Indianapolis Metropolitan Board of Zoning Appeals Division 3 Hearing on Verizon 5G Variances - September 23, 2020

On September 23, 2020 (though the chairperson opened the meeting referencing September 22, creating a date discrepancy), the Metropolitan Board of Zoning Appeals Division 3 held a public hearing to consider two variance petitions from Verizon Wireless for small cell wireless communications facilities (5G poles). The board consisted of Chairperson Craig E. Von Dalen and members Anatoly Boshenko and Mark Young (Valite absent). Legal counsel Chris Steinmetz and multiple planning staff were present. The meeting was conducted electronically due to COVID-19 restrictions.

Consent Calendar

• The board acknowledged seven automatic continuances (petitions 2020-DB3-038 through 2020-DV3-047) to the next hearing date of October 20, 2020, filed by registered neighborhood organizations or a city-county counselor.

Public Comments & Testimony

• Kevin Malley (349 West 46th Street): Supported a neighbor's proposal to modify pole placement; urged more consideration of aesthetics and placement near existing utilities.
• Jean Robertson (402 Buckingham Drive): Opposed the pole proposed in her front yard on Buckingham and Cornelius, citing reduced property values and health concerns. Requested the pole be placed on the Cornelius side rather than the front yard.
• Lori Surrand (401 Buckingham Drive): Opposed the pole, arguing neighborhood beauty (Butler Tarkington) is the primary attraction, not 5G. Questioned why an existing streetlight could not be used or replaced.
• Diane Hancock (327 Buckingham Drive): Opposed the pole 4 houses away; noted the area is not underserved and questioned future additional poles. Asked for assurances that more poles would not be needed.
• Danielle Havens (237 West 46th Street): Disagreed with using existing wood poles as a design standard; argued Verizon should provide higher-quality installations regardless of existing infrastructure. Noted alley right-of-way behind many houses.
• Rose Black (4061 Cornelius Avenue, submitted via text): Opposed placement diagonally from her house; requested pole be on existing electrical grid on 42nd and Cornelius if necessary.
• Written comments from others: Danielle urged placing poles in business areas; Martha Riley asked about benefits to non-Verizon customers; Lisa Doby questioned why wireless is considered a utility; Bill Grout wondered why Carmel gets more aesthetic poles.

Discussion Items

• Procedural Change: The board approved a petitioner request (moved by Mr. Young, seconded by Mr. Boshenko) to modify the hearing format: the petitioner gave a 20-minute general overview of 5G technology, followed by 5 minutes per case, with equal time allotted to remonstrators.
• Petitioner Presentation (Russell Brown, attorney):
  • Described 5G as the fifth generation of wireless technology, enabling faster speeds, lower latency, and supporting smart city, medical, and public safety applications.
  • Explained small cell facilities are necessary for dense network coverage; poles are typically placed in public rights-of-way and cannot be easily relocated without redesigning the network.
  • Argued that federal and state regulations limit local zoning reviews; the variance is needed because wireless equipment cannot be installed underground.
  • Proposed four pole types: wood poles, metal poles without lights, metal poles with lights, and mid-span poles (which become IPL property).
  • For case 2020 DV3033 (6 locations in Warren/Lawrence Townships), he detailed pole specifications and noted many locations are near above-ground utilities.
  • For case 2020 DV3037 (11 locations in Washington Township), he noted two mid-span poles (723 W 44th St and 245 W 40th St) must remain wood due to IPL requirements; agreed to paint other metal poles black.
  • Emphasized that denial would create a digital divide and underserved areas.
• Staff Recommendations:
  • Allison Richardson: Recommended denial for both cases. Main reason: underground utilities have been required since 1973 and petitioner failed to prove practical difficulty. Noted that burying utilities improves safety, aesthetics, and property values. Suggested all metal poles be black if approved.
  • Robert Ulenhae: For case 2020 DV3037, noted the 723 W 44th St pole is at the rear and could be approved conditionally if black. Otherwise, recommended denial due to impact on residential neighborhoods and potential interference with tree planting on private property. Stated that existing above-ground poles are legally non-conforming and not a valid precedent.
• Board Questions & Discussion:
  • Chairperson Von Dalen questioned whether Verizon is a utility or a luxury, citing billing practices. Brown argued that state/federal law grants right-of-way use and that internet access is now essential (e.g., remote schooling).
  • Boshenko asked about competition and whether other carriers will need their own poles; Brown confirmed they likely would.
  • Young asked about design differences between Indianapolis and Carmel; Brown noted Carmel has published aesthetic guidelines, while Indianapolis does not. Staff stated they are working on standards but currently recommend black poles.
  • Chairperson expressed disappointment that Indianapolis often gets lower-quality installations than suburbs; Brown agreed to black poles.
  • Brown clarified that pole heights are typically 10 feet higher than surrounding poles; typical utility poles range 35-55 feet.
  • Regarding co-location, Brown stated poles can structurally accommodate one additional carrier, but multiple carriers would require taller poles and more ground space.

Key Outcomes

• 2020 DV3033: Three votes cast (Boshenko: no, Young: no, Von Dalen: no). Denied. Continued for adoption of findings of fact.
• 2020 DV3037: Three votes cast (Boshenko: no, Young: no, Von Dalen: no). Denied. Continued for adoption of findings of fact.
• The board did not approve any variances in this hearing. All new 5G small cell poles were rejected.