I'm going to call this meeting to order.

Good afternoon.

Before we begin today's meeting, we are going to take care of a little business.

We're going to appoint a chairperson, a vice chairperson, and a secretary of Division 3 of the Board of Zoning Appeals.

So is there any member who wishes to serve as chair?

I'd like to nominate Joanna Taft as chair.

Is there a second?

Yes, I second that motion.

We will now vote to elect Joanna Taft chair.

All in favor say aye.

All right.

Is there any member as anybody opposed?

I'm abstaining, by the way.

Is there any member that wishes to serve as vice?

There needs to be three votes.

I'm not abstaining.

I am voting for myself.

Okay.

Um do we need to redo that?

Okay.

All right.

So now that we know how to do it, um, the next per is there any member that wishes to serve as vice chair.

I'd like to nominate Mr.

Brian Hennett.

Now we're gonna have a second.

I will second, and we'll vote on Brian Henning right now, vice chair.

All in favor say aye.

Aye.

Is there any member that wishes to serve as secretary?

Yes, I would like to nominate Percy Bland.

Secretary.

I'm gonna second that for Percy Bland.

And now we'll vote to elect Percy Bland's secretary.

All in favor, say aye.

I would like to vote for myself.

Okay.

This is now this is a public hearing at the Metropolitan Board of Zoning Appeals, Division III.

I am Joanna Taft, Chairperson of Division Three.

Other board members present to my right, Percy Bland Jr.

and to my left, Brian Hannon.

Legal counsel for the board today is Chris Steinmetz.

Staff members present today from the Division of Planning are Jeffrey York, current planning manager, Bryce Patts, current planning manager.

Robert Ulenhaik, senior man uh planner, Noah Stern, senior planner, Michael Weigel, senior planner, Marty Weiste, Senior Board Specialist and Secretary to the Board.

The board has copyings of the copies of the zoning ordinances that will be incorporated by reference into the record of each case heard today.

The proceedings of this hearing are governed by the board's rules of procedure.

The expedited cases will be heard immediately after all requests for continuances or withdrawals.

As each non-expedited case is called, petitioners and remonstrators interested in that particular case will please stand.

Those who intend to testify will please remain standing and be sworn.

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

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

Petitioners and persons appearing in support of the case being heard should have a maximum of 15 minutes for the presentation of evidence, statements, and arguments in support of the petition.

Remonstrators and persons appearing in opposition to the petition shall have a maximum of 15 minutes for the presentation of evidence, statements, and arguments in opposition to the petition.

Staff will then present the administrator's comments regarding the petition.

The petitioner then will then be allowed five minutes for rebuttal and a summation of the case.

Rebuttal must be limited to subject matter of the initial presentations.

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

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

Please limit your testimony and evidence to the matters covered in the statutory requirements, which must be met in order for the board to grant a variance.

If the petitioners have failed to comply with all notice requirements as stipulated by the board's rules of procedure, including posting of the notice signed on the subject property at least 23 days prior to the hearing.

The board may continue the petition.

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

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

The installation of landscaping screening, the paving of parking area, and the dedication of rights away are examples.

These conditions and commitments are an integral part of the board's decision and must be met for a granted variance to be valid.

Compliance with the 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 the filing of a petition for judicial review of a decision of the board.

The written request must be filed within five days of the board's decision and must include the person's full name and correct mailing address and a reference to the board's petition number.

Forms are available and may be obtained from the board secretary.

Please be advised that contacting members of the board regarding a matter pending before the board outside of this public hearing process is prohibited.

Please be courteous and orderly at all times, and please be sure all cell phone ringers are turned off.

There are three board members present today.

It requires three votes to take action on any request.

Three unanimous votes to take action on any requests.

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

So if you're concerned that you are going to your case will be heard and it will be a two against one vote, and we have to re-hear the case, you can ask for a continuance.

So again, if your petition receives an indecisive vote, your petition will be automatically continued to the December uh February 17th, 2026 hearing.

Uh board members, you have been provided meeting minutes for a December 16th, 2025 meeting.

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

Is there a motion?

Hannon so moved.

Is there a second?

Bland second.

I will now ask for a vote.

Hannon?

Yes.

Bland?

Yes.

Taft?

Yes.

Is there anyone in the audience who has any questions about our 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 and adopt their findings of fact without any additional testimony from the individual petitioners.

Land so moved.

Uh Hannon second.

I'll now ask for a vote.

Land?

Yes.

Hannon?

Yes.

Taft, yes.

We will now consider special requests and continuances.

Good afternoon, Pat Rooney.

Office at 1638 Shelby Street, Suite 101, Indianapolis, Indiana, here on behalf of Shade Land Holdings with respect to 2025 and 03-003 for 3030 North Shayland Avenue.

And we are just requesting a 30-day continuance.

Is there anyone in the audience who's has an interest in 2025 MO3003?

Hearing seeing none, let's hear from staff.

Thank you, Chairperson Taft, members of the board.

Staff has no objection to continuing this to the February 17th 2026 hearing, and that would be without additional notice.

Okay.

Um is there a motion?

Bland so moved.

Is there a second?

Hannon second.

I'll now pull the board.

Bland.

Bland, yes.

Hannon?

Yes.

Taft?

Yes.

2025 MO3003 has been continued to our February 17th hearing.

Thank you.

Good afternoon, Chairperson Taft, members of the board.

Justin Kingan.

Addresses 2722 Mankers Street, Indianapolis, Indiana 46203.

Here before you today regarding petition 2025 DV3 016 amended address being 2360 Prospect Street.

This is the eighth item on your agenda.

This petition, as you might be well aware, has been continued several times from our side.

And back before we were involved or representing the petitioner in this matter, there was an indecisive vote on this petition, I believe, in July.

And given that there's three uh members of the board present, I wonder if it might be more suitable to continue this one month as opposed to repeat the process all over again.

So that would be without additional notice and happy to answer any questions you may have.

Okay.

Is there anyone in the audience who is interested in 2025 DV3016?

Seeing none, let's hear from staff.

Thank you, Chairperson.

Taft members of the board.

By my campus, there have been five previous continuances.

Um due to the indecisive vote and four initiated by the owner or by representative given the three member board.

Um that is new context, though.

Um staff would be ready to proceed if the board is ready, but um it would be up to the board's discretion, and we wouldn't object to the continuance necessarily.

Okay.

Is there a motion?

Bland almotion.

Is there a second?

Hannon's second.

I'm going to pull the board.

Bland?

Yes.

Hannon?

Yes.

Taft, yes.

2025 DV3016 has been continued to our February 17th hearing.

Thank you.

Chair Personal Taft members of the board staff report your attention to item number 10.

Petition number 2025 UV 3025, located at 3005 Carson Avenue.

This petition was added to the docket by mistake.

It was not published.

It was just added to the docket by mistake.

This was previously heard and decided on September 16, 2025.

The board would just only need to acknowledge it was added today's docket by mistake.

It is acknowledged.

Thank you.

And then the following petition, staff will also draw your attention to item number 11, petition 2025 UV 3035, located at 10211 Hidden Meadow Lane.

After publication of the staff report, the petitioner did indicate that they are or did request that this petition will be withdrawn.

That would require the board's acknowledgement as well.

It is acknowledged.

Thank you.

Sure.

Thank you, Chairperson Taft, members of the board.

Staff would draw your attention to item number two on the agenda 2025 SE 3003 amended at 4555 South Harding Street.

The petitioner was unable to attend today's hearing and requesting a continuance to the February 17th, 2026 date, not March, as it says in the text below there, to allow them for update in which they could attend as well as to allow for be um send mailing of legal notice.

Staff is making this request on their behalf, but we have no objection to it.

Okay.

Is there anyone in the audience that has interest in 2025 SE 3003?

Okay, is there a motion?

Hannon so moved.

Is there a second?

Bland second.

I'm going to pull the board.

Land.

Yes.

Hannon?

Yes.

Taft?

Yes.

2025 SE3003 has been continued to our February 17th hearing.

Thank you.

Staff would also draw your attention to item number seven on the agenda.

That'd be 2025 M0302 at 2719 North Emerson Avenue.

The petitioner was also unable to attend today's hearing date.

This petition was continued from last month's hearing due to a lack of quorum.

And on their behalf, staff is requesting a continuance to the February 17th hearing date without additional notice.

Is there anyone in the audience who has interest in 2025 MO3002?

Okay, is there a motion?

Hannon so moved.

Is there a second?

Blind second.

I'm going to pull the board.

Bland?

Yes.

Hannon?

Yes.

Taft?

Yes.

2025 MO3002 has been continued to our February 17th hearing.

Thank you, Chairperson Taft and members of the board.

Staff will draw your attention to item number three.

2025 DV3020 amended at 4102 Madison Avenue.

The petitioner and staff have agreed to one final continuance for this case to clean up a few things, including the uh revised site plan.

Uh to the February 17th hearing that would be without additional notice.

Uh staff is making this request on their behalf, has no objection, and would lastly note that this would be the last continuance that staff would be supportive of.

Um can answer any questions you might have.

Is there anyone in the audience who is interested in in 2025 DV3020?

Is there a motion?

Hannon so moved.

Is there a second?

Second.

I'm gonna pull the board, bland?

Yes.

Hannon?

Yes.

Taft, yes.

2025 DV3020 has been continued to our February 17th hearing.

Thank you.

And then staff would also draw your attention to item number four, 2025 D V three oh two nine at 8600 Madison Avenue.

Staff just has a minor edits to the language of the request.

Uh this due to revision should now read variants of development standards to provide for the construction of a building encroaching 10 feet within a category two stream protection corridor as opposed to the originally requested 35 feet.

That is acknowledged.

Yes, thank you.

Okay.

Unless there are any other requests, we will continue with our expedited cases.

Perry Township, Council District No.

23, zoned C3 slash C1 TOD.

The petitioner is Francis Michael Lowe, represented by Justin and David Kingan.

Variance of development standards of the consolidated zoning and subdivision ordinance to provide for the construction of a building encroaching 10 feet within a category two stream protection corridor and a parking area within an easement.

Encroachment of stream protection corridors and easements not permitted.

Case number 2025-DV3-034 property addresses 7110-720-7202 and 7304 East 21st Street.

Warren Township, Council District No.

9, zoned C4 FW.

The petitioner is 7202 East Indianapolis Tanford LLC, represented by Lisa Argu.

Variants of development standards of the consolidated zoning and subdivision ordinance to provide for the location of four freestanding signs within an integrated center along East 21st Street with a minimum of 45 feet of separation.

Maximum two freestanding signs along a frontage permitted, 300 foot separation required, with setbacks along East 21st Street, ranging from 2 feet to 0 feet and encroaching within the right-of-way.

Five foot setback required, encroachments not permitted, and the installation of a new sign cabinet on the existing poll sign along I-465, resulting in a height of 52.17 feet, maximum height of 20 feet permitted.

Case number 2025-UV3-036.

Property address 2236 East 75th Street.

Washington Township, Council District No.

2, zoned DSFF.

The petitioner is NLS LLC, represented by Laura Guy.

Variants of use and development standards of the consolidated zoning and subdivision ordinance to provide for the construction of a 280 square foot garage in the front yard of 75th Street, not permitted, with a six-foot west side yard setback, 15-foot side yard setback required, and with 80% open space, 85% open space required.

Is there anyone here in attendance that is in opposition to any of these petitions?

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

We will now vote.

And on case 2025-UV3-036, Joanna Taft votes yes, Percy Bland votes yes, and Brian Hannon votes yes.

That variance is granted.

Full docket.

What?

One case left on the full docket.

That's full or something.

These are petitions for public hearing.

Case number two zero two five-d v three-zero three five.

Property address seven nine three zero Castleton Road.

Lawrence Township Council District No.

4, zoned C5.

The petitioner is Outfront Media LLC, represented by Alan S.

Townsend.

Variants of development standards of the consolidated zoning and subdivision ordinance to increase the height of a legally established legally nonconforming outdoor advertising sign to 60 feet, 40-foot maximum height per the grant of 2023-SC3-004.

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

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

I do.

Well, good afternoon, uh, members of the board.

My name is Alan Townsend.

I work at 11 Monument Circle Suite 2700 in Indianapolis 46204.

I represent Outfront Media.

I have my client with me today, Shelley Bergren.

Outfront's one of the largest and most respected outdoor advertising companies in the country.

This petition for a variance from development standards seeks permission to raise the height of an off-premise outdoor advertising sign that you approved to be relocated in 2023 from 40 feet in height to 60 feet in height.

The sign is 14 by 48 in size with back to back faces, and it contains commercial advertisements both from locally owned businesses and national businesses.

It's located at 7930 Castleton Road in Indianapolis, Indiana.

It's oriented to Interstate 69.

And if you turn to tab page or tab one of your booklet, I've actually provided you with an aerial perspective so you can better understand where the sign is located.

If you're familiar with this area, it's on the northeast side of Indianapolis where I-69 southbound converges with 465 West.

The area is zone C5 and it's surrounded by other commercial uses.

So this petition was made necessary because of an imminent domain lawsuit filed by the state of Indiana.

In fact, if you look at Tab 1, you see the yellow pin where I've noted sign location existing.

That's where Outfront Sign has been located for approximately 30 years until the state of Indiana filed this lawsuit that you see under Tab 2, the imminent domain lawsuit, because they needed to acquire additional property from the landowner right there, and we were advised that our sign was in the way of the improvements they wanted to make.

So actually, this is a relocation for an already existing outdoor advertising sign to make way for the ClearPath project.

So Project ClearPath, for those of you who are familiar with the area, it's been a really significant undertaking designed to improve the flow of traffic on the north east side.

I'm sure it will.

The construction, however, has been a long extended period, and it's been more than a little disruptive.

The real estate where the outdoor advertising sign is located is owned by a local company known as 421 Realty Company Inc.

Since we learned of the State of Indiana's Project ClearPath, we've been working with Craig May of 421 Realty Company to try and find a location on the same parcel that would be appropriate to rebuild an outdoor advertising sign.

It was challenging because Mr.

May has been making plans of his own to develop this site.

As you can see from the photo, it's largely unimproved.

So he wanted to be sure that the sign, once it was rebuilt, would not interfere with development opportunities of his own.

So Shelley and I worked closely with Mr.

May to find a location that was suitable both for the sign that would also be a complement to the plans of 421 Realty Company and not interfere with them.

So we found the right site and developed a plan to rebuild the outdoor advertising sign on the same parcel.

It was going to be about 500 feet to the west and a little bit to the south.

You do a lot of these, so you wouldn't probably necessarily remember, but in August of 2023, we came before you to present the plans to rebuild it because by rule or by law, we needed both a special exception and a variance of development standards from the BZA.

So Tab 3 is actually the description of the proposal I brought before the BZA over two years ago now.

The staff reviewed it thoroughly and recommended approval.

So what I've given you under Tab 4 is actually the staff report from the meeting in August of 2023.

At that hearing, our case was actually even moved to the exposited expedited docket.

That was a first for me.

You've seen me over here on other sign cases before, and I'll be candid with you.

Sign cases sometimes generate a little bit of controversy, even where none is intended.

I later received the letter of approval under what you see as Tab 5 from Miss Irahita telling us what had been approved and what we were allowed to relocate and under what terms and conditions.

So when Outfront filed its petition in 2023, it did not do so lightly.

We requested a detailed set of road construction plans in an effort to determine whether we also needed a height variance as part of the approval process.

NDOT's construction plans are difficult to read and comprehend, especially for someone like me.

So Outfront and I hired a local engineering firm to study them and make a recommendation.

We worked with Jamie Shineman at Y Engineering.

He studied them and told us he felt likely that we should be okay leaving the height, leaving the height of the sign at the height it had been at for the last three decades, which was 40 feet above grade.

So we did not seek a height variance in 2023 when we appeared before the BZA for these approvals.

Fast forward to 2025.

So the pace and intensity of the NDOT construction activity in this area has finally slowed.

Outfront has been in a position to go out and do the necessary soil borings at the site so it could rebuild the sign.

A haggle stick is something you set on the ground.

It's got an electronic device up at the top of a pole.

So it's a big long pole that goes up in the air, and someone stands out at the site where the sign is going to be reconstructed while somebody actually drives on 69.

In this case, it was my client, Miss Bergrin, and tries to take a photo to determine are we going to have the required visibility now that this sign project or the road project is farther along.

So this was a challenge.

Imagine we've got one person standing on Mr.

May's property with a stick up in the air.

Miss Bergren probably had to make five or six passes in her vehicle while trying her best to take a photograph and be mindful of other traffic.

She would have been one of those drivers you probably would have honked at that day if you you'd been behind her.

So what do we find on tab six?

That's the concrete barrier that NDOT has in place, and as best I can tell, it's going to remain in place.

So you take a photo with the haggle stick up in the air.

The stick gives you the point up in the air that will designate or coincide with the top of the sign.

And then you come back to the office and actually do artwork to create the face of the sign so you can see am I going to have a clear visibility when this sign is actually constructed?

And unfortunately, we found that the face of the sign was going to be partially impaired.

So it's a substantial investment, as you might imagine, to rebuild one of these signs.

In this case, the hardships kind of been compounded because this sign's actually been down for several years now while we waited for the dust to settle on the NDOC road improvement project.

So what to do?

In September of 2025, I reached out to the planning staff and alerted them as to what we'd found, this newly discovered problem.

You'll see my email to Miss Irahita under Tab 7.

In studying the problem, however, I also learned that the city council, sometime after 2023, after I'd appeared before you had amended the sign ordinance.

Specifically, the provision governing the height of off-premise signs had been amended to allow 60 feet above grade instead of 40.

So I've given you the sign ordinance or at least the excerpt under Tab 8.

So down at the very bottom, little Roman numeral 5, it talks about you see the red language as new language.

So it used to be 40.

The city council had amended it to change it to 60.

I felt at that point in time that since the ordinance is changed, it probably did not require a return visit in front of you because what Outfront would be doing in all other ways was consistent with the special exception and the variance that was granted in 2023.

We just needed the additional height.

The planning staff, however, was adamant that Outfront needed an additional variance, even though the ordinance had been changed to allow 60 feet above grade.

So, you know, no matter how long you practice law, you still from time to time see yourself in a situation where you think, goodness, has that ever come up before?

I've not seen this come up before.

And what I mean by that is a situation where a petitioner like Outfront is told to apply for and secure a variance from a development standard when outfront only wants to do what the current version of the ordinance allows.

So outfront wants to relocate its sign, and when it does, it wants to build it to a height of 60 feet.

That's what the current version of the ordinance expressly allows.

So I don't want to I want to be transparent with you.

I disagree with the staff's position that this variance is required.

Uh, but I respect your staff, its opinion, and this process seemed like the most expeditious way forward.

I will tell you under uh tab nine, or the next tab.

The Indiana Code expressly allows uh parties or companies like out front to make adjustments to its outdoor advertising signs when a road construction project uh has changed the grade.

In fact, what I've given you in the highlighted language of tab nine is it allows signs to be elevated to make the entire advertising content of the sign visible.

And that's what we're trying to do.

Um I did reach out to the two counselors from this area.

What you have under tab 10 is a letter from the counselor from District 4, Nick Roberts supporting this request.

I've highlighted the part that I think is is most important where he states he doesn't necessarily see a reason to oppose a request that is consistent with the law.

We have an additional letter support under the next tab from uh councilperson Boots.

So we would appreciate your support on this.

I'm sorry to have to be back in front of you a second time.

Uh I wish I would have been able to discern all this back in 2023 when we came before you for the original request.

I just couldn't tell based on the information we provided, that we would also need the height variance.

And we now know it would be the case.

So we would appreciate your support.

Uh what we're really doing here is amending the original variance that was granted in 2023, August of 2023, to allow for 60 feet in height instead of 40.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Are there any questions of the petitioner?

Um, are there any remonstrators present?

Let's hear from staff.

Absolutely.

Uh, thank you so much.

Um, Jefferson Daft members of the board.

Uh, thank you to Mr.

Townsend as well for his comments.

Um, staff is recommending denial of this petition to allow for the sign that was approved via the 2023 special exception as well as multiple additional variances in 2023 to have a height increase of 20 feet over the height indicated by that previous special exception.

Uh, for site context, we are immediately adjacent to that interstate exit ramp to the south.

It's visible from freeway to the east for southbound traffic as well.

There's industrial development to the west and north, as well as the nickel plate trail to the west.

Uh, the applicant did a pretty good job of explaining this, but there was that in dot project of a clear path project that resulted in the highway expansion and impact on a previous billboard sign was removed via eminent domain.

Uh, per state law of relocation of that sign was allowed by special exception, and that was approved by 2023 SE3004.

Um, and it's currently contemplated location about 550 feet to the west of that older spot.

Uh, that was a special acceptance petition, and it was also a petition for multiple variances.

Uh there were multiple additional exceptions to the current rules that were approved, including proximity to other billboards that existed, um, proximity to the interstate exit ramp to the south, as well as proximity to the property line.

Um, the special exception allowed for that relocation, uh, crucially it did not grant permission for a height or dimension change, given that the older sign was 40 feet in height.

Uh, the applicant is correct that our rules changed in early 2025.

Um, a 60-foot height is now allowed as opposed to 40 feet.

However, be proximity rules from which the 40-foot sign sawed relief are also still applicable.

So that billboard established by special exception in 2023 would be both legally established and legally non-conforming, both for that specific height and for that specific pole location.

So a new 60-foot sign that met all development standards would be allowed.

So if it was assigned to a 60 feet in height, but also had adequate separation from other off-premises signs and the ramp, that would be allowed, but that's not the specific scenario that we're looking at here.

We're looking at a 60-foot height sign that would not meet most other dimensional standards.

And would not match the previous 2023 special exception.

So the variances and a special exception from 2023 would be valid for the 40-foot sign only, and that's why a new variance is needed and why we're here today.

I really thought that's a little bit confusing, and I'm happy to answer questions at the end if there are any.

Staff had asked for additional context as to what those changes would be and hadn't we hadn't received any information for either the publication of this report or preparation of this testimony.

It sounds like it might have related to their own engineering survey done previously to estimate the height.

Information on the existing or proposed height of any concrete barriers or dividers along exit ramps was also not provided.

We also didn't have any information on site lines provided beyond the one rendering that was shown within the exhibits uh page 101 of the overall packet there.

Uh they did provide some context on how the heights in that rendering were estimated.

Uh, it's still just at one uh SATIC location.

I think staff feels there's limits to what could be inferred either way about the view shed from alternate lanes or alternate locations along the highway.

Um staff would note that the previous special exception and variance is um for the 40-foot height sign were approved within this similar context and issues weren't flagged at that specific point in time.

Um absent more info about what specifically had changed beyond just the height rule.

We don't feel that the evidence um I've been defined as site-specific practical difficulty has been fully established.

Uh photos within V staff report show several angles of the view to parcel from various points on V freeway.

Uh photograph five shows the exit ramp closest to the subject site, which I believe curves around and leads to I-6465 south.

Uh there is a small concrete divider that staff does not feel be likely to block motorist view of the subject sign at 40 feet in height.

Um photographs one and two within uh within our reports show the next closest portion of highway, which I believe leads to I-465 west.

There is a divider that is primarily of a smaller height, but with a small portion that does have a taller height around twice that you can sort of see that within photo one there.

There's a small portion where the height of the concrete divider does increase, probably approximately doubles, but we're not certain of what the heights of either of those um separating uh concrete dividers would be.

Um my understanding is that the applicant rendering provided is taken roughly parallel from where that divider is and also within the clip the closest lane to it.

Um that's my understanding at least.

Um renderings um showed it from that single static point within the closest lane and relatively close to the subject site.

Um we're not certain what um alternate view sheds might look like um from other lanes or other locations.

Um I did my best to generate a diagram to try and illustrate this.

Um that would be on page 102 of your packet, uh, labeled boundary placement for southbound traffic, sort of showing visually what we're looking at.

Uh the areas bounded in green don't appear to have concrete dividers.

Uh the teal area appears to have smaller dividers, um, but would still allow for full view of traffic.

And the small area would be a the blue divider where the applicant photo was taken from that sort of darker blue color there, and the red X, of course, would be the approximate proposed location of the sign itself.

Um I know that uh road work is ongoing at the site of what it sounds like of a project might be nearing its end.

Um it's possible that a current context of these roadways could change.

It sounds like it might be like that.

This is the final layout.

Um we're not certain of that information was provided by the petitioner outlining what specific changes might occur there in the future, how they might impact the view of the billboard.

Um, so again, multiple aspects not entirely clear for staff or board analysis, including the barrier height, uh the portion of the I-465 ramp where the height increases, alternate viewpoints at heights of either 40 or 60 feet.

Um we don't feel that the evidence that has been given would meet the burden of proof to establish a site-specific practical difficulty.

Um's regulations on off-premises signs exist to allow for advertisements and communication will also have limiting hazards to motorists and excessive proliferation of signage displays.

Uh, the sign location approved by the 2023 special exception is in an area with a close proximity to other signs as well as to the ramp itself.

Uh, substantial variances have already been granted for that location with a 40-foot height.

As no clear evidence provided that a sign at that height couldn't be utilized and viewed by traffic in a majority of locations along the along the interstate.

Um a 20-foot height increase would also be somewhat substantial.

Staff is uncertain that it would be minimal relief offered necessarily, the jump from 40 all the way up to 60 to match the current order's regulation for signs not subject to special exception.

That's an increase substantial in an area that's in flux from construction as well as a law on the exit ramp where the probability of merging is somewhat higher.

We don't feel that site-specific practical difficulty has been established to justify grant of the variance, and that would be the reason we are recommending denial of the proposed height increase.

Happy to answer any questions that the board might have.

Are there any questions of staff?

So just the kind of sum up, you have said that they have claimed that they need the 60 feet.

But and you followed up and asked for more information of how they determined that, and you didn't get all the information that they didn't respond or they didn't give you a compelling argument or more of a ladder than the former.

The applicant was communicative and responsive.

We did receive the one unscaled rendering, and I was appreciative to hear a bit more about how those heights were calculated, but um additional information about the height of the proposed concrete divider as well as information on like what that might look like from alternate points beyond just that one static point had not been provided.

That's correct.

Okay, thank you.

Michael, just to confirm as well that the reason this needs a variance from staff's perspective is because it doesn't meet the setback requirements.

Uh no, um so in 2023, uh sounds like it was in August of 2023, there was a special exception approved for a 40-foot sign that was impacted by the eminent domain to move that specific sign over with that specific height and dimensions.

They're now seeking to increase the height from that sign.

If they were starting from scratch today, they could just ask for the 60 feet.

Right.

A 60-foot sign would be allowed, but there would also be multiple new variances of development standards that would be applicable.

The proximity to other billboards to the interstate ramp as well as to the property line.

So they don't the original variance took into account the eminent domain and their and then gave them some more flexibility because of that.

I would imagine that was part of staff's deliberation at the time, yes.

Yeah.

Okay.

All right.

Um petitioner, you have five minutes to sum up.

I told you this was an unusual one.

So if you look at tab five, uh that's everything that was approved in 2023 with staff support.

That's that's actually what got moved to the expedited docket when I came over here in August.

So any time you relocate a sign because of an NDOT road project, uh, even if we're moving at 10 feet, the way the law works now is my client has to come in front of you and ask for a special exception.

Can we do this even if we're just moving it back 10 feet to make way for a wider road where NDOT wants to build a wider road?

So we were approved for that.

We tried to keep the sign in as close as proximity to where it had been for the last 30 years, but even doing that required us to get multiple variances from development standards.

Distance from the right-away, distance from the property line, uh distance from another sign.

And those were those were all approved with staff support.

So the only thing that's changed between 2023 and late 2025 is now that the road construction is near finished, and I'm actually working with real life, my client going out there and standing, uh, having somebody out there with a haggle stick while she drives the route 465 to 69 over to Allisonville and makes the loop multiple times, is what we now realize that 40 feet is going to leave the visibility of the sign partially impaired.

So that's the only thing we're coming back to address today.

We're still going to build the same size of face.

It's still going to go in the exact same spot where Mr.

May wants it so he can do his other development.

We just need it a little higher, 20 feet higher, uh, so it's visible to motorists traveling that route.

We are not trying to improve our station in life.

Um we're trying to get a sign back up that has the visibility that it had when NDOC required out front to remove it.

And it's been down a few years.

We've been anxious to get this done, but the construction has been such that it really wasn't just practical because we have to get out there and bury a foundation and get out there with a crane and build a new sign.

So what I didn't foresee was that in this interim, while we've been waiting for to do construction, that the council was going to change the sign ordinance.

So instead of having signs that are a maximum height of 40 feet above grade, unless you have a variance of development standards, the law law now allows them to be 60.

That's all we're coming back to ask you to approve is instead of 40, uh, let us build 60 so we can ensure visibility and sell a sign to advertisers that will want to have their ad on that sign instead of having one that's partially obstructed.

I tried to get uh Michael anything and everything we could think of.

Uh we didn't create the rendering that you see in this booklet by having somebody sit behind a computer.

It was really created with somebody standing out there with a haggle stick 40 feet up in the air while Shelley drove past multiple times trying to get a photo and figure out where will the face of the sign be if we construct it pursuant to the terms of what was approved in August of 2023.

So we're just asking for the additional height.

Everything else will stay the same.

We'd just like to be put back in the position we were.

Thank you.

Any questions for the petitioner?

Yeah, really quick.

Uh thank you for the great description.

Um what do you say to the possibility that the stretch of highway where this sign would be visible?

90% of that stretch, 40 feet tall is sufficient.

That possibility.

And then maybe five to ten percent from where you guys took the photo may be the only point in which the view is obstructed.

Like would do you have a direct response to that?

Well, I think that's a fair question.

Uh I think what you're saying is well, isn't the rendering we gave you good enough?

Uh the visibility good enough based on the rendering.

I I guess my response to you first and foremost would be under the law.

If you look at tab nine, that's an excerpt from the Indiana Code.

Uh our Indiana General Assembly has recognized that these road construction projects sometimes change the grade that affects outdoor advertising companies and can make the face of the sign partially, partially obstructed.

And what the statute says, the part I've highlighted under Tab F is it says you should in those circumstances be allowed to elevate the sign to make the entire advertising content of the sign visible.

Um we do have outfront has competitors in this area, uh, ones that don't encounter the kind of handicap that we're going to encounter if we have to keep it at 40 feet.

Um that'll make selling the ad space a challenge.

Um this has been a hardship for these last three years, and like I said, I don't feel like outfronts seeking to improve its station in life.

Before this road improvement project, uh this sign had great visibility at 40 feet.

I drove past it frequently, and uh when I traversed uh that area, and that's all out front is seeking is to have something that has good visibility.

Another question.

Yes, sir.

Thank you for the presentation.

And I am sympathetic to the petitioner's position here, but just for full context, you've provided some renderings in tab seven.

Three of them, they're not just there's no description to them, but I assume photo number one is at 40 feet.

I'm assuming photo number three is at 60 feet.

What tab are you on now?

Seven.

There's a third photo here, which is actually the photo number two that you have here.

That's uh I'm assuming it might be a 50 feet or 45 feet.

Yeah, yeah, good question.

Can you explain why you're requesting 60 is 60 feet just because that's what the ordinance provides and allows, or is it because that's what you need for full visibility?

So if you go to tab seven, what he's talking about is the three pages of photographs that are back toward the back.

So the first one is shot at with the haggle stick at 40 feet at the top of the sign, and that's where you see the partial impairment down at the bottom.

The next one is 50, and then the one after that uh providing the best visibility is 60.

So you're correct, that does provide the best visibility.

We have visibility at 50.

Uh I mean, the reason I'll be candid with you, we asked for 60, is that that's what our city council has said we're good with, and we think that should be the law.

So that's why we asked for 60.

Okay.

Um, unless there are any other questions, we will now vote on 2025 DV3035.

Brian Hannon votes yes, Percy Bland votes yes, and Joanna Taft votes yes.

The variance is granted.

Thank you.

Is there any other matter to come before the board?

Okay.

Then we are now adjourned.