have three to five hundred cars a day plus employees, so would uh the maybe a gas station next door, which of course is not allowed in the C3.

Um, and the C5, the jump from C3 to C5 follows my argument that the classification of this business does not really match the actual business.

Oh, and he and the 9100 square feet is the entire building.

It's not just the the uh warehouse portion, it is the entire building, including all the offices, mechanical, restrooms, and so forth.

The um and if there's a use that would want a bigger space than what I'm showing here, um that's that's certainly an option that he's willing to explore if some say a more successful haircutting place needed 40, you know, 20 by 40 instead of 20 by 20, that would be uh not an issue for them to be able to accommodate.

I believe that was answers pretty much all the comments of staff.

Any questions?

I don't any questions from members of the board?

Do you need to amend your petition to reflect a 10-foot south transition yard over an eight-foot south transition yard?

Well, uh, if that's what this if that is in fact the requirement, I looked it up.

I thought it said in this district it was eight.

Mr.

Eulan Hank, is it 10 or 8?

Uh per the ordinance it is eight for adjacent to an alley, which I believe there's an alley that runs south.

Okay, so you're okay on that.

Yeah, I excuse me, 10 feet.

I didn't mean to say that.

Let me rephrase that, please.

According to ordinance, a transitional yard adjacent to residential or an alley is a 10-foot uh transitional yard requirement.

Okay.

I thought the alley made it go from 10 to 8.

But I'll go with 10.

So you're good with amending.

Yeah, that's not an issue.

All right.

Um, are there any other questions?

As long as there are no other questions, we may go ahead and cast our ballots, on case 2026-UV3-005.

Rod Bohannon votes no.

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

The variance is granted.

Case number 2026-UV2-008 property address 327 South Randolph Street, Center Township, Council District number 8.

18 zoned D5.

The petitioner is uh petitioners, plurals, excuse me, are Michael J.

Mitchell Jr.

and Pedro Guerrero uh Godinez, represented by Angela Guerrero, requesting variants of use of the consolidated zoning and subdivision ordinance to permit the use of three myotonic goats to reside on a lot that is less than one acre, not permitted, and a variance of development standards of the consolidated zoning and subdivision ordinance to allow for zero foot side setbacks.

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 to tell the truth and nothing but the truth?

Say I do.

I do.

My name is Angela Guerrero.

I am the power of attorney of my nephew Michael Mitchell Jr., who is the deed owner.

We purchased the property for you.

We need your legal address.

It's 327 South Randolph Street, Indianapolis, Indiana.

Very good, thank you.

That's his that's the property address.

No, we need your legal address.

My legal address is 818 West Smith Valley Road, Greenwood, Indiana, 46142.

Thank you.

You can go ahead and proceed.

Okay, so I purchased the property originally for my nephew who is autistic, so that he would have a place to go and somebody could care for him when we're not around.

Um my mother fell ill, and so she resides at the property as well as a leaseholder.

So I had to follow the rules in order to allow her to have emotional support animals as far as the handicapped balls.

And so that's the purpose for this petition.

It's unusual because she is from Kentucky and she's a farmer, and so there was a limit on what she could bring with her, and that was the three goats.

And they are miniature mayotonic goats.

They don't get any bigger than what they are.

Um, they're not for breeding purposes, they're not for eating purposes, they're specifically prescribed by her doctor for her to be able to have her emotional support.

They don't live on the property, which in the petition it says that they reside there.

In the winter time, I bring them Monday, Wednesday, and Friday for her therapy, 8 a.m.

to 8 p.m., and in the summertime I do Monday through Friday, 8 a.m.

to 8 p.m., unless there's a day during the week that I can't bring them and I have to bring them on a weekend.

So they have adequate stuff there to be able to take care of them, and that's you know, their water pail and the hay that I bring with them daily.

Whenever I leave the property, they are on a leash, and I take them back to where they reside, which is in Johnson County.

And so, what caused all of this issue was we had a caregiver that was taking care of my mother, and we had to get a restraining on our on her because she was um physically abusing my mother, and she's called and made a bunch of false reports, and so this is where we're at.

Um, the building that we had that's in the petition is an actual playhouse, and they told me that play structures did not apply to any code or audience, stuff like that.

This is what the um code inspector that came to the home, said as long as it wasn't no more than 10 by 10 or more than 15 high for a shed.

It couldn't exceed the height regulations for a shed for that property because it was zoned for family.

So we've got those two situations going on.

Um, and I did bring I didn't know how many copies I needed, but I did bring two copies because I wasn't sure if I uploaded them on the um portal, but it shows the space that and the measurements of the entire property and where our shed is located.

You can see the five foot clearance.

Their shed that's next to us on the other property is all the way against the fence line.

Their pictures that they provided do not show adequate amount of space between the shed and the fence line of property line because they weren't able to get onto the property, and I've noted to them a lot over several phone calls and several email messages that they have to make an appointment to come to that property because my mother also has three pit bulls, and they cannot safely come to that property without an appointment because I have to secure those out of the way.

She also has a Dotson and a shih tzu.

The Dotson is the one you got to worry about.

The other ones are big babies, they'll lick you to death.

But it's the Dotson, and I can confirm with you that the Dotson does bite because my mother was bitten when the lady came out to do the inspection to get a measurement.

My mother had to keep the dog away from the fence line because the dog was trying to go for her.

And my mom's too old to be trying to deter her pets because somebody wants to come unattended to the property or unannounced, and so she was bitten and injured because of that.

And so what I want to make clear is that the goats are miniature mayotonics, they don't get any bigger than what they are, and I do have photos of them, and I uploaded a photo in comparison of the size of my four-year-old grandson and the goats, they get no bigger than what they are.

She's had them for over a year on this property that I bring them to her to visit every single day, and had not had any problems up until the issues that we had with the caregiver.

And so, because they are visiting the property, they're saying that we have to require this variance to be able to have them on the property because they are considered agricultural animals, and so everything that I've submitted is basically what's going on, and if you guys want to view the space and measurements of the documents that I have of the property showing the footing and the setback on the playhouse and the shed, then that's there.

We don't have to build anything for the goats because they're not living on the property.

They do have a hay bell thing that's there for when they're back there with my mom, and on this playhouse is a porch roof that we have, and my mom sits under there with the goats, and when they're there, they can be out of the rain if it's raining.

Anytime that my mom wants to bring them in the house, we put a diaper on them and we take them in the house.

And she, you know, that's when the weather's bad.

So we're we're trying to be compliant as much as we can.

But when I first let her bring the goats there, I was understood by the document that it shows in code ordinance that you could have up to three miniature goats on a one-fourth acre, but I didn't realize that the property was a little less than one eight one-fourth acre when I had allowed it.

But I was trying to accommodate her for her handicap and the laws with her being a leaseholder there.

Is that your entire presentation?

Um, I would like for you guys to be able to approve that for her since it's uh an issue that we had to apply for, and also um approve the variants for the existing playhouse.

My grandson is four years old, and he's about as big as an eight-year-old, and so the if they would come out and if they would make an appointment to come out to do the actual measurements of the exterior and not the roof line of it, because the roof line has overhang on all sides of it, the measurements don't exceed a 10 by 10.

The measurements on the bigger playhouse that has the two skylights on it, it the measurements are actually a 10 by six by nine by four or something, and it equals up to that 10 by 10 on the measurements, and it's less than 15 feet high.

Okay, all right, and then the little shed is not even a 10 by 10, and it's only used for the purpose of um I put hay in there to and dog food and all her treats and stuff that she doesn't have space for because she has all those pets, all goes in there along with the lawn equipment.

Got it, all right.

I think any questions for the petitioners from members of the board.

Nope.

Um, did you have any other things you anything else you want?

I have the document.

I don't know if you guys want to view that.

It shows the clearance on do you have how many copies do you have?

I have two copies.

Why don't you give them to the to Mr.

Weestie?

Um, we'll say circulate.

I actually have three copies.

I can give you my copy.

Um, my copy has the like explanation on the black and white, but I can give you that one.

That's fine.

You have to be able to keep it.

You guys can have two of them, but this explains it a little bit better that I wrote on about the clearance, and then who wants this?

All right, at the back of the playhouse, you can see that there's just the little area where the toys are at.

It's but you can see the space between the fence line and the actual structure, okay.

You'll have this is our first goat case that I've that I've had.

So this is.

I know it's unusual, but like I said, she's from Kentucky.

Okay.

I've owned a farm.

She's had three heart surgeries.

And so whenever that time comes, then she would be.

Um would she be allowed to speak?

As long as there's time and she's been sworn in, she can speak.

Okay, you want to go?

Yeah, she may.

So you have a farm that you are housing the goats at the property in Franklin, Indiana.

Okay.

And I have a property in Johnson County in Greenwood, Indiana.

But they have so I have chickens and stuff at the property in Franklin, and I have the goats and the ducks at the property in Johnson County.

Okay.

So in the winter they have a place to stay.

Yes, the entire winter.

Yes, and they don't stay overnight at my mom's because she can't take care of them.

I'm the one that takes care of her animals 12 hours a day.

I'm there from 8 a.m.

to 8 p.m.

So I bring her goats so that she would be able to have her visitation and her therapeutic time, and then um I take them home with me.

I also take two of her pit bulls home with me because three is a bit much for her, but one stays there, you know, because she likes the protection and the security.

And so this is five days a week in the summer, three days a week in the winter.

Okay, got it.

Okay, and if I can accommodate her, I feel like she should be able to be accommodated as well because it's a lot for me to have to transport them back and forth.

But I do it because I know it's for her longevity and her um with her having dementia and Alzheimer's, it it helps.

Okay, so that's the reason why we only have them there.

All right, ma'am.

You need to say your name and address before you get started, please.

Yeah, 46203, come on.

Very good.

Just explain to them why the goats are there.

Well, I lived on a farm, and I would use animals.

And I had to come up here because I was you know really bad sick, and my daughter brought me up here and put me in a house, and uh I brought my little animal, some of my animals, my three dogs, my cats, and uh and the goats, and my goats, so you know, and then they started saying something about about him being there, so my daughter had to take care of that problem, so that I could keep my goats, and I take care.

I got three little dogs, I got four little cats, and you know they're all my babies, and and I just can't stand now, get rid of them.

It would hurt me really bad.

I also have photos for the comparison.

I thought maybe I uploaded a couple to the portal, but I also have photos for comparison from the size of the dogs to the goats, they're actually smaller than the dogs, and they're at full size because they're already over a year old.

Okay, so would you like to see them?

You can if you just want to hold them up, that's fine.

That doesn't that's fine.

Um, where's where's the farm that you grew up on?

In Kentucky, in Greensburg.

I also have land in Greenwood.

Wait a minute.

Greensburg, Greensburg.

Green County?

Yeah, do you are you familiar with Hayes Cemetery Road?

That's where my lot, that's where my land is at.

I owned a farm there.

You know, used to Dr.

Simmons' place.

Well, you remember Dr.

Simmons?

Yeah, Dr.

Simmons.

That's a crazy coincidence.

Yeah, we were neighbors.

Yeah, so you basically know the style down there.

People love the I guess very well.

I had a 1860s uh um uh log cabin.

Every one of her dogs Dr.

Simmons's cabinet.

Every one of her dogs have passed away at 18, 19 years old.

Oh, animals she's kept forever.

Yeah.

Oh my.

Wow.

So we uh we're on Mel Road.

You know where Mel Road is?

That's where my sister lives.

Oh my gosh.

Okay.

Dog sanctuary.

I may have to.

If we go any further, I'm gonna have to recuse myself, so let's be careful.

Okay, we bet we better continue on.

That's crazy.

Wow, okay.

Um, I I'm now I'm flabbergasted, so go go ahead.

Okay, so the miniature man tonic goats are the fainting goats.

They bred them for a reason.

Yeah.

To make them meotonic goats.

They're smaller version of goats, and they actually can't climb the fences.

They're very quiet, they're very vet-friendly.

They're very, you know, they're very able to be trained.

Are they yoga goats?

They fall.

Yeah.

Yeah.

Okay, yeah.

It entertains the children in the neighborhood.

Like, oh my god, your goat color.

But anyway, they're affectionate livestock, and they're known for their harmless genetic condition called meotonic congenita.

And um, it's it startles them and they freeze, but it's not nothing wrong with it.

But they stay under 100 pounds, and right now they're at maximum weight.

I haven't weighed them, but I'm guessing they're roughly I'd say about sixty-five or seventy at best, because my dogs are bigger than them, and my dogs are 85 pounds, and so that kind of explains that.

And this is kind of hard to see because it's in black and white, but this is the boy goat, and you can see that he has his little anti-breeding cloth on, so he can't do any bad things, yeah.

And this is my four-year-old grandson, and you can see how small this goat is compared to a four-year-old.

And then this is the three of them.

It's hard to see, but you see that there's I put little numbers on there.

There's one, two, three, and you can still see the size comparison.

This is at our property in Johnson County where they stay at.

That's the three you can see the size comparison to the cooler, a work cooler.

So it shows that they're still small.

This is comparing on a swing set with my grandson, that they all fit on one little tiny swing.

So they are still they're tiny and full-grown.

This is my mother's dogs, and there's no room on the swing for my grandson.

So this shows the comparison of how big the goats are compared to the dogs.

And this again shows the two of us-me and my grandson and three goats on the swing with us.

This shows my mother getting her therapy.

We're on there with her, my granddaughter, my grandson, all the goats.

If you can see those, and another comparison is her holding the goats, they're smaller than her dogs.

And so the reason for this is basically because of her Alzheimer's and her dementia, and it's it's very well explained in the doctor's notes as to the reason why.

And those were submitted on there.

As far as the building, like I said, they didn't have clear enough pictures for clearance because they didn't make an appointment to come out and get actual uh measurements.

But I did speak to whoever it was that I spoke to on the phone, and I said that I'd be willing to let them come out and get the actual measurements for both buildings, um, as well as the little add-on that was added.

A porch was added on the back of the house that's in that photo as well, but that was added prior to us purchasing the property.

I viewed your guys' photos all the way back, and it was probably about three years before we purchased the property, or two years before we purchased it.

But um, I'm dealing with the permitting department with that.

I still have to get the measurements for them on that as well, but I need them to come out and also measure.

So that's a big issue with the buildings is that they haven't gotten proper measurements because they haven't made appointment for me to lock my dogs, my mom's dogs away, and for them to get into the property, and a direct result from that of them coming out without making that appointment, caused her to get injured from her dog biting.

Okay, yeah.

That was the doctor, she could have fell.

So, 15 years old.

She got cancelled.

Yeah, they're bad.

The Dotson is right by her 24-7.

That dots and goes nowhere.

Yeah, and that's the problem.

The dots, the rest of them, they'll lick you to death, like I said.

But that dots and if she opens that door, the dog is out.

Like she, I would have to be there, or my sister, my daughter lives across the street.

She would have to be there to control the dog and put it inside, lock it in the laundry room, and then let you guys in the gate.

Because if you look in the photos that I gave you on the property that shows the view of the documents that I just gave you, you'll see that there's two fences on the north side and the south side.

There's one at the front of the house, and there's one at the back of the house.

You have to get through those two fences in order to even get back there to where the dogs are the goats are at.

But the Dotson, she's in the front yard with mom.

Okay.

So you've gotta you gotta get access, and the only access is to make an appointment.

All right.

Um I your time may be up at this point.

I don't know.

It's getting ready to be.

Okay.

Um, all right.

We're gonna there's obviously unless the the the lady that just walked in is a remonstrator, which I don't think she is, we're gonna go what's on the little question.

Oh, oh, I thought you looked familiar.

Okay, hi Carmen.

She don't look like a monster.

So we're gonna go to comments from staff.

And I believe that's Josh.

Yes, thank you, Chairman Von Dave and members of the board.

Uh just by way of clarification, I did um speak with the inspectors at BNS uh to talk a bit more about the setback side of things.

Uh my apologies, that was very last minute conversation, so it didn't make it into the report.

Um they did indicate that the place structure is no longer something they're taking a look at.

They did subsequently have another um I guess inspector go by, and they also indicated that uh the shed is no longer a concern of theirs as well.

They feel that the shed is within uh compliance, so that sort of wipes out the um setback side of things.

So we're down to the goats.

Now on to the goats.

This is a goat rodeo.

Let's go.

Um so I will admit I'm also not a goat expert.

Um, and taking a look at this um uh originally uh in in my research of it all, a myotonic or fainting goat uh did not appear to meet the qualifications or definitions of a pygmy miniature or dwarf goat.

Um I do recognize there are two uh breeds there, the Tennessee versus Texas, and that does impact the um uh I guess the acreage and the lot size of it all uh despite that even if the uh goats were classified as miniature goats, uh the ordinance does require, I believe it is four tenths of an acre uh for um the um allowance of goats uh quarter is it four tenths or a quarter of an acre?

A quarter, excuse me, a quarter of an acre, uh whereas the full-sized uh would require one full acre.

Um so either way, the lot is uh at roughly about, I think I had it at roughly about uh one tenth of an acre would be a little uh short of that that size.

Um and so that gets to kind of the um ordinance aspect of it all as well.

Um while there are a number of uh various fair housing things that I'm not the expert on, I will leave that to um council if if needed.

Um I'll simply say that uh the ordinance uh does not have a minimum for a variety of other um pets, whether that be rabbits, chickens, quails, pigeons, or ducks.

Also, does not prevent individuals from having emotional support animals.

What the ordinance does do is lay out the maximum number of adult animals permitted on a lot and the minimum lot size required for certain animals.

These goats qualify as barnyard animals under my understanding of HUD's guidance and the substantial burden is on the petitioner to indicate why the animals must be permitted by right under the ordinance, and and cannot serve the needed therapeutic purposes otherwise.

In staff's analysis, uh you know, that burden has not been met.

Um again, I'm I'm taking off the aspect of the shed there.

Uh, but staff taking a look at this, uh has found and and our analysis um indicates that you know no burden or excuse me, no practical difficulty exists, and therefore we do uh recommend the denial of that variance.

Okay, um Craig.

Craig, it's Chris.

If I could intervene, I had a couple questions or comments for the petitioner.

Go for it.

Um, those pictures that you were that you held up, does the board have copies of those?

No.

The picture.

And that's why I said I have a copy if you need them.

Okay, and what he's referring to as a regular mayotonic goat, these are miniature mayotonic goats.

My point is is if you've shown those to the board members, they're part of the record, so we'll have to hold on.

Oh, yeah, we're gonna have to hold on to those if that alright.

Yes, yeah.

And that's fine.

And I also had the printout from Google showing the pygmy miniature Nigerian and mine were specifically bred to be miniature mayotonic.

That's why they get no bigger than what they are.

And then um, and the lot size being um one tenth of an acre, they're putting them as residing there.

That's the big hypothesis on that, residing versus visiting for my mother's therapeutic.

My other my other question has to do with the side setbacks.

Uh Josh has indicated that that variance is no longer needed.

That's are you willing to withdraw that request?

If that variance is not needed, then I won't need the variance.

Then you guys can withdraw that.

There's nothing else being done to those two buildings.

You'll have to agree to withdraw it, and then the board will acknowledge that withdrawal.

Yeah, I I agreed to do that, withdraw it, and then the other issue would be the goats, as in their definition is residing there.

That means housing, and that means staying overnight, and that means being there more than a certain amount of hours per week and actually living on the property.

I need them to define visitation, the visiting, therapeutic, that needs to be defined.

Where does that in the code that shows that that's not allowed?

That's the billion dollar question.

What is it?

I mean, since they're not actually residing there and they're just coming there on business.

And I even tried to tell them I've got videos.

That's the reason why the neighbors complain because they see me take the goats from the property into the vehicle and leave with them and see them every day.

Go ahead, Josh.

One moment, please.

A clarification on the goats.

Um, that this breed, my understanding is that they do not get bigger than two feet-ish, right?

24 25 inches.

They said I think it's like the height of four inches, yes.

They come up to here.

And a pygmy is going to be again, I just looked it up.

Sixteen to twenty-three inches.

So they're gonna be, they start like this and then they're like this.

Yeah, so they're around it it's a difference of two inches.

Is my understanding?

Yeah, I mean, and on the code thing, it shows miniature pygmy and the other ones permitted with a half acre or a quarter acre, but that's for residing there.

And the definition of residing does not apply when they are not residing there.

All right.

Okay, Josh, what'd you find out?

Uh the closest thing I'm able to find, excuse me, is that the uh caretaker or owner of the animal must reside on the same lot as the animal.

Um I am not uh in my my quick research here.

I'm not able to find um a specific uh definition one way or another of residing.

Um I will say the definition of personal livestock does say the accessory activity of raising domestic poultry, rabbit, sheep, donkeys, mules, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera.

Um for use by the resident or occupant of the property.

Well, that's great.

Raising, buying, selling, eating.

It's about as gray as the difference between a pygmy goat and a mayo top, mayo, yeah.

She's the owner.

Has there been any any remonstrance at all to this petition?

No.

So none of the neighbors have said anything.

The first inspector that came out to look at the goats said that he thought that it was okay to have them there.

That's why he didn't bother with it.

Yeah.

Okay.

I'm confirming, but I do not because he even looked up the same thing that said the one-quarter acre or the miniatures or whatever he said we was a little under, but he didn't think people care.

We are in like a vast gray area of zoning ordinances in general in the United States of America at this point.

So Rod, what do you want to say?

So there's chickens all over that neighborhood.

So I understand I'm looking at the I'm looking at the regular text.

What question?

So your mom receives surf and from Domar's services.

Yes.

What kind of service you receive from them?

She receives counseling for her PTSD, her Alzheimer's or dementia, and some other, which I'm not going to.

Yeah.

So you can see that it's listed.

They should be listed on there.

How do the goats help your mom?

She just is she's attached to them.

If we take them away, it's a big burden on her because she's so emotionally attached.

Do they cause a great deal of stress?

They come for her.

We have no family other than my daughter and my grandkids, and that's the only social idea she gets.

Okay, thank you.

And she's on nursing care 12 hours a day, and I'm her care provider.

I'm the one that gets paid to take care of her.

So you know, she has no body.

Thank you.

It's hard.

My father passed away, he had dementia on Alzheimer's.

It is very hard.

And they get used to certain things almost like a child with autism.

Like my nephew, once they're used to having that schedule and that socialization, I'm gonna cry.

They get used to that, it's hard for them to break free.

It causes extreme amount of depression, it can cause issues with behaviors, it can cause outbursts, it can cause withdrawal.

I don't know if you've heard of heartbreak syndrome, but some people can die from that.

She's already got three surgeries behind her, and I don't want to put her through that.

So, all right.

Any other questions at all?

Josh, you got anything you're good.

This is a yeah.

Did you have a prepared statement?

No, I think the only thing I would say is, you know, just hold firm on staff's perspective.

Here is that you know, um, even if it was a miniature goat, if if if we align on that, uh, then again, the lot size is a quarter of an acre, um, at a tenth of an acre.

Uh three goats, or excuse me, at a quarter of an acre, three goats would be permitted at a tenth of an acre.

Uh can you read that if it says reside or visit?

It doesn't.

There's no specific information on that.

So they're there about a third of the time.

So, yeah.

Okay, I get it.

All right.

Are there any questions from members of the board?

Any more?

All right, we can go ahead.

I think we'll cast our ballots.

Appreciate it.

Thank you.

Oh, my ballot just fell off, Marty.

Sorry about that.

You can't tell you, it's done.

That's okay.

No, it fell off when I put it up.

Do we need this for record?

Um, yes, if I could make another statement.

We're done.

Oh, it's all over here.

And okay, like almost literally, because once they read this off, our hearing's most almost over soon.

On case 2026-UV2-008.

Rod Bohannan votes yes.

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

The variance is granted.

All right.

Um is it don't go anywhere.

Um is there any other additional business today?

We we do have some findings from prior hearings to adopt today.

All right, very well.

Very well then we are what?

Yep, then we are adjourned.

Thank you.

I take the floor to say hi to the I know I'm