Metropolitan Board of Zoning Appeals Division III Public Hearing - January 18, 2022
STREAMING COPY IN PREPARATION — RECORDING AVAILABLE FROM THE ORIGINAL SOURCE
Metropolitan Board of Zoning Appeals Division III – January 18, 2022 Hearing Summary
The Metropolitan Board of Zoning Appeals, Division III, held a public hearing on January 18, 2022, at 6:15 PM (18:15 UTC) under Acting Chair Craig E. Von Dalen. Board members present: Percy Bland Jr., Roderick Bohanan, Cameron Radford, and Brian Hannon. Legal counsel Chris Steinmetz and planning staff attended. The meeting addressed continuances, withdrawals, an expedited docket, and two contested variance cases.
Consent Calendar
- Rules waiver: Unanimous vote to allow a single roll-call vote on all expedited petitions.
- Case 2021 UV 3018 (withdrawal and fee transfer to rezoning): Motion passed unanimously.
- Case 2021 UV1029 (3301 North Raceway Road): Continued to April 19, 2022 with additional notice (unanimous).
- Case 2021 DV3-059 (77 East 70th Street): Moved to expedited docket (unanimous).
- Case 2021 UV 3015 (8440 West 82nd Street): Moved to expedited docket (unanimous).
- Case 2021 DB3-058 (1523 Marlowe Avenue): Continued to February 15, 2022 with notice (unanimous).
- Case 2021 DV3-057 (8150 North Meridian Street): Continued to February 15, 2022 with new notice (unanimous).
- Case 2021-DV3-056 (4360 North Keystone Avenue): Withdrawal acknowledged.
- Expedited petitions: Three cases (2021 D V 3061, 2021 D B 3059, 2021 U V 3015) approved unanimously in a single vote.
Public Comments & Testimony
- During the continuance discussion for Case 2021-SE3-003 (2659 Sutherland Avenue), several individuals representing the petitioner spoke in opposition to the requested continuance. Marcus Crouch, Shalana Hubbard (volunteer manager for a nonprofit), Regina Allen (owner of Project Safe Haven), and Keith Russell (property owner) urged the board to proceed with the hearing rather than grant the continuance, citing financial and logistical burdens. Despite their statements, the board voted 3–2 to continue the case.
Discussion Items
Case 2021 DV3038 – 8860 Zionsville Road – Sign Variance
- Petition: Legacy Zionsville Properties LLC sought a variance to install a third monument sign along Zionsville Road, within 145 feet of an existing freestanding sign to the south and 182 feet of a freestanding sign to the north (300-foot separation required).
- Arguments: Petitioner Joe Calderon explained that the subject office building cannot use two nearby signs owned by others (a Traders Point shopping center sign and a sign for 8870 Dr. Isaac’s building). The proposed sign would match the Traders Point style and was approved by the north adjoining owner. The Pike Township Residents Association voted unanimously to support the variance after design revisions.
- Staff position: Staff recommended denial, stating that existing wall signage and a multi-tenant sign at the southwest corner provide sufficient identification, and that approval would undermine the separation requirement intended to prevent sign proliferation.
- Board questions: Members clarified ownership of the nearby signs and confirmed the petitioner’s commitment to the specific sign elevation.
- Outcome: Approved 5–0, conditioned on the sign elevation agreed with the community.
Case 2021 DV3055 – 919 Eastern Avenue – Deck Variance
- Petition: David Johnson and Jennifer Morrow (by Cindy Thrasher) requested variances to legally establish and expand an existing deck: zero-foot north side setback, five-foot separation between dwellings, eight-foot rear setback, and 42% open space.
- Arguments: The deck predated the owners’ purchase and a 2020 variance for a room addition. They offered to reduce the rooftop addition to meet a three-foot setback and remove a nine-foot privacy fence to six feet. The north neighbor expressed support.
- Staff position: Staff recommended approval of the eight-foot rear setback and 42% open space due to the lot’s substandard depth, but recommended denial of the zero-foot side setback and five-foot separation, citing fire safety, access, and precedent concerns.
- Board questions: Discussion focused on the deck’s foundation and the feasibility of moving it back three feet.
- Outcome: The board voted separately. Part A (eight-foot rear setback and 42% open space) approved 5–0. Part B (zero-foot north side setback and five-foot separation) approved 4–1 (Bland voted no). The petition was continued for adoption of revised findings of fact.
Key Outcomes
- Administrative actions: All continuances, withdrawals, and the expedited docket passed unanimously.
- Case 2021 DV3038 (sign variance): Approved 5–0 with a commitment to the sign elevation.
- Case 2021 DV3055 (deck variance): Part A approved 5–0; Part B approved 4–1; continued for findings.
- Continuance of Case 2021-SE3-003: Over petitioners’ objections, the board voted 3–2 (Bland and Von Dalen dissenting) to continue to February 15, 2022 without additional notice, citing a remonstrator’s COVID-related request.
Meeting Transcript
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, Acting Chairperson of Division II and an alternate for today. The other board members present are Percy Bland Jr., Roderick Bohanan, Cameron Radford, welcome aboard. Brian Hannon, welcome aboard, and myself. Legal counsel for the board today is Chris Steinmetz. Staff members present today from the Division of Planning are Eddie Onea, Principal Planner 2. Robert Ulenhaik, senior planner, Marlene, senior planner, Genesis Hill, associate planner. Heather Stevens, senior specialist and secretary to the board. Matt Pleasant 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 will 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 mixed 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 and petitioners' 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 testimony and evidence to the matters covered in the statutory requirements, which must be met in order for the board to grant a variance. If the petitioners have failed to comply with all notice requirements as stipulated by the board's rules of procedure, including posting of the notice signed on 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 a parking area and the dedication of rights of ways are examples. These conditions are commitments 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 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 for of a petition for judicial review of a book 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. All voting today will be done by roll call. I will individually 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 all cell phone ringers are turned off. Before we hear special requests, I'll ask for a waiver of our rules of procedure to allow the board to vote for all expedited petitions and adopt their findings of fact in a single vote rather than vote voting on each petition separately. Do I hear a motion to do so? Bohanan, so move. Thank you. Do I hear a second? Thank you. I'll now ask for a vote.
openpublica.com