Metropolitan Board of Zoning Appeals Division III Hearing - July 21, 2021
STREAMING COPY IN PREPARATION — RECORDING AVAILABLE FROM THE ORIGINAL SOURCE
Metropolitan Board of Zoning Appeals Division III Hearing - July 21, 2021
The Metropolitan Board of Zoning Appeals, Division III, held a public hearing on Wednesday, July 21, 2021, at approximately 3:00 PM. Acting Chairperson Ron Hampton presided, with board members Janice Golson Dunlap, Tony Bushinko, Catherine Chi, and Jim Rollinson. The board heard several continuance requests, an expedited docket, and six full hearing petitions, covering signage variances, an affordable housing development, a home-based ministry, and residential fence and lot variances. Votes were conducted by roll call.
Consent Calendar
- The board approved a waiver of the rules of procedure to allow a single vote on all expedited petitions and their findings of fact. Motion carried 5-0.
- The expedited docket (cases 2021 DV3030, 2021 DV3033, 2021 DV3034, 2021 UV3008, 2021 UV3009) was approved unanimously (5-0).
Special Requests, Continuances & Withdrawals
- Case 2021 SE3001 (1722 Olive Street): A one-month continuance to August 17, 2021, with additional notice, was granted unanimously (5-0) at the request of petitioner Sarah Walters, due to address and ownership issues.
- Case 2021 UV3010 (1822 Cornell Avenue): A continuance to August 17, 2021, without additional notice, was granted unanimously (5-0) to allow petitioner to confirm IPL pole setbacks.
- Case 2021 DV3031 (5859 Forest Lane): A timely automatic continuance to August 17, 2021, was acknowledged by the board.
- Case 2021 DV3028 (2825-2849 Central Avenue/507 E 29th Street): A request to move this case to the expedited docket was denied after a remonstrator appeared; the case was heard in the full docket.
Public Comments & Testimony
- For 2021 DV3028 (Central Avenue affordable housing), remonstrator Andre Solomon (2916 Central Avenue) expressed opposition specifically to the inclusion of 14 permanent supportive housing units for formerly homeless individuals, citing safety concerns, drug use issues reported at a similar facility (Penn Place), and the proposed 50-foot building height in a predominantly residential area. He noted he is a board member of the Mapleton Fall Creek Neighborhood Association, which voted to support the project, but he spoke as an individual. He requested that the 14 units be placed on the first floor and asked about on-site security.
- For 2021 UV3007 (4017 South State Avenue), remonstrator (neighbor) testified against the religious office and illuminated 12 sq ft sign, stating the sign is too large for the D3 residential zone, creates light trespass, and that the petitioner’s Airbnb and other activities generate excessive traffic and parking issues. She claimed the petitioner had a history of neighbor disputes and that the office could be located in a commercial area. A petition with nine remonstrator signatures was presented.
- For 2021 DV3032 (5754 Hillside Avenue), a neighbor voiced concerns about pedestrian safety due to the fence encroaching into the right-of-way and blocking sight lines, especially given cut-through traffic and nearby high school.
- For 2021 DV3036 (Fletcher Avenue), remonstrator James Dial (1444 Fletcher Avenue) expressed concerns about fire safety and structural damage due to the proposed 5-foot separation between new homes and his property. He welcomed the development but sought adequate spacing.
Discussion Items
2021 DV3025 – Krispy Kreme Sign (6022 E 82nd Street)
Petitioner (Anchor Sign/Krispy Kreme) requested a variance for a 15-foot tall pylon sign within 300 feet of existing signs. After discussion, the petitioner and Councilman Dan Boots jointly requested a 30-day continuance to explore a 10-foot monument sign consistent with the Castleton Strategic Revitalization Plan. The board continued the petition to August 17, 2021, with notice (motion 5-0). Staff recommended that the petitioner also consult with the Allisonville Community Council and clarify sign square footage.
2021 DV3026 – Sign at 9605 E Washington Street
Petitioner Raymond Mandarino (Synorama) requested a variance for a third freestanding pole sign (17.5 ft, 64 sq ft, digital display) on the property. Staff recommended denial because the site can function with existing signage, the digital display is prohibited on pole signs, and the sign is within 600 feet of a protected dwelling district. The petition was denied (1 yes, 4 no).
2021 DV3028 – Affordable Housing at 2825-2849 Central Avenue
Petitioner Mapleton Fall Creek Development Corporation (Joe Calderon) requested variances for a 50-foot, four-story multifamily building (max 35 ft allowed), reduced transitional yards, and less interior parking lot landscaping. The project includes 100% affordable units, with a mix of AMI levels and 14 permanent supportive housing units. Staff supported the request due to the site’s location in a transit-oriented development area and compatibility with the Red Line plan. The remonstrator’s concerns were addressed. The board approved the petition unanimously (5-0) with commitments for a living wall and bus stop collaboration with IndyGo.
2021 UV3007 – Religious Office & Sign at 4017 S State Avenue
Petitioner Uche Anogu (Onyx House) requested a variance of use (office for religious use not permitted in D3) and a 12 sq ft wall sign (max 6 sq ft). He testified that the garage is used for his online ministry (no profit, no employees currently, two unpaid interns possible) and that a similar variance was granted to nearby Joyce House (adult daycare). Staff recommended denial, citing self-imposed hardship, lack of pedestrian infrastructure, and suburban neighborhood typology. The remonstrator raised concerns about traffic, parking, and a sign that is already larger and illuminated. The board approved the petition (3 yes, 2 no) with conditions that the sign illumination remain off and an encroachment license for the fence portion be pursued. The petitioner committed to not hiring employees and to addressing neighbor concerns.
2021 DV3032 – Fence at 5754 Hillside Avenue
Petitioner Lisa Rainey sought to legalize a 50-inch tall, 50% opaque picket fence that encroaches into the right-of-way and within the clear sight triangle. Staff recommended denial due to safety concerns. The petitioner presented a strong neighborhood support petition (28 residents) and offered commitments to obtain an encroachment license and not place signs outside the fence. The board approved the variance (3 yes, 2 no).
2021 DV3036 – Two Homes at 1448-1450 Fletcher Avenue
Petitioner Mark Crouch requested variances for reduced front setback (8 ft vs. 18 ft), reduced separation between dwellings (5 ft vs. 10 ft), and reduced open space (50% vs. 60%). Staff recommended approval with conditions: increase front setback to 10 ft and avoid identical building designs. The petitioner agreed to increase the separation from the west neighbor from 5 ft to 7 ft to address fire safety concerns and confirmed a firewall would be installed. The board approved the petition unanimously (5-0).
Key Outcomes
- Approved (5-0): Expedited docket; continuances for SE3001, UV3010; DV3028 (affordable housing); DV3036 (Fletcher homes).
- Approved (3-2): UV3007 (religious office/sign); DV3032 (fence).
- Denied (1-4): DV3026 (sign at 9605 E Washington).
- Continued to August 17, 2021: DV3025 (Krispy Kreme sign) with notice; DV3031 automatic continuance.
- All decisions on denied and approved petitions include adoption of findings of fact in subsequent meetings.
Meeting Transcript
Good afternoon. This is a public hearing of the Metropolitan Board of Zoning Appeals, Division III. I am Ron Hampton, Acting Chairperson of Division III. The other board members present are Janice Golson Dunlap, Tony Bushinko, Catherine Chi, Jim Rollinson. Legal counsel for the board today is Chris Steinmetz. Staff members present from the Division of Planning are Larry Callaway, Principal Planner 2, Robert Ulenhaik, Senior Planner, Molina Yurita, Senior Planner Planner, Genesis Hill, Associate Planner, Heather Stefan, Senior Specialist and Secretary to the Board. Matt Pleasant is the current planning administrator. The board has copies of zoning and ordinances which 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 support 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, or arguments will be heard unless it is at the discretion of the board. Please limit your time. I'm sorry, 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 notice sign on the subject property at least 23 days prior to the hearing, the board may continue the petition. Anyone at this hearing who thinks complete and proper notice has not been given and would like the petition continued due to lack of proper notice must bring this matter to the board's attention at the beginning of the hearing. The board may impose various conditions or commitments as amendments before reaching a decision on certain petitions. The installation of landscaping and screening, the paving of parking area, and the dedication of rights of way are examples. These conditions and commitments are an integral part of the board's decision and must be met for granted variants 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 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 board members, contacting members of the board regarding a matter pending before the board outside this public hearing process is prohibited. All voting today will be done by roll call. I will individually reach read each board member's name and ask them to vote yes or no. Please be courteous and orderly at all times and please be sure to turn off all cell phone ringers. Before we hear a special request, I would ask for a waiver of the rules of procedure to allow the board to vote on all expedited petitions and adopt their findings of fact as a single vote rather than voting each petition. Is there a motion? Is there a second? Second. Well now ask for a vote. Uh Golson Dunlap. Yes. Boshinko. Boshinko, yes. She, yes. Rollinson? Yes.
openpublica.com