I'm going to call this meeting to order.

This is a public hearing of the Metropolitan Board of Zoning Appeals, Division 3.

I'm Joanna Taft, Chairperson of Division 3.

Other board members present today are Rod Bohannon, Brianna Bender, Percy Bland, and Brian Hannon.

Legal counsel today is Chris Steinmetz.

Staff members present today from the Division of Planning are Eddie O'Neill, current planning administrator, Bryce Patts, current planning manager, Robert Udlinhag, senior planner, Michael Weigel, senior planner, Noah Stern, Senior Planner, and Marty Weiste, specialist and secretary to the board.

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 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 administrator's comments regarding the petition.

The petitioner then 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 are 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 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 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 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 commitment 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 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.

There are five members present today.

It takes three votes to take any action on any request.

If uh we will take this into consideration when hearing requests for continuance, if you're this is not gonna read that today.

Um board members, you've been provided meeting minutes for our August 19th 2020 meeting.

If there are no deletions or additions, I will take a motion for their approval.

Is there a motion?

Bohannon so move.

Is there a second?

Hannon, second.

And I'm gonna poll the board of who was present.

I was not present last month.

Um Hannon?

Yes.

Bland, yes.

Bohannon.

Yes Bender.

Yes.

And Duncan is not here.

Um, is there anyone in the audience who's any questions about our procedure?

Okay, 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 without any additional testimony from individual petitioners.

So I need a motion.

Oh Hannah so moved.

I need a second.

I'm gonna now poll the board.

Bohannon.

Bohanna, yes.

Bender?

Yes.

Uh Hannon?

Yes.

Bland?

Yes.

And Taft, yes.

We will consider special requests and continuances at this time.

Good afternoon, Chairman Taft, members of the board.

My name is David Gilman.

My address is 211 South Ritter Avenue, suite H 46219.

I have three items on your agenda today that I need your consideration.

The first item is item number four, two oh two five DV3028 1305 Lichenberg Road.

We're continuing to work with the staff on an elevation sample of a site plan and a rendering of our storage building.

And we would ask that do you allow us a 30-day continuance so that staff has time to review that provide comments in their staff report for October?

And we would ask that that uh continuance be without new notice.

Is there anyone in the audience who has an interest in 2025 DB 3028 and is against the continuance?

Okay, let's hear from staff.

Thank you, Chairferson Taft members of the board.

Staff has no objection to this request continuing this petition to October 21st, 2025 hearing without additional notice unless any new revision requires that notice.

Okay.

I need a motion.

Bohanon so move.

I need a second.

Bland second.

I'm gonna pull the board.

Bohannan.

Okay, yes.

Bender.

Bender, yes.

Um Taft, yes.

2025 DV3028 has been continued to our October 21st hearing.

Thank you.

Um the second item I have on your agenda is number 12, um 2025 DV3025-980 South Kentley Avenue.

Uh staff has um offered a reduced setback.

Um we would like some time to do some field measurements with uh my client's business to make sure that that reduced setback still allows the maneuvering area that he has asked for.

Um and in order to do that, we we would like a 30-day continuance, and hopefully we can come back uh with um uh an approval uh from the staff and and from my client and uh maybe expedite to stock it.

Okay, is there anyone in the audience who is interested in 2025 DB 3025 and is against the continuance request?

Okay, let's hear from staff.

Thank you, Chairperson Taft and members of the board.

Staff has no objection to the continuance that would be without new notice to October 21st.

Okay.

Um I will pull the board.

Um yes, bender motion.

I need a motion.

Bohanan move.

I need a second.

Hannon second.

I'm gonna pull the board.

Uh Bohanan.

Bohanna, yes, bender, bender, yes, Hannon, yes, land, yes, and Taft.

Okay, 2025 D V three zero two five is continued to our October 21st hearing.

Thank you.

And the very last item on your agenda number 16, 2025 UV 3026, common address of 2901 North Coast Road.

Um, we are continuing to work with our neighborhood and our community for their support.

Um we do have representatives here to speak in support of the petition.

Um again, they would have no objection to the continuance.

Um we will be ready to move forward on the 21st.

I just I'm waiting on a couple more responses uh for uh for support from the community.

So you're asking for a continuance?

Yes, um okay.

So is there anyone in the audience who is interested in 2025 UV 3026 and is against the continuance request?

Okay, let's hear from staff.

Thank you, Chairperson Taft, members of the board.

Being that this is the first request, staff is unopposed.

And that would be um I'm sorry, did I miss somebody that wanted to speak against the continuance?

No.

Okay, I'm sorry, go ahead.

Um, yeah, just reiterate staff is not opposed.

That would be to October 21st without new notice.

All right, um, I need a motion.

Bohan and so move.

I need a second.

Hannon second.

Okay, I'm gonna poll board.

Bohannon.

Bohanna, yes.

Bender bender, yes, Hannon, yes, tap uh land, yes, Taft, yes.

2025 UV 3026 has been continued to our October 21st hearing.

Thank you.

Good afternoon, uh Chairman Taft and board.

My name is Dan Boots.

I'm the city county counselor for district three.

And uh I'm asking that uh petition 2025 UV 3018 7802 Haig Road.

Uh just for the convenience of time with the attorneys and me being here, if we could move that to the top of the public hearing section um is okay.

I have not had that requested for, so I'm gonna look to staff Mr.

Steinmetz to help me with that.

Well, I believe that would be a point of order that you as the president could agree to do that.

I think um a motion and a vote would be appropriate is there anybody in the audience who'd be who would be against so we would hear expedited cases, and then I think we're just gonna have a a handful of cases uh not very many cases to hear.

Counselor Boots, are you are you asking to go ahead of the expedited docket?

No, just the public hearing section.

Yeah, so he's moving it one case earlier.

Yeah, that's right.

So I'm just explaining to the audience to the people here that what we normally do is we hear the expedited cases, and then we hear the full we have the full hearings, and um I don't think we're gonna have very many to hear this afternoon, and the request has been made uh to hear this case first.

Is there anybody who is against that?

We would like to know here you are against it?

No, okay.

There's no one against it, so I need a motion.

Hannon so moved.

I need a second.

Oh Hannah second.

I'm gonna pull the board um binder yes, um, yes, yes, and Taft, yes.

So 2025 EV3013 will be the first uh case we hear after the expedite.

Thank you.

Good afternoon, members of the board.

My name is Josh Smith, 1073 Oliver Avenue.

Uh I've got two cases, number 14 on the agenda 2025 UV 3023.

I need to ask for a three-day notice waiver.

Okay.

Um is there anyone in the audience who is against a three-day notice waiver for 2025 UV 3028?

Seeing none, let's hear from staff.

Thank you, Chairperson Taft, members of the board.

Staff is not opposed to the three-day waiver request.

Okay, I I need a motion.

Bohan is no move.

Hannon second.

I'm gonna pull the board.

Bohannon.

Bohanan, yes, binder, bender, yes, Hannon, yes, bland, yes, and Taft, yes.

Um 2025 UV 3023 has been granted a three-day motion or waiver.

Thank you.

Um, and then also I am on case number 152025 DV3030.

And we need to request the same notice waiver on that case.

Okay.

Is there anyone in the audience who is against the three-day waiver for 2025 D V three zero two zero three zero?

Seeing none, let's hear from staff.

Sure.

Uh thank you.

Uh Treffers and staff members of the board.

Staff has no objection to the requested three-day waiver of notice requirements.

Okay.

I need a motion.

Oh Hannah so move.

Any second?

Hannon second.

I'm gonna pull the board.

Bohannon.

Bohanon, yes.

Bender.

Bender, yes.

Hannon, yes.

Taft, yes.

2025 UV 3026 has been granted a three-day waiver.

Thank you.

I'm sorry.

Uh that's not right.

2025 DV3030 has been granted a three-day waiver.

Good afternoon, Justin Kingan.

Address is 618 East Market Street, Indianapolis, Indiana 46202.

Here before you regarding petition 2025 DV3016, which is the second item on your agenda.

We've recently been retained by the petitioner on this um variance petition, and therefore requesting a one-month continuance to the October 21st hearing.

Uh give us time to catch up on where the petitions at meet with the neighborhood group, meet with the uh planner.

Okay, and that would be without additional notice.

Okay.

Um is there anyone in the audience who's against the uh this continuance?

Seeing none, let's hear from staff.

Uh thank you, Chairperson Taft, members of the board.

Uh staff will know that this would be the third overall continuance for this petition.

The first was due to an indecisive vote back in June, and be second was from a two-month continuance requested from July to September by the previous applicant.

Uh, we are on receipt of the um letter of consent um to allow Mr.

Cain to operate as fair agent, and since this is the first sub request they've continued with this new representation, staff would be supportive of this request, but likely not supportive of any in the future.

Okay.

I need a motion.

Bohan is no move.

Any second?

Hannon second.

I'm going to pull the board.

O'Hannon.

Bohana, yes.

Bender.

Bender, yes.

Hannon.

Yes.

Land?

Yes.

Taft, yes.

Um 2025 DV3016 has been continued to October 21st hearing.

Great.

Thank you.

And then once again, Justin King and address 618 East Market Street.

Uh here before you regarding petition 2025 DV3029, which is the fifth item on your agenda.

We're also requesting a one-month continuous to your October 21st hearing without additional notice.

Um staff is currently recommending denial of this petition, and therefore we'd like to have a few more time uh a few more moments to work with them, possibly tweak our plan, and this one month continuance would give us that time.

Okay.

Is there anyone in the audience who's against the continuance for 2025 DV3029?

Seeing none, let's hear from staff.

Thank you, Chairperson Taft, members of the board.

Staff is amenable to the one month continuance to October 21st, and that would be without new notice.

Okay.

I need a motion.

Bohan is so move.

Is there any second?

Hannon second.

I'm gonna pull the board.

Umana, yes.

Binder, binder, yes, Hannon?

Yes.

Land?

Yes.

Taft, yes.

And I've lost my spot.

Uh 2025.

Which one is it?

Sorry, guys.

DV3023.

The fifth one number five.

I didn't circle it.

Um D V three zero two nine has been continued continued to October 21st hearing.

Thank you.

Great, thank you.

Chair Person Taft members of the board.

Staff will draw your attention to item number 11, petition number 2025 DB3023.

Located at 3640 North Post Road.

The petitioner has submitted a request to withdraw this petition.

This would just require your acknowledgement.

It is acknowledged.

Thank you.

Uh thank you, Chairperson Taft.

Members of the board staff would draw your attention to item number six on your docket.

That's 2025 DB 3031 at 143 Washington Point Drive.

Um it came to our attention that the language of this petition would need to be amended to reflect a slightly more intense version of the variance request.

I just would require a continuance to allow time for sufficient notice to be mailed, reflecting that updated language.

I'm making that request on behalf of the petitioner.

Um and that would be with new notice to your October 21st hearing date.

Okay.

Is there anyone in the audience who is against continuing 2025 DV3031?

Um I need a motion.

Oh Hannah so move.

I need a second.

Hannon second.

I'm gonna pull the board.

Bohannon.

Bohana, yes.

Bender binder, yes.

Hannon, yes.

Planned, yes.

Taft.

Um, yes, 2025 D V three zero three one has been continued with notice to our October 21st hearing.

Thank you, Chairperson Taft, members of the board.

Staff would draw your attention to it number one.

2025 SE 2003 at 21 Virginia Avenue.

Uh this was trans continued and transferred from last week's division two hearing.

The petitioner and staff have agreed to a one-month continuance and would request that before the board as uh several revisions are to be made to the site plan by the applicant.

Uh so again, requesting continuance to October 21st, and that would be without new notice.

Is there anyone in the audience who has an interest in 2025 SE two zero zero three?

Oh no, so move.

Any second?

Land second.

I'm gonna pull the board.

Bohannon.

Bohan, yes.

Bender, binder, yes, Hannon?

Yes.

Land?

Yes.

Taft, yes.

2025 SE 303 has been continued to our October 21st hearing.

Thank you.

And staff would also draw your attention to item number three, 2025 D V 3020, amended at 4102 Madison Avenue.

Uh staff and the petitioner have agreed to a one-month continuance to October 21st, and staff is making that request on their behalf, and that would be without new notice unless otherwise needed from further uh revisions.

Okay.

Is anyone in the audience um interested in 2025 D V three zero two zero and against the continuance?

Um move.

I need a second.

Hannon second.

I'm gonna pull the board.

Ohannon.

Bohanna, yes.

Bender, binder, yes, Hannon.

Yes.

Land, yes.

Taft, yes.

Twenty twenty-five D V three zero two zero has been continued to our October twenty-first hearing.

Thank you.

Unless there are any other special requests, we will proceed with the expedited docket.

These are petitions to be expedited.

Case number two zero two five-d uh dash MO3-001.

Property address eight four five five US 31.

Perry Township, Council District number 23, zoned C5.

The petitioner is Roman Family Realty LP, represented by Ed Williams.

Modification of the grant of 2014-DV three-017 to update compliance of the field elevation to one file dated August first, 2025.

Case number two zero two five-UV three-zero two one.

Property addresses four zero three eight and four zero four zero Otterbean Avenue.

Perry Township, Council District Number 23, zoned D four TOD.

The petitioner is Robert Lopez, represented by Anthony S.

Rodolfo.

Variance of use and development standards of the consolidated zoning and subdivision ordinance to provide for a 1,172 square foot second primary building with a three and a half foot western side yard setback and a six-foot rear yard setback.

One primary building permitted per lot, four foot side, twenty-foot rear side yard setbacks required.

Case number two zero two five dash UV three-zero two five amended property address three zero zero five Carson Avenue.

Perry Township, Council District Number 19, zoned C5 slash C one TOD.

The petitioner is Star Group Investments LLC, represented by Raymond A.

Basil.

Variants of use and development standards of the consolidated zoning and subdivision ordinance to provide for the erection of a monument sign and canopy sign, both containing digital display within 100 feet and 40 feet from a protected district, respectively.

Digital display not permitted within 400 feet of protected districts, with the monument sign maintaining a two and a half foot setback from Troy Avenue, five feet required.

Case number two zero two five dash UV three-zero two seven property address two nine five five North Meridian Street, Center Township, Council District number twelve, zoned C one CS pending, TOD.

The petitioner is NCD two nine five five NDIN LLC, represented by Misha Rabinowich.

Variance of use of the consolidated zoning and subdivision ordinance to provide for the improvement of surface parking areas on a lot fronting on Meridian Street within the regional center.

Prohibited.

That is the end of the expedited docket.

We will now vote.

Percy Bland votes yes, Rihanna Bender votes yes, Brian Hannon votes yes, and Rod Bohannan votes yes.

That variance is granted.

On case 2025-UV3-021, Joanna Taft votes yes, Percy Bland votes yes, Rihanna Bender votes yes, Brian Hannon votes yes, and Rod Bohannon votes yes.

That variance is granted.

On case 2025-UV3-025, Joanna Taft votes yes.

Percy Bland votes yes, Rihanna Binder votes yes, Brian Hannon votes yes, and Rod Bohannon votes yes.

That variance is granted.

On case 2025-UV3-027, Joanna Taft votes yes, Percy Bland votes yes, Rihanna Binder votes yes, Ryan Hannon votes yes, and Rod Bohannan votes yes.

That variance is granted.

These are petitions for public hearing.

Case number two zero two five-UV three-zero one eight property address 7802 Haig Road.

Lawrence Township, Council District Number 3, zoned SU2.

The petitioner is Metropolitan School District of Lawrence Township, represented by Joseph D.

Cauldron.

Variants of use and development standards of the consolidated zoning and subdivision ordinance to provide for the installation of a 12-foot tall monument sign, five foot height permitted, with digital display within 80 feet of a protected district, digital display prohibited, 400 feet of separation required.

Will those who plan to speak on this petition please raise their right hand to be sworn in?

Do you swear or affirm that the testimony you will give is the truth and nothing but the truth?

You don't have to stand.

You just have to raise your hand.

Thank you.

Thank you.

And good afternoon, members of the board.

Joe Calderon, 11 South Meridian, Indianapolis 46204, representing the Metropolitan School District of Lawrence Township.

And I believe that Councillor Boots wants to speak on his own accord.

Marty is handing an exhibit book, and I owe you an electronic copy, Marty.

Lawrence North is a very large campus.

This should not be an unfamiliar request.

Many schools throughout not only this township, but the county have digital display signs.

And when you think about it and pause for a minute, there's a valid reason why.

And a sign is one way to do it.

Some of you may recall.

With the advent of electronic signs, that kind of became an obsolete uh type of practice.

Uh that type of sign would in fact uh be allowed.

So the digital display element actually allows for just a more efficient way to communicate with the public for very important things, whether it be weather delays, school vacations, performances, etc.

And I think all of you would agree that those that type of information is uh important to convey to folks on the streets passing by, as well as other forms of communication that may not get to everybody that's in their car.

Furthermore, this particular location had a digital display sign that was approved in 2006, uh located on the frontage of Haig Road.

And if you turn to tab six, you kind of see not a great image, but uh certainly a black and white image of what had previously been there.

And if you look at uh the digital digital display portion of it, that was 40 square feet.

Uh the proposed sign that we are seeking today has a digital display element of 40 square feet.

So we're not asking for more electronic sign face.

You can also see at the second page of tab six, the previous location of the uh uh former digital display sign, which was about 440 feet north of the South Driveway.

The site plan that's in your exhibit book, which can be found in tab three, proposes the sign to be 362 feet north of that south drive.

However, in conversations uh which occurred with uh several neighborhood groups uh last week, uh we as a school district uh were requested to move the sign further north, uh, which we are happy to do, and we would propose to move the sign 175 feet further north, so approximately 530 feet from the South Drive.

That would be subject to uh administrative approval of the uh new site plan.

We just simply didn't have time to amend the site plan.

So uh we do want you to look at tab three, but keep in mind that the sign would be moving.

The actual sign itself is featured uh in tab four, and you can see that the digital display element is not the entire feature of the sign.

There's a brick uh encasement that shows uh the MSD and then the topper uh with Lawrence North.

This is the exact branding that Lawrence Township has been using for the last seven years, and we have had a number of the exact same sign, including Lawrence Central High School, that have been approved by Variances.

Now, some of you uh have heard that digital display signs are problematic, and your staff report rep uh represents the viewpoint that digital display signs can be troublesome for some.

We get it.

The school is part of the community.

Folks that are here today that may say things against the sign are their constituents.

In fact, we're all part of the same community, and they are a sister government agency to the city of Indianapolis in a way, they're a taxing district.

What we've done recognizing that to be a good neighbor, we can't just have the sign running 24-7, 365 days a year.

So we have um put forth a series of eight commitments that are in Tab 7.

Several of these commitments were modified as recently as late last week.

We had a very nice meeting with several neighborhood associations represented at Lawrence North last Tuesday night, and we talked about things like well, why do you have to have the sign on till 10 p.m.?

And if you don't have anything going on, can you turn it off earlier?

So we amended our commitment number six so that we are turning the sign off an hour after sunset, unless there's a recognized activity, in which case that uh the sign would turn off an hour after, but in no event will the sign be on after 10 p.m.

Uh or before 6 a.m.

We have put in uh additional language clarifying that we do not want to confuse this sign with any traffic signal colors, red, yellow, or green.

That's commitment seven.

We will keep the sign uh the messages frozen at least 30 seconds before they turn, and during rush hour times, morning and evening, they will be completely frozen.

So we are not interested in creating a sign that's a danger to either the public or nuisance to the neighbors.

And the good news is that we had a number of uh neighborhood associations that uh were represented at our meeting last week.

We've named them all in the as beneficiaries of these commitments, which is on page two of uh tab seven, and we've already signed and and tendered those to staff.

Um you can see that uh signs such as this are commonplace throughout the um county.

Uh tab five shows Lawrence.

Pike High School was recently approved for an updated sign last year, North Central, Ben Davis, all of them have a digital display element.

We think ours is very tasteful, and the digital display is encased within a larger monument sign, and uh will be managed uh per the commitment.

So it's not like you're approving a 12-foot tall digital sign, you're approving a five by eight, which is substantially the exact same size as was approved in 2006.

Um with that, uh we're happy to uh answer any questions that the board may have.

We do have uh letters of support from Bragg, Brinford Redevelopment and Growth in Tab 8, as well as Councilor Roberts.

Um happy to answer any questions.

Grant, did you want to add anything or okay?

Thank you for your time this afternoon.

Are there any remonstrators present?

Good afternoon.

Uh Chairperson and honorable members of the Board of Zoning Appeals.

I promise I'll keep this to four minutes.

That's my goal because I want to uh yield the time for our uh remarks for a resident.

Um my name's Scott Thien, I live at 8032 Bidtern Lane, Indianapolis.

I'm um a resident and I'm also a board member of the Eagleness Property Owners Association.

Um I may, and I'll as I said I'll try to keep this as close and tight as I can.

Um I appreciate the opportunity to share some remarks today.

The uh association uh is a development of 419 single family homes uh bounded by 82nd Street, 75th Street, and Haig Road on the city's northeast side.

Eight association residents live on Haig Road directly across the street from Lawrence North.

Um the association's articles of incorporation were filed or recorded in Mary County in June 12, 1973, more than three years before Lawrence North opened its doors.

In short, Eagle Nest were uh residents were among the first uh to occupy the that particular block of Hague Road, the same stretch LN has shared since 1976.

Um the association has been a proud supporter of LN where hundreds, if not thousands of Eagle Nest students have attended over the years.

Uh the associate has been a good neighbor in that time too.

We've supported so many of the schools, extracollic activities, performances supporting events, fundraisers, and more.

Um now uh we hope that the board of directors uh hopes that the leadership of the Metropolitan School District of Lawrence Township, MS also known as MSDLT, and Lawrence North, the petitioner will show its intention to be a good neighbor in faith by making two updates to the proposed exhibit A that uh Mr.

Calderon uh referenced.

Uh he's titled them Commitments Concerning the Use or Development of Real Estate Made in Connection with a Variance Special Exception or Approval Grants, aka variance commitments, okay.

Um these were discussed uh during our September 9th public hearing meeting with leadership from MSDLT, LN, uh Councilman Boots, uh representatives from Binford uh redevelopment growth, also known as Bragg, Eagle Nest Board members, uh the petitioners legal counsel, and Mr.

Calderon of Barnes and Thornburg.

And we appreciate their attempt to uh meet our concerns in the discussion and make some adjustments to those um uh variants uh variance language.

Uh this week, then the board of directors voted unanimously to support the proposed sign, but only with the inclusion of two additional conditions, both of which were discussed with the petitioner and its legal counsel and were requested to be included in the revised variance commitments provided to uh attending parties from the September 9 meeting.

Um initially in that revised version, our request uh to include those uh two points uh did not make the revised version which was circulated uh late last week.

Those two points move the sign as indicated, uh currently proposed to sit in the middle of the school's frontage, north 175 feet, as Mr.

Calderon stated, to what was essentially the original location of the school's previous and smaller digital sign.

Another option would be to move it 465 feet north to the school's northern northernmost entrance, but at minimum 175 feet.

Um either of these options would spare the majority of Eagle Nest's Hague Road residents from what some consider an unsightly, unnecessarily large and somewhat old school approach to uh signage directly in front of their properties.

Uh it would spare those residents from the associated light noise, it would preserve the ambience and feel the original community, it maintains the sign's functionality and returns the sign to the original location uh where the variance first was granted but has since expired.

Secondly, we ask that the members of the association, all members be included as a party in the variance commitments so the board can help ensure the sign is operated properly and that the variance commitments are honored and followed in good faith.

We don't have any reason to suspect that they won't be, but uh there's a lot that goes on, we know at the school and and in the district, and to help keep an eye on that.

Umfortunately, just a couple hours before this hearing today, those variances were revised again to it to what appears to address our concerns, but we were unable to fully vet and read and review that language before uh today's hearing.

So uh I just wanted to point out that attempts are underway, but uh we have not been able to verify the location uh as per referenced on the documentation that's still to come and the language of of who that uh would apply to.

So all that said, uh the board, the Eagle Nest Board strongly urges uh the board of uh the board of zoning appeals to compel the petitioner to incorporate those two points that I mentioned and accept those conditions and its revised variance commitments before any variance is granted.

Um I thank you for hearing my concerns on this matter on behalf of the Eagle Nest Board of Directors and the Eagle Nest residents.

Afternoon.

Thank you.

Is there another remonstrator?

Uh Gary Jones, 7701 Hague Road.

Bear with me, guys.

I'm public speaking is not my forte.

So Karaoke is totally out.

I have a letter here, um a petition actually, five neighbors across the front of Hague Road that has signed this and remonstrates this.

Um can I submit that excuse me?

Yeah, and I've got other copies if needed.

That's the original.

Um first of all, um, there was a previous variance requested, this same exact variant um of use development standards in 2023.

Um the BZA board division three voted to deny that um on April 18th, 2023.

So a lot of this was discussed two years ago.

Same sign, other than this location, but I think this location doesn't really solve the issue of the sign.

Uh there's a reason that these signs aren't um allowed in these zones.

Um safety for one um incompatibility, and then my concern uh for setting precedent for uh other signs down the road.

There's uh uh Marion County Library right next door, there's a landscape place that's close, another church, Crestview Elementary is down the road.

Is this gonna set precedent for future signs?

Um it's obvious the uh the petitioners here use that um that same approach for this sign.

They have five of these in the district.

Um they're mentioning uh other signs throughout Marion County that have these.

So my concern is exactly what their testimony is.

But the main thing is the traffic concerns.

Um this sign is located near a traffic light.

I know they're talking about possibly moving this thing further north, which puts it to another intersection that is not a controlled light.

But the controlled light does have a pedestrian walkway.

And this pedestrian crosswalk, if you turn, if you have this, do you guys have this book or this?

The page prior to the tab demonstrates this crosswalk at the intersection.

So the sidewalk in front of the high school, which is the north and south portion of the sidewalk, the east side, which is across the street, that sidewalk can uh connects four neighborhoods.

So in order to use the north and south portion of that sidewalk to continue 82nd Street and all the way to 7st Street, everybody has to cross that intersection, which is 1,400 residents that use that utilize that sidewalk.

And that sidewalk also connects to the federal trail, which will I think eventually is connecting now.

I think they have a five million dollar grant that was given by the uh DNR, I believe, to for more connection of this greenway trail.

So more people are going to be using this sidewalk.

Um through the weekends when when school's out, there's there's pedestrians with you know walking dogs, strollers, lots of bicycles because they're bicycling to those trails.

So they're using those sidewalks.

So I'm I'm really concerned about the safety of this sign, more so than anything.

Really, no matter where it is along that road, there's uh safety concerns, and I uh I think when it comes to our children attending school above education, that safety is expected and must be first priority.

Umbers of the community also assume that safety is a high priority with use and development planning and the use of sidewalks and crosswalks.

Um the concern of the distracted um drivers in that school zone.

You know, most drivers throughout that day in and out of school are young and experienced drivers, many of them having their driver's license just for a very short period of time.

Um additional distraction from any type of digital display is potentially dangerous, especially um in a school zone.

We've got some information here that I just want to share.

Um and this this there's some information here that it's it's provided by the National Highway Safety or Traffic Safety Administration.

Um definition of texting while driving.

If the if you re read the direct uh the definition that texting while driving is the act of sending or reading text messages on a mobile device while operating a motor vehicle.

If we just simply remove the two words sending text and mobile or being with you, this sign fits within that category or that description.

Uh text is considered a form of disturb uh distracted driving because it takes your eyes off the road, your hands off the wheel, and your mind off of driving.

Most states, including Indiana, have laws that do prohibit these texting while driving.

So the difference between a mobile device and a digital design board when when it compares to reading while driving, um, reading a text message, it distracts you visually, uh manually holding the phone, and it distracts your cognitive thinking after you've read the message.

Um texting with a phone usually involves just short bursts of text, still very risky.

Um, only a few seconds off the road can cause an accident.

So reading a digital display distracts you visually as well.

And message boards, excuse me, by design are to make you look.

They're bright for a reason, whether they're flashing, flipping, green, blue, red, yellow, they're still a distraction to make you look.

Um, and this also distracts you cognitively.

You have to think about the message once you've read the message.

Um the sign is a fixed unit instead of mobile, so your eyes are on the sign as you drive by.

So your head is turning as you look at the sign, where a text would be at your steering wheel.

You could hold hold it and only look down.

You're actually changing rotating your head and eyes as you're reading these signs.

So peripheral vision is highly compromised, continuous turning the eyes and head.

Um the external signage like a school marquee uh can be extra distracting because they have you know bright lights and long spilled out messages and multiple points of information.

Um there's a couple examples on this page.

Um, you know, a text, a simple text message of you know, LN game tonight, UN, short burst.

Um, a sample text message that you might see on the uh school sign would be you know, football game tonight, Lawrence North versus Warren Central, 7 p.m.

Three short lines of text.

Once again, the National Highway Safety Administration reports that texting while driving makes crashes 23 times more likely compared to non-distractive driving.

Reading text is just as risky as typing them.

So bottom line, both are dangerous forms of distracting driving.

Mobile text messages can actually be ignored and read at a different and much safer time.

A digital display must be read at the time of driving by.

Both cause crashes because they pull your eyes off the road for even just more than a second or two.

So I want to describe or a little bit further.

When when we turn our head and we naturally our hands follow the site, um this is called target fixation fixation and visual steering.

Your hands unconsciously steer towards where your eyes are looking.

Um it's the same principle taught for motorcycle riding, defensive driving, and also aviation.

Um look where you want to go, because that the vehicle will follow your gaze.

So, in the opposite of that, um a driving example.

If you're driving straight, like in front of a school zone, and you turn your head to look at a sign or a billboard, your hands will suddenly turn the direction you're looking.

Um, even a small drift could cause you to be out of the lane.

Um with aviation and motorcycle parallel, and and I'm real familiar familiar with this.

I'm actually a pilot.

And I have an endorsement on my motorcycle motorcycle endorsement on my license.

Um pilot cyclist motorcycles are explicitly trained to go where you look.

Um and what what that means, if you're going to turn a corner, whether on a motorcycle, you look before you turn because your hands will cognitively follow the look.

Airplane in a controlled steer or a coordinated turn, it's the same thing.

You look and you turn.

The plane will turn with the steer.

So the negative side of this, if you're driving and wanting to go straight and you're looking left or looking right, you're gonna steer and can steer unconsciously left or right.

So I want to if you turn to the next page.

I've done a little bit of algebra, which I never thought I'd use again in my life, but here we are.

Um, if we calculate the formula, distance equal speed times time, the comparison miles per hour to foot feet per second for every mile per hour um travel, you travel 1.4 um feet per second.

So in that school zone at 25 miles per hour when the lights are flashing, and 40 mile an hour when the lights are not flashing.

I've put some time calculations here from four to eight seconds.

So at 25 miles an hour, at that calculation of 1.467.

Sir, I'm so sorry.

Um the remonstrators have you've run out of time.

We we give each slide 15 minutes.

Um I am grateful for your testimony.

Um, and so you'll have five minutes at the end.

Can I finish with this at that point?

Yeah, at the at the end of the um uh hearing the each side will get five more minutes.

Okay.

Okay, thank you.

Thank you so much.

Okay, um, let's hear from staff.

Thank you, Chairperson Taft and members of the board.

Uh staff would just remind the board that we do have a counselor in attendance to speak on this if they wanted to approach now where they counselor boot.

Did you have more you wanted to say now?

Uh okay, go ahead.

I'm sorry about that.

Thank you, Chairwoman.

Again, Dan Boots, counselor uh of District 3, 2700 Market Tower, Indianapolis 46204.

And I'm just here in support of the petition.

Um this sign replaces a sign that's been up since 06 that was approved.

This sign has the same roughly digital space, 40 square feet as the original sign.

Um my understanding is the petitioner is willing to move the sign to accommodate the concerns of the neighbors.

Um the height of the sign is just less than five feet taller than the old sign, which was also approved by the board.

Uh so I think those sign changes are minor.

Um, and this sign also fits the template of the sign that's used district wide uh on uh there's already four different locations within Lawrence Township that have a sign identical to the one that you see here in these papers today.

Um I think the uh petitioner has been quite reasonable in meeting with the neighbors, meeting with the counselors, myself, the counselor across the street, Haig Road is the dividing line between my district three and counselor Roberts District Four.

Um, and uh they've uh planned meetings at the school with the the neighborhoods to discuss their concerns, and I think they've been quite reasonable in their commitments and moving the sign, adding the neighborhoods as uh the parties with authority to enforce the petition.

Um I'm not sure I'm comfortable with the idea of having uh 491 homes with everybody in each household having the power to enforce it without a collective voice through their neighborhood association.

Uh I think that would uh subject uh the petitioner to unreasonable demands of people that uh are not working through their neighborhoods as a collective voice.

Um I think it's important that we have some structure to that process.

Um in this uh the high school has been there, started construction in 74.

Um it was part of the eagle nest development, the high school development.

It was uh started in 74, built in 76.

So the structure's been there a long time, nearly 50 years.

So and it has grown.

Um with uh I am well aware of the uh issues of digital signs, as we know there are strict regulations on billboards in Marion County, but for monument signs, um it's very common.

Most schools that I see.

I know I live uh my kids went to Washington Township.

Our schools all have particularly North Central digital signs, it's a major source of information for people, particularly coming and going from the school.

So uh I would just urge the uh board today to approve the petition for variants.

Thank you.

Uh let's hear from staff.

Uh thank you, Chairperson Taft and members of the board.

Uh staff is recommending denial of the request uh due to a few foundational reasons.

Uh number one, staff point out that this property is zoned SU2, and it being SU2, uh the special use districts collectively are not permitted to have EBMS or digital display signs.

And um that goes back not only with the implementation of Indy rezone, but also was reflected in the prior iteration of the signed regulations before Indy rezone was enacted in on April 1st of 2016.

Um if the question becomes, well, is it just merely a carryover from regulations that existed?

Um staff would note that we did hold two iterations of assigned task force committee uh for which I attended both iterations, and it was fairly clear that EVMS in close proximity to protected districts, up to and including dwelling districts, uh was one of the high priorities of it.

Um I would rank billboards being clearly the number one thing, sign proliferation in general, as well as uh digital display in regard to glare, uh light, um scrolling, um, flashing, uh those different things, and while granted staff would acknowledge that those are addressed in the commitment forms that have been submitted by the petitioner, uh staff's concern with those commitments is that uh due to when their cutoff time frame is it makes enforcement of those commitments somewhat problematic given the business hours of the city at large and the Department of Business and Neighborhood Services.

Um but going back to the district itself, the special use districts uh collectively enjoy a wide latitude of um forgiveness when it comes to compliance with development standards, as there are you know several several several development standards that can be waived administratively uh by a process called admin approval.

Uh parking landscaping and signage are basically the three things that cannot be waived.

And um again staff would note that um digital display is prohibited, um but when SU2 is under review for admin approval, our ordinance uh suggests that the C1 development standards be used as a guide when reviewing what's appropriate to waive or what not to wave.

Uh staff would note that um digital display begins to be permitted at the C4 district, uh which is quite a bit more intense than the C1 district.

Um so staff would note that even if this property were zone C4, which would permit a school, uh this sign would still not be permitted because uh digital display requires 600 feet of separation from any protected district unless it's visibly instruct obstructed, and even when it's visibly obstructed, it cannot be located closer than 400 feet from that protected district.

So this is a request that would be required to um be before the board even if it were permitted by right for that fact alone.

Uh staff um does not feel that there is sufficient hardship warranting a favorable recommendation, and for that reason uh staff is recommending denial and would be happy to answer any questions that the board may have at this time.

Are there any questions of staff?

Okay, um petitioner, you have five minutes to sum up.

I'm I have I'm like signed up to speak.

Did you sign up to speak in support or against?

In support of granting the variants.

Um so normally the pitch.

You know, I would uh suggest to counsel for the petitioner if he wants to.

I can yield a minute.

Yeah.

Is that okay?

Okay, he the bit they have five minutes left, so he's saying he'll give you a minute if you have 15.

Why do we not have 15?

You they got 15.

Um and then they got 15, and now it's gets five.

Kelly Dyer, resident Cardinal Cove, also fronting on Haig Road resident since 1996.

We anticipated being in the neighborhood for two years.

We've been there for 28, partly because we lucked into an amazing school system.

Our son was born in 97, he graduated in 2015 from Lawrence North.

We've seen the school system expand and improve through a successful referendum uh which helped update an aging building and turned uh Lawrence North into part of a school system that is uh best public school system in 2024 is voted by readers of Indianapolis Star.

Uh my neighborhood is long, as well as Eagle's Nest and several around the school that have been in place since the school was built, have seen property values increase.

Um the school uh since the groundbreaking, and is it just because of the school?

No, but is it highly likely that it's because of the school?

Yes.

Lin is a good neighbor, always has been a good neighbor.

Being a good neighbor to LN allows me to give you a real-world version of what this sign would do.

And considering we've been discussing it since 2023, with no movement uh to approve.

It is highly unlikely that any amount of commitment that MSDLT and LN make to Eagle's Nest, a single neighborhood, they would never be in approval of granting the sign.

The sign was there before, a similar sign was there before, a similar sign needs to be there again.

Um in the neighborhood have asked, because I um a staunch supporter of the schools and have some information occasionally, have asked me where is the sign?

What happened to the sign?

Why can't they have the sign?

Um, one of the other things to uh understand is that Crestview has been remodeled and built upon.

They did not change their sign.

Holman Landscape has been there for many, many years, has no plans to change their sign.

If now, if they had any, they would have.

Um, the Christian science church has no plans to install a variable sign.

Uh the library was just renovated within the last two years, has no plans to change a sign.

I walk along Hague Road every single day after work, and I have seen exactly where the sign will be, and the sign is perpendicular to the road, so the animation is not facing any homes along Hague Road.

At most, it faces a sign of a fence, a fence on the side of a garage.

So moving the moving the sign 175 feet north would even alleviate any chance of it shining into anyone's actual windows.

The school has also opted to forego their school colors on the sign because they happen to be red, yellow, or green.

They happen to be red and green.

I, as a walker, would appreciate anything that slows down the number of speeders over 60 miles an hour that travel up and down Hague Road in front of the school.

It is it's my position that we now have a 21st century school in these neighborhoods.

It deserves a 21st century sign.

Please grant the variance.

Thanks so much.

Thank you.

I know time's running thin.

Uh, first of all, in response to Eagle Nest, Eagle Nest Association is a named beneficiary of the commitments.

Um we don't believe that every single neighbor within that subdivision should have enforcement rights.

However, the form allows for two ownerships or 660 as a matter of right.

So, with all due respect, we don't want to name everybody in the subdivision.

They can act through their board and the association.

We will move the sign 175 feet to the north.

We had four subdivisions represented at our meeting.

We amended our commitments, we got consensus with the exception of essentially one person.

All of which are prohibited by our commitments.

We've had experience since 2018 with Lawrence Central Schools doing digital signs.

Guess how many complaints we've had?

Zero.

Zero from neighbors, zero from DBNS.

So proofs in the pudding.

We have substantial support for this sign.

We understand staff has to support its ordinance.

All the signs that you see that are on that are doing digital for schools have to have variances, and we ask that you grant this one as well, subject to the commitments and the site plan to be approved administratively.

Moving the sign.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Any questions of the petitioner?

Okay, let's hear from the Rodestrator.

We have five minutes.

Okay, I just kind of have a closing statement.

Um I understand there are needs sometimes for variances in development standards.

Um I don't feel that um a 2021 school needs a 2021 sign.

We still have safety for the kids and the pedestrians through there.

Um and this request for variance is it's evident that it's not a need, it's actually a want.

There's other you know, other means of uh communication that the school uses.

Um I asked the leaders of our community, the leaders of our school system and community development partners um that we make the safety first priority in the school.

Um I ask the board to please preserve the integrity of our protected zones.

I asked the board to please protect the neighboring properties that join the school and follow the recommendations of the staff and deny this variance.

Thank you.

Okay, unless there are any other questions.

Um did the counselor, I'm sorry, did I think the counselor gets to have the last word if you want?

Um just briefly, thank you.

Um duty as a counselor is to protect my constituents and to fulfill what I believe is in their best interests.

Um, and I believe this sign is in the best interest of the community.

Um it's an information source which is modern.

Um we know that in the old schools you had your phone call trees, you had notes from the teacher carried home, which if you're lucky came out of your kids' backpack if you ever saw it.

Um, and there are very strict regulations on how long the scrolling can take, how long it must be.

There are federal standards on how often you do not want anything that just keeps flipping and blinking, if you will.

That is very distracting.

They've agreed to uh have static messages, so when it does change, it stays frozen.

Um they've agreed to colors to avoid uh getting confused with a stoplight on the southern entrance, so no one's confused with that.

Um, and there are digital signs all over the city, all over society.

I do not think it's the danger as portrayed by the remonstrators.

Um, it's a common element of today's society, and uh this is no different really than the sign that was there.

Uh they've agreed to put it back in the same place.

Uh it's slightly taller.

The digital is still 40 square feet, so I think it's a minimal change, and I think it's been uh approved all over the county, and I believe it deserves to be approved here as well.

Thank you.

All right, we will now vote on 2025 UV 3018 on case two zero two five-UV three-018.

Percy Bland votes yes, Brian Hannon votes yes, Joanna Taft votes yes, Rihanna Bender votes no, and Rod Mohannan votes yes.

The variance is granted.

Thank you very much.

Uh, pardon me, could we move conversation outside?

We have more cases to be heard.

Thank you.

Case number 2025-UV3-023 property address 125 South Bonner Avenue.

Warren Township, Council District Number 20, zoned I2.

The petitioner is Ryo Vivar Investments Corp.

Represented by Josh Smith.

Variance of use of the consolidated zoning and subdivision ordinance to provide for a single family dwelling subject to the filed site plan.

Not permitted.

Well, those who plan to speak on this petition, please raise the right hand to be sworn in.

Do you swear or affirm that the testimony you will give is the truth and nothing but the truth?

Yes, I do.

Good afternoon.

I'm Josh Smith with uh RG Development 1073 Oliver Avenue 46221.

Um here today on 125 Bonar Street.

Um I think he's working on pulling up the staff report there on the screen.

Um this parcel is this house, has been on this parcel since before 1920 is when it shows up on the aerial photo photography.

Um the property is owned industrial, it's owned I2.

Um the homeowner is trying the my customer recently bought the house, he's trying to remodel it.

He got a stop work order.

Um the the home was built um before any modern building codes, so the floor joist are literally sitting on the dirt.

So he's trying to elevate the floor joists, and in order to do that, he's got to elevate everything else above it so he has headroom.

So now he needs an ILP, so we gotta you know work through the permit process.

So that's where the need for the variance comes from, is to be able to change the roof line and elevate the house.

We're staying within the same footprint.

Um, but we're trying to get him a crawl space so his floor is safe to use, and so we can run you know his utilities and his wires and plumbing down there in the crawl space.

Um, but we can't do that, and we can't get those permits for a single-family home in an industrial district.

Um the entire area, so the east end of this property backs up to a subdivision, and everything from that subdivision over to the west is zone in I2.

Um there's three or four homes to the north, um, two empty properties to the south, and then there's I think it's an electrical contracting business down there.

Uh across the street, there's a single family home, and then uh appears to be a scrap metal business of some kind.

It's definitely a smaller scale, like a like a personal operation.

Um so if at all possible, the owner wants to keep the industrial zoning in hopes that there's some magical future buyer that wants to come in and buy the whole neighborhood up, and he doesn't want to get excluded from that potential sale.

So he he would like to you know seek the use variants to be able to keep that and be part of any future development that may happen.

There's no talks of that.

There's nobody in mind.

I think that's just his retirement dream.

Um right now he's he wants to fix the home up for his daughter to move into.

Uh this was a previous rental home by the previous owner.

It was in terrible shape.

Uh lots of animals.

Um I got with this legal notice.

Actually, I call from the the subdivision to the to the east.

Um, how you know the the chickens and the animals used to bother them in their backyards, and they they wanted to come argue against this because they thought it was the same owner.

And we're reiterated that no, this will not be that same same same owner and won't be the same animals.

So yes, the owner did start without permits.

He got to stop work, he has stopped work, he has not pursued anything past that stop work order.

Um he's not doing it out of defiance.

He just I don't think he knew he needed permits.

So we do have a letter of support from the Warren Township Development Association.

Uh this came earlier this week.

I don't know if it made it into your guys' file.

I can pass my copy up if you guys need it.

Okay.

If needed, we do have a representative from the Warren Township Development Association here.

He wasn't planning on speaking, he was here for one of Mr.

Gilman's cases, but if the board wants to it's up to you.

You have 15 minutes if you it's totally up to you.

Yeah.

No.

I so just kind of sum up the changing the footprint.

We're not making it a bigger house, a larger house.

We're just trying to raise the roof line to accommodate a taller floor system.

Um to allow the continued use of this single family home in the industrial district.

Okay.

Thank you.

Um I don't see any remonstrators.

Um let's hear from staff.

Thank you, Chairperson Taft, members of the board.

Um as noted in the report, staff is recommending denial of this use variance.

However, um as indicated in the report, staff would be supportive of a rezoning petition to uh rezone this to a residentially zoned uh classification.

Uh as the petitioner noted, this site has had the single family residence on the property since uh the 1920s.

Um staff feels that the use variance is an inappropriate uh petition for this situation and feels that a rezoning is uh much more sufficient for addressing the um situation as the land use is in mismatch with the actual zoning.

Um and as the petitioner noted, they can't get permits because they're in an industrial zone, and that is precisely why we are requesting that they rezone as opposed to this use variance so that uh any future permits that might be required for changes to the site to any of the structures on site if they want to expand um have an addition, uh tear down and rebuild uh any sort of work like that by this owner or any future owners would require them to come back to this board for future variances, and staff believes that um that can be avoided if they were to rezone, they can do that sort of work without needing variances.

So to summarize, staff would support a rezoning, uh, preferably to D2 based on the lot size and the surrounding character of the area.

Uh staff would also note that this block in general has been residential for about a hundred years.

Um I don't want to speculate too much, but I think it's unlikely that it's going to be industrial uh in the near future.

Um, and therefore is recommending denial of the use variance, but would recommend approval of a rezoning and can answer any questions the board might have.

Are there any questions for staff?

Okay, um petitioner, you have five minutes.

Yeah.

Um I don't have the precise case number, but the property immediately to the north, uh, one nineteen North Bonar.

Um within the past ten years, they've had the same use variance approved on their property.

Um I believe that's where he got the idea for the use variants.

Um he also likes the idea of not waiting the extra two to three months that it takes to get the rezoning in addition to his hopes, you know, of a potential industrial buyer.

Um no, that's we just asked for the use variance.

Um he is not planning to expand the house.

You know, his his plan is to keep the existing footprint, like I said, raise raise the roof up, keep everything within the limits of what's there.

So thank you.

We will now vote on 2025 UV 3023.

Just one uh just one moment.

On case two zero two five-UV three-zero two three.

Percy Bland votes yes.

Brian Hannon votes yes.

Joanna Taft votes yes.

Rihanna Bender votes no, and Rod Bohannan votes yes.

The variance is granted.

Thank you.

If I may have a few more minutes of your time, I have the next case on your agenda as well.

Um I apologize.

And we will give you a few more minutes of your time.

Case number two zero two five dash DV3-030.

Property address one two two two six McDougal Street.

The petitioner is Christopher Hernandez, represented by uh Josh Smith.

Variance of development standards of the consolidated zoning and subdivision ordinance to provide for a building addition, resulting in a three-foot east side yard setback, seven feet required.

And you've already been sworn in, so you may begin when ready.

Good afternoon, members of the board.

Uh Josh Smith, RG Development 1073, Oliver Avenue 4621.

Um we have a house uh one, two, two, six McDougal.

Um our customer started in addition to this house again without permits, got a stop work order in 2023.

Um they applied for permits in 2023.

Um I don't know the details and ins and outs of what happened with them.

They just hired us this past June to you know take over from the previous contractor to help try and resolve the issues.

Um the new addition is in line with the existing side of the house.

Uh it is between the house and the rear yard setback.

Um nothing is closer to the street.

Um I don't know if you guys have the revised site plan.

We submitted this when we did the revised notice a few weeks ago.

Um the existing house is three foot one inch to the east side setback, and then the addition is in the rear, where the addition is between four foot and five foot from the east side setback.

And then looks 26 and a half feet from the rear setback.

Um this is an odd block.

So this block of McDougall Street, all of the lots were platted initially at 30 feet wide.

Um the neighborhood, the entire block, both sides of the street is zone D five.

D five has a variable side setback based on your lot width, anywhere from three feet to seven feet.

Um so the smallest, narrowest lots in the city that are zone D5 have a three-foot side setback in a D5 zoning, and the really big lots on a D5 have a seven foot side setback in in D5 zoning.

Um this lot happens to be 120 foot wide.

It's four of the original lots combined in a one.

Um de lot immediately to the east.

Um they have a non-conforming existing setback.

Um because they have a 30-foot wide yard or a 30-foot wide lot, but their house is approximately four foot from the side setback.

Um it's it's not anything to do with the current standards, just that's how their house was built.

Um I know in the ordinance now we have a per an allowance that we can add on 50% of the existing house and keep the existing setbacks without having to file for a variance.

Um this addition is significantly larger than 50% of that length.

And they would uh with the existing foundation, the existing framing done, uh, and the existing floor plan they've set out, they don't want to bump the house in after that 50% mark before they go further back.

Uh to meet the seven foot.

Um again, everything is everything new is further away from the required setback than the existing house is.

So the existing house we're looking at a three-foot east side setback, three foot one.

Um and then the addition we're at four foot three at the closest portion and then five foot six at the rear.

And it's in line with the existing home.

I believe there might be photos.

I believe there might be photos Mr.

Uhlenha took with the staff report.

Um I do think uh Robert noted on his staff report that there's a six-foot tall fence in the front yard.

Uh they have agreed to cut that down to the normal uh ordinance required.

I think it's 42 inches or 46 inches.

So yeah, if you have any questions, thank you for your dying.

Are there any remonstrators present?

Let's hear from staff.

Sure.

Uh thank you very much to the board for your time.

Uh, thank you to the petitioner for their comments as well.

Uh staff is recommending denial of the reduction in the side setback requirements to facilitate this substantial building addition for which permits were not obtained prior to completion of the majority of construction.

Uh, this is a residential parcel.

Prior to 2023, it was improved with a single family residence and detached garage structure that was accessed access from the front yard.

Uh the width of the lot is 120 feet.

Um, all current improvements are on the eastern half of the site, as you know, but within that sort of 60 foot boundary there.

Um, per V site's property card, the house itself was built in 1911.

Uh, the main garage was built in 1966, and there's sort of a small shed or overhang off the side of the garage to the west that was placed in 1999.

Uh the block is otherwise developed residentially, or someone near Garfield Park to the northwest.

There are irregular lot widths throughout on this block, but uh staff would note that even if this site were to be split fully in two in the future and the width of the lot were only 60 feet, um, seven foot side yard setbacks would still be applicable for this particular parcel.

In 2023, a new build condition was built without permits being pulled to connect the home and the garage.

It was a dramatic expansion on the eastern side yard setback as shown within that aerial photograph that's up there right now.

And if you scroll down just a little bit, Robert, you can see what the before version looked like as well.

That's also included within the report just for a little before and after.

Um violations did result.

There was a stop work order for structural work that was done in 2023, as well as a zoning violation that was opened in 2025 after this application for a variance was made.

Um that zoning violation mentioned work being done without an ILP, building the required side setback and defense height of six feet partially within the front yard.

Uh, petitioner has indicated to us both pre previously and today that they'd be dealing with defense side separately to cut that down.

We're just focused on the setback issue this afternoon.

Uh disparance would be sought to allow for an expansion of that legally non-conforming setback of the house.

Does say to this small sort of an angle relative to the property line, closest point is about three feet, and then four foot free inches where the addition starts.

The petitioner did a good job of explaining that, so I won't go back over it.

Um if applications for permits had been made prior to construction, um, this setback encryption would have been noted and construction wouldn't have occurred.

Um as it is, we now have a 166.7% expansion along that setback instead of the as mentioned there is an exception for 50%, but this is well in excess of that.

Um staff would also note that per V floor plan provided within the report on page 132 of your larger packet.

Uh, there are three different bedrooms that would have uh that would be along that eastern property line and each appear to have their required egress windows uh placed on the eastern portion of the house.

I'm not an expert on uh residential coding uh structure requirements, but my understanding is that um the current Indiana residential code requires construction within five feet of property lines to utilize fire rate and materials, and for windows that are close to property lines, there are some limits on their size or if they can be fixed or inoperable.

Um it's unclear if firewall was utilized when construction was done.

It wasn't something that could have been verified by permitting.

Um, if there are areas where fixed or inoperable windows are required, down bedrooms would also be unable to meet required egress, which might require some internal reorganization of the floor plan as well.

Uh, these aren't zoning code issues, but they are you know concerns the staff would have, and just substantial revision or demolition might be required regardless of the afternoon of regardless of the result of today's hearing, and but approval that variance wouldn't allow for everything to remain on the site as is necessarily.

Um, it's a narrow separation um with the perimeter fence that sort of runs between the properties right along that line there.

So in addition, in addition to those sort of safety concerns that might result from the IRC.

Um staff would also know that the infill housing guidelines, which were a part of this recommendation, were consulted.

Um, or they're part of the comprehensive plan.

They were consulted for this recommendation.

I think it indicate that in addition to fire safety, um, maintenance is also a reason to enforce minimum setback requirements of the ferments had been pulled, and it would have been an opportunity to offset the building addition to a few feet to allow for easier maintenance in between the structures, potentially to have have a ladder in there, do some maintenance on gutters.

Uh, there are some site photographs that were taken by the inspector a few months ago, just a few pages further down in your report showing the amount of separation that's present, and it looks to be fairly narrow.

Umfill housing guidelines also indicate that the size and massing of structures should match neighborhood contexts.

Uh, this would result in in a building edition of over 1,500 square feet with three new bedrooms as well as a rear porch on the northern portion of the property.

That'd be noticeably larger than structures on neighboring properties, especially if the site were to be subdivided in the future.

It's possible that open space issues might result if a property line were to be drawn to split this in two at some point.

Um staff would also note that the size requirement for secondary dwelling units would be capped at 720 square feet.

Um this appears to all be one home.

There's no unpierced party wall between the existing house and the edition, but just wanted to say for director if this petition would not be allowing for a second dwelling unit.

Um we were contacted um about this case by a neighbor to the southwest.

Uh their concerns weren't necessarily about this setback, but about um filling in of a creek bed on the western half of the lot and possible debris and road damage to a metal guard rail caused by what they called concrete construction.

That is not the subject of today's hearing either, but we should clarify commercial contractor uses wouldn't be allowed at the site.

Um but focusing in on the setback that is the issue this afternoon, uh a burden of proof for approvable of these variances as you're aware is site-specific practical difficulty.

Uh staff feels that the expansion of the legally non-conforming setback would be an example of a self-imposed difficulty since no permit applications were made.

This is in essence why we have a permit application process, and this difficulty could have been avoided by setting the addition back a few feet.

Uh we don't think that a self-imposed difficulty of this nature should justify substantial deviation.

I could also potentially lead to maintenance or life and safety issues from the residential code.

Um we would also emphasize that some level of demolition and rebuilding might be required even if the zoning variance were to be approved, and that the cost of the mistake shouldn't necessarily be borne by the neighboring property owner, but now has a much larger building very close on that setback.

Um so for those reasons we recommend denial.

I am happy to answer any questions that you might have.

Are there any questions of staff?

Okay, um petitioner, you have five minutes.

Yeah.

Um to address a couple of staff's comments.

Um there are no intentions to split the lot.

Uh there are no there's never been an intention for secondary dwelling unit.

I have no idea where that concern came from.

Um that's never been on the table.

Um the uh the egress windows, you know, the exterior load bearing walls, you know, closing up those windows if if this were approved would not be an issue, and then rearranging some of the interior non-bearing partitions is a lot less of a cost than you know, rearranging and moving that exterior bearing wall.

So rearranging those walls to find a secondary egress for those bedrooms would would not be near near as a burden as relocating the exterior wall on the foundation.

So they would they'd be willing to move the those windows as needed.

So uh he is correct though.

Anything within five foot of the building, anything within five foot of the property line has to be rated for one hour fire construction.

The type of glass that is rated for that is not pretty glass, it's usually wire weld glass like you see in commercial industrial situations.

Uh it's not one you'd want your bedroom.

So they would they would remove those windows and then you know do whatever they need to do to meet fire ratings and pass building inspections.

So uh the signing is not on.

Once I got the stop work order, they stopped.

Dryballs not on, the siding's not on.

There's plenty of time to finish fire rating as required by building codes.

So thank you.

Are there any questions of the petitioner?

Okay, unless there are any other questions, we'll now vote on 2025 DV3030.

On case 2025-DV3-030, Percy Bland votes no.

Brian Hannon votes yes, Joanna Taft votes no, Rihanna Bender votes yes, and Rod Bohannon votes no.

The variance is not granted.

Thank you for your time.

Is there any other matter to come before the board?

Yes.

Okay, then we're now adjourned.