Metropolitan Board of Zoning Appeals Division III Hearing - December 19, 2023
STREAMING COPY IN PREPARATION — RECORDING AVAILABLE FROM THE ORIGINAL SOURCE
Metropolitan Board of Zoning Appeals Division III Public Hearing - December 19, 2023
The Metropolitan Board of Zoning Appeals Division III convened on December 19, 2023, at 6:15 PM, chaired by Joanna Taft, with members Percy Bland, Andrew Cantona (alternate), Roger Pohanon, and Rihanna Binder. Legal counsel Chris Steinmetz and planning staff were present. The board heard requests for continuances, an expedited docket of five petitions, and three full hearings on variances and special exceptions. The meeting began with a waiver of rules to allow expedited votes and consideration of special requests.
Consent Calendar
- 2023 SE3-008 (1102 Miley Ave): Special exception for religious uses including a food pantry; variance for a 15.5 ft tall, 1,600 sq ft pole barn with greater floor area and height than the primary dwelling and vehicular access from 11th Street. Approved unanimously (5-0).
- 2023 DV3-040 (8850 E 21st St): Variance of development standards to convert an existing motel into a multifamily dwelling with perimeter yards ranging from 0 to 5.5 ft (20 ft required). Approved unanimously.
- 2023 DV3-047 (2831 Kristen Dr W): Variance for a detached garage with a 5 ft south side yard setback and a concrete pad with a 2.5 ft setback (15 ft required). Approved unanimously.
- 2023 UV3-025 (809 Noble St): Variance of use and development standards to operate a community center and eating establishment with zero off-street parking spaces. Approved unanimously.
- 2023 DV3-045 (215 & 217 Dixon St): Variance of development standards for renovation and addition to an existing duplex, resulting in 33% open space (60% required), 2.7 ft north side yard setback (5 ft required), 0 ft south side yard setback, and 6.5 ft front yard setback (10 ft required). Originally a special request, moved to expedited after agreement with neighbors, then approved unanimously.
Public Comments & Testimony
- 2023 SE3-007 (Reagan Outdoor billboard at 1841 Ludlow Ave): Multiple remonstrators spoke in opposition. Pat Andrews (Decatur Township Civic Council and Marion County Alliance of Neighborhood Associations) led the opposition, joined by Chris Staub (Near East Side Community Organization), Jacqueline Gunn, Marjorie Kenley (Historic Urban Neighborhoods of Indianapolis), Calvin Gwynn (Indiana Landmarks), and others. They argued that approving the billboard would set a dangerous precedent, reversing a 50-year ban on billboards inside I-465, harm historic neighborhoods (including properties on the National Register), and that the petitioner had not demonstrated a good faith effort to relocate to commercial zones. They contested the legal interpretation of state statute, asserting that the city would not be liable for eminent domain costs because the property was sold before the law changed and the one-year filing window had expired.
- 2023 DV3-028 (SRMK Realty fence at 405 S Short Ridge Rd): No remonstrators present.
- 2023 UV3-023 (Quak Bowen second dwelling at 3319 Burkett St): No remonstrators present.
Discussion Items
Case 2023 SE3-007: Reagan Outdoor Advertising billboard relocation
- Petitioner Michelle Knoppenberger and Daniel McClendon (Reagan Outdoor corporate counsel) requested a special exception to relocate an off-premise advertising sign due to the I-69/I-465 interchange project (I-69 Finish Line). They also sought variances: increase sign height from 40 ft to 60 ft (amended from 70 ft), reduce setback from I-70 from 60 ft to 5 ft, and reduce radial spacing from other signs from 1,000 ft to 761 ft and 630 ft. They argued that state statute (Ind. Code 8-23-20-25.6) allows relocation within the county, and that denial would shift over $1 million in eminent domain costs to the city. They cited prior approvals for similar relocations.
- Staff recommended approval of the special exception but denial of all variances, citing lack of practical difficulty, safety concerns (distraction to motorists), and negative aesthetic impacts on protected districts.
- Board vote: Part A (special exception) approved 4-1 (Bohannon dissenting). Part B (variances) denied 0-5. Case continued for adoption of findings of fact.
Case 2023 DV3-028: SRMK Realty fence height and electric fence
- Petitioner Jamila Mintz (In & Out Unlimited) requested a variance of development standards for a 6 ft tall metal perimeter fence (3.5 ft max in front yards) and a variance of use and development standards for a 10 ft tall electrified fence with warning signs (electric fences and barbed wire not permitted). The property is used for commercial vehicle and RV storage. The petitioner argued the metal fence is for privacy and the electrified fence (described as a pulsating security measure, not lethal) deters theft. A letter of support from the Warren Township Development Association was read.
- Staff recommended denial of both, citing excessive height, use of barbed wire (disputed by petitioner), unverified amperage of the electrified fence, and potential dangerous precedent. The petitioner clarified the inner fence uses smooth wire, not barbed wire, and that the owner had been shocked without harm.
- Board vote: Part A (6 ft metal fence) approved 4-1 (Taft dissenting). Part B (10 ft electrified fence) denied 0-5. Case continued for findings.
Case 2023 UV3-023: Quak Bowen second dwelling at 3319 Burkett St
- Petitioner Quak Bowen requested a variance of use to allow a second primary dwelling on a single lot (existing structure built in 1980s, 1,386 sq ft, larger than the 720 sq ft maximum for a secondary unit). He stated he bought the property in 2001 with existing structures, paid fines and back taxes, and now wants to renovate the rear building for rental. The lot is zoned DA (Dwelling Agricultural) and is in a floodplain.
- Staff recommended denial, citing the ordinance allowing only one primary dwelling per lot to prevent overdevelopment, and noting the structure exceeds the allowable size for an accessory dwelling. No remonstrators appeared.
- Board vote: Approved 3-2 (Bohannon, Catona, Bland in favor; Binder, Taft opposed). Case continued for adoption of findings of fact.
Key Outcomes
- Expedited docket: All five petitions approved unanimously.
- 2023 SE3-007: Special exception approved; all variances denied. Case continued for findings.
- 2023 DV3-028: 6 ft metal fence approved; 10 ft electrified fence denied. Case continued.
- 2023 UV3-023: Variance approved (3-2). Case continued.
- The board also adopted revised findings of fact for 2023 UV3-020 and negative findings of fact for 2023 DV3-041.
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 to my right are Percy Bland and Andrew Cantona, who is an alternate serving from Division 1. We appreciate that. And then to my left is Roger Pohanon, and we are expecting Rihanna Binder soon. Legal counsel for the board today is Chris Steinmetz. Staff members present today from the Division of Planning are Eddie Oneya, Principal Panner 2, Jeffrey York, Principal Planner, Robert Ulenhaik, Senior Planner, Michael Weigel, Senior Planner, Noah Stern, 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 we 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 the 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 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 brief 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 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 boards 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 a question about our procedure? If not, before we hear special requests, I'll ask for a waiver of our rules of procedure to show the board allow the board to vote for all expedited petitioners, petitions and adopt the findings of fact without any additional testimony from the individual petitioners. So I need a motion. So move Bohanon. I need a second. Bland second. I'll now poll the board. Bland. Yes. Bohannon. Yes. Bender.
openpublica.com