Metropolitan Board of Zonate Appeals Division III Public Hearing - February 15, 2022
STREAMING COPY IN PREPARATION — RECORDING AVAILABLE FROM THE ORIGINAL SOURCE
Metropolitan Board of Zonate Appeals Division III Public Hearing - February 15, 2022
This public hearing of the Metropolitan Board of Zonate Appeals, Division III, was called to order at 6:15 PM on February 15, 2022, by Acting Chairperson Joanna Taft. Board members present were Percy Bland Jr., Cameron Bradford, Brian Hannon, and Joanna Taft (four members total). Legal counsel Chris Steinmetz was present. The meeting addressed continuance requests, an expedited docket, a contested special exception for transitional housing, and a variance for a three-story two-family dwelling. Votes were conducted by roll call.
Consent Calendar
- Expedited Petitions (unopposed): The board voted unanimously (4-0) to approve all expedited petitions: 2022 DV3037 (variance for lot deficiencies at 7540 Fall Creek Road) and 2021 UV2023 (variance for manufactured home at 2307 Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. St.). No opposition was voiced. Findings of fact were to be adopted.
- Continuances: Four continuance requests were approved unanimously (4-0) to the March 15, 2022 hearing:
- 2021 DV3057 (8150 N. Meridian) – requested by petitioner to allow more community input.
- 2022 DV3002 (location not specified) – petitioner requested time to address staff concerns.
- 2021 UV3017 (5930 Brookville Road) – petitioner sought continuance due to only four board members present and risk of split vote.
- 2022 UV3001 (5990 E. Raymond St.) – staff noted petitioner wanted to amend and re-notice.
Public Comments & Testimony
- 2021 SE 3003 (2659 Sutherland Ave., transitional housing):
- Petitioner (Sherlin Hubbard, tenant/operator) and supporters (Marcus Crouch, Keith Russell, Gary Allen): Argued for housing 16 women (two per bedroom) to maintain financial viability and avoid displacing residents who had found stability. They claimed the facility provides mental health support, has resolved earlier issues, and is a legitimate nonprofit (501(c)(3) reinstated after brief revocation). They opposed limiting to 8 residents as staff recommended, stating it would force them to close or displace people.
- Remonstrators (neighbors): Samantha DeWester (Fall Creek Place resident), Tom Homan, Austin Brandt, Rachel Weigler, and Nicholas Barros testified in opposition. They described ongoing problems: loitering, public urination, violence, registered sex offenders, burglaries, excessive emergency calls, and unauthorized use of the property as a boarding house. They argued the operator is not a qualified nonprofit, the building is unsafe (basement without emergency exits), and the operator has shown disregard for regulations. They requested denial, stating the neighborhood deserves better and legitimate services exist elsewhere.
Discussion Items
- 2021 SE 3003 – Special Exception for Transitional Housing:
- Staff Presentation (Eddie Honeya): Defined transitional living quarters and noted the only use-specific standard is harmony with neighborhood character, which is met by the existing dwelling. Staff recommended approval only if limited to 8 residents in the primary dwelling (based on two per bedroom and group home analogy), with an amended plan of operation. The petitioner had originally proposed 14 residents, but now operates 16. Staff raised concerns about self-imposed hardship and lack of enforcement mechanisms.
- Board Deliberation: The petitioner rejected staff’s 8-resident limit. The board considered imposing conditions: 16 female residents, 90-day stay limit, and submission of an amended plan of operation for administrative approval. Staff recommended denial of 16 residents. After extended discussion, the board voted on that package.
- 2021 DV3058 (1523 Marlowe Ave. – three-story two-family dwelling):
- Petitioner (Miguel Hanza, Marcus Crouch): Explained that a prior variance for a single-family dwelling was used to obtain permits, but after construction began, a stop-work order was issued because the building was built as a duplex (two-family) and three stories. They argued the mistake was not theirs (permits were approved), the structure is nearly complete, and demolition or redesign would cause financial ruin. They requested approval of all variances as built.
- Remonstrator (David Reston, Holy Cross Neighborhood Association): Opposed the project, stating construction continued after a stop-work order, the building is out of character, and the developer was not communicative. He supported staff’s recommendation for denial or reduction to 2.5 stories.
- Staff (Eddie Honeya): Recommended denial of the three-story two-family dwelling as proposed, but offered a compromise: approve variances for setbacks, open space, and alley access (except height) if the structure were reduced to 2.5 stories with a pitched roof. Staff noted the original variance was for a less intensive single-family use, and the current height and massing negatively impact neighbors. The vehicular access from Marlowe Ave. was deemed necessary due to an alley obstruction; staff supported that variance separately.
- Board Deliberation: The board voted first on the vehicular access (Part A) and then on the remaining variances (Part B).
Discussion Items
- 2021 SE 3003 – Transitional Housing: The board debated the appropriate number of residents and length of stay. The petitioner initially asked for 16 residents with a 30-day stay, later revised to 90 days. Remonstrators from Fall Creek Place neighborhood detailed ongoing problems (loitering, sex offenders, police calls, lack of services). Staff emphasized that the petitioner had not followed prior conditions and that 16 residents exceeded reasonable capacity. The board ultimately voted on a motion to approve with conditions (16 women, 90 days, amended plan), which failed.
- 2021 DV3058 – Height and Density Variance: The board considered the conflict between the original single-family variance and the current two-family three-story construction. Staff and remonstrators argued the building is out of scale and illegally constructed. The petitioner cited financial hardship and reliance on city approvals. The board split on whether to approve the full request.
Key Outcomes
- 2021 SE 3003 (Transitional Housing) – Denied: Motion to approve special exception for 16 female residents, 90-day stay, with amended plan for administrative approval failed 1-3 (Bland yes; Radford, Hannon, Taft no). The petition is denied; findings of fact to be adopted.
- 2021 DV3058 – Partial Approval & Continuance:
- Part A (Vehicular access from Marlowe Ave.): Approved 3-1 (Bland no; Radford, Hannon, Taft yes). Findings to be adopted.
- Part B (Balance of variances for three-story two-family dwelling): Tie vote 2-2 (Hannon, Taft yes; Bland, Radford no). Due to indecisive vote, automatically continued to March 15, 2022 hearing.
- Expedited Petitions: Approved 4-0 with no conditions.
- All Continuances: Granted 4-0.
- Adjournment: Meeting adjourned after adoption of findings for expedited petitions and 2021 UV1033.
Meeting Transcript
I'm going to call this meeting to order. This is a public hearing of the Metropolitan Board of Zonate Appeals, Division III. I'm Joanna Taft, acting chairperson of Division Three. Other board members present to my left, Percy Bland Jr. Behind me, Cameron Bradford and Brian Hannon. Legal counsel for the board today is Chris Steinmetz. Staff members present today from the division of planning are Eddie Honeya, Principal Planner 2, Robert Ulenhake, Senior Planner, Marlene Irajeta, Senior Planner, Genesis Hill, Associate Planner, Heather Steffen, Senior Specialist, and Secretary to the Board. Matt Pleasant is the current planning administrator. The board has copies of the zoning ordinances that would 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 should 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 administrator's comments regarding the petition. The petitioner will 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's at the discretion of the board. Please limit your testimony and evidence to the matters covered in statutory requirements, which must be met in order for the board to grant a variance. If the petitioners have failed to comply with all with all notice requirements as stipulated by the board's rules of procedure, including posting of the notice signed and 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 must bring this matter to the board's attention at the beginning of the meeting. The board may impose various conditions or commitments as amendments before reaching a decision on certain petitions. The installation of landscaping screening, the paving of parking area, and the dedication of rights away 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 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. 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 will 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 voting on each petition separately. So I'm going to need a motion. And a second. I'll now ask for a vote. Bland. Bland, yes. Radford. Hannon. Hannon, yes. Taft, yes. Is there anyone in the audience who's any quite has any questions about our procedures? If not, we'll consider special requests and continuances at this time.
openpublica.com