Okay, good afternoon.

We'll call the meeting to order.

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

I am Brian Hannon, Acting Chair of Division 3.

The other board members present today are Rod Bohannon, Patrice Ducket Brown, and Aaron McBride.

Legal counsel for the board today is Chris Steinmetz, and staff members present from the division of planning are Eddie O'Neill, current planning administrator, Robert Ulanke, Senior Planner, Michael Weigel, Senior Planner, Noah Stern, Senior Planner, and Marty Weistie, Specialist and Secretary 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.

Petitioner should be on your left and remonstrators on your right as you face the board.

Those who testify will state their name and address at the beginning for the record.

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 summation of the case.

Remonstrators will then be allowed five minutes for rebuttal and of the petitioner's rebuttal evidence and a brief closing statement.

No further evidence, statements, or arguments will be heard unless it is at the discretion of the board.

Please limit your testimony and evidence to 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 in this hearing who thinks complete and proper notice has not been given and would like to petition the petition continued due to lack of proper notice, must bring this matter to the board's attention at the beginning of the hearing.

The board may impose various conditions or commitments as amendments before reaching a decision on certain petitions.

The installation of landscaping and screening, the paving of parking area areas, and the dedication of rights of way 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 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 this filing of a petition for judicial review of a decision of the board.

The written requests must be filed within five days of the board's decision.

It 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 be sure that all cell phone ringers are turned off.

There are four members of the board present today.

This is typically a five-member board.

It requires three votes to take action on any request.

We will take this into consideration when hearing requests for continuance.

If your petition receives an indecisive vote today, your petition will be automatically continued to the December 16th, 2025 hearing.

So again, I just want to make clear we have four members at 3.30.

Uh we will have a hard stop for one board member and will the board will go down to three board members.

Okay.

So you can take that into consideration when you're requesting uh action of the board or any continuance.

So, board members, you have been provided meeting minutes for October 21st, 2025.

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

So move Bohannon.

Second, McBride.

Okay, I will now ask for a vote.

Ducett Brown.

Ducket Brown, yes.

McBride.

Yes.

Bo Hannon.

Yes.

And Hannon is yes.

Thank you.

Is there anyone in the audience who has any questions about uh today's procedures?

Okay, before we hear special requests, I will ask for a waiver of our rules of procedure to allow the board to vote for all expedited petitions.

Um, which we do not have currently on the docket.

So unless there are requests for expedited petitions, we will go ahead and skip that part.

And okay, we will consider consider special requests and continuances at this time.

Good afternoon, board members.

My name is David Gilman.

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

I represent the petition, which is number eight on your docket today.

Uh 2025 UV 3031 with the address of 4240 Bluff Road.

Um our first special request is to um ask for a three-day waiver of the written in the signed notice.

Uh we received the signings uh and the notice is a couple days late, and then I had them out the next day, but that would require you to grant us a three-day waiver.

Okay, is there anyone in the audience who uh is opposed to a three-day waiver?

Thank you, Chairperson Harmon.

Staff has no objection to this as the notices were provided late to the petitioner.

Okay.

Uh so we'll take a uh I'll take a motion.

Bohan is so move.

And a second ducky brown second.

Okay, Ducker Brown.

Ducky Brown, yes.

McBride?

Bride, yes.

Bo Hannon.

Bohan, yes.

Hannon is yes.

Uh three-day waiver is granted for petition number eight.

Thank you.

Um again, David Gilman.

Same petition.

Um, we're continuing um our dialogue with the staff on this petition, and we would ask that the board now grant us a continuance to your next board meeting so that we could uh um have that time to to work with the staff.

Okay, is there anyone in the audience with an interest in 2025 dash UV three dash zero three one who would be opposed to continuance?

Okay, can we hear from staff?

Thanks, Chairpersonal Horman, members of the board.

Staff has no objection to this continuance request.

Thank you.

Chris, do you vote on a continuance?

Chris, yes.

Okay, thank you.

All right, we'll take all uh here a motion to continue uh 2025 UV three-031.

Bohan is so move.

Okay, I'll call the roll.

Ducker Brown, yes, McBride, yes, Bo Hannon?

Bohannon, yes, and Hannan is yes.

Uh 2025 UV three-031 is continued to the December hearing.

Thank you.

Good afternoon, Justin King and addresses 2722 Manker Street, Indianapolis, Indiana 46203.

Um, here before you regarding petition 2025 DV3029, which is the second item on your agenda, the address 8600 Madison Avenue.

We are requesting a continuance to the December 16th hearing.

Um we're making one slight modification to the site plan that we filed as part of this petition.

Uh, we did not receive that update until earlier this morning, so we'll be sharing that with staff here later today.

Um this continuance would allow staff to review the petition and the updated site plan one last time, and this request would be without additional notice.

Okay, thank you.

Anyone in the audience with an interest in 2025-DV3-029 who would be opposed to continuance.

Okay, can we hear from staff?

Thank you, Acting Chairperson Hannon, members of the board.

Staff has no objection to the continuance to December 16th.

That would be without new notice.

Okay, I'll take a motion to continue 2025-D V three-029 to the December 16th hearing.

Bohanon is so move.

Call the role.

McBride?

McBride, yes.

Bo Hannon.

Bohanon, yes.

And Hannon is yes.

It's been continued to December.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Good afternoon.

Good afternoon, excuse me, for the record, Tyler Oaks, Bose McKinney and Evans here regarding 2025 D V three.

Um sorry, excuse me.

UV 3028 1255 Roosevelt Avenue.

Um, two requests here.

First is to request the withdrawal of this petition.

Uh we've spoken with staff.

This was originally filed as a use variance.

We've gone ahead and filed as a uh rezoning that we're gonna do instead.

So we're gonna withdraw this.

We've already filed the re rezoning.

Um so on top of that, uh, also a request for a reimbursement of fees related uh to the variance filing.

Thank you.

Okay, uh can we hear from staff?

Um thank you, Chairperson Harman, if you would first acknowledge the withdrawal.

Thank you.

Yes, uh withdrawal is acknowledged.

Thank you.

Um in regards to the refund, uh administrator has recommended a refund of 954 dollars remaining uh after other expenses have been incurred.

Okay, so um that will take a vote of the board.

Um so is there anything else you'd like to add?

It would require a motion and a vote, yes.

Okay, I'll take a motion for a uh refund for 954 dollars for this petition.

Oh no, so move.

Ducka Brown second.

Okay, I'll call the roll.

Ducka Brown.

Ducky Brown, yes.

McBride?

McBride, yes.

Bohannon?

Bohanan, yes, and Hannan is yes.

Okay, thank you.

Thank you.

Good afternoon.

For the record, Eric Prime Van Baylor Law Firm 225 South Emerson and Greenwood on behalf of the petitioners, David Melissa Stellick.

It's your docket number 2025 UV3-033, which is item number 10 on today's agenda.

Uh we are uh much like the first gentleman requesting a four-day waiver of the notice requirement uh for the same reason that the the notice uh list was a little tardy getting out, and they were sent out as soon as we received the same.

Okay, thank you.

Uh this is a four-day notice request.

Is there anyone in the audience for petition two zero two five dash UV three-033 who has an interest and would be opposed to four-day notice waiver?

See none, can we hear from staff?

Thank you, Chairperson Harmon.

Members of the board staff has no objection to the four-day waiver request of notice.

Okay, we'll take a motion.

Bohan is so move.

In a second.

Ducke Brown second.

We have a motion and a second.

I'll call the roll of Ducket Brown.

Ducky Brown, yes.

McBride.

McBride, yes.

Bohannon.

Bohannon, yes.

And Hannon is yes.

Uh the waiver has been granted.

Thank you very much.

And then on the same docket item, uh, we are requesting with uh staff's pre-approval of the item that this be moved to the uh expedited uh list for today's consideration.

Okay.

Uh anyone in the audience with an interest in 2025-UV3-033.

Who would be opposed to moving this petition to the expedited docket?

See none, can we hear from staff?

Thank you, Chairperson Harmon.

Members of the board staff is recommending approval of this and is not no is not aware of any remonstrance, therefore uh staff does agree with moving this to the expedited portion.

Yeah.

Um okay, thank you.

Let's take a motion to move this to the expedited docket, and then we'll cover the expedited docket.

Bohan and so move.

And a second.

Ducke Brown second.

Okay, I'll call the roll.

Ducka Brown.

Ducky Brown, yes.

Uh McBride.

McBride, yes.

Bohannon.

Bohannon, yes.

And Hannon is yes.

Um, thank you.

At the end of the special request, we will be sure to uh waive our rules of procedure to handle expedited docket.

Uh well, yeah, you should go ahead and do that as okay.

Motion and vote.

Yeah.

All right.

So that's um ask for a waiver of our rules of procedure to allow the board to vote for all expedite petitions and adopt their findings of fact without any additional testimony from individual petitioners.

I will hear a motion.

Bohan is so move.

And a second.

Duncan Brown second.

Thank you.

Duck I'll call the roll.

Ducker Brown.

Ducky Brown, yes.

McBride.

McBride, yes.

Bohannan?

Bohanan yes.

And Hannan is yes.

Thank you.

Okay.

Good afternoon.

Uh attorney John Cross, address 13 North State Street, Greenfield, Indiana.

Uh, here on two items.

The first one, item 11 on the docket for property 1147 East Troy Avenue, uh, 2025 UV 3034, requesting a three-day uh waiver of notice for the same reason, received on the third and and they were sent out on the fourth.

Okay, thank you.

This is for 2025-UV3-034.

Is anyone in the audience opposed to a uh did you say a four-day waiver?

Uh three-day waiver.

Three-day waiver of notice.

See none.

Can we hear from staff?

Could you repeat the petition number again?

This is two zero two five-Uv three-zero three four, East Troy Avenue.

Item number eleven on the docket.

I'm sorry, you caught me off guard.

Uh and the request again was this is a request for a three-day waiver of notice.

Yes.

Uh staff has no objection to the waiver.

Uh there's the petitioner has another petition.

I was expecting that one.

My apologies.

Okay, no, no worries.

All right.

Uh in that case, we'll take a motion.

Bohan is so moved.

And a second.

Ducke Brown, second.

Okay, we have a motion and a second.

I'll call the roll.

Ducket Brown.

Ducky Brown, yes.

McBride.

McBride, yes.

Uh Bohanan.

Bohanan, yes.

Hannan is yes.

A three-day waiver has been granted for 2025 UV 3-0 three four.

Thank you.

Uh also here on item 7 on the docket.

Uh 2025 DV3037 for 3331 North Hawthorn Lane.

Uh, requesting the same three-day notice of waiver.

Uh we received on the third posted signed on the third and got the uh mailing notices out on the fourth.

Okay, for a three-day waiver of notice.

So this is for 2025-dv three-037.

Is anyone in the audience with an interest in that petition and would oppose a three-day waiver?

See none.

Can we hear from staff?

Thank you, Chairperson Harman and members of the board.

Staff has no objection to the three-day waiver.

Okay, in that case, I'll take a motion.

Bohan is so moved.

And a second.

Ducke Brown second.

I'll call the roll.

Ducott Brown.

Ducky Brown, yes.

McBride.

McBride, yes.

Bohannan.

Bohanon, yes.

And Hannon is a yes.

A waiver has been granted for item number seven.

Thank you.

And then I do have a second special request on this one.

Uh we do have staff support.

Uh, we have not received any remonstrance and don't believe staff has received any so request to be moved to the expedited docket.

Okay, this is for a request to move petition two zero two five dash d v three-zero three seven to the expedited docket.

Anyone in the audience uh with an interest in this case who would be opposed to moving this to the expedited docket.

See none.

Can we hear from staff?

Thank you, Chairperson Harmon.

Members of the board.

Staff is recommending approval of this is not aware of any remonstrance, therefore staff has no objection to move this to the expedited portion.

Okay, I'll hear a motion to move 2025-DV three-037 to the expedited docket.

Bohan is so move.

Thank you.

I'll call the roll.

Ducket Brown.

Ducket Brown, yes.

McBride?

McBride, yes.

Bohannan.

Bohanon, yes.

And Hannon is yes.

Um item number seven has been moved to the expedited docket.

Thank you.

Okay, any other special requests.

Chair Person Harmon Lindby.

My apologies.

Go ahead.

Come on, come on, come on up.

Good afternoon.

My name's Adam D.

Hart, project manager for with Keela Webb Associates.

Our offices are located at 486 Gradle Drive, Carmel, Indiana, 46032.

I'm here today on uh petition item number six.

Petition number two zero two five DV3036 at 2065 Columbia Avenue.

We're requesting a four-day waiver of notice for requirements for getting out late.

Okay, a four-day waiver of notice request for 2025-dv three-zero three-six.

Is there anyone in the audience with an interest in that petition who would be opposed to a waiver uh of notice?

Four-day waiver.

See none.

Uh, come here from staff.

Yes, uh, thank you, back team chairperson and members of the board have given it the primary reason for this waiver is uh staff's own delay in provision of notice materials.

We would have no objection to the waiver.

Okay, I'll take a motion for a four-day waiver of notice.

Bohan is so move.

Ducke Brown second.

Oh, call the roll.

Ducket Brown.

Ducky Brown, yes.

McBride.

McBride, yes.

Bohannan?

Bohanan, yes.

And Hannan is yes.

Four-day waiver of notice has been granted.

Thank you.

Anything else on that one?

Yes, sir.

I have an additional request on the same item on the agenda requesting a uh continuance to the next regularly scheduled meeting so we can work out some items with staff based on information that was in the staff report.

Okay, this is a request to continue this petition to the December 16th hearing.

Is there anyone in the audience for 2025-D V three-036 who would be opposed to continuing this hearing to the December 16th hearing?

Seeing none, can we hear from staff?

Yeah, uh, thank you.

Acting Chairperson Hannon, members of the board.

Um, this be the first request of continuance by the petitioner and uh staff would be happy to continue discussions as needed and has no objection to the request.

Okay, thank you.

Um hearing no concerns, I'll tick a motion.

Bohan is so moved.

Ducke Brown second.

I have a motion and a second.

I'll call the roll.

Ducka Brown.

Ducky Brown, yes.

McBride?

McBride, yes.

Bohannan?

Bohanan, yes.

Hannan is yes.

2025-DV3-036 has been continued to the December 16th hearing.

And is that without notice?

Without additional notice.

Yeah, correct, without additional notice.

Thank you for your time.

Okay, see no other special request from the audience.

Does staff have any requests?

Thank you, Chairperson Harmon.

Members of the board, staff will draw your attention to item number five, petition number 2025 UV 3035, located at 10211.

Registered neighborhood organization has filed an automatic continuance, continuing this petition to the December 16th 2025 hearing, though.

So acknowledged, thank you.

Thank you.

Yeah.

Thank you.

I can chair Hanna members of the board staff withdraw your attention to item number three on the docket.

Um 2025 D V three O three four.

Uh, various addresses at East 21st Street.

Um, a timely automatic continuance was filed by a registered neighborhood organization in advance of today's hearing, uh thereby automatically continuing it to your December 16th hearing date.

Uh this would merely require the board's acknowledgement.

So acknowledged, thank you.

Thank you.

Uh staff would also draw your attention to item number four, uh 2025 DV3035 at 7930 Castleton Road.

Uh the petitioner is not in attendance today.

They are um engaged in holiday travel, but they requested that staff um make the request on their behalf to continue this to your December 16th hearing as well.

There's also a small notice efficiency and the fact that they were out of town.

Um staff would have no objection given this is the first such request.

Okay, uh is there anyone in the audience with an interest in 2025-DV3-035 and be opposed to continuing this hearing to December 16th.

Okay.

Hearing none, um, I will take a motion for that one.

Bohannon so move.

And a second.

Doug Brown, second.

I will call the roll, Ducca Brown.

Ducky Brown, yes.

McBride.

McBride, yes.

Bohannon.

Bohannon, yes.

Hannon is yes.

Thank you.

Yes.

And then finally, staff would draw your attention to item number nine on the agenda 2025 UV three zero two two at 1044 St.

Patrick's Street.

Um, in addition to the other initially uh petitions for initial hearing this afternoon, a three-day waiver of notice requirements would be needed, uh, predominantly due to staff delay and provision of notice materials.

I believe the petitioner is here today enabled a comment, but we would have no objection to that waiver.

Okay, so this is for item number nine, two zero two five-UV three-032 uh request for three-day waiver of notice.

Yeah, Misha Rabinowich one Indiana Square Suite 1800 here on behalf of the petition.

Petitioner in this case, I overlooked it.

Thank you.

Um, Mr.

Weigel.

Um we did receive the notice late, send it out three days late.

Request the waiver.

Okay.

Um very good.

Is there anyone in the audience opposed to a three-day waiver of notice for 2025-UV3-032?

Okay, see none.

Um staff, I believe.

Do you anything else you want to add?

I think we're good.

Okay.

Um I'll take a motion for a three-day waiver of notice.

Bohan and so move.

And a second.

Doctor Brown, second.

Okay, I'll call the roll.

Ducker Brown.

Duncan Brown, yes.

McBride.

McBride, yes.

So Hannon?

Bohan, yes.

And Hannon is yes.

It's been granted.

Thank you.

Thank you, Acting Chairperson Hannon, members of the board, staff would draw your attention to item number one.

2025 DV3020 amended at 4102 Madison Avenue.

I do not see anybody representing that case here today, but um staff and the petitioner have agreed to a continuance to December 16th, so on behalf of the petitioner, uh, is requesting that continuance, and that would be without new notice.

Okay, thank you.

This is for 2025-dv3-020.

Is anyone in the audience opposed to continuance to the December 16th hearing?

See none.

I'll take a motion to continue that petition.

Bohan is so move.

Second.

I'll call the roll.

Duncker Brown.

Doug Brown, yes.

McBride?

McBride, yes.

Bohannon.

Well, Hannon, yes.

Hannon is yes.

Uh item number one's been continued to the December 16th hearing.

Thank you.

Um we will now proceed to the expedited docket.

These are petitions to be expedited.

Case number two zero two five-dv three-zero three seven, property address three three-three one North Hawthorne Lane.

Warren Township, Council District Number Nine, zoned D4.

The petitioner is Indy Real Estate Consulting LLC, represented by John Cross.

Variance of development standards of the consolidated zoning and subdivision ordinance to provide for the construction of a duplex on an 82-foot wide lot, 90 feet required.

Case number 2025-UV3-033, property address 590 Southeast Street.

22, zoned C1 slash DA.

The petitioners are David and Melissa Stellick, represented by Rachel Sloop and Eric Prime.

Variants of use of the consolidated zoning and subdivision ordinance to provide for an expansion of a musical instrument manufacturing and repair facility, subject to the filed site plan and plan of operation.

Not permitted.

Is there anyone in attendance today that has any objection to these petitions?

Chairperson, that's the end of the expedited docket.

Okay, thank you.

On case 2025-DV3-037, Patrice Duckett Brown votes yes, Brian Hannon votes yes, Aaron McBride votes yes, and Rod Bohannon votes yes.

That variance is granted.

And on case 2025-UV3-033, Patrice Duckett Brown votes yes, Brian Hannon votes yes, Aaron McBride votes yes, and Rod Bohannon votes yes.

That variance is granted.

Okay, thank you.

Um we will now proceed to our regular business, regular docket.

I believe we have two cases left.

These are petitions for public hearing.

Case number 2025-UV3-032, property address 1044 St.

Patrick Street.

The petitioner is Murphy Arts Center LLC, represented by Misha Rabinowich.

Variants of use and development standards of the consolidated zoning and subdivision ordinance to provide for the operation of an outdoor entertainment venue for one year, subject to the filed site plan of operation, not permitted, with reductions in required parking, 16 spaces required, and temporary placement of both unscreened service areas in a front yard and improvements with a zero-foot front yard setback.

Screening of service areas and 10-foot setback required, with temporary stage shipping containers, and other improvements encroaching within an alley right of way.

Encroachments not permitted.

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?

I do.

Good afternoon again.

Board members Misha Rabinowich, attorney with offices at one Indiana Square Suite 1800.

Here with me today are two of the principals of Hi-Fi uh Indianapolis, which owns and operates the High Fi Music Venue and the Hi-Fi Annex and Fountain Square, which we're here to discuss today.

Josh Baker and Dan Kemer is in the back there.

In your materials at Tab 1 is an is an aerial.

The Hi-Fi Annex is an outdoor music venue that was created at the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic in the summer of 2020 in the courtyard or in the parking area that is behind the Murphy Arts Building in Fountain Square.

And also here's the owner of the Murphy Arts Building, Craig von Dalen.

There's also a number of uh other people here in support of the petition.

Um maybe just a chance to recognize them and have them stand up if you would.

We're not aware of anyone, thank you.

Uh, in remonstrance, I'll talk about some of the folks here, and some of them would like, I think, to speak with you uh today here in a bit.

If you'll remember back to the COVID-19 pandemic time, folks were starving for outdoor activities because they couldn't congregate inside.

It was a chaotic time, but Josh and his team with some creative thinking came up with what was and has been by all accounts a very successful and important community asset, this outdoor music venue.

They've successfully operated the venue as the Hi-Fi Annex since the summer of 2020, conducting regular outdoor concert series each summer since then.

In connection with creating the Hi-Fi uh Annex, Josh and his team worked cooperatively with DBNS with the state and with the Alcohol Tobacco Commission on the proper permitting when they started it during COVID.

They believed they had all the necessary permits.

So back when this came to their attention in the fall of 2024, we were actually here before you can't remember which commissioners were here that day, but the uh variances and the same variances that were here before you today were approved on the expedited agenda.

Um they were limited to one summer, this the 2025 summer season.

It was just a temporary variance that was believed to be all that was needed at the time.

Um that's this season, so it expired in November about now.

Um Josh and his team at that time were well on their way with architectural plans and agreements to take more space in the Murphy Arts building.

They'd worked with uh architects and designers, they'd work with the landlord to obtain a lease for more space.

Umfortunately, and it was believed that that could be that work could be completed by the end of 2025, such that they would move all of their outdoor operations indoor in this expanded space.

Unfortunately, after considerable effort and expense, I think over a hundred thousand dollars in pre-development costs, at the last minute, literally at the closing table, that financing for the indoor redevelopment fell through.

They've now been able to put a new financing package together and believe they're back on track, such that the construction on the indoor space can begin the beginning of 2026, but it won't be completed until uh November or so of 2026.

So that means that in order to keep the hi-fi business going, they have to continue to operate uh the annex for next summer.

Um so we understand that we're back before you asking for essentially the same thing that we asked for earlier this year, but without it, unfortunately, we'll have another shuttered business in Fountain Square, and I don't think anybody wants that.

Um we understand that if this were a problem business or a business that was creating issues or an eye sore, it might make sense to deny these variances and not permit this business to go forward.

But by all accounts, it's a very viable and desirable business, and overall has had a very positive impact on the community.

And I'd like to uh recognize these materials are in your uh or these letters of support are in your materials, but uh at tab six is a letter of support from City Council President Vop Osselee.

Um at tab set seven is a letter of support from City Councilor Kristen Jones, and Councillor Jones is here today and will speak, will speak to you.

I think she feels strongly about this petition.

Also here today is Senator State Senator Andrea Hunley, and she will plan to speak to you today as this is in her district and an important uh asset for her.

Then behind Tab 8 is a letter of support from the Fountain Fletcher Merchants uh District.

I think there's a representative of this organization here today.

Behind Tab 9 is a letter of support from the Fountain Square Neighborhood Association and Dakota Plewecki is here and will likely speak to you in support of this petition.

We also worked very closely with St.

St.

Patrick's Church, which is directly across the street from the Hi-Fi.

Originally, the church expressed opposition in the form of a letter to the staff due to some concerns they had regarding noise and some other things.

With the help of Councillor Jones, we sat down with church leadership last week, and we were able to work out an agreement such that they are now supportive of this petition, subject to commitments that we agreed upon with them.

And those commitments are behind TAD 12.

In your materials, they address things like parking security and sound mitigation.

So we're pleased to be here with the support of the church, and we're not aware of uh any opposition.

We're asking for a very limited request, just a variance of one year to permit the 2026 compart season to go forward, and then the improvements that make up the outdoor space would be removed at the end of November, and it would just be operating indoors.

To talk a little bit more about what's in your materials here at tab one is an aerial.

We referred to that earlier.

Tab two is the site plan.

You can kind of see how there's shipping containers that frame the perimeter of the event space to create a separation.

It is those shipping containers which in some uh areas encroach into public right-of-way, but it in no way does it encroach in a pedestrian um interference type way or anything like that.

There are photographs which show these shipping containers along the street, and where the these are behind tab three, and you can see that they don't interfere with the sidewalk there.

Um at tab four is the plan of operation, which of course binds the petitioner to the commitments that are included in that.

These such things as the number of employees, the hours of operation, um, auxiliary parking, safety and security, and other things.

The point here is that this operator is doing whatever is necessary to make sure this venue is operated in the way it should be, and it's a I think a tribute to them that they've been able to do that for the last five years and really haven't had much of any neighbor complaints.

Behind tab five is a parking agreement.

Um there's a parking lot that's due south of the uh site where they have an agreement to provide up to 22 additional spaces.

Those are typically used for tour buses and employees in that sort of thing, but it really does provide some relief for the neighborhood.

Uh almost unanimously, the community, I think, believes that this outdoor music venue is a community asset and it benefits the area.

One letter of support that I hadn't mentioned is behind Tab 10.

That's from Chris Gall, who is the executive vice president and chief marketing officer for visit Indy.

I just wanted to identify one quote for you.

He says that beyond the music, the Hi-Fi Annex contributes meaningfully to Indy's visitor economy, drawing thousands who dine, stay and explore in the surrounding neighborhood.

Its presence has strengthened our city's cultural tourism landscape, offering national acts, a uniquely indie stage with the background of the city.

I've already talked about the letters of support.

Um really the only opposition we've heard from is from the planning staff.

And in a way, we do understand that because you can't have petitioners repeatedly coming back here for one year temporary variances.

That is an unworkable situation.

We get that.

But this is a unique situation, and I think we've explained what happened here.

And Josh Met may want to explain further when we come back to you in the in the rebuttal, but they had every intention of moving their operations indoors for the 26 uh season.

Um, it it didn't happen to great expense.

So we're asking just for one more year extension of these variances.

With that, I'd like to yield a little bit of my time.

Let's start with Dakota Ploeki.

He's from the Fountain Square Neighborhood Association who'd make a few comments to you.

Good afternoon.

I'm the president of the Fountain Square Neighbor Association at 1506 Hoyt.

You know, the again I thank you for the time and the opportunity to speak on this.

When we have talked about this within our community uh universally, uh vast majority of neighbors are very supportive of this.

We see the Hi-Fi as an anchor business in our community.

Uh the reality is that Fountain Square is a place as a destination for folks who call uh Indy home, but also for our visitors and our tourism.

Uh without uh the Hi-Fi as an anchor institution, we'd be really in dire straits.

Um quite frankly, uh most neighbors are just wondering why we can't make the annex outdoor space permanent.

But I know that's a different conversation for future down the line, and we're very supportive of this.

Uh we've received uh almost no complaints from neighbors over the course of years in the operation of the annex.

Uh and on the very few instances where there's been times uh to address something within the hi-fi, uh, they have always been a responsive partner, much more responsive than other uh businesses as well.

I just want to note that uh we're also recently awarded uh, you know, the cultural district grant uh from the DMD, uh, and part of that is our ability to bring in artists and remain uh one of Indy's premier uh artist kind of enclaves uh in the in Indianapolis.

Uh the Hi-Fi is absolutely central to that and provides a lot of opportunities for local artists as well as uh acts from all around the country, um perhaps the world uh to come in to visit our community.

So we're very supportive of this.

Uh we we hope uh that we look past um the more bureaucratic mundanities of an extended uh one year uh extension uh to allow this community asset to continue uh operating.

Thank you.

And it looks like we got a minute and a half, so State Senator Um Andrea Hunley would like to say if you want to.

I can be quick.

Thank you, Mr.

Chairman, and members of the um commission.

I want to just emphasize again that this is a unique situation.

We do recognize that, and um this is a unique venue.

I am Andrea Hunley, State Senator for District 46 offices at 200 West Washington Street, 46204.

And I would ask that you all do support granting this variance.

It's really a one-year renewal of the current variance as it stands.

There are about 40,000 visitors that were drawn to um the Fountain Fletcher district, boosting up the creative economy there directly because of shows and events that are happening at the Hi-Fi.

Also want to emphasize that the Hi-Fi Annex is one of very few venues in the city for music that is all ages, and so this does allow families to come together as well as additional young people, and we know that we're looking for um opportunities for our young people in the community to uh be engaged and stay out of trouble.

And what better way than listening to music with friends?

This also um not just supports uh the local businesses, but also our musicians who are touring nationally, as we have Oreo Jones with us here, who's a nationally touring artist who graces us with his private presence at the Hi-Fi as well.

And just knowing that this is about patrons of the arts, but neighbors, and all of those shops, businesses, and restaurants that really do depend on this anchor institution.

So we ask that you grant this variance.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Well, with that, uh, we ask for your uh approval of the variance.

Happy to answer any questions.

Thank you.

Any questions for the petitioner?

Uh yes, go ahead.

I guess I just have one question in our notes.

It states that the co-tenants of the Murphy's art building is have potential inconvenience about the parking in the alleyways.

I just wanted to verify that because I know the owner is here.

Is there an inconvenience?

We do have the building owner here that could probably the best person to speak to that.

Um we we've not heard from any complaints, but um go ahead.

Uh Craig Vandale and the statement, sorry.

The statement is the alleyways are given the lack of vacation petition and potential inconvenience for the coal tenants for the Murphy Art Building.

I just wanted to verify that.

Sure.

Uh Craig Von Dale and address of 410 South College.

I just put a mitt in my mouth.

I'm very sorry I didn't expect to come up here.

Um the uh hi-fi folks have actually made it easier for people to get access to the building by making the the elevator at the back of the building accessible without having to enter their space, and uh as far as we know, we've not received any any serious complaints from uh other tenants in the building.

They all actually very much enjoy the fact that they have the venue outside.

Thanks.

Other questions.

Okay, could I just have you um I you've you've covered this in your testimony?

Um but could you explain again the reason for the one year um request and when not shorter, why not longer, and what you anticipate can happening at the conclusion of that one year?

Yeah, so just to make sure it's clear the hi-fi operates an indoor venue, and then they operate the annex, which is what we're talking about here.

The longer term is in to expand and improve the indoor venue.

Um there's some spec space that used to be uh Margarita Mexican restaurant and some other space that would be included to make the Hi-Fi venue larger.

Um they would then eliminate the outdoor space.

And the reason why one year is needed is because it's going to take uh until November, the end of November of uh next year 26 to complete the indoor improvements.

And Josh can speak to this, but it the outdoor improvements do fund the ongoing operations and are absolutely required.

Thank you.

That answers my question.

Yeah, thank you.

Anything else?

Okay.

Uh before I ask for any remonstrance, I know counselor Jones is here and um happy to give you some time in support of the petition.

Thank you.

Thank you, Chair Hannon and Commissioners.

Kristen Jones, City County Council District 18, 714 Shepard Street, Indianapolis, Indiana, 46221.

I'm here in support of the variants.

As a counselor, when I'm looking at a case, the first thing that I'm looking at is what are the impacted neighbors, what does the community think?

And in this situation, Josh Baker and the Hi-Fi and his team have been exemplary neighbors.

And as you see from the folks who have testified, I went, they've had many numerous meetings.

They've been great partners, they've been a community asset, they've been a cornerstone in this situation for many years.

Going back to the way back machine, I know we're talking about COVID.

We really don't like to talk about COVID, but when that pandemic came, live entertainment was one of the first, they were the first folks that that they lost their jobs.

They were also one of the last ones to come back.

But Josh protected his staff.

He protected his staff and he thought of a new way to to help not only his staff but to help us and to help the community.

And he's still thinking about that.

He's still thinking about ways to protect that.

And um, and for us, mental health was a huge thing in COVID.

I dealt with many constituents who were dealing with, we were talking about trails, we were talking about entertainment and how can we protect that?

And so Josh, for us to have that in our community was a huge asset.

And so for Josh, he helps us with our community from the tonic ball to Center Hunley said nationally.

I have family in Boston, I have family in Nashville, and they talk about the Hi-Fi.

They know what the Hi-Fi is.

And for us, that's a proud moment that we have this independent venue that people nationally know.

They bring in national conferences.

And to have a for me in District 18, I don't have a lot of support letters from Visa Indy.

And I'm sure as the commission, you probably don't see a lot of support letters from Visa Indy for a lot of zoning cases.

So I think that speaks volumes that visit India is willing to get involved in this case and say it's very important that we keep this open.

I know it's 12 months.

I know it's a unique situation, but I think it's very important to this community.

I think it's a very important to this neighborhood, and there are challenges, and we've had challenges, but we face them head on.

We had a challenge with the church, but we dealt with it.

Josh and his team, we sat down and we found we found accommodations and we figured it out, and we figured out together.

And so I think that's what's unique in this situation is we can figure out the the hurdles that we have and the challenges that we have, and he's willing to have those conversations, and he's willing to go to battle and figure out how can we figure this out together and what can we do.

And so if we can just get through these 12 months, then it all will go back to being indoor.

And so I'm asking for your help.

I'm asking for your help, not just for Hi-Fi and for Josh, but for the community and for Indianapolis as a whole, so that we can keep this open and we can keep running, and we can keep celebrating our artists.

We can keep celebrating as families, and we can keep doing what they've been doing since the pandemic and doing what they do best.

So I'm humbly asking for for your vote and your consideration today.

So thank you for listening to us, and thank you for all that you do.

And happy Thanksgiving.

Thank you.

Yeah, same with you.

Thank you.

Um, let's see if we have any remonstrators for 2025-UV3-032.

Okay, seeing none, uh, let's hear from staff.

Absolutely.

Uh thank you very much, acting Jefferson Ham members of the board for your time and for your volunteering.

Thank you to the petitioner as well as others for their comments about this land use case.

Staff is recommending denial of the second temporary variant to allow for a use that is not permitted within the C4 district, as well as for associated variants of development standards related to the location of the improvements as well as the lack of parking.

Obviously, I've covered the location of the site well, but it is the subject site is shown on the screen there to the west of the Murphy Arts building with public alleyways to the north and to the east, and then site access from the west for pedestrian sort of current use of the Hi-Fi Annex.

It is an outdoor concert space with a temporary stage and several anchored shipping containers for the sale of food and merchandise, uh, ticket sales, bathrooms, things of that nature.

As mentioned, it was opened during the confusion of the COVID-19 pandemic at the height of it in 2020-2021.

It's operated during warmer months since.

The applicant had correspondence from the city's Department of Business and Neighborhood Services implying that they were in compliance with applicable zoning restrictions at the time of that temporary installation, as well as having received state approvals for placement of those shipping containers.

The need for a variance of use related to the outdoor aspect of the concerts was only discovered when a two-story viewing deck was installed without proper permits in place in 2024.

That deck has since been removed, but a temporary variance was granted by this body back in February to allow for completion of the 2025 concert season with plans for operations to move into tenant space to the north within the existing building afterwards.

And that was on the expedited docket, if you don't remember us talking about it, that would be why.

Surrounding land uses include um St.

Patrick Street as well as the church to the west, homes to the southwest, and then a vibrant commercial strip along Virginia Avenue to the northeast.

It's also near the um square bus rapid transit stop at a red line.

Um this parcel is not located within an IHPC designated historic district, although land to the northeast of it along that corridor is.

Um, related to some parking in the lot to the south at a subject site.

Uh, there's also variances required for a storage containers and dumpsters that are both within the required front yard setback from St.

Patrick as well as within public alleyways.

Um, in addition to zoning approval for encroachment into the alleys and public rights of way.

Additional approval would likely be needed from both the state and from uh Department of Business and Neighborhood Services in order for shipping containers to remain in those public alleyways.

Um this approval wouldn't replace those requirements necessarily.

Um staff wouldn't be supportive of continued blocking of those alleys.

You can see the level of blockage within uh photos three and six within staff's report that I haven't been vacated for private usage.

That's unclear that it would be within the public interest to have both of those access points blocked.

Well, it sounds like you're asking that you expressed concerns from co-tenants within the building to have that alley not immediately accessible per the building owner who is here today.

Um the need for that encroachment approval, moreover, is based on the unpermitted use.

That's the case of essentially justifying one variance by grant of another, which wouldn't constitute a land use best practice necessarily.

It's also not immediately clear what site-specific difficulty might exist to prevent those improvements from being shifted in a little bit, placed within required setbacks and outside of uh right of way.

Uh the placement of those structures would be beyond the previously agreed upon deadline for removal, which seems like it would be a difficulty imposed by the circumstances and not necessarily by the site itself.

Uh this property is zoned C4.

Uh, the C4 zoning district allows for a broad range of legal and by-right uses within the use tabled for ordinance.

There are dozens that would be allowed to be developed within C4.

Um, concerts and entertainment uses are contemplated in an indoor capacity for the zoning district.

Um, outdoor shows typically create greater greater negative externalities for surrounding areas, you know, things like noise, light, traffic, uh behavior of patrons, things of that nature.

So uh but those are limited to the C5, C7, and CBD2 zoning districts.

Uh the applicant uh did allude to it, but um full details on the proposed use, hours, intensity of the use are within staff's report and within their documents within that filed plan of operation and approval of this position would be subject to that.

Uh the staff had recommended approval of this temporary variance in February for the 2025 year.

That sort of does back to question on what has changed in the context between our approval recommendation back then and our denial recommendation now.

Um if you'll indulge me, I will read a small portion from staff's report that was generated at that point in time.

Uh we'd indicated that our support was narrowly related to the details of the specific use, neighboring context and circumstances of how the unpermitted use began during the confusion of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Although staff is typically reluctant to retroactively allow unpermitted uses to avoid circumstances of you know asking for given this not permission.

Uh the temporary nature of this use as well as the effort undertaken by the owner to remain compliant with all requirements of which they were made aware is relevant context.

Uh subject to a details and limitations outlined within the plan of operation, staff had recommended support of that petition with the caveat that future outdoor entertainment use variances in this location, either temporary or permanent by this or other tenants would likely not be supportable.

So that's sort of wherever the context has changed here.

Uh this last approval was somewhat predicated on the lack of awareness of the zoning rules.

I thought they were operating in compliance per city communication.

Um that is no longer the case here.

Um that staff report unambiguously communicated that beyond the 2025 season for use would not be permitted.

Also, um, you know, the world is very different now in 2025-26 than it was from 2020, thankfully.

Uh, the need for those sort of outdoor permissions and limitations might be different from how it was during the height of the pandemic.

Uh it sounds like a large reason for this extension is based on the difficulties related from equity falling for you or a financial situation, which is unfortunate to be sure.

Um does not feel would constitute an undue hardship that would prevent any compliant land use from operating at the site, which would be the typical burden required by findings of facts for grant of a variance of use.

Uh, we also don't feel that grant of repeated temporary variances is the best land use practice either.

Uh, we're hopeful that options might exist to either move shows internally into the existing concert space or an alternate location or to an outdoor location in areas with compliant zoning to help avoid potential cancellation of shows while the new space in the north is being prepped.

Um, for those reasons outlined, uh we do recommend denial of the petition.

Um we did receive a remonstrance letter from the church last week.

Um they have negotiated and discussed further with the applicant and have withdrawn that letter and are now recommending approval subject to eight different commitments that are located within uh within the documents that the applicant provided if this were to be approved over our recommendation.

I would it should likely should be subject to those would be better to include them than to not include them.

So uh with that, I'm happy to answer any questions that the board might have.

Thank you.

Michael, can you repeat that last thing you said if it were to be approved over staff's recommendation?

Yes, if this were to be approved over our recommendation, uh we would recommend including those eight commitments.

Commitments, yes, thank you.

Um okay, questions for staff.

Okay, see none.

Um petitioner, you have time to close.

Yeah.

Uh I think Josh Baker would like to address you.

Thank you.

Um just as a reminder, kind of why we're here.

Uh, I think it's kind of there.

Oh, sorry, Josh Baker, 1043, Virginia Avenue, Indianapolis 46203.

Um, just a reminder, kind of why we're here.

Um our intention was always to once this venue became clear that it was growing and evolving and there was a definite need um in the community.

Um, this is about three years ago.

We started kind of making plans to move this inside, mainly to answer um the question you asked earlier.

It's only six months out of the year right now, and so for this really to have a um the impact on our business and community would be great if we could go year-round.

Um, and and certainly um it became pretty clear about three years ago that this is a six-month process every year for us to try to even get this approved for outside, which we're a small business, and it takes a substantial amount of time, um, not only with this commission with the state who we've already met with and and who's approved this, um, the the variance on their end.

Um so uh logistically it's it's really important for us to get this into a space we can control a little bit more.

Um and frankly, our staff goes through a considerable amount of uh challenges outside of the elements, whether it be rain, weather, heat, um, all of those things, and that also impacts the artists.

So getting this inside in the control environment is is priority one.

So um, yes, we're back here again um asking for the same variance.

Uh we appreciate the consideration.

Um, appreciate the the outpouring of support from from our community.

Um, you know, I also wanted to highlight this is a really unique industry from logistical standpoint.

Uh shows that we are talking about now could have been booked two years ago.

Um, and so when staff is uh speaking of relocating and and things like that, you know, we're contractually obligated to do tours that were routed a couple years ago, and our intention was to have them in the indoor venue.

And since we can't, you know, we're still obligated to do those shows somewhere, which we'll we'll have to address on our end.

That's our our issue.

But the easiest easiest path here is just a simple extension and allow our neighborhood to continue to benefit what we're doing.

So thank you.

Well, a couple of comments.

One um item that I didn't mention in the opening, but I think is relevant to what Josh just said.

And in number third in Tab 13, we have included the approval from the state, who is approved uh essentially this variance uh related to the shipping containers, and they they can't just be moved like a little bit in or a little bit of their welded together, and and um as Josh said, there's a there's a lot that goes into getting this um the getting this uh set up again.

I do want to be sympathetic to staff's concern about the you know the repeat variances coming to you for one year.

That that's an unworkable situation.

But again, this one's unique.

I've been doing this a long time, actually, never had um this situation come up.

Um with that, we are in agreement with the eight commitments um that we worked at with the church, and so we would ask that your uh approval if you are so inclined, be subject to those commitments, and with that, we're happy to answer any questions.

Thank you.

And you've shared those commitments with staff.

Okay, great, thank you.

Um just one question.

Could you just speak on um if there would be an alternative venue option or any exploration that has gone into that based off staff's recommendations?

That's probably a question for Josh.

Could you could you state that again?

Yeah, just wanting to know if there's been any consideration to an alternative venue or options based off staff's recommendation.

Yeah, I mean, we're we have we represent a number of venues.

The and the unfortunate part is it's all about capacity and however how many tickets a specific artist can sell, the contractual agreement with the agent and the agency.

They're very um specific to the size of the venue, and so we can't just take a show that's outside and put it inside because that show was booked with the understanding it would sell 700 tickets and inside.

You can only put 400 people in there.

So granted, only a couple of those shows are on sale now.

We've really tried to diminish as many things as we can until we got here, and we've also been uh you know, letting staff know, hey, we're contractually obligated to announce this show, we're not doing this in any nefarious way.

We'll we'll we'll deal with it if it's denied, but we know we have we were under obligations to announce those shows, so most of them can't be relocated to the indoor venue.

Could we look elsewhere?

Yes, but then now we're taking that away from a location that's very unique to us to our neighborhood.

Um, and I have a pretty small team, so we have a lot of efficiencies built around operating all of our venues in one space.

It's a huge logistical issue for us and a huge expense to go move that to let's say Fishers.

It's not something we really want to do, but if we will have to explore that if it's if it's denied.

Thank you.

Yep.

Other questions?

Okay, counselor Jones, anything you would like to add?

Okay, Senator Hunley?

Good.

Okay.

Uh still seeing any remonstrance, none being present.

Um, we'll go to the ballot.

Thank you.

On case 2025-UV3-032, Patrice Stuckett Brown votes yes, Brian Hannon votes yes, Aaron McBride votes yes, and Rod Bohannon votes yes.

The variance is granted.

That approval is subject to the eight commitments outlined in the staff report.

Thank you.

Okay.

And then we will proceed to item number 11 on the docket.

Case number 2025-UV3-034.

Property address 1147 East Troy Avenue.

Perry Township, Council District Number 19, zoned C5 TOD.

The petitioner is ARA Investments LLC, represented by Raymond A.

Basili.

Variants of use of the consolidated zoning and subdivision ordinance to provide for the location of two shipping containers for permanent storage.

Not permitted.

Will 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 will give us the truth and nothing but the truth?

I do.

Good afternoon, Attorney John Cross.

My address is 13 North State Street, Suite 241, Greenfield, Indiana.

Here on behalf of the petitioner, ARA Investments, who's represented here by Ahmed Yousef with me.

As stated, the petitioner owns the real estate at 1147 East Troy Avenue, on which there are two uh small automobile dealerships that operate there.

One operates on the eastern side of the property, and the other uh operates on the west.

Um they each have separate buildings on their properties, uh, some pole barns on the eastern one, all of those are uh permitted.

Uh the subject of this petition uh is seeking a developmental uh variance to permit the continued use of two connex storage containers uh on the site.

The uh subject two containers, they've been at this location uh since at least the early 2000s, as far as we could uh date it back to uh without any known complaint from uh the neighbors or the city in that time.

The petitioner wasn't aware the containers were not permitted uh on the property, which is zoned C5.

Uh once he received a notice from the city, he immediately contacted uh council and filed uh this petition.

So this is the first petition ever on this matter.

Uh again, this uh never came up because of a neighbor complaint, despite them being there for so long.

Um, as far as we know, no one's really noticed them given uh where they're located on the property, which we'll talk about a little bit more.

Uh it came up because uh a BNS inspector was uh in the area related to another property uh and noticed them, and that's uh started the the notice process.

So the petitioner has uh just submitted four exhibits just of the area of use um uh along with the ones in the staff report, but there are four pictures.

Um I believe that's the we have an area map as exhibit one, I believe.

So that's the location.

Uh the second one's the street view from Troy Avenue, as well as the third one, just to give you an idea of how many uh cars are on the on the lot.

Uh so that's from Troy Avenue.

Uh there's an area view.

You can see the containers kind of on the south.

There's a big building in the middle there.

Uh, the kind of whitish, grayish long uh rectangles on the south are the uh subject containers.

And we do believe that the continuing use of these containers do meet all the the necessary findings of fact here.

Uh as stated, these have been in existence for uh well over 20 years, as far as we can tell without any sort of injurious impact, uh complaints from the neighbors.

Uh they are not rusty, uh, they are actually in good condition.

Uh as stated, they're on the far south side of the property, uh, away from the view.

Uh one, the more eastern one is fully obscured from Troy Avenue by the existing buildings on the property.

The second that is a little more west is partially obscured, uh, so it is uh slightly more visible when you're coming uh driving east on Troy Avenue.

The petitioner also installed a six-foot private privacy fence uh on the south side of the property uh that runs into the uh containers.

It does not go behind the containers all the way, but it butts directly into them.

Uh that was done to provide screening to the properties to the south, uh, which are uh more dilapidated uh than they would like to see.

So it was a business decision to screen those properties from the properties of those fences.

They run directly and then stop at the containers.

So if the containers were not there, there would be uh a gap in where that fencing goes to.

Uh the containers are used for the business operations.

Um they are uh used to store car parts car parts uh used in the future to make the used cars uh more presentable for sale on those lots.

Uh there are no hazardous chemicals or other items that could contaminate the ground uh or air ever stored in them.

Uh the management and operation of these containers, uh it's silent, creates no noise or light pollution and just used when they need to get parts out, so it's not an active use throughout the day or any any at night or also at night.

Uh they have not attracted any sort of crime in the area since the five years that he's been there.

Um nothing has happened to them.

There have been no attempted break-ins.

So there's really been no impact on the on the actual property or the surrounding area with respect to them.

Similarly, uh the continued use would not have any sort of impact on the use of property again over 20 years without any sort of issues or complaints from the neighbors.

Containers are uh they're clean, they're well maintained.

Uh they have been painted to match the fence in the existing buildings so that they would better build in and be less noticeable to the area.

Uh again, they are obscured from uh vision from Troy Roy, either completely or just partially, uh depending on on which way you're traveling.

Uh there's no advertisements done on these containers.

They are strictly storage and they are virtually uh unnoceable to the uh surrounding areas except for the properties that be uh directly uh behind them.

But again, there's been never a complaint received either informally or formally through the city with respect to those properties that we're aware of.

And the uh the two businesses that do operate here, again, they're both uh used car lots.

Um the property, it's an undeveloped area, uh it requires all viable efforts in order to uh operate and attract business and customers here.

So in order to maximize their chances of a long-term success, they need to have as many uh cars on the lot as possible uh to sell to the to the surrounding area that was shown in the in the pictures how many uh cars that they would put on this property.

Um because they need to uh kind of compete with putting so many cars to advertise in market for sale, they're limited in the actual use of the property for other larger buildings that are there.

So that would uh the use of all the uh cars for sale prevents constructing larger and more permanent structures on the property uh and using the existing buildings for offices and vehicle cleaning uh in preparation to be placed on the lots.

So the uh actual conic storage trailers are critical to the successful operation of the businesses on the site.

Um one of the tenants uh the release is up in March, and uh petitioner doesn't believe that they would continue to renew a lease uh at this property without the the use of the trailers, as it is very important to their business going forward.

With respect to um staff's concerns contain in an innate report uh to get ahead of those, uh we don't believe that this approval would set any sort of precedent down the road.

We don't believe that other companies would try to go out and use storage containers for use.

Um this is a unique one where again they've been here since the early 2000s without any sort of use.

Uh there is a direct need for uh for these uh business operations to use them as they have continued to do so uh that are vital to their uh operations.

So that this wouldn't sort of set any sort of precedent because this is 20 years in existence um akin to illegal non-conforming use, uh, but we are seeking the variance route uh at the moment.

So uh that would not set any sort of precedent.

Um with respect to replacing the containers with uh other options again, they're very limited on spies that they have.

Containers do provide uh good storage, they are uh low maintenance, they're clearly a much lower cost, um, lower footprint, uh especially on where they are.

So to replace them uh would incur a much higher cost, which this property already has uh high cost, high mortgage.

So really it's a financial decision why uh the continued use of these uh long existing containers is much more uh the viable option than to uh have the ability just to build brand new structures for the purpose of storage, which just uh isn't in petitioners' cards right now.

And again, this isn't a uh self-imposed um issue.

The petitioner wasn't the one who put these there in the first place.

Um he's owned overly for five years now, and these have been there since the early 2000s.

Uh so again, this is a very uh tough uh location.

Uh the lot is uh a little unique where it is, so there's a lot of uh difficult uses that could go there for C5.

So automobile sales uh is a good fit.

There's other locations like it in the area as well, so it does uh uh uh uh thorough or flourish there, um, but again, the storage of these parts for the vehicles to make them more attractive uh for marketing is vital for them.

Uh so it's not self-imposed because they've already been there for so long, uh, but these are also very vital for the continued uh use of the the property.

And the uh owner, I mean recognizing that we don't want this to impact the uh future use of the property uh or take advantage of it.

The owner and petitioner would commit that they would not add any add any additional uh connex or other storage containers, so it'd be limited just to the uh two or less that are already existing there.

Uh they would commit to maintaining the two containers in substantially the same good condition as they currently exist, and they would commit that the variance would not run with the land, so uh it would not be allowed to be used for future owners.

I I believe that there was a remonstrance letter by gateway allowance who that was their main concern is that uh if this variance is granted, clearly it's gonna be allowed and for all future uses, so not knowing what the future use of this property is, uh that would no longer be an issue as uh they would commit that it would not run with the land.

So, for those reasons, reasons we believe that uh some minor variance uh that meets all the findings of fact.

We'd be happy to answer any questions and would respect approval of the same.

Thank you.

Okay, thank you.

Any questions for the petitioner?

The containers have been there more than five years since the early 2000s, yes.

Which predates the current owners.

Sorry, which predates the current owners of five.

Yes, he's owned it for five years.

I don't know the prior history going back to them.

Yes.

Okay, yeah, predates.

Thank you.

Um see no further questions and see no remonstrators present.

Let's hear from staff.

Thank you, Chairperson Home, members of the board.

Um the reason why we're here today is because the two portable shipping containers located on the shipping site are not considered or as or intended to be used as permanent storage buildings.

That was the choice of the petitioner.

Shipping containers by definition are commercial vehicles, and as such are permitted primarily in the C7, which is heavy commercial or industrial districts, I2, I3, I4, which allows for outdoor storage of commercial vehicles.

Used car sales is not considered storage of vehicles to be to clarify.

Uh in addition, permanent accessory structures, which are built and have a commercial building form, which other commercial entities have used and have not had to have been cited for variances, are regulated by the commercial building code where portable shipping containers do are not.

In addition to these, uh staff believes these two shipping containers were installed on site without proper permits, as staff's research did not find any permits at the time of installation, uh, as indicated uh early 2000s, late 1900s.

And even if they were installed then with a permit, well, a permitter, the permit office would have indicated they wouldn't need zoning at that point because they would have still been considered commercial vehicles.

So they would need to be zoning compliant or an ordinance.

But that length of time, that 25 years, uh, as the petitioner indicated sets a legal precedent.

No, it does not.

Uh, what would set a legal precedent if they had been there for 49 years or approximately April of 1969, which then they could be considered legally non-conforming, which would set the precedent for them to be there for that long.

They do not meet that.

That's why they are here.

So they cannot use the the excuse or the deaf the reasoning for being legally um precedent as a reason for granting the variants because they cannot meet that standard under the legally legally non-conforming use certificate standards.

Um that being said, this is increased intensity of the use on the site, even though it is zone C5.

There are regulations for C5, and that does not include the outdoor storage or these type of commercial vehicles.

Even though if they do meet the needs of the uh existing commercial use, staff has concerns if this petition were to approve, then the use of portable shipping containers for accessory storage could potentially expand on other surrounding lots based on the availability of land and similar uses in the area.

In the findings, the petition indicates a six-foot privacy fence on the far south boundary that obscures the storage containers from the homes to the south, except for their very top edges.

And the in his comments, he modified that to say they are part of the fence.

As you see in the photos on the screen now, uh specifically page 82 in the docket, you'll see pictures of the containers that are not obscured by a privacy fence along the alley.

In fact, I don't believe they meet the setback if they are considered accessory structures, nor are they providing screening or landscaping, which is not part of this request, but I believe they may be in violation of as well.

The containers themselves act as the privacy fence, possibly exceed the height of allowable privacy fence and contain vast amounts of graffiti that is fronting towards the residential to the south on as indicated on the next page 83 on the other side of the alley.

Uh this is strictly a preference, and um there's no the uh hardship applied by the ordinance on this site as the neighbor to the south is able to sell cars, store cars on site without the need for commercial shipping containers.

Um the site is zoned C5 and could be used legally without any um variances as other C5 car dealerships have in the area and throughout the township and city.

The need for the additional storage is self-imposed and could be addressed without a variance by constructing an addition to an existing building or using zoning compliant accessory structures that are that can be made security um resistant, uh, which is I believe part of the argument for using these.

Again, any practical difficulty is self-imposed by the petitioners' desire to use these unpermitted uh shipping containers instead of uh going the ordinance compliant route by getting permitted um accessory buildings that are uh built to the commercial building code with that staff does recommend to dial.

We'll be happy to answer any question you may have.

Thank you.

Any questions for staff?

I have one for you.

With uh hearing the commitments um that they're willing to provide in regards to no additional um units being put on the property, as well as uh not running with the land.

Can you just speak to that and what what staff's opinion or perspective would be on those commitments?

Um the proposed commitments would not change staff's opinion or recommendations, but it would still be denial.

Um thank you.

Thanks.

Anything else?

Okay, petitioner, you have five minutes to close.

Thank you.

Attorney John Cross again.

Uh just real uh two quick points.

Um I believe I uh cover most of my points on staff's concerns and in the main presentation.

Um and then hearing them again and thinking about really what the practicality and and reality of this variance is.

I mean, it to me it it does seem very minor.

Um I would disagree uh that we are asking for uh amounts to an increase of the intensity.

Um we are asking to be able to continue to uh store in the existing storage containers and staff's proposals they should store in uh a code compliant shed.

So it's really the same use, uh just different aesthetics.

So I know technically speaking, we're saying yes, it's more uh intensive because shipping containers would be commercial vehicles in C7.

This is a C5, so technically it is a more intensive use, but in reality of what we're asking for, it's really the exact same thing.

It's just what we're putting the um the structures in.

Um there's many good reasons to continue to let it stay, especially with it not running uh with the land and their continued uh maintenance of it.

Uh don't believe that based on the pictures, the use of the property, the way that they're using it, that it is either inconsistent with the actual use or inconsistent with the uh residential dwellings and other buildings that are going up that are made out of the modular containers uh that we're seeing more of nowadays.

I'm not saying there's a lot or any in this area, but these shipping containers um they are they are common uh and for what we're asking for.

I mean, we just saw them at the Hi-Fi uh property as well for their outdoor menu or outdoor venue use.

So there is um benefits that they can provide.

And so uh really this is just an aesthetic question in terms of storing these used car parts that again that are vital for the businesses in in the existing containers or for them to have to uh remove them, which takes a lot of cost, a lot of effort, and then to build uh the same-size sheds, which is gonna be a much higher burden and cost on the petitioner uh than any sort of uh uh it doesn't outweigh the the balance of the fact that there's been no injury, no intensive change to the property if they can continue to stay.

So would you like to add anything?

Can you say one little thing?

Sure.

Please state your name and address for the record.

My name is Ahmed Yosef.

I live in 138088 Way Cross Drive in Fisher's 46038.

Um forgive my if I'm just mumbling.

This is my first time to be in situation like this.

Uh I pushes this property in back in 2011 to hopefully be like operate as a use car dealership.

I was hoping to live the American dream.

Okay.

I put all my savings as a down payment on this property.

And I finally was able to get the license and operate there within six months.

I had to close doors down for multiple reasons.

One of them was theft.

I had multiple occasions of cars getting stolen.

That's why I put that fence to do that fence and make this property improve it.

I had to take a second mortgage on my personal house.

And I still had to close this place down.

And eventually I found somebody to rent it to.

And they've been operating there.

This place was a complete mess when I purchased it.

The fence was falling apart.

The houses behind that building is in a very rough shape.

Very, very rough shape.

Like mattresses and couches and stuff on the fence.

So I was able to improve the place dramatically.

And now I'm I didn't know anything about those containers.

Like it's not ill, like they are illegal to have until I got that inspection done.

So I don't know what to do here.

Um I don't think that the place is painted, it matches the building, it looks really nice.

I had a lot of people compliment housing look like now.

I don't even know if that people that of those people that's there right now, they will continue.

I cannot operate there again because uh it's just I I can't.

Financially I can't.

And if I take these containers out, I don't know how number one, I don't know how to do it.

Number two, I don't know how much it will cost.

Uh I seen people build houses nowadays with containers, like they build houses to live in in containers.

I don't know.

I don't know what to say.

I really don't know.

And I apologize if I mumbled or said anything wrong, but just I don't know what to do.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Any questions?

Okay, let's uh go to the ballot.

On case 2025 dash UV3-034, Patrice Duckett Brown votes yes, Brian Hannon votes yes, Aaron McBride votes yes, and Rob Bill Hannan votes yes.

The variance is granted subject to the commitments.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Um that completes the docket for the day.

Is there any other business for the board?

Okay.

With that, we are adjourned.

Thank you.