I'm going to call the speedy to order.

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

I'm Joanna Taft, Chairperson of Division III.

Other board members present are to my left, Brian, or to my right, Brian Hannon and Percy Bland Jr., and to my left, Rod Bohannon.

Legal counsel for the board today is Chris Steinmetz.

Staff members present today from the Division of Planning are Brian Patz, current planning administrator, Jeff York, current planning manager, Michael Weigel, Principal Planner 1.

Robert Ulan Haik, senior planner, Josh LeVec, Senior Planner, Marty Weistee, Senior Board Specialist and Secretary to the Board.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

No further evidence, statements, or arguments will be heard unless is 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 and 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 certain with conditions imposed by the board must be proved by an affidavit of compliance submitted by the petitioner within 30 days of completion.

Unless otherwise specified, an improvement location permit must be obtained prior to the establishment of the authorized improvements.

Failure to comply with any conditions or commitments of a variance grant is a violation enforceable by the Department of Business and Neighborhood Services.

A person may file a written request to receive notice of the filing of a petition for judicial review of a decision of the board.

The written request must be filed within five days of a 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 the 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 four members present today, and it requires three votes to take action on any request.

So we'll take this into consideration when hearing requests for continuance.

If your petition receives an indefy indecisive vote, your petition will be automatically continued to the April 21st hearing.

Is there anyone in the audience who's any questions about our procedures?

Before we hear special requests, I'll ask for a waiver of our rules of procedure to allow the board to vote for all expedited petitions and adopt their findings of fact without any additional testimony from the individual petitioners.

I need a motion.

I need a second.

Yes.

Um Bohannon?

Yes.

Bland?

Yes.

Taft, yes.

We will consider special requests and continuances at this time.

Good afternoon, Pat Rooney here on behalf of Shadeland Holdings, Inc.

for 2025 MO3003 for the property at 3030 North Shadeland.

And the WTDA just sent in a continuance request yesterday.

But they weren't able to attend today.

So in essence, I'm asking for them just out of good faith.

So we are requit they requested a continuance to the Tuesday, April 21st hearing date.

Is there anyone in the audience who is against the continuance for 2025 MO3003?

Seeing none this here from staff.

Thank you, Chairperson Taft members of the board.

Staff has no objection to continuing this to the April hearing.

Staff would point out this would be the last continuance staff will support.

Okay.

All right.

I need a motion.

Oh Hannah Zo moved.

I need a second.

Hannon second.

I'm going to pull the board.

Hannon.

Yes.

O'Hannon?

Yes.

Bland.

Land, yes.

Taft?

Yes.

2025 MO3003 has been continued to our April 21st hearing.

Thank you.

Chair President Taft, members of the board.

Staff will draw your attention to item number two, petition 2026 SC3001, located at 6490 Massachusetts Avenue.

Registered neighborhood organization has filed an automatic continuance.

Continuing this petition to the April 21st, 2026 hearing.

This is just would require your acknowledgement.

It is acknowledged.

Thank you.

Yep.

Thank you, Chairperson Staff, members of the board.

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

Staff is requesting one additional continuance for this petition.

We had originally requested one from February to March in order to give the petitioner some additional time to create some renderings and provide some info to it help us formulate our recommendation.

That information was provided, however, it was uh well after our new information deadline to be considered for this month's hearing.

So we are requesting one final continuance to the April 2st, 2026 hearing date.

I don't believe the petitioners representative is in attendance, but uh they're aware of this request, and I didn't I I don't believe they would object.

Okay, is there anyone in the audience who is against the continuance of 2025 SE 3003?

Okay, I need a motion.

Is it SE 3003 or 001?

Uh is it three?

This would be a billboard petition on Harding Street.

Okay.

Three is what I hope I said.

Okay.

Okay.

Hannon uh so moved.

Bohannon second.

Um sorry, bland.

I'm sorry.

Is there a motion?

Uh I'm sorry.

I'm gonna pull the board Hannon.

Yes.

Bohannan?

Yes.

Bland?

Yes.

TAF, yes.

So 2025 SE 3003, correct?

Is it is continue to our April 21st hearing.

So unless there are any other requests, we can proceed with our expedited docket.

These are petitions to be expedited.

Case number 2026-DV3-001 amended.

Property address seven, excuse me, one seven five nine North Whittier Place.

Warren Township, Council District No.

D5.

The petitioners are Letitia Lamas and Edgar Morales, represented by Josh Smith.

Variants of development standards of the consolidated zoning and subdivision ordinance to provide for a detached garage expansion with a five-foot south side setback, seven foot required.

That petition is amended uh from the request in the agenda.

Case number two zero two six-d v three-zero zero two property address eight seven zero four U.S.

31.

Perry Township, Council District No.

23, zoned C4.

The petitioner is Fountain Creek LLC represented by Joe Cauldron.

Variants of development standards of the consolidated zoning and subdivision ordinance to provide for the construction of a commercial building and parking with a 10-foot side transitional yard, 20 feet required.

Case number 2026-DV three-003 property address 3171 North Pennsylvania Street.

Center Township, Council District No.

8, zoned D5 TOD.

The petitioner is John K.

Berry, represented by Justin Kingan.

Variance of development standards of the consolidated zoning and subdivision ordinance to provide for the construction of an attached garage with a three-foot north side yard setback, seven feet required, and a one-foot rear yard setback, 20 feet required.

Case number 2026-DV three-004, property address 8133, East 96th Street.

Lawrence Township, Council District No.

4, zoned C4.

The petitioner is French Associates 1 LLC, represented by Ashley Wallace.

Variants of development standards of the consolidated zoning and subdivision ordinance to provide for the construction of an automobile fueling station and convenience store with deficient facade transparency, 40% required.

Per plan submitted.

And case number 2026-DV three-005, property address 1759, West Morris Street.

Center Township, Council District No.

18, zoned C4.

The petitioner is Lyles Construction Group, represented by Matthew Lyles.

Variants of development standards of the consolidated zoning and subdivision ordinance to provide for a five-foot side by uh side setback.

Minimum eight feet required.

Is there anyone in attendance today that is in opposition to any of these petitions I've read?

Jefferson Taft, that's the ending expedited docket.

We can now vote.

Percy Bland votes yes.

Brian Hannon votes yes.

Joanna Taft votes yes, and Rod Bohannon votes yes.

That variance is granted.

On case two zero two six-d v three-zero zero two, Percy Bland votes yes.

Brian Hannon votes yes.

Joanna Taft votes yes, and Rod Bohannon votes yes.

That variance is granted.

On case two zero two six-d v three-zero zero three, Percy Bland votes yes.

Brian Hannon votes yes.

Joanna Taft votes yes, and Rod Bohannon votes yes.

That variance is granted.

On case two zero two six-d v three-zero zero four, Percy Bland votes yes.

Brian Hannon votes yes.

Joanna Taft votes yes, and Rod Bohannon votes yes.

That variance is granted.

And on case two zero two six-d v three-zero zero five, Percy Bland votes yes.

Brian Hannon votes yes, Joanna Taft votes yes, and Rod Bohannon votes yes.

That variance is granted.

We can now proceed with the full docket.

These are petitions for public hearing.

Case number two zero two six-d v three-zero zero six property address two seven four seven North Emerson Avenue.

Warren Township, Council District No.

9, zoned I2, FWFF.

The petitioner is Pridgin Property Holdings LLCS, represented by Justin Kingan.

Variants of development standards of the consolidated zoning and subdivision ordinance to provide for the location of a six-foot tall chain link fence within the required front yard.

Maximum three and a half foot tall fence permitted in front yards.

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

Say I do.

I do.

Good afternoon.

Justin Kingan.

Office address is 6101 North Keystone Avenue, Suite 100.

Here before representing the property owner, Pridget and Property Holdings LLCS, along with the operator of the site, Robert Haynes Company, and with me from Robert Haynes Company today to answer any questions or provide more information is Patrick Davis.

The Robert Haynes Company is a long-standing Indianapolis-based commercial contractor that specializes in restoration.

That includes structural concrete repair, waterproofing coatings, and other restorational services.

The company has been in operation, it was founded in 1937, and the company is operated at this specific location, 2747 North Emerson Avenue since 1958.

So they've been part of this uh portion of the North Emerson Avenue corridor for nearly 70 years.

Our partition before you today is a variance of development standards to allow for a six-foot chain link fence within the required front yard, uh, where the zoning ordinance only allows for a three and a half foot tall fence.

As you can see on page 75 of the staff report, there's a diagram that indicates the proposed fence location.

This request does not alter the use of the property, nor does it expand the operations of the Robert Haynes Company on the site.

It's simply to allow for the installation of a standard security fence, which is appropriate for an industrial site.

In the past 18 months, the Robert Haynes Company has experienced three separate break-ins at this uh location.

Those break-ins have resulted in the loss of tens of thousands of dollars worth of job site equipment, tools, office supplies, and office equipment.

So the purpose of this fence is to prevent the unauthorized access to the property and to protect the equipment and materials that are located here.

As for the location of the proposed fence, um, I think it's important to point out that the front of the building, um, the western facade is over 200 feet away from North Emerson Avenue.

The proposed fence location is intended to prevent vehicles from being able to drive directly into the property.

Um the edge, the furthest or closest to Emerson Avenue that the fence would be is over a hundred feet away.

Um the proposed fence is technically located uh in the front of the yard, again, it's over a hundred feet away from the front property line.

So in that respect, the proposed fence remains substantial, uh substantially farther removed from the public right-of-way than many other six-foot security fences typically found on I-2 zoned industrial sites.

You may also notice that the uh fence does on the diagram that is part of the packet and part of the staff report, that the fence does not extend all the way to the tree line.

The reason behind that is there's an existing six to seven-foot deep swale that is on the western side of the existing driveway.

You can see that on page four of the handout that's been provided to you today.

So the thought is to connect the proposed fence to the existing fence of the property to the south of the Robert Haynes site, run it directly north, and then angle it 90 degrees over towards the swale, and it would stop there.

Because of the depth and the slope of that swale, it is effectively functions as a natural barrier.

The fence would terminate at that location and the gate would swing across uh the driveway to prevent vehicle access uh to that site from unauthorized users.

As far as landscaping and a visual buffering, the petitioners committed to install uh additional landscape around where that fence would end, around where the fail uh swale begins, and that would assist um further security and allow for buffering of the fence from North Emerson Avenue.

The fence would improve security and protects the employees, the visitors, the equipment, and the property.

There is no adverse impact on the surrounding properties.

Finally, we presented this petition at the Warren Township uh development association meeting on March 5th.

They voted unanimously to support the petition.

I believe you might have a letter of support in your packet of uh or in your file.

I I included a copy of that uh in the packet that was handed out today.

Um we are not aware of any known remonstrators at this time, and therefore we would respectfully ask for you to vote to approve this variance petition.

Thank you.

Are there any questions of the petitioner?

Are there any remonstrators present?

Let's hear from staff.

Thank you, Chairperson Taft members of the board.

Um the ordinance does allow for fences in the front yard, but in this in an industrial setting, they are limited to three and a half feet, and that would be permitted without a variance.

Anything greater than that does require a variance uh as which is why we are in fr uh here today because their request is for six feet.

Um requirements typically are in place to limit bulk or to keep the high environment to a human scale uh as t overly tall fences does seem to be daunting to uh petestrians or on-site visitors, um, even employees as well.

Um the petitioner indicates several made several points uh that the fence, the purpose of the fence is to keep vehicles from driving on site.

Um then the swale to the north or to the west of the fence since it does not connect to Emerson or to the north, also prevents um access of buffer as well.

Um based on the picture, I would say that swale is not more than three feet deep.

In the findings, uh, they kind of contradict that.

They say that the three and a half feet is not tall enough to prevent doesn't about not provide a reasonable level of security.

So I think we're talking about two different things here.

Um for I'll address the first one to keep vehicles from walking coming on site.

Staff has counterproposed that the fence.

I think as you can see.

Staff exhibit A in the staff report on page 75 by the red line.

A legally conforming six-foot fence can be placed to the south of the building just behind the front facade, and that would be legally compliant without a variance and provide for the same purpose as keeping vehicles from encroaching on site.

Excuse me.

There would be a several number of daytime parking spots in front of that fence.

If that is of concern, they could be relocated to this um east of the red line fence to the south of the driveway where there is room for additional parking.

Um therefore, staff does not believe there is a practical difficulty in providing um security, as this fence would provide security as indicated on the uh in the findings of fact.

As for preventing vehicles from entering the site, as the petitioner indicated in his testimony, his proposed fence um with the in the site plan just above that with the yellow line can be reduced to three and a half feet, and that would that would prevent vehicles from entering the site as it appears that's the purpose of the fence of the fence, and that would be legally compliant as well.

Since it's not a complete fence all the way to the Emerson or to the northern barrier, um, if the intent was to prevent people from accessing the site, they could simply just walk around that fence, and that defeats the purpose.

However, uh I believe that the petitioner indicated it was to prevent vehicles from accessing the site, which would uh limit access on the driveway.

Therefore, staff does not believe there is a any practical difficulty with the site as a zoning compliant fence can be provided and provide the security that is requested and can provide vehicles from accessing the site as the petitioner indicated.

Staff will be happy to answer any questions the board may have.

Are there any questions of staff?

Okay, petitioner, you have five minutes.

Yes.

Um just to be clear, the auto access to the site is just one of the issues.

It's probably the main issue, but there are uh pedestrian walkable issues that have occurred.

In fact, one of the break-ins occurred by foot to the western portion of the building.

And so if we were to install the fence with accordance to the ordinance where it doesn't go in front of the building line, um as indicated in the diagram at the bottom of page 75, that would that incident would still be an issue.

It leaves fully exposed the the parking to the west of the building.

It also leaves the western facade fully exposed.

Um so it's both vehicle access to the building as well as pedestrian access.

A three and a half foot fence would not stop in my in our contention, a uh someone that's wanting to enter the property illegally.

Um it's it's shown time and time again, and that's that's why we're requesting the six-foot high fence.

Um again, this fence, the closest it would be to Emerson Avenue is over a hundred feet away.

Um we are committed to installing landscaping that would provide buffering and soften the appearance from Emerson Avenue.

Um but there are several fences, you know, throughout I2 zone sites that would be much closer to the front property line than ours is being proposed.

Um I'll stop there and answer any questions you may have.

Are there any questions of the petitioner?

Okay.

Um unless there are any other questions, we'll now vote on 2026 DV306.

On case two zero two six-d v three-zero zero six, Percy Bland votes yes, Brian Hannon votes yes, Joanna Taft votes yes, and Rodville Hannon votes no.

The variance is granted.

Thank you.

Is there any other matter to come before the board?

Board members, you have before you a uh um resolution regarding um Marion County Superior Court cause number 49 D01 2007 PL 023390, and um this resolution would be the board's approval of a settlement agreement that was reached in that court case.

It is a uh judicial review case, and this would just require a motion and a vote.

Okay, I need a motion.

I need a second.

I'm gonna pull uh I'll pull the board Hannon.

Yes, Bohannon, yes, land, land, yes, tapped, yes.

So we will now sign the resolution.

Which one are these well, you want us to sign this?

Yeah, I those are extra.

So there's just if you'll just circulate one for signature, that'd be great.

And make sure I don't have the incorrect one.

No, I I got that squared away.

And then I think Marty might have some other findings of fact that for from a prior hearing.

Okay.

So with signing that, and then Marty, you have findings of fact.

And then we are now adjourned.

Thank you.