BZA Division III Public Hearing - October 15, 2019
STREAMING COPY IN PREPARATION — RECORDING AVAILABLE FROM THE ORIGINAL SOURCE
Metropolitan Board of Zoning Appeals Division III Public Hearing - October 15, 2019
The Metropolitan Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA) Division III held a public hearing on October 15, 2019, at 6:15 PM. Chairperson Craig E. Von Dalen presided, with board members Marisal Gove, Anatoli Boschenko, Matthew Driver Draving, and Janice Golson Dunlop. The meeting addressed continuances, an expedited variance, and a residential fence height variance.
Continuances
- 2019 DB 3004 (Watermaker village, 8602-9010 Southeastern Avenue): Petitioner's attorney David Rutherford requested a 30-day continuance to November 19, 2019, to finalize conditions with staff. No opposition. Granted without additional notice.
- 2019 DV 3032 (South Meridian Place LLC, 1202 South Meridian Street and multiple West Morris Street addresses): Attorney David King requested continuance to November 19, 2019, pending review by the Stadium Village Business Association and a letter of support from Old South Side Neighborhood Association. No opposition. Granted without additional notice.
- 2019 UV 3010 (Rob Biswanger, variance of use): Attorney David King requested continuance to November 19, 2019, to appear before Warren Township Development Association and resolve staff commitments. No opposition. Granted without additional notice.
- 2019 M03-003 (7837 Morningside Lane): Petitioner filed an automatic continuance to November 19, 2019. Acknowledged by the board.
Expedited Cases
- 2019 UV 3012 (1440 East 86th Street, Washington Township): Request for variance of use and development standards to permit a liquor store within 50 feet of a protected district (100-foot minimum required). Petitioner Michael Rabinowich presented. No public opposition. Staff had no additional comments. Board voted 5-0 to approve.
Discussion Item: Fence Height Variance
- 2019 DV3035 (6528 Antry Terrace, Lawrence Township): Petitioner Brandon Lynn requested a variance to legally establish an 8-foot-tall fence where 6 feet is the maximum. Lynn explained that he had HOA approval, a 3.5-foot retaining wall behind his property made the fence appear shorter from neighbors' elevated lots, and he collected 22 letters of support (including from the neighbor who originally complained about drainage). The Greater Allisonville Community Council also voted unanimously in support. Staff recommended denial, arguing the retaining wall does not create a practical difficulty and that screening could be achieved with tall evergreens; they noted the height limits are for consistency and human scale. Board members questioned staff about the purpose of the height limit and noted confusion with fence companies selling illegal heights. Petitioner stated that if denied, he would have to modify the fence at a cost of approximately $2,200 plus $600 petition fee. Board voted 5-0 to approve the variance.
Key Outcomes
- All four continuances were granted to the November 19, 2019, hearing date without additional notice.
- 2019 UV 3012: Variance approved (5-0) for a liquor store at 1440 East 86th Street.
- 2019 DV3035: Variance approved (5-0) to allow an 8-foot fence at 6528 Antry Terrace.
- Meeting adjourned with no other business.
Meeting Transcript
Ron, are you ready? It's a call to order. This is a public hearing of the Metropolitan Board of Zoning Appeals, Division III. I am Craig E. Von Dalen, Chairperson of Division III. The other board members present are to my left, Marisal Gove and Anatoli Boschenko, and to my right, Matthew Driver Draving and Janice Golson Dunlop. Staff members present today from the Division of Planning are Heather Stevens, Senior Board Specialist and Secretary to the Board. Larry Callaway, Principal Planner 2, Robert Eulin Hakes, Senior Planner, Marlene Arejada, Senior Planner, and Alison Richardson, Senior Planner, who we are welcoming on board as a new member of the staff of the Department of Metropolitan Development. Keith Holdsworth is the current planning administrator. The board has copies of the zoning ordinance that will be incorporated by reference into the record of each case heard today. The proceedings of this hearing are governed by the board's rules of procedure. The expedited cases will be heard immediately after all requests for continuances or withdrawals. As each non-expedited case is called, petitioners and remonstrators interested in that particular case will please stand. Those who intend to testify will please remain standing and be sworn. Petitioners should be on your left and remonstrators on your right as you face the board. Those who testify will state their name and address for the record before beginning to testify. Petitioners and persons appearing in support of the case being heard shall have a maximum of 15 minutes for the presentation of evidence, statements, and arguments in support of the petition. Remonstrators and persons appearing in opposition to the petition shall have a maximum of 15 minutes for the presentation of evidence, statements and arguments in opposition to the petition. Staff will then present the administrators' comments regarding the petition. The petitioner will then be allowed five minutes for rebuttal and a summation of the case. Rebuttal must be limited to the subject matter of the initial presentations. Remonstrators will then be allowed five minutes for rebuttal of the petitioner's rebuttal evidence and a brief closing statement. No further evidence, statements, and or 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 signs on subject property at least 23 days prior to the hearing, the board may continue the petition. Anyone at this hearing who thinks complete and proper notice has not been given and would like the petition continued due to lack of proper notice must bring this matter to the board's attention at the beginning of the hearing. The board may impose various conditions or commitments as amendments before reaching a decision on certain petitions. The installation of landscaping and screening, the paving of parking area, the dedication of rights of ways are examples. These conditions and commitments are an integral part of the board's decision and must be met for a granted variance to be valid. Compliance with conditions imposed by the board must be proved by an affidavit of compliance submitted by the petitioner within 30 days of completion. Unless otherwise specified, an improvement location permit must be obtained to prior 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 the public hearing process is prohibited. Please be courteous and orderly at all times, and please be sure all cell phone ringers are turned off. Is there anyone in the audience who has any questions about our procedures? None being seen. If not, we'll consider special requests and continuances at this time. Yes, sir. Good afternoon. My name is David Rutherford. I'm an attorney on the Southeast Side of Indianapolis address at 8801 Southeastern Avenue. And I'm here on behalf of the petitioner in the second case on your new petitions docket 2019 DB 3004. Multiple addresses on Southeastern Avenue out in Franklin Township. This is a case we've been working on for three and a half years and involves the entire village of Watermaker. And it's kind of complicated. And so we are here to ask for a continuance. We have met with staff yesterday on some issues of staff's commitments or conditions that are proposed, and I think we're making progress.
openpublica.com