I'm going to call this meeting to order.

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

I'm Joanna Taft, Chairperson of Division III.

The other board members present today are to my left, Rihanna Bender, and Rod Bohannon, and to my right, Brian Hannon and Percy Bland.

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, Matthew or Michael Weigel, Principal Planner 1, Adrian Baker, Principal Planner 1, Robert Eulin Haik, Senior Planner, Josh LeVec, Senior Planner, Marty Weistie, 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 to testify.

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

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

Staff will then present the administrators' comments regarding the petition.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Compliance with conditions imposed by the board must be proved by an affidavit of compliance submitted by the petitioner within 13 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.

Board members, you've been provided meeting minutes for our April 21st, 2026 meeting.

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

Bohannon so approved.

Hannon second.

Okay, I will now pull the board.

Bender.

Yes.

Bohannon.

Yes.

Hannon.

Yes.

Bland.

Yes.

Tapped.

Yes.

Is there anyone in the audience who has any questions about our procedure?

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.

So I need a motion.

Bohannon is so moved.

I need a second.

Boy, second.

I'm going to pull the board.

Bender.

Yes.

Bohannon.

Yes.

Hannon.

Yes.

Bland.

Yes.

Taft.

Yes.

Okay.

We will now consider special requests and continuances.

Good afternoon, Chairperson Taft, members of the board.

Joe Calderon, 11 South Meridian here in Indianapolis.

I represent the owner and petitioner in item number four, which is 2026 DV3016 Part A.

That's property commonly known as 102 20 East Washington Street.

It's on the petitions requesting to be continued portion of your docket today.

And we'd like to split that out and continue that until June 16th.

I guess that's June 16th is board three.

And we'd like to proceed with part B, which is a signed variance, and appears in the expedited portion of your docket under item nine as requested by staff to be expedited.

So A is a request to go to June 16th.

B stays on the agenda as part of the expedited document.

Sorry, I know that's confusing.

Okay, so it's okay.

I get it.

So 2026 DV3016A is what is you're asking to continue.

Okay.

Yes, we'd like that continued to June 16th, please.

Okay.

Is there anyone in the audience who is against the continuation of 2026 DV3016A?

Seeing none, let's hear from staff.

Yes.

Thank you, Chairperson.

Taft, members of the board.

Uh Taft does support the split and the continuance.

Uh I believe the continuance will give both the petitioner and staff time to take a look at further plans as to how that might impact anything uh related to those TOD variances.

Okay.

All right.

So I need a uh motion.

Hannon uh so moved.

I need a second.

Land second.

Uh I'm gonna pull the board.

I'm gonna change the order, folks.

We're gonna start with Bohanan and so uh Bohanan?

Yes.

Bender?

Yes.

Uh Taft, yes.

Um and Bland.

Land, yes.

Great.

Thanks so much.

Good afternoon.

My name is Alex Barnett, permit manager for Atlantic Sign Company, representing Kroger for case 2026 DV3013.

I'm requesting a four-day waiver of notice uh due to a discrepancy in the instruction email and the uh public notice that was emailed by the city staff.

Okay.

Is there anyone in the audience who is against the four-day waiver for 2026 DV3013?

Let's hear from staff.

Yes.

Thank you again.

Uh no further comment.

We support the four-day uh waiver of notice.

Okay, I need a motion.

I need a second.

Bohannon second.

I'm gonna poll the board, Bohannon.

Bohanon, yes, yes, Hannon?

Yes, uh Taft, yes, and bland.

Bland, yes.

That was D V three zero one three.

Is that correct?

Hey, uh, my name is Jeremy Bainey.

I'm the president of the Stadium Village Business Association, uh seeking a continuance on 2026 D V 3017.

We did not receive the notice.

Not saying they didn't mail it, but we did not receive the notice with adequate time to get an automatic continuance, and we have reached out to the petitioner and their clients to sit down with the board to discuss their plans and get a better understanding.

Okay.

Is there anyone in the audience who's against the continuance of uh 2026 DB 3017?

My name is Mark Crouch.

I represent the petitioner.

Uh we had sent out proper notices.

We were in here today on the expedited docket, the concern from the neighborhood.

They had opportunity to address to reach out to us with some specific concerns.

There were two.

One was already addressed by staff.

We're still on the expedited petition.

They've had ample time to review the plans.

This is just about uh reduction of the units from three from five to three, which staff supports.

We still have to go through regional center, but we have the time for them to go over the plan.

It's affecting the timeline for the homeowner.

It's a private private residence for her, so we would uh respectfully ask we could have our hearing today, and the neighborhood would still have time to review any of the architectural plans that's still in the process of regional center.

Let's hear from staff.

Thank you, Chairperson Taft members of the board.

Uh staff um is recommending the approval of the request in its current form and had placed it on the expedited docket before we were aware of any potential interest or remonstrance from the stadium village group.

Uh given this would be the first such continuance requested by a remonstrating group.

Uh we would be supportive of the request for continuance out of the additional month to allow time for those discussions to occur.

Um, if they'd reached out to us a day or two earlier, it could have been filed as an automatic continuance, but just that deadline happened to be missed.

So we we wouldn't object to the continuance request.

We can go forward today if the board feels so led, but uh we feel having time for discussion would be appropriate.

Okay, um, so a couple things.

So to continue it, we would need a motion for the board, but also if we don't continue it, it would go on the regular docket, wouldn't be expedited.

So we'd have a full hearing today.

So right, those are the options.

So is there a motion to continue?

Yes, bland so moved.

Is there a second?

Bohan is second.

Uh I'll pull the board.

Um, yes.

Bender, yes, Taft, yes.

Um, yes.

And uh Bland.

Bland, yes, for continuance.

Okay, sorry about that.

The date.

So it is continued.

June 16th.

Okay, thank you.

Thank you.

Good afternoon, members of the board.

I'm attorney John Cross and I have two uh requests for continuances.

Um my address is 13 North State Street, suite 241, Greenfield, Indiana.

Uh the first item is number three, which is 2026 DV3015 on the staff portion for requests.

Uh, when we filed this one, we knew it was originally gonna be tabled for today.

The legal notice actually states uh it's going to be June 16th, though.

Uh so we would need a request from today to June 16th formally, but the reason why I needed a request today is I gotta go to Cokomo right after this for a hearing.

I have the same issue on June 16th as well, so I will not be able to attend uh that hearing date.

So our request is a continuance to July 21st.

Okay, this is 015.

015 for 4202 Double Drive.

Okay, great.

Um, is there anyone in the audience who's against the continuance of 2026 DB 3015?

Okay, let's hear from staff.

Thank you, Chairperson DAF members of the board.

Uh given the context, staff would not be opposed to the two-month continuance request to be July 21st hearing date given to schedule and conflicts.

Is there a motion?

Bohannan is so move.

Is there a second?

I'm gonna um Hannon second.

Okay, I'm gonna pull the board, Bohannon.

Bohannon, yes.

Bender?

Yes.

Taft, yes.

Hannon?

Yes.

And Bland.

Yes.

Okay.

Thank you.

And my second request is item 16, which is 2026 DB3011 at 3603 South Meridian Street.

Uh this one is for uh a portion of the fence at the St.

Rock uh school that is within the ClearSight Triangle.

There is the uh Northwest Perry Neighborhood Association who we had already met with last month and we left with the agreement that we would come back to them at a meeting in order to discuss alternative options to our proposal.

Uh their next hearing date after that one is it's always the day after the BZA, um so it's actually I believe tomorrow.

So I've spoken with the contractor who did the fence and he can get out there uh hopefully soon, but the uh neighborhood groups next meeting is not until uh June 24th, which is after the June 16th, so in order to be able to meet with them ahead of a BZA meeting, we would request uh it be continued two months also to July uh 21st, and also I have the same conflict going on, and I've informed the neighborhood group they were uh supportive of the request, and I believe staff is as well.

Okay.

Is there anyone in the audience who is um who's against the continuance of 2026 DB 301?

Let's hear from staff.

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

Um staff is encouraged to hear that uh petitioner is going to meet once again with the uh the neighborhood organization and work with their contractor to see what uh options may be available to them.

That seems like a promising uh path forward and and so we support that continuance to see what comes from that.

Okay.

I need a motion.

Bohan is so moved.

I need a second.

Land second.

I'm gonna pull the board, Bohanan Bohan, yes.

Bender, yes, Taft.

Yes, Hannon.

Yes.

Bland?

Yes, 2026, DV3011 has been continued to our July 21st hearing.

Thank you very much.

Is that what I said?

Yeah.

I'm sorry, June 20th.

Oh, it is July.

Yeah.

It is July 21st, yes.

Good afternoon, members of the board.

My name is Adam Hoffer.

I'm at 5926, Drake Hot Drive, Indianapolis, Indiana.

I'm uh representing uh for number 17, which is 2026-se 3-02.

We're requesting a continuance to the next hearing of June 16th.

Uh, reason for that is we uh were meeting with the client uh this morning to go over the report from staff, and we wanted to make sure that one we understood their comments and concerns and also to address anything that was in that uh report that way we could uh better serve for the the following okay.

Is there anyone in the audience who's against the continuance of 2026 SE 3002?

Let's hear from staff.

Uh thank you, Chairperson Daff members of the board given that this would be the first such continuance requested by the petitioner.

Uh we wouldn't object.

Okay.

I need a motion.

Bohan is so moved.

I need a second.

Hannon second.

I'm gonna pull the board, Bohanan.

Well Hannon, yes.

Bender, yes, Taft, yes.

Hannon?

Yes.

Land?

Yes.

Uh 2026 SE3002 is continued to the June 16th hearing.

Thank you, board.

Good afternoon, Pat Rooney, office at 1638 Shelby Street on behalf of Shayland Holdings Inc.

with respect to case number 2025 MO3-003 for the property at 3030 North Shayland Avenue.

And we are just requesting that we are placed on the expedited docket and that the updated commitments are uh what are approved.

Um we just sent updated commitments to staff this morning and um worked with the Warren Township Development Association, and so they switched from being remonstrators to in support.

So that's why we're requesting to be on the expedited docket.

Okay.

Is there anyone in the audience who's against this request to uh move 2025 MO3003 to the expedited docket?

Seeing none, let's hear from staff.

Oh, wait, is it you are against it?

Oh, okay.

Never mind, okay.

Let's hear from staff.

Thank you.

However, with no objection from any other remonstrators, staff is not making a recommendation on this, um, because staff was not a part party of the original commitments.

Um therefore staff typically does abstain from any amendments from future commitments as we are doing in this case and making no recommendation.

That being said, staff has no objection with this being placed on the expedited portion.

Okay, and let's see.

Do we vote on that?

We vote on it.

Let's vote on that.

Okay, I need a motion.

So move.

Is there a second?

I'm sorry, I didn't hear that.

There is uh hand on the second, okay.

Excuse me, madam chair.

Before we vote, are we able to hear the commitments that are been put before before we able to vote to move it to expedited docket?

Is that reasonable?

They're in the packets and I can under the case number or uh yes.

Okay.

And so just for clarity to staff, there was no rec there was not a recommendation of denial initially as is.

There was no recommendation, and now they are wanting to.

Is that right?

Uh if I may take a few steps back and clarify, the original petition was for um a used car lot.

Right.

And there and the petitioner in agreement with uh surrounding property owners and neighborhood registered neighborhood organization came up with the 2022 commitments.

That original petition for used car lot staff did recommend denial for the request.

It was subsequently uh granted uh per those commitments, and one of those commitments excluded the use of a gas station on site.

Okay.

The petition before you today is to remove that gas station exclusion because that is their intent.

Is it now to develop the site instead of a used car lot, but as a uh gas station, so they are removing that commitment.

Since staff did not have a part was not a party of the 2022 commitment negotiations.

We are we feel that we are still not a party of the 2026 commitment negotiations as they are irrelevant to what um the staff's original recommendation was.

If that is clarifying for you, yes, that helps a ton.

Thank you so much.

Okay, so did we have a right.

But did we have the second?

Okay, and okay.

So I'm gonna pull the board.

Bohan and tapped, yes, Hannon, yes, and land, yes.

Okay, so um you have been moved to the bottom of our expedited.

Thank you.

Good afternoon, short person.

Taft, members of the board.

My name's David Gilman.

My address is 211 South Ritter Avenue Suite H 46219.

I have a couple requests.

Um the first one is the very first docket petition two oh two six DB 3009 at 611 and 6215 Lake Haven.

We're working with staff.

We have a landscape plan that is almost complete.

We want the staff the opportunity to have time to review that and we may have an additional development standard variance.

So we would ask that this board continue this petition till July 21.

In the event we do need to send up new notice, we would have time to have that notice prepared by the staff and sent out to the neighborhoods and interested parties.

Okay.

Is there anyone in the audience who's against the continuance of 2026 DV3009?

Let's hear from staff.

Thank you, Chairperson Staff, members of the board.

This would not be the first continuance request related to this matter, but given that it's both in relation to amendments of plans to potentially impact the amount of variances that would be needed.

And since the division three hearing scheduled for June is only three weeks out and legal notice deadline has already passed, staff would be supportive of the continuance request to July with new notice.

Should the amended plans require it?

We're hopeful that no additional continuances would be needed beyond that point.

Okay.

I need a motion.

Hannon so moved.

I need a second.

I'm going to pull the board.

Bohannon.

Bohannan yes.

Yes.

Tapped, yes.

Hannon.

Yes.

Bland?

Yes.

Okay.

2026 DV3009 has been continued to a July 21st hearing.

Thank you.

This next one is a little bit more complicated.

It's the fifth item on your agenda 2026 UV 3006 with address of 4240 Bluff Road.

We filed the original petition as a use variance.

We discussed with the staff, and they uh we both agreed an alternative filing would be a rezoning and a companion variance, and we filed that.

We are set before the hearing examiner on June 11th, which means this petition is no longer necessary.

But I'll defer to the staff whether it should be acknowledged to be withdrawn or transferred, however, wording makes more sense.

Yeah, um our staff wouldn't object to that of the fees and filing documents for the 2026 UV 3006 have been applied toward the filing that's already open for the combination petition 2026 CBR 823.

So I suppose it'd be acknowledging the withdrawal of these case numbers while still allowing those documents and fees to go forward in front of the hearing examiner.

Okay, so I will acknowledge the withdrawal of 2026 UV 3006.

Thank you.

Thank you, Chairperson Taft members of the board.

Uh last one from me, I draw your attention to item number two on the agenda that is 2026 DV3014 at 4202 Carson Avenue.

Uh the petitioner and homeowner for this property were unable to attend this afternoon due to a scheduling conflict.

Therefore, staff is requesting on their behalf a continuance to the June 16, 2026 hearing date.

Given this would be the first such continuance made, we would not object.

Okay.

Um is there anybody in the audience who's against the continuance of 2026 DB3014?

Okay, I need a motion.

Land so moved.

And second.

Hannon second.

I'm going to pull the board.

Bohannon.

Bohannon, yes.

Yes.

Tapped, yes.

Hannon.

Yes.

Land?

Yes.

Alright, 2020 60 or DV3014 has been continued to June 16th.

Are there any other special requests?

Okay, well then we'll proceed with the expedited docket.

These are petitions to be expedited.

Case number two zero two five-M03-002 property address 2719 North Emerson Avenue, Warren Township, Council District Number 9, zoned I2.

The petitioner is Imagineering Hold Co.

Incorporated, represented by Nick Hammer, requesting modification to terminate conditions 2 and 3 of 2005-SE3-003 to allow for outdoor storage and operations outside of the existing building.

Outdoor storage prohibited and operations required to be within the existing building.

And requesting variants of use and development standards of the consolidated zoning and subdivision ordinance to allow for outdoor storage within 280 feet of a protected district with a height of 13 feet and without required fencing and landscape screening.

500 feet of separation required.

Maximum 10 foot tall height permitted, screening required.

Case number 2025-MO3-003 property address 3030 North Shadowland Avenue.

Warren Township, Council District Number 9, Zoned C4.

The petitioner is Shade Land Holdings Incorporated, represented by Patrick Rooney, requesting modification of commitments associated with 2022-UV3-034 to modify commitment 12 to read as follows.

The real estate shall be developed as a retail gas station and convenience store pursuant to the site plan prepared by Aben March last dated uh May 9th, 2024 and attached here to.

And to terminate commitments 5 and 13 M, which restricted the days and hours of business operation and prohibited an automobile fueling station.

Case number 2026-SE3-003 property address 8420 Masters Road.

Lawrence Township, Council District Number 4, Zoned C4.

The petitioner is Pinecrest Holdings LLC, represented by Tyler Oaks, requesting special exception of the consolidated zoning and subdivision ordinance to provide for the operation of a critter slash pest removal commercial contractor.

Case number 2026-DV3-013 property address 4202 Southeast Street.

Perry Township, Council District number 23, zoned C5.

The petitioner is Kurt Potovano, represented by Atlantic Sign Company, requesting variants of development standards of the consolidated zoning and subdivision ordinance to permit a poll sign with a height of 23.5 feet, maximum 20 feet permitted, to allow for a third pole sign, maximum one per frontage, and to allow for a total of five freestanding signs along East Street Frontage, maximum two per frontage permitted.

Case number two zero two six-dv three-zero one six B property address one zero two two zero east Washington Street.

Warren Township, Council District Number 20, zoned C4 TOD.

The petitioner is Indy WS 40 LLC, represented by Barnes and Thornburg LLP, requesting variants of development standards of the consolidated zoning and subdivision ordinance to allow for a monument sign within 250 feet of another freestanding sign.

300 feet of separation required.

Case number 2026-DV3-018 property address 5351 Hawthorne Drive.

Lawrence Township, Council District Number 9, Zoned D2.

The petitioner is Aldolf Buckner, requesting variants of development standards of the consolidated zoning and subdivision ordinance to provide for a detached garage with a zero foot south side setback, seven foot side setback required.

And case number two zero two six-UV3-003, property address 3305 North Arlington Avenue.

Warren Township Council District number nine zoned C3.

The petitioner is Tech Management LLC, represented by Simranjit Nagra, representing excuse me, requesting variants of use of the consolidated zoning and subdivision ordinance to permit a one hundred and twenty square foot expansion of an existing residential use.

Residential use is not permitted in a commercial district.

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

Jefferson Taft, that's the end of the expedited doctor.

Okay, we will now vote.

Yes, yes.

On case two zero two five-m o three-zero zero two, Rod Bohannon votes yes, Rayanna Bender votes yes, Joanna Taft votes yes, Brian Hannon votes yes, and Percy Bland votes yes.

That variance is granted.

On case two zero two five-mo three- zero zero three, Rod Bohannon votes yes, Rihanna Bender votes yes, Brian Hannon votes yes, uh Percy Bland votes yes, and Joanna am I missing your ballot for that one?

Joanna Taft votes yes on two zero two five MO303.

That variance is granted.

On case two zero two six-se three- zero zero three, Rod Bohannon votes yes, Ryanna Bender votes yes, Joanna Taft votes yes, Brian Hannon votes yes, and Percy Bland votes yes.

That variance is granted.

On case two zero two six-d V three-one three, Rod Bohannon votes yes, Rihanna Bender votes yes, Joanna Taft votes yes, Brian Hannon votes yes, and Percy Bland votes yes, that variance is granted.

On case two zero two six-d v three-zero one six B, Rod Bohannon votes yes, Rayanna Binder votes yes, Joanna Taft votes yes, Brian Hannon votes yes, and Percy Bland votes yes.

That variance is granted.

On case two zero two six-dV three- zero one eight, Rod Bohannon votes yes, Rihanna Bender votes yes, Joanna Taft votes yes, Brian Hannon votes yes, and Percy Bland votes yes.

That variance is granted.

And on case two zero two six-UV three-zero zero three, Rod Mohannan votes yes, Rihanna Binder votes yes, Joanna Taft votes yes, Brian Hannon votes yes, and Percy Bland votes yes.

That variance is granted.

Okay, we will proceed with the full docket.

These are petitions for public hearing.

Case number two zero two six-se 3-01 amended property address 6490 Massachusetts Avenue, Warren Township, Council District Number 9, zoned I2.

The petitioner is WEB property group LLC represented by Tyler Oaks, requesting special exception of the consolidated zoning and subdivision ordinance to provide for a commercial parking lot.

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

Right hand, please.

Thank you.

Do you swear or affirm under penalty of perjury to tell the truth and nothing but the truth?

Say I do.

Yes, it is the petitioners time to present.

Good afternoon, Chairperson Taft, members of the board, Alex Intermill with offices at 11 Monument Circle, Suite 2700, obviously not Tyler.

Unfortunately, Tyler cannot be here today, so you're stuck with me.

So as noted, we're asking for a special exception to allow commercial parking on a small portion of this larger lot off of Mass Av.

And the reason we're asking is really to meet the reality of the market and the demands in the area, which is highly industrialized and commercial, albeit there are still some pockets of D3 that are in the area, and we'll address that.

But this will meet the need to allow clean, safe off-street parking for larger trucks, tractor trailers, and so forth.

As always, we appreciate staff's consideration and review of the petition, but we respectfully disagree with their conclusion and recommending denial because of what I just mentioned.

There's a need for this.

Going back a little bit, we rezoned the property to I-2 back in 2022 to allow for a small concrete batch facility on the northern parcel, which is zoned I-4.

The parcels that are closer to Mass Av are zoned I-2.

And as part of that rezone, and you can see in the packet, there was a private drive that was built to come off of Mass Ave to alleviate the truck pressure from Kitley Avenue, which was not only a dangerous intersection for trucks coming in and out of the facility and the parcels, but also it just tore up that road.

That road has been rebuilt, and our understanding is that the folks in the neighborhood are quite happy with that.

But as part of that rezone and developing that private drive, and you can see where the proposed truck parking would be right to the west of that near my near Mass Ave, there's been improvements to the property that will add some screening and be mindful of the neighboring properties so that they're not going to have an effect or negative impact from not only the concrete business that exists, but certainly not from this pretty low intensive or low-intensity use to park trucks there.

So again, we think that the this request and allowing this small acre or two-acre parcel or area for truck parking will actually have a positive impact, not only on the neighboring properties, but the area as a whole to allow controlled parking for these trucks and and trailers.

Now, as you can see from the aerial photo in the packet, this is again an industrial and commercial area.

If you start at the intersection of Mass Ave and Arlington moving northeast, we've got parcels that are zone C5, C7, I3, I2.

We've got I4 on the subject property, and again with some sprinkling of D3 in that area.

But this is a high traffic, highly industrialized commercial area with a lot of trucks, and so there is that need.

We think that the use is consistent with the existing uses in the corridor and on the property, and it'll address that the situation that we have now with trucks illegally parking or or trying to find a place to store their trucks.

With respect to uh development and performance standards, there's really the proposed use is the commercial the commercial parking lot conforms with both of those.

So we don't have an issue there.

There are no additional buildings that'll be required for this use.

There is a building that might be constructed in the parking area, but that's yet to be determined.

We'll see how the use goes and how things go today.

Um then, as far as uh the performance standards, there's not going to be an increase of noise, dust, odor, etc.

So no issue there.

Okay.

Um the only use-specific standard issue I've mentioned is that this area not be more than two acres, and we've committed to limit the area to less than two acres or less.

Uh so no issue there.

So, in conclusion, uh, we believe the proposed use will meet the need in the market.

It'll be a benefit to the area, it will not negatively impact uh the property values nor materially impact the use of the neighboring property owners, their properties.

Instead, it'll allow for a less intensive use than what currently exists and is allowed on the property.

So we thank you for your time and a consideration.

We're respectfully asked for your favorable vote.

Um, are there any remonstrators?

Um actually we have a sorry, we have a question for the petitioner first.

Yes.

Uh, the trucks that the petitioner seeking to park there.

Yes, um, are these trucks currently being used for the business that operates on site there?

Some may be, but where it's more targeted at third-party trucks that may need a need space to you know park their truck or their box or trailers overnight.

Thank you.

Some could be related to the existing business.

Yes.

Thank you.

Let's hear from the remonstrator.

Can I go to these five minutes?

Good afternoon, President Taft the board.

Ron Phillips, Warren Township Development President 2121 Shann Quest Hill, Indianapolis 462 39.

So the uh Warren Township Board heard this uh petition in March, and again we addressed it in April, and we vote unanimously to oppose this petition.

Um granted, the corridor is a menagerie of grandfathered zones and of a uh various uh outdated zoning, and it it can be a mess going east from Arlington.

So now's our chance, right?

So we get new petitions, it's our chance to bring and add to the quality of life for the residents in that area, and just east of this is residents, as we'll hear from uh one coming up.

Um the um the properties.

I know um we we need more beautification, we need more help on Mass Ave.

It's still a two-lane road.

There's no um access lane.

There's no turn lane to get into this property.

Uh there are, I think around I think maybe 15 to 20 concrete trucks currently on site that belong to this business.

So uh that alone is a lot of truck traffic, a lot of dust being turned up, and with more semi-trucks, it would add more more diesel fuel and the air and and more noise.

And we ask you to say no to the special exemption and to the ordinance for commercial parking.

Thank you.

Hello, board members and fellow citizens.

My name is Kurt Water.

I live exactly next to this nuisance.

What they're telling you is lies.

They say that they'll make noise.

I got videos all day long.

Big over 80 DBs coming out of their facility all day long.

They make my life from Living Hill.

They bring their trucks at 12 o'clock a.m.

to go and move trailers.

I work at Pepsi.

I'm the fleet mechanic.

I'm the head fleet mechanic at Pepsi on Post Road.

I know what trucks do.

I know how they pollute.

I know how they can kill.

I know how they can do the silent kill over time.

This person doesn't live in my neighborhood, he doesn't even live around my neighborhood.

The people that live there that work there don't even live in my neighborhood.

They come at 4 30 in the morning, open up the gates, bring their traffics.

80 cars come in inside.

I can't sleep.

I work from 2 o'clock to 10 o'clock, 10 30 at night.

I don't come home until 12 30.

Sometimes I push 60 hours a week working for Pepsi, working to make sure that all these big semi-trucks and everything are not crashing on the freeway, like the one that just caught on fire.

Like the one that just couldn't hold their loaded, went into the back of the cab on the freeways.

These are all deprimental trucks that are dangerous.

The reason why they're kept out of the city, and if you look at your pamphlets that I provided for you, all the information are there.

Pollutants, dangers, the street is not big enough.

My my community does not want it at all.

So I don't know where this dream of this people around my neighborhood is okay with it.

Because I'm not thorough plan for their for them to register a road that's not even registered from Bing to say that it's registered to Google saying that it's not registered.

Lies.

All this information that they're providing for, nothing.

I'm the one taking all the brunt.

I'm the one taking all the pollution.

I'm the one taking my land getting all messed up.

They built their land six feet higher.

I don't have a berm.

I see their trucks from wide out doing regions, turning their drums.

That's not holding back no sound.

That's not giving me no privacy.

That's taking away my privacy.

That's giving me killing.

That's giving me pollution.

That's killing my family.

My wife is just pregnant.

What's my what am I gonna do?

I have to sell my land because they're gonna push us out.

That's not right.

Please tell them no and tell them go away, and we're not gonna even have this conversation.

They turned these residential homes into I-4 and I-3.

That's wrong.

We bought this property because we wanted it, and when I say when I say quiet, they turned around in and made it a monster.

Thank you.

Sir, could we get your street address for the record, please?

6524, Massachusetts Avenue.

I am the direct next door driveway.

Thank you.

Legally put that does not measure out that their verm is not too much to expect, does not continue with all the wording inside your booklet is in black and white.

There is nothing to be bent.

Thank you very much.

Are there any questions?

The remonstrators.

Okay, let's hear from staff.

Thank you, Chip.

Members of the board.

The request is for a special exception, which a commercial parking lot in the I2 district is required to have.

And any program would not materially and substantially interfere with the lawful use and drawing of adjoining property.

Staff believes the proposed use does not meet these required findings.

Comprehensive plan does recommend suburban neighborhood for this specific site where the parking lot is going to be.

And the other adjacent properties to this site along Massachusetts Avenue to the north, to the east and to the west on a diagonal street.

This site originally contained a single family dwelling.

And that uh single family dwelling was also recommended for suburban neighborhood use.

2022, the petitioner rezoned requested to rezone this site to I-2, and the northern parcel of portion of the site to I-4.

Previously, there was no I-4 in the area.

There was minimal I-2.

I believe there was only one or two I-3 parcels, which can which continue to exist today.

There are a few heavy commercial, C7 and C5.

But in addition to that, there are still 18 dwellings or parcels that are zone D3 that have dwellings on that.

So the petitioner's inclination that this is a highly industrialized area is wrong in staff's opinion, due to the 18 residences that still exist in the area.

This location is a half a mile away from 38th and Shadeland, which in last time staff drove through there was a highly commercialized area, not an industrialized area.

These residents use that area to for their shopping and needs as well and need to come and go from the area.

As such, Massachusetts Avenue is an arterial, it is only two lanes.

It is not improved beyond two lanes, so there are no passing lanes, there are no turn lanes other than what is required at the entrances through initial previous rezonings.

I mentioned before the subject site is recommended as suburban neighborhood.

The increased intensity of this parking lot above and beyond the I-2 would not above and beyond the permitted I-2 uses, would not be compatible with the suburban neighborhood uh typology or recommendation as requested.

Previously mentioned the subject site is located to residential D3 zoning districts on east and west, both sides.

You've heard from the petitioner from the east, immediately east of the driveway, existing driveway, where this parking lot would be located next to this.

The proposed parking lot would be an intensification of the existing I-2 in staff's opinion and would not be compatible located next to these existing dwellings and D3 zone properties.

Because this request would permit additional heavy traffic and vehicle storage in the I-2 district, abutting a residential area, staff does have concerns with its impact on the adjacent residential areas and on Massachusetts Avenue traffic in general.

Each special exception request must show that the grant would not be injurious to public health, safety, convenience, general welfare of the community.

The proposed parking lot use would provide for a new additional use on the site for the outdoor storage of commercial contractor equipment and the parking of work box and semi trucks and trailers on site as per the submitted plan of operation.

Petitioner does indicated the majority of this would be third-party contractors or third-party trucks.

So basically they will be contracting or leasing the parking lot out to people who want to lease a space to park their truck there while they're or their car there while their truck is over the road.

This would not be for the existing I industrial uses on site.

The majority of it would be third-party contractors, which in previous experience staff has find that they generally do not tend to follow the plan of operation.

The property owner says, well, that they're not under our control because they're a third-party contractor, we can't control them, excuse me.

So the ability to control this or to keep them within any plan of operation or within any hours of operation, say 7 a.m.

to 10 p.m.

at night, would be limiting in staff's opinion, and hard to control since they are third-party contractors.

Special exception must indicate that the grant would not endure or adversely affect adjacent area or property values.

The existing use is already doing that.

So to say to add an additional parking lot, uh won't do that, in addition to the existing use, is disingenuous in staff's opinion and believes that it would add would adversely affect adjacent area and property values.

The proposed use of a parking lot is a generational use that would prevent and displace permitted I-2 uses, such as light warehousing or industrial, light industrial warehousing, shipping of such that is all internal to I 2 buildings because I-2 does not allow any outdoor storage.

Those proposed I2 uses could provide provide jobs to the other to the area residents.

Unfortunately, instead, we have third party contractors that would be displacing the potential of those jobs if this site was to be not to be developed with the possibility of other I2 uses.

In staff's opinion, deviating from this permitted I2 existing I2 permitted uses and increasing the negative impact likely to occur on the neighboring dwellings and surrounding area.

Does not provide for an approval of a special exception as requested in staff's opinion.

Permitting a commercial parking lot in a suburban neighborhood district as proposed and recommended by the comprehensive plan.

The suburban neighborhoods recommended by the comprehensive plan.

Permitting a commercial parking lot in a suburban neighborhood would be wholly inappropriate, particularly considering the general increase of truck trailer and equipment usefully adjacent to a residential-oriented area, both to the east and west and to the south.

There is a union hall to the south that is zone D5, but there are other residential uses scattered on Massachusetts Avenue along the south side and on the north side of Massachusetts Avenue, both to the east and west.

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

Thank you.

Are there any questions of staff?

Okay, petitioner, you have five minutes.

Thank you.

Um I'll go in reverse order.

I mean, again, and I stated we disagree with staff, obviously.

We think that the existing uses right now at the property are more intense than what's proposed for this limited area for a commercial parking lot.

Um the owners, some of whom are here today, are committed to controlling and this is their property.

They've invested tens of thousands of dollars and more on both this entryway off of uh Mass Ave to improve or allow Kitley to be improved and improve the safety and traffic flow there.

They're committed to making sure they control their property and the use in this proposed lot if it's if so approved.

Um, the hours again, typically with respect to our the neighbor, we just don't think that that's true.

I mean, the concrete operations at per the operation plan are 6 a.m.

to 6 p.m.

Monday through Friday on Saturdays, it's 6 a.m.

to 2 p.m.

So if there are trucks that are operating there, they're not the concrete business, you know.

So we do manage that property and make sure that we're being mindful of the noise and the traffic in and out of there as we discussed before the plan commission when we rezoned several years ago, and that carries forward to today.

And so the same would hold true for this proposal that it the commercial parking lot, while there would be um third parties that would be utilizing that space, the control of the lot would still be with the petitioner and the owners whose business is right there in their headquarters or right on the northeast corner of the property.

So they'd maintain control of that.

Um we just think that this use looking at the other you know, truck stop or cycling station, even a commercial parking garage would be more intense of a use than having a limited space for tractor trailer storage and box tracks commercial parking lot, which is already happening, so there's a need for it in the area with the commercial of by shade land, which staff menu mentioned, along with the other properties that are on Mass Ave.

So it's happening.

The zoning ordinance allows for this use, so it acknowledges that there can be a need for it, and we think there's a need here, and this is an appropriate location for that.

Um, and then again, we don't think to the uh warrant townships concerns about dust and diesel and noise.

Again, we just don't think that this use is going to increase or going to uh negatively impact the neighboring property properties or the area with an increase of that against a small area.

This is already an industrial area with high traffic and trucks going through.

This will meet a need and allow for approved and legal parking uh in a commercial parking lot rather than kind of the wild west, which is happening there now.

Not on our property, but in the area.

I think that covers our take any questions.

Are there any questions of the petitioner?

Okay, go ahead.

A couple questions.

So right now, Lance and the owner operates a concrete business, correct?

On property?

Yes, sir.

So what relation would the third contractors have with the concrete business?

So it's it's WE Batey is the concrete company, WEB property group is the affiliate that owns the property.

So the owners are controlling the entire 14-acre plus property, including this area on the southwest portion.

So they would be controlling the commercial parking in that area.

Well, as I looked at your proposed current use, I understand the hours you propose, it's pretty much governed by the concrete business, correct?

You say six AM, 6 a.m.

to the yes, generally, yes.

That's that's when we see trucks coming in and out of there.

Now how there how would that be used to the third party contractors who might be contracting to buy their truck?

Sure.

If I could I've got to give your name Scott Noel, I am employed by W Beatty Concrete Construction Archer Ready Mix.

Sir, excuse me, were you sworn in?

It needs to take it.

Okay, and then we'll need you to state your name and address on the record, please.

Okay.

Please raise your right hand.

Do you swear or affirm under penalty of perjury to tell the truth and nothing but the truth?

Say I do.

I do.

Scott Knoll, Archer Ready Mix 3718 Archer Avenue.

I said you want to explain how the parking lot.

So there is no exact uh model of what these parking is figured.

We've talked to some people.

We know there's a need.

Um we are the landlord on site.

We have multiple buildings that we operate of.

We're no we've been told by real estate professionals that there's a need for this.

We're just trying to use take that need and make it uh a win-win for both parties.

I guess I'm trying to understand that didn't you the neighbors saying they're concerned about traffic or hours a night, different time.

And I guess we're trying to get understanding right now.

You're out the your hours of operation six a.m to two p.m.

on Saturdays, and six a.m.

six p.m.

on Monday through Friday, pretty much regulate your business.

You're now saying you would use the property for third parties.

So I'm trying to understand how you're gonna control any third party after two o'clock on Saturday, after six p.m.

on Monday through Friday.

So that's what I'm trying to understand.

How are you gonna control that that population of trucks coming in at your property?

Our entire property is fenced in with a gate that closes every night between 6 and 7 p.m.

Opens anywhere from 6 a.m.

Uh roundabout.

If someone would get there a little earlier, um they have codes, but it is all coded in.

Um I think we have 14 cameras on site that we monitor that uh all of those are tied into the Marion County um police department.

So we can monitor that and we can close the gate and we can control that.

How many trucks do you how many trucks are you proposing your model?

Maybe third-party contractors using your facility?

Uh as many, you know, if it's if it's semis or dump trucks or something of that nature, um, you know, you're limited to a semi-truck that's you know 50 foot 53 foot trailer, and you've got that.

So it's limited to the the type of truck um that we we could put there.

So I would I presume that you looked at this model, you measure the site, two acres, you have some idea of how many trucks could be parked in a given day.

How many trucks do you think could be parked on this site?

I can do a calculation.

I mean, but it's uh a semi is gonna be you know nine foot by 53 foot.

There's 43,286 square feet to an acre, plus you have to have buffer.

I would say if I just had to guess around 75 to 100, but that's that's not taking into consideration setbacks and parking and traffic flow in and out.

So I think that number I'm giving you is extremely high, but I'd rather.

Thank you.

Are there any other questions of the petitioner?

Okay, thank you so much.

Let's hear from the remote strator.

Thank you.

75 or 100 semis.

So again, we can improve the area and the quality of life for the residents of Warren Township one petition at a time.

I'm asking you to consider that one today on this one.

Um again, the noise that does the pollution, the residence, and um really that's gonna be my my plea for today.

So I thank you very much.

Okay, so we heard from him that he have no backup plans if anything fails, if any safety thing happens, they want to overload their little lot, they don't even know how big a truck is.

It's 80 feet because it's 50 plus the trail plus the tractor.

Okay, you only can put probably about 12 to 15 of them because they can't maneuver physically around in three acres.

I come from a 25 acre lot.

I run this every day.

I know exactly what it takes to move these trucks back and forth.

I know the kind of drivers that they just want to hold the wheel, they're not educated.

So why am I gonna put them next to my house?

We're gonna have fuel leaks.

You have on the paper inside the dockets.

I even have a video.

They said they don't leave in six o'clock.

Tyler, do you have that video you want to play for me?

Marty, and then the the timestamp on it is like 5 20 in the morning.

I believe they're leaving already.

You know what time they started to load that truck?

You know how long it takes to load a semi-truck?

It ain't five minutes.

So that's how long they've been running, running the region, warming up the trucks, all the exhaust, all that is look how dark it is.

That's morning.

That's this morning.

That's this morning.

That's five o'clock this morning.

I have to wake up and catch them driving past my house.

And you see a berm, I see the whole truck.

That's my next that's next to my fence.

I see a whole truck.

I see no privacy.

So for them to talk all these lies and come up with all these beautiful dreams.

It's beautiful, especially when you're not in the business, when you're not doing the things right, that you're not doing the calculations, you're not driving them, you're not fixing them, you're not making sure your workers are doing the right thing.

Do you like blow the horn to make safety?

No problem.

Hey, we blow the horn all the time.

I understand what safety is, but you want to be a nuisance to me, you want to not be nice to me, you want to be a neighbor that's foul to me.

Hey, go somewhere else.

I don't deserve that.

My neighbors don't deserve that.

Especially when it's people that's talking about things that's not in their fields or not qualified for doing what they're supposed to be doing to make sure that the public is safe.

Because right now we have so many cash accidents and so many people dying because of negligence of drivers that oh, I didn't know.

Well, you got behind the wheel.

So you should be held responsible for that.

No matter where you go.

I come from a two-lane highway, but when they pull over and they get a region and the thing goes five miles an hour, and nobody can go around them because cars coming on coming and there's head-on accidents.

Now you know that there's a safety rule right that's coming around that the trucks that trucks slow down to five miles an hour when it has to go into a region.

The truck literally will break down itself from 500 miles an hour, break yourself to five miles an hour.

And this is every almost 10,000 miles because I fix regions.

I'm after treatment specialist.

I know exactly what it does.

So please say no.

So I don't have to take this to another court.

Thank you.

Okay.

Thank you.

Alright, unless there are any other questions, we'll now vote on 2026 SE 3001.

On case 2026-se 3-01 amended.

Rod Mohannan votes no.

Rihanna Bender votes no.

Joanna Taft votes no.

Brian Hannon votes no, and Percy Bland votes no.

The variance is not granted.

Case number two zero two six-dv3-010 amended property address 102 John Quill Drive, Perry Township, Council District number 23, zoned D3.

The petitioners are Kenneth and Josephine Busald, represented by Daniel Russello, requesting variants of development standards of the consolidated zoning and subdivision ordinance to provide for the location of a detached accessory structure within a utility easement, not permitted, and with a three-foot west side yard setback, six foot required.

Just in case.

Just in case.

Do you swear or affirm under penalty of perjury to tell the truth and nothing but the truth?

Say I do.

I do.

Hello everyone.

For petitioners, Kenneth and Josephine Boussauld.

My address is 5224 South East Street, suite C 14.

Like I said, I'm here on behalf of Kenneth and Josephine Boussauld.

In comparison to the last petition, I think this is gonna seem relatively light, no matter how you guys vote, but I've got that going for me.

So this is not a petition about someone trying to push the boundaries of the zoning ordinance, right?

It's it's a petition regarding a couple who have lived quietly in their home for 40 years, maintaining their property in the exact same condition, the exact same condition that the board sees it today.

So when they moved in in 1985, within that first year, they did two things.

Um there was a chain link fence that ran around the property, and they said we're gonna replace this with a wooden privacy fence.

And they did that, and then they also installed this small shed, which is the second picture there, that small shed right there.

That is the 40-year-old shed, which I think in and of itself is kind of impressive.

Um this condition, this small shed has existed uh unchanged for four decades.

Um, Ken and Josephine have maintained this by power washing it once every year or two years and then sealing it and repainting it the way it looks today.

Um, and then they also put this gravel bed underneath these barns here or around them, right?

This helps with pests, it helps maintain the sheds.

So since that happened 40 years ago, there's there's been no complaints by neighbors, um, no issues with the city set of the city that's come up yet until December of last year.

Um, no safety issues, no interference with utilities.

There is a drainage culvert, it's underground that goes basically right underneath that fence.

Um, I think as you guys can see, we gave notice to every property owner, and no one's here really concerned about this.

Um, no one's here in opposition.

So to clarify the legal issue, the only thing before us today is the shed.

Uh and its location within a utility easement by I believe a foot, and then it is not a three-foot setback from the property line instead of the the six feet required.

Again, it's been that way for 40 years.

Um, so the fence is not before you.

And that is because of it can be handled through a consent to encroachment.

That's with the department of public works, and there's an encroachment and easement office as I understand it.

And that uh paperwork that I provide you is what that document is.

And I'll get that and get to that in a minute.

So the fence will be dealt with with a consent to encroachment and will not have to be moved, okay?

No matter what you vote today.

Now, staff's position is that there's no undue hardship because the barn can be moved.

But respectfully to the staff, that doesn't really take into the whole picture that we're dealing with here, right?

Because the question in our estimation isn't whether or not it is physically possible to move the shed, right?

Um the question is whether it's reasonable after 40 years of peaceful compliant use, basically lack of notice by the city, the violation officers, um, to now impose a burden where no harms existed, nothing's come up.

And importantly, it's it's it would be a burden imposed to solve a problem that's never materialized, right?

Um, so why we think you should vote yes today on this this petition is because there's a built-in safety valve, and that is the consent to encroachment that I just put before you.

When we went down this path and they were via they were caught in violation or cited, um I was working with that office, and they said, Well, you just get a consent to encroachment, and and what that would essentially do is say, well, if that utility easement's it needs to be dug up and something needs to happen, well, you're signing off on the fact that it is the Busaults who are gonna have to pay to move that fence and move that barn.

It's an indemnification document, essentially, right?

And again, over the last 40 years, nothing like that's occurred.

So, again, if the city needs access, it's the Busals and not the city who will bear the cost of removing their whole fence and moving that shed if it's needed.

Again, it's only a foot onto the easement.

A utility company may come in and say, we don't actually need you to move the barn at all.

We can still do what we need to do with the five feet we have or whatever it is.

So I think there's a balancing test, and what you're wearing today is simple.

On the one side, we have a 40-year-old condition with no harm, no opposition, and a full indemnification to the city, which again, if they need to get in there, they're gonna have to move it and they're gonna pay for it.

So if you if you grant the petition, we still have to do that document.

They're still in violation, and and the city's gonna say, hey, you need to do something about this, or sign that consent.

Um, and then on the other hand, you're gonna be forcing an elderly couple to incur costs and instruction of what is a really nice property that they've done a lot of work on for really no demonstrated public benefit.

So because the variance doesn't change the nature of the neighborhood, um, it's not injurious to the public health or the surrounding properties, um, it doesn't impair utilities in any way because we have to take that next step.

Um it doesn't affect property values, um, it simply allows things to remain as they've existed for the last four decades.

Um, and it'll come with the added protection that if anything ever changes, the burden is entirely on Canon Josephine.

Um, and so respectfully, that is exactly the type of practical reasonable case where we believe a variance is appropriate, and we would ask for your approval.

Thank you.

Are there any questions of the petitioner?

Are there any remonstrators present?

Let's hear from staff.

Thank you, Chip's and Taf members of the board.

Construction of buildings within utility and drainage easements are not permitted.

This is both to allow for easy access to those utilities or drainage and free flow of drainage as needed, and to ensure there's no potential for interference with either the drainage or the utilities.

In this instance, the the easement is located parallel to the west property line.

The accessory structure encroaches uh approximately one foot into that property line, or into that easement, excuse me.

Um, and also encroaches uh approximately three feet into the side setback as well, which requires a six-foot side setback.

Steph will acknowledge that aerial photos approximate and approximately indicate the structure has been in its current location since 1986 or thereabouts.

Staff would also point out that the structure has also been non-compliant since 1986, even if there has been no complaints since then, or um notice of violation since then construction within the ordinance, um required setbacks is also not permitted, as is and that would apply to this uh utility shed.

This is to allow for sufficient light and uh and airflow between structures and adequate public safety public safety access in times of an emergency, so that they have sufficient room if the shed was to catch on fire to um to um move around the shed and provide uh a response or adequate response service to address that fire if it one if one was to occur.

Um staff does find no practical difficulty as the ordinance requires through the findings of fact for the petitioner to not meet the side setback standards, the structure does not appear to be on a solid foundation, therefore staff feels that it's possible the structure could be removed out of the easement and out of the setback, and more easily relocated than enclosed structures on permanent foundations.

Staff generally views any related practical difficulty to be staffing uh self-imposed and and it's insufficient in obtaining a favorable staff recommendation.

Further staff has concerns that recommending approval of such requests may promote similar deviations from the ordinance or encourage additional deviations from the ordinance from surrounding property owners.

Staff would note that any structure located within an easement, drainage, or utility, may be lawfully removed by any party with rights to that easement at any time upon their request.

That is partly why we do have this ordinance requirement to avoid any such instance, staff does strongly request that the plans be modified to relocate the structure wholly outside of the easement and setback.

For these reasons, staff does recommend denial and be happy to answer any questions the board may have.

Are there any questions of staff?

Okay, you have five minutes to sum up.

Yeah, thank you.

Um, so uh as to access to the drainage, I I'll just kind of speak on some of the things Robert had mentioned.

Um that is an underground uh culvert, it's it's a pipe.

So it's it's not necessarily a drainage ditch that they're gonna be going through and digging.

If they're gonna dig that out, it's gonna be a full-fledged thing, that fence is coming out, the barn's gonna have to be moved, potentially, and the consent to encroachment would deal with that.

Um, you know, it although it is a noncompliance because of its access to or its proximity to the um property line and that easement.

If if this is moved over the three feet where I imagine Ken and Josephine would move it, it'll actually be closer to the the the barn.

So I think leaving it as is, there's just an aesthetic value, and for any access, ingress, egress related to fires, emergency, etc.

The fence stays.

Remember that, right?

The fence isn't moving, it's not part of the petition.

So that argument's somewhat moot in my opinion, because it's not like somebody's gonna have to jump the fence to get around that barn anyway.

Um, and then you know, speaking about no practical difficulty, we can just touch on this again.

The boostalls are gonna have to move those rocks.

They may have to move this other barn.

Because if you look to the west property, there's a a structure that might not allow for a forklift or a tractor to come in and pick that barn up unless it's from the front, and I again I don't know the practicalities of that.

They're gonna have to take their fence down, all of which is well maintained and properly landscaped.

So so to that point, you're right.

It might not be an undue burden, but it's the only burden we see on another couple who have lived in this neighborhood a an older neighborhood and that speaks to my the last point this this idea that this could promote similar deviations.

The reason we have these hearings is because it's a case by case case by case basis and you guys get to make the determination as to what would affect a yes or no you know not every barn on an easement is going to be the same as this and I think that argument is generally although I get it it's just a big question mark.

I don't think it holds much value here this is this is our case and I think given what is before the the board today the time spent the effort um maintaining this this house and home you're you're just not gonna see a bunch of well lastly you're not gonna see surrounding neighbors because it's an older community putting up a new shed right I mean if that happens the citation officers are going to catch it hopefully before they do all the landscaping and put in gravel and maintain it for 40 years right so um again respectfully we we disagree with some of the staff's problems with this and that the only problem that's going to be created is for my clients and so we would we would respectfully request that you approve our petition thank you any questions of the petitioner okay we're now ready to vote um 2026 db3010 on case 2026 v3 010 Percy Bland votes yes Brian Hannon votes yes Joanna Taft votes yes Ryanna Bender votes yes and Rod Bohannan votes yes the variance is granted thank you very much thanks Rob is there any other matter to come before the board then we are adjourned