Metropolitan Board of Zoning Appeals Division III Hearing - November 22, 2022
STREAMING COPY IN PREPARATION — RECORDING AVAILABLE FROM THE ORIGINAL SOURCE
Metropolitan Board of Zoning Appeals Division III Hearing - November 22, 2022
The Metropolitan Board of Zoning Appeals Division III met on November 22, 2022, at 1:00 PM in the Public Assembly Room of the City-County Building, Indianapolis, Indiana, under the chairmanship of Joanna Taft. The board considered several variance petitions, including signage disputes, commercial building setbacks, and storage additions, with staff recommendations ranging from denial to approval. Key discussions involved sign proliferation, protection of residential districts, and practical difficulties arising from government action.
Consent Calendar
- 2022-DV3-043 (1423 South State Avenue): Approved as an expedited petition without objection. The variance legally established an existing zero-foot south side setback and permitted a two-foot south setback for a building addition, subject to the commitment that the zero-foot setback applies only to the existing dwelling built in 1930; if demolished or replaced, the variance lapses.
Public Comments & Testimony
- City-County Councillor Dan Boots (District 3): Spoke in opposition to 2022-DV2-039 (6111 N. Keystone) and 2022-DV3-048 (6303 E. 82nd Street). He argued that Keystone Avenue suffers from "significant sign pollution" and that signs should be monument-style rather than pylon. For the Castleton area, he noted the adopted Castleton Plan calls for reducing digital and pole signs, and he urged denial of petitions that increase sign intensity. He expressed no objection to an existing illuminated pole sign or a dumpster at 6303 E. 82nd Street but opposed any digital display.
- Thomas Lorenz (Northwest Perry Neighborhood Association): Remonstrated against 2022-UV3-030 (4613 S. Harding Street), opposing a height increase from 40 to 60 feet for a relocated billboard. He stated the neighborhood recognized the need for relocation due to INDOT construction but argued the replacement should match the original dimensions, and no definitive evidence of roadway elevation change had been provided.
- Zach Decker (Carson Plus LLC, adjacent property owner): Opposed 2022-DV3-045 (3141 E. Thompson Road), asserting the petitioner had no recorded easement to use his property for access and that the hardship was self-imposed; the building could be redesigned or reduced in size.
Discussion Items
- 2022-DV2-039 (6111 North Keystone Avenue): Petitioner Lauren Obendorf (Green Sign Company) requested a variance for a fourth freestanding pylon sign and digital display within 400 feet of a protected district for Culver's restaurant. They argued the sign was essential for navigation and branding, with brightness controlled. Staff and Councillor Boots opposed on grounds of sign proliferation, proximity to residential (405 feet), conflict with 2019 sign regulations, and lack of practical difficulty. The board denied the petition 4-1 (Bohanan voted yes).
- 2022-DV3-042 (3510 South Keystone Avenue): Petitioner David Gilman requested a 40-foot tall pole sign with digital display for Richmond Exteriors, citing poor visibility from I-65 and seasonal advertising needs. Staff opposed due to height (20 feet allowed), digital display not permitted on pole signs, and proximity to protected district (210 feet). The board denied unanimously 5-0.
- 2022-UV3-030 (4613 South Harding Street): Petitioner Mike Lewinsky (Lamar Advantage) requested relocation and height increase (to 60 feet) for a billboard displaced by INDOT's I-465/I-69 expansion. The digital conversion request was withdrawn as an administrative mistake. Staff recommended approval, citing a government-imposed practical difficulty and Indiana Code 8-23-20-25.6. The motion passed 4-1 (Taft voted no).
- 2022-DV3-048 (6303 East 82nd Street): Petitioner Sean Smith (City Barbecue) sought variance for an internally illuminated pole sign with digital display and a dumpster in the front yard. After discussion, the digital display request was withdrawn. The board voted to split the ballot and then withdrew that motion; a single vote on the dumpster with a landscaping commitment passed 5-0.
- 2022-DV3-045 (3141 East Thompson Road): Petitioner Bill Niemier requested a 96.5-foot front setback (max 85 feet) for a new pharmacy building, citing constraints from an existing pylon sign on an adjacent parcel. The adjacent owner disputed access rights. Staff recommended denial, asserting the design could be rotated or reduced. The board voted 3-2 to approve (Radford, Brown, Bohanan yes; Bland, Taft no).
- 2022-DV3-047 (920 Mitthoefer Road): Petitioner Martin Tomey requested a building addition with 24-foot height and 15-foot rear transitional yard for an auto repair shop. He argued roof pitch needed to avoid water damage, and bad weather hindered vehicle storage. Staff opposed citing overdevelopment and no practical difficulty. The board approved 3-2 (Taft, Brown, Bohanan yes; Radford, Bland no).
Key Outcomes
- 2022-DV2-039: Denied (4-1) – continued for adoption of negative findings of fact.
- 2022-DV3-042: Denied (5-0) – continued for adoption of negative findings of fact.
- 2022-UV3-030: Approved (4-1) – continued for adoption of positive findings of fact; digital conversion request withdrawn.
- 2022-DV3-048: Approved (5-0) – dumpster portion only, with commitment to work with staff on landscaping; digital display request withdrawn.
- 2022-DV3-045: Approved (3-2).
- 2022-DV3-047: Approved (3-2).
- 2022-UV3-029 (1009 West Edgewood Avenue): Continued to January 17, 2023, at petitioner's request.
- 2022-UV3-033 (8020 Brookville Road): Withdrawn by petitioner; $2,044 filing fee transferred to a future rezoning petition, acknowledged by board.
- 2022-DV3-044 (111 Albert Drive): Withdrawn by petitioner, acknowledged.
- 2022-UV3-032 (10859 E. Washington Street): Continued to December 20, 2022, at petitioner's request.
- 2022-DV3-046 (1321 Sturm Avenue): Automatically continued to December 20, 2022, due to a timely neighborhood organization request; petitioner intends to amend with new notice.
Meeting Transcript
I'm going to call this meeting to order. This is a public hearing of the Metropolitan Board of Zoning Appeals, Division III. I'm Joanna Taft, Chairperson of Division III. Other board members present today are Percy Bland Jr. to my right, Roger Bohannan to my left, Cameron Radford to my far right, and Bart Brown to my immediate left. Staff members present today from the division of planning are Eddie Honeya, Principal Planner 2, Robert Ulenhake, 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 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 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, 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 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 screening, the paving of parking area, and the dedication of rights away are examples. These contingent 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. 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? If not. So I actually, before we hear the special requests, I'm going to 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 without any additional testimony from the individual petitioners. So I need a motion from the second. Second Brown. Bland. Yes. Bohannon? Yes. Bradford. Yes. Brown. Yes. Taft, yes. We will we will consider special requests and continuances at this time.
openpublica.com