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 to my left are Rod Bohannan and Brianna Bender.

And then to my right, um Brian Hannon, and coming soon will be Percy Bland.

Legal counsel for the board today is Chris Steinmetz.

Staff members present today from the Division of Planning are Jeff York, current planning manager, Noah Pappas, current planning manager, Michael Weigel, Principal Planner 1, Adrian Baker, Principal Planner 1, Robert Eulenh, Senior Planner, Josh Levesque, Senior Planner, Kaylee Eisenhart, Office Assistant and Acting Board Secretary.

The board is 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 10 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, 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.

Excuse me.

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 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 a 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 June 16th 2026 meeting.

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

Bohan move.

I'll second by plenty of second.

I'll now pull the board.

Bohanan.

Bohannon, yes.

Bender.

Yes.

Hannon.

Yes.

Bland.

Yes.

Taft, yes.

Okay.

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

Um 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.

So I need a motion.

And so moved.

I need a second.

Bland second.

I'm going to pull the board.

Uh Bohanon.

Bohan, yes.

Binder?

Yes.

Hannon?

Yes.

Bland?

Yes.

Taft, yes.

Um we will now consider special requests and continuances at this time.

Good afternoon, members of the board.

I'm attorney John Cross.

Address is 13 North State Street Suite 241 Greenfield, Indiana.

Here on the uh first item on the agenda.

2026 D V 3011 43603 South Meridian Street, uh requesting a continuance uh and a transfer to the BZA uh one August 4th hearing date.

Uh we've had a a couple continuances now, and we continue to work with staff and the local neighborhood group uh as well now as uh counselor Kristen Jones uh and we have recently been discussing alternative options that we've already proposed.

Um we've also requested some data concerning um accidents in this area from the IMPD Lexus Nexus platform and hoping to have those before that August 4th hearing.

So we are requesting what will uh plan to be our our last continuance request to that hearing.

We believe that uh staff supportive of the local neighborhood and counselor are also supportive in she uh counselor Jones indicated she could be there as well.

Great.

Is there anyone in the audience who is against the continuance and transfer of 2026 D V three zero one one?

Seeing none, let's hear from staff.

Yes, thank you, Chairperson Taft, members of the board, uh staff is in support of this continuance um as uh councillor cross mentioned.

Um you know I think we as staff are also very eager to uh get to the bottom of this case and so therefore a shorter continuance through the transfer is optimal, and then this also gives them the opportunity to meet with the community to also um have counselor Jones um uh uh provide any input from that.

So staff is in support of the continuance and transfer.

Okay, so I need a motion.

Bohan is so move.

I need a second.

I'm gonna poll the board, Bohannon.

Bohan, yes, binder, yes, Hannon, yes, bland, bland, yes, taft, yes.

2026 DV3011 has been continued continued and transferred to the BZA1 August 4th meeting.

Thank you.

Good afternoon.

My name is Jason Burke.

I'm with All Set Architects, 1139 Shelby Street, Indianapolis 46203.

Representing HRS VLLC for petition 2026 DV3021 for 3919 Madison Avenue requesting that this petition be added to the expedited list.

Thank you.

Okay.

Um is there anyone in the audience who is against um is a remonstrator against 2026 DV3021.

Seeing none, let's hear from staff.

Uh thank you, Chaperson Taft members of the board.

Our staff recommends approval of the requested variants for this property.

Uh we received two emails of opposition, uh, which are within the case file and within your documents as well.

Hopefully, it doesn't appear that either of those individuals are here today.

Uh, we'd also note that counselor Kay Hill submitted a letter indicating his support for the project earlier this morning and that the Gateway Community Alliance neighborhood group indicated their neutrality on this position.

Uh we wouldn't have an issue with this being moved to the expedited docket.

Okay.

Um I need a motion.

Bohan so move.

I need a second.

Blant second.

I'm gonna pull the board.

Bohannon.

Bohanan, yes.

Yes, Hannon?

Yes.

Bland?

Yes.

Taft, yes.

Uh 2026 DV3021 is the move to our expedited docket.

Thank you.

Chair Person Taft members of the board staff would draw your attention to petition number nine, 2026 UV 3012 located at 7801 East 88th Street.

The legal notices were mailed on a timely matter for this uh petition, but the sign posting was delayed and would need a three-day waiver of just the sign posting.

Staff has no objection to this request.

Is there anyone in the audience who's against the three-day waiver for the sign posting for 2026 UV 3012?

Are you against it?

The three you're against the three-day waiver.

Like we'll we will still hear the case today, but um well it's expedited.

So somebody has uh is that the are you a remonstrator?

No, we are you're the petitioner.

Okay, so I don't think you're against it.

I I think that I think you want to you want us to approve this.

Okay.

Um I need a motion.

Bohannon still move.

I need a second.

Well, I'll second.

Um I'm gonna pull the board, Bohannon.

Bohan, yes.

Bender, yes, Hannon, yes, bland, yes.

Taft, yes.

So 2026 UV 3012 has received a three-day waiver, and we'll now will stay on the expedited list, so we'll vote on that later.

Yeah, uh, thank you, Chairperson Taft members of the board.

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

Uh 2026 DV3014 at Carson Avenue.

Uh staff is requesting an additional continuance for this petition on behalf of the petitioner.

Uh they had some needs come up related to a last second uh work trip and then also some child care complications.

My understanding is that the homeowner uh couple recently gave birth to a new child, which is complicated their schedules for a little bit.

Um staff told that this would be the last continuance needed, and we um are requested on their behalf, but would have no objection.

Continue to when?

It would be to uh next month's hearing uh division three August 18th, 2026, without new notice.

Okay.

Um is there anyone in the audience who's against the continuation of 2026 D V three zero one four?

Okay, I need a motion.

Land I'll motion.

I need a second.

Bohan second.

I'm gonna pull the board, Bohannon.

Bohanan, yes, finder, yes, Hannon, yes, bland, yes, taft, yes.

2026, D V three zero one four will be heard at our August 18th hearing.

Yes.

Thank you, Chairperson Taft members of the board.

Staff would draw your attention to item number three on your agenda, 2026 D V three zero one six A amended.

Um a timely automatic continuance has been filed by a city county councilor, uh, and this petition will be continued to the August 18th, 2026 BZA3 hearing.

This would just require your acknowledgement.

It is it's acknowledged.

And staff would also draw your attention to item number four.

This is 2026 UV three zero zero seven.

Um staff is uh making a request of pawn uh on the on behalf of the petitioner, excuse me, uh, for a one-month continuance uh to the division three August 18th hearing.

This would be to allow for ongoing conversations with community members and to discuss potential easement matters with AES.

This would be without new notice.

With new notice, no, without notice.

Without notice.

Is there anyone in the audience who is against the continue to uh the continuation of 2026 UV307?

Okay, I need a motion.

Bohannon so move.

Need a second.

Hannon second.

I'm gonna pull the board, Bohannon.

Bohannon, yes.

Hannon, yes, land, land, yes.

Taft, yes.

2026 UV307 is continued to our August 18th hearing.

Thank you.

And once again, staff would draw your attention to item number five.

This is 2026 UV 3011.

Uh staff is requesting on behalf of the petitioner a one-month continuance uh once again to the August 18th hearing.

Uh this would just be to allow for further discussions and uh possibly even for further uh community meetings.

Uh that would also be without new notice.

Okay.

Is there anyone in the audience who's against the continuation of 2026 UV three zero one one?

I need a motion.

Bohan is still moved.

I need a second.

Hannon second.

I'm gonna pull the board.

Bohannon.

Bohanna, yes.

Binder, yes.

Hannon?

Yes.

Bland?

Yes.

Taft, yes.

2026 UV 3011 has been continued to our August 18th hearing.

Unless there are any other matters, any other continuances or special requests, we'll proceed with the expedited docket.

Petitions to be expedited.

Item number six, 2026, D V three zero zero nine, amended six one one and six two one five Lake Haven Lane, Perry Township, Council District Number 22, Zone Z7, F F I2, F.

Lake Haven Realty LLC, and RH Maylon, Inc.

represented by David Gilman.

Variants of development standards of the consolidated zoning and subdivision ordinance to provide for outdoor storage and rental of heavy construction equipment within 30 feet of a protected protected district.

500 foot separation from protected districts required.

Utilizing gravel for parking and vehicle maneuvering area, hard surfacing required, and with a height exceeding 10 feet, not permitted, deficient transitional yard landscaping required, and deficient screening around outer storage areas required.

Item number seven, twenty twenty-six D V three zero twenty-five amended eight six seven four US 31.

Perry Township, Council District Number 22, Zone C4, Fountain Creek, LLC by Crystal Whitehead, variance of development standards of the consolidated zoning and subdivision ordinance to provide for the placement of a canopy sign with sign area exceeding 45% of the canopy plane, maximum 45% permitted, and for three secondary incidental signs, maximum two per acre permitted.

Item number eight, twenty twenty-six, d v three zero twenty-six, sixty-four hundred South Belmont Avenue, Perry Township, Council District number twenty-two, zoned I-2, Midwest Food Bank Corps by Jacob Bratton, a variance of development standards of the consolidated zoning and subdivision ordinance to permit a 15-foot encroachment into the required 30-foot side yards on the north and south sides of the property within the I-2 zoning district to allow the construction of access drives.

Item number nine, 2026, UV 3012, 77801, East 88th Street, Lawrence Township, Council District Number 4, Zoned I2, GF Ventures of Indiana LLC by Karina Placentia, variance of use of the consolidated zoning and subdivision ordinance to provide for a body care salon and service use.

Item number 13, 2026, D V three zero twenty-one, thirty-nine nineteen Madison Avenue, Perry Township, Council District 23, zone C3, TOD, HRSB, LLC by Jason Burke, variance of development standards of the consolidated zoning and subdivision ordinance to provide for the construction of the convenience store building and fueling canopy with a front building line width of 43%, 60% required.

We will now vote.

Percy Bland, yes.

Brian Hannon, yes, Joanna Taft, yes.

Brianna Binder, yes, and Rod Bohannon, yes.

That variance is approved for 2026 DB three zero two five first uh six or twenty twenty-six db three zero two five amended Percy Bland is yes, Joanna Taft is yes, Brian Hannon is yes, Ryanna Bender is yes, and Rod Bohannan is yes, that variance is approved twenty twenty-six db three zero two six Percy Bland, yes, Joanna Taft, yes, Brian Hannon, yes, Ryan of Bender, yes, and Rod Bohannon, yes, that variance is approved for 2026.

Zero one two.

Percy Bland is yes.

Joanna Taft is yes.

Brian Hannon is yes.

Ryanna Bender is yes.

Rod Bohanan is yes.

That variance is approved.

For 2026, D V three zero two one.

Percy Blant is yes.

Joanna Taft is yes.

Brian Hannon is yes.

Ryanna Bender is yes.

And uh Rob O'Hana is yes.

That variance is approved.

We'll now proceed with the full docket.

Item number 10, 2026, SE3002 amended.

6309, South Harding Street, Perry Township, Council District Number 22, Zone CF, FF, DAFF.

I'm in Preet Singh by Adam G.

Hoffer.

Variants of use of the consolidated zoning and subdivision ordinance to provide for a commercial contractor use partially within the DA zoning district, not permitted.

Variants of development standards of the consolidated zoning and subdivision ordinance to provide for zero-foot transitional yard setbacks, 20-foot transitional yard required, deficient interior and transitional yard landscaping required, vehicle parking and outdoor storage on gravel circuit surface, not permitted, and outdoor storage lacking screening within 500 feet of a protected district screening required.

Please raise your right hand.

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

Say I do.

I do.

Please state your name and address for the record.

My name is Adam Hoffer.

My address is 5926 Draycott Drive, Indianapolis, Indiana, 46236.

Along the northeast and south lines of the property.

So you have 15 minutes to present.

So if you want to tell us more about why you think you should get the variance.

Absolutely.

So uh the property was originally purchased uh in the hopes of using it as a C7 uh as C7 zoning.

So because of that, there was some stipulations on what could be done.

We originally had spoken with the um DMD and DBNS regarding what could potentially be done.

The original intent was for a special exemption for commercial truck parking um after having conversations with staff.

We pivoted from that and moved to something that was more C7 oriented, uh, which would be for the commercial contractor use space on the back of the property.

Um at this time, we are putting together plans that we have submitted for initial review that show a 10-foot berm along the north and east lines, and then a um chain link fence uh along the south line, which would in be in correlation with the six-foot privacy fence that's existing that's already there from the neighbor to the south.

Uh, we're asking for the variance um one as more than anything of a use case for being able to utilize as much of the property as we possibly can with the understanding that we're utilizing the existing drive aisle that's to the south of the property, which is only roughly about 15 feet wide, utilizing anything other than would cause us to have to re allocate dry violence, which causes additional construction concerns and mitigates any you know potential uh uh grading impacts.

We're trying to avoid that.

Um your landscaping plan, you're not done with that yet.

You're so our landscaping plan is currently showing a 10-foot uh 10-foot easement berm that's about a foot and a half, two feet high with trees planted along the north line of uh the property as well as the east line of the property.

Um we had a adjustment based on floodplain management uh comments that we had received uh this last week, week and a half.

So we've adjusted for those and we're waiting to hear back from them on their final decision.

Okay.

Did you have anything else to add?

At this point, I that's all I can stipulate to.

Okay, thank you.

Are there any remonstrators in the audience?

Okay, let's hear from staff.

Absolutely.

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

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

Um, our staff feels that the contemplated use, layout, and outdoor storage area proposed would not be compatible with the subject parcel and surrounding areas, and a recommending denial of the uh variances uh plural requested.

Uh as mentioned, the original request was for uh commercial truck parking use of the subject site.

Uh, since this project is located within the floodplain, that would have required a variance of use for placement within the floodway fringe.

Uh there were also several variances of development standards requested which have carried over into the current proposal.

Uh prior to the hearing last month in June, the petitioner amended their request to instead ask for permission to establish a commercial contractor use of the site as opposed to the truck parking.

I think the first page of the staff report still does mention truck parking as the use, so uh that wouldn't be the case.

I apologize for any small confusion cost there.

Um they removed the floodplain variance of use.

It did also result in the added need for a new variance about outdoor storage to the request.

We also noted that a small portion of the site is zoned DA, sort of running parallel on the southern border, so we maintained a variance of use just to ensure that that would remain legal.

So that's why this case was continued to hearing this afternoon to allow for that amended notice to be sent by the petitioner.

Uh the sparsail is historically contained a single family residential use, uh, despite being zoned C7 for commercial development.

Uh street level photos seem to imply occupancy of that house as late as 2022 based on Google Street View.

You can see what looks like a maintained front yard there.

The property is around one acre in size.

Uh staff notes are some sensitive land uses in the immediate vicinity as well.

Uh, there is an occupied single family home to the north that is zoned C7, um, not matching the land use of that house either.

Uh there's undeveloped residentially zoned land to the west and southwest, as well as multiple residences and a preschool moving along the corridor to the south, where that land is zoned DA, as well as a residential subdivision to the east of the property zoned DP.

There are industrial uses that exist um to the west, north, and northwest along the Harding Corridor as well.

It seemed to be clustered up a bit closer to the highway to the north there.

Um in 2024, a row of mature trees was removed along the western portion of the site, and a full gravel front yard was installed per aerial photography in 2025.

Similar to removal and gravel installation was placed in the rear yard of the site along with privacy fence sort of to the south of the house, roughly as is being shown on the aerial photograph up there.

Uh, this led to the opening of several violations for the Department of Business and Neighborhood Services as a result of a neighbor complaint.

Um that case mentioned a lack of permits for the paving area there, as well as um anoptimal vehicles being parked and then outdoor storage and operations near residential areas.

Um there was also a floodplain violation opened as a separate case since this site is within the floodway fringe.

I believe that was for placement of the gravel parking without a flood permit in place.

Uh the app this application is seeking retroactive permission to allow for the keeping of the existing gravel parking and proximity to residential areas to be used for commercial contractor operations per the filed plan of operation.

This would require uh five variants of uses in total.

The majority of the site is zoned C7.

There's a small portion along the southern property line that is zoned DA.

Uh, the Peterson decide planted the gravel and storage area would move all the way up to the southern property line there.

That's why the variance of use was included out of an abundance of caution.

Uh, the zoning boundary is about 10 feet to parallel to the southern property line running parallel with that.

It's not a large area of the site, but it is larger than a drawing air if the plans were to be to be amended to remove that gravel paving any of the use operations from that portion, potentially the variance of use could be withdrawn.

Uh, there are also multiple variances of development standards that would be required.

Um, required side and rear yards for the C7 zoning district are 10 feet of separation from building or parking areas, and then 20 feet if they're abutting protected districts or land that's zoned residentially.

This would mean that a 20-foot setback would be required to the south and to the east, as can be seen on the site plan variety proposing a zero foot setback to the south, and then a 10-foot setback to the east.

Uh staff would also note that the area to the north of this property.

It is zoned C7, but it does currently contain a residence if it were zoned residentially in a manner that matched the land use.

A 20-foot buffer would also be required to the north.

And there are that would which would total three deficient yards in total.

Um, there are also requirements for transitional yard or buffer landscaping, uh, you know, between areas with commercial development or areas with residential zoning.

The plans show installation of a 10-foot landscape buffer with placement of shrubs on the northern and eastern property lines.

Would be required for the south and the east, and again would be required for the north if it were zoned in a manner if it matched the current land use.

Additionally, hardscaping is required for commercial uses, even ones that don't involve uh trucks or outdoor storage.

Um the site photos taken appeared to show usage of gravel, which is not mentioned as an allowed paving type within our ordinance.

Um addition, um outdoor storage areas, so that would be areas accessory to the primary use involving outdoor storage or operations.

Uh, those, if they're placed within 500 feet of protected districts, would require screening by fence and then even trees or hedge around the outdoor storage areas themselves.

That was not indicated on the plans, which results in the need for the fifth and final variance of development standards.

Um staff would contend with visa are substantial deviations from ordinance requirements on a variety of different rules.

Uh it's not necessarily a case of minimal relief or coming close to the intent of the regulations as they're written within the ordinance.

Uh the plan of operation and information provided by the applicant indicated or be between six and ten employees employed by the contractor business with hours ranging from 8 a.m.

to 6 p.m.

on a typical day.

No specific type of contractor use was mentioned.

There was a list of about 25 different potential types, I believe, utilized from our ordinances definition of a commercial contractor.

Uh speculative for the future tenant would be my guess, but that's something that the petitioner might be able to clarify.

Um the full plan of operation is within the exhibits of your staff report for reference if you would like to read it.

Um there wasn't any explicit indication given about the typical number of vehicle trips or types of vehicles contemplated.

It does mention a dry outdoor storage space without specific clarification and might depend on the type of contractor.

And again, probably they called out the dry storage because it's within the floodway fringe to ensure that there's no conflict there, which staff does appreciate.

Both the ordinance and the comprehensive plan indicate that C7 or heavy commercial districts should not be adjacent to protected districts, such as the residential zoning areas that are near this site, and typically should be on major commercial arterials.

Um Harding Street to the West is a primary collector street.

The comprehensive plan recommendations for rural and estate neighborhood development, which you know is what it sounds like low density residential typically.

It's also within uh what our comp plan defines as an environmentally sensitive overlay, which is intended for the preservation of trees or naturalized areas when possible.

As mentioned, only a small portion of the site requires the variance of use, the little 10-foot strip there.

We did feel that considering the surrounding context in order to have approval or recommended approval denial of that use variance grant was still appropriate, um, noting residential zoning on three of the four sides of the site.

Um the property owner to the north as a gentleman named Rex Hancock.

Um, I don't believe he or his mother are in attendance this afternoon.

They did both submit letters to the case file indicating their opposition to the filing.

Uh, Rex's letter mentioned concerns about deficient setbacks and close proximity of their window to the noise and light that might result from the use, as well as drainage concerns and the removal of landscaping that has already occurred.

Um his mother's letter indicated similar concerns.

Uh Rex's letter was submitted before the petition was amended to remove the truck parking use, whereas the letter from Laura Hancock was received yesterday morning.

Um let's see, so staff would also note again request for multiple variance of development standards related to the setbacks, landscaping parking service, and outdoor storage.

Uh staff would contend that this is not based on any site-specific practical difficulty, which is the state burden of proof required for approval of variances, but instead related to previous work conducted at the site in 2024 and 2025 without permits in place.

Um we don't feel that 10-foot setbacks with the one-foot landscape vermint shrubs provide adequate protection from negative externalities of light and noise that might result.

It seems that those were concerns shared by the neighbors to the north.

It's about a 50% reduction from the requirement of 20 feet, and then either fence and shrubs or tree and shrubs as outlined within chapter 744 of our ordinance.

Um additionally, um, there isn't internal landscaping or southern buffering provided beyond the fence line as mentioned by the petitioner.

Um, if the site was potentially too small to provide that adequate buffering and separation, then staff would contend that this might be a use too intense for a lot of this size without support from the comprehensive plan.

Um this would hold even if the use variance portion weren't included and we were just considering the variances of development standards.

Um for these reasons I would recommend denial.

We feel that alternate uses might be more appropriate at the site that could meet applicable dimensional standards and a bit of use of this nature might be more appropriately cited elsewhere in the county.

We're happy to answer questions that you might have.

Are there any questions of the staff?

Okay.

Petitioner, you have five minutes to sum up.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

So our client, my client does not deny that they put the cart before the horse.

They've been very forthcoming with that with me, as well as when we've talked with D DNS and DMD, which is why they engaged our services to try to rectify the situation with the removal of the trees along the west side, as well as the gravel that was placed uh outside of permitting.

Um additionally, with the floodplain management uh situation with them doing any sort of grading within that floodplain fringe.

Um as such, we have been working with DMD or and DBNS and floodplain management to rectify those situations, which is why we had submitted a preliminary site plan uh for their review and critique and criticism.

Uh to the point of the remonstration, both of those letters at the time are based off of the commercial truck parking usage that was previously our special exception uh petition.

Um we have addressed that with uh staff in regards to pivoting to a C7 with the commercial um commercial contractor uh option.

Um there is a lack of information on the commercial contractor side because there are so many options as staff mentioned.

There's 27 it's certainly up, you know, an option to mitigate which ones can be on that site, but to pigeonhole to just one or two for the client to be able to utilize this site in a commercial manner, even as a lease option, would be detrimental.

Um to the concerns of the transitional yard along the south.

Um, as we've been going through all of our uh observations, at no point in time did we show in our discovery findings that there was a DA that is 10 feet inside of the property when we pulled our title commitments at the initial start of this.

So going through that, having that that conversation, seeing that zoning is based 10 feet inside of a property gives us like an absolute concern whether or not GIS mapping was actually done in accordance to property lines.

Um with that, that was a bulk of the the comments that were I think made by staff regarding the fact that we are doing construction within a protected zone DA.

Um with respect to the screening, we already have plans in place and we've already talked with floodplain management on what we can do in terms of screening around the property.

We were already looking uh to install the six-foot privacy fence along the north line as well as the berm and buffer.

Uh these trees are not tiny shrubs.

We're talking six-foot tall trees on top of a two-foot berm.

Yes, we are 10 feet inside the property, but we are taking that along that north and east line.

The east line and the south line already have six foot privacy wood fences.

So they've in our in our minds and in our intent, they've already been established as privacies to begin with.

Uh I know there was a comment about remonstration in one of the remonstration letters about lighting.

Uh, they made reference to the Indy Sports Park and the fact that they can see the lighting from a mile and a half away.

Our contention to that is those poles are over 40 feet in the air and they do not have shadow boxes.

These poles that we put into our lighting plan are 15 feet tall.

They have an estimated wattage range of 50 watts LED, and they are installed with shadow boxes, conforming to the zero-foot candle at the lot line requirement by the city.

Um, in any regards to the remaining uh detriments on Harding Street.

We do not anticipate there to be any truck traffic coming in and out this time, uh, as opposed to the special exception that was originally done.

We would ask what's the difference between a box truck coming onto the site there versus 500 feet up the road to the construction materials property that's you know utilizing the same roadway, not 500 feet from our existing property.

So we feel like that's kind of an apples the oranges comparison to to a certain degree.

Um I know my time's almost up, and I'm trying to think if I can comment to any other points by by staff.

We appreciate staff's willingness to uh work with us on this.

Uh we've been uh very gracious uh or they've been very gracious to us on how we've been able to communicate back and forth.

And um I hope that you'll take all these things in consideration and allow us uh the opportunity to get this project finished.

Thank you.

Are there any questions of the petitioner?

Okay, we'll now vote on 2026 SE3002.

SC302 amended bender, nohannon, yes.

Taft, no, no, and blant, no.

This variance is denied.

Thank you for your time.

2026, DV3015, 4305, Dudley North Drive.

Perry Township, Council District number 24, zone D3, Mark and Amanda Daniel by John Cross, variance of development standards of the consolidated zoning and subdivision ordinance to provide for a six-foot tall fence within front yard areas, maximum 3.5 foot height permitted.

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.

Please state your name and address for the record.

Good afternoon.

I'm attorney John Cross.

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

Uh, here as well as Mark Daniel, who is the uh one of the owners along with his wife Amanda, uh, who's the petitioner here.

Uh as stated, this is a uh a variance for a fence height in a portion uh of the front yard.

Uh this is a corner lot, so the uh north portion of the property shown on uh the staff pictures does extend and constitutes a front yard.

The uh fence was installed in 2024.

Previously, there had been a uh three and a half foot fence chain link, uh, not in the same location, more off of the uh back of the house running to the property line.

Uh but the purpose of the six-foot fence is due to uh the Daniels dog, which is a Kane Corso dog.

Uh those dogs are uh large mastiffs, they are very athletic, they are large dogs, 90 to 110 pounds uh and can easily jump over a three and a half foot fence, which uh happened to the Daniels uh with their old existing fence.

So that is why they installed the uh six-foot fence here.

Uh it is a friendly dog, but of course there's always a risk if the dog gets out uh running into strangers uh in in the neighborhood.

The purpose of the fence, it's not privacy as it's a chain link fence, so it's not opaque.

You can see through it easily.

Uh, but the location was extended more north of the property in order to give uh the the Can Corso dog uh more space.

The backyard uh as shown on the aerials uh has a couple uh backyard uh children playground, uh a playground, another playground type accessory, uh patio and some mature trees back there as well.

So there was limited space to begin with.

Uh so when the new fence was installed, they extended it further to the north to provide more open space uh both for the dog and as well as uh children's area to be uh secure within the fence.

Uh but by extending it north, that uh again constituted the front yard being on a corner lot.

Uh the front of the house faces to the uh it faces to the west.

Uh so the north is just the front yard on that corner lot.

Uh the site plan on or the picture on 82 shows that the location of the fence is just about in line, just extends a little bit to the west of the front of the house, extending to the north, doesn't go near the property line, and then it butts over to the east to the property line uh in cases the the backyard.

Uh so again it was installed here for uh additional space for both the dog and and their family uh to give consideration for the trees that were already back there uh and the limited space.

So the Daniels are requesting a variance to permit the existing fence to remain within its current location at a height of six feet uh within the front yards.

Uh there had been a previous commitment uh offered to staff when this was initially filed that the uh variance would not run with the land.

Um speaking with Mr.

Daniel Moore on that, uh their dog currently is about nine years old, so uh he would agree that once they're they no longer have the dog, they wouldn't have a need for the six-foot fence.

So they would instead commit that the uh variance would sunset after five years, and at that point in time it would be uh removed or relocated as as they determine.

The exhibits uh that uh we presented our three letters of support from uh neighbors in the area.

There was a fourth one that Mr.

Daniels obtained but wasn't able uh to get us here in time.

Uh but we did receive three letters of support.

I am not currently aware of any formal remonstrance.

I know that this property was subject to some uh mayor action uh center calls, which I think stemmed this this process.

I did receive one anomalous call from a neighbor who wouldn't give me any information about who who she was or anything, uh didn't tell me she objected, but was more asking about the status of of where the case was.

So I don't I'm not aware of any formal remonstrance, but again, there have been calls which kind of stem this.

So we we are aware that there were prior issues, but not sure if there are any current issues from uh any neighbors for the uh the variance findings of fact here.

Uh we do not see that there would be any injurious impact uh from its approval.

The height is needed again to uh prevent their dog uh from escaping the yard.

That protects both the dog, it protects uh the neighbors from you know engaging in uh with a dog on the loose who could be prone to aggression if it's a stranger.

Uh again, cane corsos are also very uh intense guard dogs uh who can be uh prone to aggression.

Mr.

Daniel says that their dog is actually very friendly, but it's a large dog, and if it gets out, that runs the risk of uh just escalation aggression, uh which we are seeking to avoid at all cost here.

Um something that uh as well as pointed out, which I didn't know previously, but King Corso is actually um again very athletic, but they actually have a uh uh a bite strength that's greater than a lion's.

So these are very uh very big dogs and can be very intimidating.

Uh again, that's not the dog we're dealing with, but that is just that the breed of this dog, uh, which is further um necessitates uh you know keeping in its place just to avoid any unnecessary uh risks of it getting out.

The uh there would be no negative impact here uh as well on property values uh on the variance.

Uh the surrounding area here is mainly uh residential.

Uh fences aren't uncommon.

Uh of course, staff points out that there are uh really no similar fences of six foot heights in front yards, uh, but we are in a residential area where just fences are very commonplace.

The fence could exist in its current location if it was three and a half feet, but then that's not going to uh adequately keep the dog inside of it.

So again, the the house is on a corner lot, giving it front yards to the the west and to the north.

Uh the reason again why this was extended more to the north was just to give more open space for the dog to exercise to give the the family additional space from the limited yard as well.

So it provides both a benefit to uh the Daniels for keeping the the dog inside, but also a benefit to the neighbors as already stated by keeping the dog inside and keeping run-ins with neighbors uh not non-existent.

The uh practical difficulty on that front is uh they cannot safely uh fencing the dog with the proper space that it needs and the proper height without this variant without the variance uh to let it extend into the front yard.

Uh their intent wasn't to make this fence as large as possible, as you can see on the site plan, uh they don't go near the north line.

Uh they cut off well short of it, so it does go uh to the north and then extends east.

So mainly the uh the property directly to the east is most impacted on the aerial view.

You can see that the uh the fence kind of abuts their driveway.

Uh the owner of that property, though, he is one of the ones who have signed the letter of support with this, so he's indicated uh that he is not concerned with the variance being granted.

And any future impact uh would be negated by the commitment that this would sunset uh after five years.

So the ordinances do provide the exception that corner lots within uh the compact context area are permitted to have uh a six-foot high fence uh in and front yards on corner lots.

So if this was actually in the compact context area, which it's not, it's the metro, so this exception doesn't apply.

But if it was that north yard fence could be six feet because the front doors on the west side, uh so that's the exception that would apply if it was uh metro.

Uh but the ordinances do uh acknowledge that there are exceptions to fences being allowed to be six feet within front yards.

Uh here we're asking for that same exception to be applied for a limited period of five years.

So it would be a short uh limited minimal variance uh to sunset in five years.

Would you like to add anything to the standard?

Um if I could.

Yeah, go ahead.

State your name and address first, please.

Mark Daniel, 4305 Dudley North Drive, Indianapolis, Indiana, 46237.

Um this was something that I researched a little bit and I wasn't sure.

Um, the offset, uh, the average offset.

I don't know how these things work.

Um I had looked at the average offset, which for the our actual front yard uh is much shorter than the this yard, uh, and that's kind of where we had judged where to put the fence based off.

I could be wrong.

We had a contractor do it who said there would be absolutely no problem with this.

Um, that he had done this tons of times and it was fine.

Um that's no excuse, but it's just kind of where we were at.

Um this was proposed by um the variance, not this, sorry, um, was proposed by the inspectors that came out who had been called out and said, Hey, if if you need it for the dog, just request a variance.

Um I apologize if this is not normal.

Um, but uh we were just doing our best.

If we have to take it down, you know, we'll take it down.

But it does that and um using an electric fence uh between the two have been successful at keeping the dog contained.

Um we were both of them, the collar uh that they have to use for the electric fence dies.

Um and so, and then the fence gate gets left open.

So between those two human error issues, um, neither one of those is a perfect resolution.

And so this was the best way we had to kind of hopefully both of those things don't go wrong at the same time.

Thank you.

All right.

Um did you have anything else?

Nothing further, thank you.

Okay.

Uh staff, do you have anything?

Yeah, I'm assuming.

I'm sorry, I should have asked.

Are there any remonstrators present?

I didn't see any.

Okay, staff.

I didn't figure so.

Um thank you very much, uh, Treppers and Staff members of the board for your time.

Uh thank you to the petitioner's agent and the property owner for your comments and for being here this afternoon as well.

Um, our staff is recommending denial of the variance for placement of the fence within the front yard area to the north without a justifying site-specific practical difficulty, and where alternate options for compliant buffering or fence placement might exist.

As mentioned, this is a residential parcel on a corner lot with a size of about four-tenths of an acre.

Um, borders both Dudley North Drive and Gladstone uh South or South Gladstone Avenue.

Um, is it the southeast corner of that intersection, and it forms a curved angle there.

Uh, this home was built in the early 1990s.

Uh, garage access comes from the uh property line 2 v west.

Um there are residential areas um surrounding as well as another property intersection of streets to the southwest, which would be Gladstone and East Dudley as opposed to Dudley North.

Uh note that this house was built uh parallel in line with other homes along Dudley Avenue, sort of forming a continuous front building line along that street to the north.

Uh since this is a corner lot zoned D3 within the metro context area, there would be two front yards for the property to V west and to the north, and then two side yards to the south and to the east.

Um the house itself fronts on the west to Gladstone, but it is addressed to Dudley and um part of the longer block fronting on Dudley as well.

Um it was mentioned that in some instances compact context lots would have a front yard and then a corner side yard.

Uh in this case, our ordinance would technically classify Dudley as the front and Gladstone as the corner side, even if this were within the compact context area.

So just for reference when making the board's decision and how that might be considered as contextual or some um or some sort of precedential.

Um previous visual buffering has existed for this uh northern front yard as well at the site running the lawn parallel to the house closer to the eastern side yard.

Uh that's visible within photographs four and photographs five of the exhibits.

Um in 2020 twelve, it appears that the area to the east of the house was screened from view via the placement of landscaping.

And additionally appears uh per Google Street View photos between 2012 and 2019, but a chain link fence was added as well, which appears to have run parallel to the building line running up close to the side yard to the east.

Um both the 2012 and 2019 photographs show examples of how a current site could be developed within ordinance compliance.

Um per the petitioner's agent, the photograph of the fence in photo four was uh three and a half feet tall.

Our current ordinance would allow for that to be up to four feet tall if built from chain link.

Um it could be up to four feet in its current location, it could be up to six feet if running parallel to the location shown within photograph four of the site plan there.

Um that fence being shown in photo four was replaced between 2019 and 2024.

Uh this new fence is both taller and it extends um within the front yard 37 feet, 37 feet past the front building line into Dudley.

Uh per the inspector who visited the site bad fence as a height of six feet.

Uh there were several anonymous Mayors Action Center complaints made in 2024, which led to the opening of a violation of this property related to the fence and to vehicles parking on grass areas within the front yard.

Um staff didn't notice any such parking upon our site visit, and the request was solely made this afternoon for defense, so this variance wouldn't serve to be approval for any of that.

We're just focused on the fence this afternoon.

Um we're also not aware of any formal remonstrance on file.

Um, if we were contacted by anyone, it was just in an in an inquiry sort of sense, and we did receive the uh support letters provided by the petitioners, petitioners representative as well.

Uh when our staff developed this recommendation, we consulted the infill housing guidelines.

Uh those were a part of the city's comprehensive plan.

The purpose is to create a sense of place and uniformity, but also within a flexible framework.

Uh the infill housing guidelines indicate the front yard fences should be ornamental in nature.

Uh they discourage uh tall privacy fences and indicate that fencing should be thoughtfully placed to match the context of the area.

Um findings and testimony from the applicant indicate that the corner lot um makes it difficult to place fence ensuring privacy for the children and pets that occupy the residence.

Uh staff would not agree that having two front yards constitutes a site-specific practical difficulty in and of itself.

It would prevent placement of compliant fencing at the site.

Uh, we also know that the property is almost a double the minimum lot size for the T3 zoning district.

Um minimum of 10,000 square feet is required in this properties.

Um I think was around 18,000.

It was 18,587 square feet per our map Indy software.

Um we'd also note that um upon our site visit a survey of immediately surrounding properties, uh, many of which also likely have children and pets indicated several properties without front yard fencing at all.

Um, it would be photos seven through nine of the report, as well as some that did appear to have fencing within the front yard, but what that appeared to staff to be a compliant height.

Those would be photos 10 through 12 of the report.

Um several of those properties are also corner lots.

Um, you know, it's possible we didn't make the full lap all the way around, but based on what we were able to observe on that visit, it appeared that this front yard fence was uniquely tall for being within a front yard for the immediately surrounding context.

Um, would also be the examples of the surrounding houses, several of which are on corners, as well as the previous landscaping and fencing at the property showed our alternate pathways by which the site could comply without the need for grant of a variance.

There might be options to reduce the height of the current fence from six feet to four feet while keeping it in its current spot.

There'll also be options to add landscape buffering similar to the 2012 photograph, but it sounds like a big concern here is uh the dog, making sure that he is able to stay in the yard, not jump over or have any potential negative interactions happen, although it it sure sounds like he's friendly.

Um that option would be to move the fence in to run parallel with the front building line, similar to the placement of the uh photo four within staff's report, the 2019 photograph.

Uh this last option in particular would allow for the height desired by the petitioner.

It also doesn't appear to intersect with the playground area on the property based on the aerial and previous street photographs, and would still allow allow for 6,225 square feet of fence side yard areas to the east and the south of the property.

So if we could pull up the uh front yard diagram on page 83 of staff's report, um that shows areas that would be counted as front yard versus side yard.

So anywhere not within that front yard could have a fence of up to six feet in height utilizing the chain link.

Um our staff feels that this might be a good compromise, allowing for some level of privacy and maneuverability for the dog, but without the need for grant of a variance that wouldn't meet infill housing guidelines or surrounding context.

So for those reasons we recommend denial, and our powerful defense could maybe be altered or pulled in to allow for someone with the petitioners wanting while still maintaining the ordinance requirement.

Um there was also the mention of potentially having it be a temporary variance grant.

Um if the board saw fit to approve it with that commitment in place, it would be better than not having it in place.

But our staff would continue with a similar recommendation given the similar lack of site-specific practical difficulty as well as concerns about potential enforcement down the road.

Um it's kind of hard to remember things that happened five years ago, so I guess the potential point of concern might be not ready to add any mouths, but just not thinking about it.

The fence would end up just remaining there in place without without removal.

So I were happy to answer any questions that you might have.

Are there any questions of staff?

You have five minutes to sum up.

Uh thank you.

Uh I believe most of uh the first presentation uh pointed out uh our concerns and our request uh in relation to staff's concerns, uh which we appreciate and we understand staff's position on this.

Uh for the alternative positions proposed by staff, really the only one that could work for the Daniels would be uh moving the fence entirely uh along the back line where it could be six feet, that gives us the height that is uh needed for the dog, but again, as stated when you look at again uh what uh Mr.

Waggle just pointed out on page 83 uh where the that proposed fence would be.

If we're limiting the fence in area to that area, uh they've got uh two sheds, they've got two playground uh equipment areas and the mature tree.

So again, that's that's why it was moved out further to give the dog the adequate space uh to go further.

So that's why that option uh isn't the preferred one.

As Mr.

Daniels stated, they weren't trying to uh do something that they knew they couldn't do.

He thought that they could do it.

So uh when they were told that they can't, the variance was the option because they wanted to retain that space uh for the purpose of the dog, um, given it's free, it's high energy level and the risk of it uh getting out.

So there was a lot of considerations for them for that fence placement, uh, which necessitates their request for uh the variance for the height and the location as well.

That's why they're not just simply removing it or removing it back where it is because they do need it for this, but um respecting the ordinances and and the impact uh going further.

That is why they're offering that that it would sunset after five years.

I know that's not uncommon to do so if there's any additional um protections or uh uh uh consequences in place that could be put in there if it's not if it's not done, then I'm sure that Mr.

Daniel could be open for that, but they are seeking uh Fort Germain where it is at its current height for that uh protection of the dog and then neighbors around them.

So with that looking in um one point staff made was that uh sorry, one point staff made was that it's very easy to lose track of time, uh, which is absolutely something I can do.

I I would have had a way more signatures if I'd remembered it send out that letter when I actually wrote it.

But um with that said, this particular popular property, one thing that was mentioned is the number uh that were calls on it.

Uh we have a neighbor who likes to remain anonymous, so we have no clue who it is, um, and makes calls on the property on a regular cadence.

Uh there's at least one call or one thing to the mayor's action line for all the properties in the neighborhood, not just mine, uh, about once every month or two.

Um any time I park a vehicle on the road, um, it's listed as abandoned and put anywhere from 30 to 90 days abandoned.

Um I actually have had a a friend come over for the day to just spend time with us and had his car tagged by the police while he was out there.

Um I guarantee an inspector will be out sometime in that period and we'll see that the variance is ended.

That's all.

Okay, thank you.

Are there any other um comments from anything else in your summary?

Nothing for there any questions.

Okay, so they have requested the five year, so how do we how do we do that functionally?

How do we vote?

We I don't know how people will vote, but uh how do we I think the appropriate mechanism would be a written commitment for uh that it uh uh terminate by its own terms in five years from the date of uh today's hearing.

Um we will vote with that commitment.

I don't know how people will vote, but we'll vote with that commitment and um unless there are any other questions, we'll vote now.

Did you have a question, Percy?

Okay, for 2026 DB3015, Bohanan, yes, bender, yes, Taft, yes, Hanan, yes, and Bland, yes, as variance is granted.

Thank you.

Thank you very much.

22, Zone C1, CKJ Property LLC by David Gilman, variants of development standards of the consolidated zoning and subdivision ordinance to provide for a building addition and new parking area with a six foot front transitional yard setback, 20 feet required, a five foot rear transitional yard setback, 15 feet required, a total of 29 parking spaces, maximum of 24 spaces permitted, and no frontage sidewalks, 130 linear feet of sidewalk responsibility.

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.

Please state your name and address for the record.

Thank you.

For the record, my name is David Gilman.

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

As mentioned, I represent the property owner at 6838 South East Street.

You'll hear me refer to that as also U.S.

31.

I'd like to first acknowledge that we appreciate the partnership we've had with staff throughout this review.

In response to their feedback provided, we've amended the site plan to really eliminate every variance that could be addressed through site design changes.

At this point, the petitioner and the staff are aligned on all the items except one.

The sidewalk installation requirement tied to this redevelopment.

So what I'd like to do is spend my time in my presentation addressing the one standard variants that we have a disagreement on, knowing that we are in agreement on the other variances that we filed for.

So if you'll go to my slides, slide 1A.

This slide illustrates the uniquely shaped site located along U.S.

31 or Southeast Street.

It's roughly halfway between I-465 and County Line Road.

To the west, the property abutz single family homes.

My client met which with each one of those neighbors directly and obtained signatures from those adjacent properties.

To the east, the site faces six lanes of U.S.

31 with multifamily residential and a religious use beyond the corridor.

To the north, there is a single family residence and an apartment community.

To the south, the area then transitions to multi-tenant commercial office uses.

Importantly, this segment of US 31 is already fully built out.

There are no remaining undeveloped parcels expected to come online.

And the corridor is largely established with long-standing commercial uses.

The next tab, 1B.

This slide highlights the 140 130-foot segment of sidewalk at issue.

The northern portion of the frontage is significantly longer and includes a deep drainage swell that carries runoff for most of the property.

Requiring a sidewalk in either location creates a practical difficulty for the owner's ability to reasonably redevelop and modestly expand their small business.

This isn't simply a matter of cost, but that has definitely a huge unknown.

Every adjoining residential property expressed support and all signed in favor of the project.

Every adjoining residential property expressed support and all signed in favor of the project.

The community understands the modest nature of the expansion and the benefit for the added parking and their support for the variants necessary to make this possible.

We have full neighborhood support and zero opposition, even with the sidewalk variants explicitly included in our notices.

Tab 2A.

Requiring the small business owner to independently design and construct a sidewalk within NDOT Rideaway presents unusually significant and disproportionate burden.

This is not a typical frontage improvement.

The work would require full NDOT construction drawings, utility coordination, drainage modifications, and excavation with the deep roadside ditch that serves as a primary runoff system for the property, may include retaining walls and potentially a guardrail for protection from the high speed motoring public.

The speed limit in this area is 45 miles an hour, so safely people will be going 50 55 miles an hour.

There's no shoulder, so your sidewalk would be literally inches from a motoring travel line.

Because there is no shoulder or service lane along this segment of 31.

Construction may also necessitate lane closures, specialized traffic control, and an arborist involvement to protect the mature trees along the right-of-way line as showing in the exhibit.

These are extraordinary requirements for a modest 2600 square foot expansion by a local business owner.

Tab 2B.

If you look on the opposite side of the entrance or to the north, it presents the same challenges and unusual conditions.

The drainage ditch running north of the business entrance is even deeper and serves as a primary outlet for stormwater from the for the entire site.

The expansion area all the way to Tulip Drive.

Any attempt to place a sidewalk here would require re-engineering that drainage system, disturbing a functional outfall, and introducing construction impacts into a location that is not designed to accommodate them.

These conditions are not minor inconveniences.

They are fundamental constraints.

Installing a sidewalk in this area is not practical.

It's not proportional to the scale of the redevelopment proposed, and would impose a level of disruption and cost far beyond what is reasonable for a small business owner seeking a minor expansion.

Tab 3A.

This slide shows the broader context around the site.

Across this entire area, roughly two miles north to south, two miles east to west.

There are no sidewalks anywhere.

Not in the subdivisions, not in the apartment communities, not in the commercial strip centers, and not in the individual businesses anywhere along U.S.

31.

The corridor again is fully developed, uniformly without pedestrian infrastructure.

Against this backdrop, requiring a single 130-foot segment of sidewalk from the small business owner is not reasonable.

It would create an isolated, non-functional piece of pavement with no connection at either end and no broader network to support it.

The only viable path for meaningful pedestrian connectivity in this area is the proposed NDOT sidewalk project, which is still active.

That initiative is the appropriate scale, scope, and jurisdiction to address the corridor as a whole.

It is the best and realistically the only way to deliver a continuous safe and functional sidewalk system for this community.

3B.

From I-465 all the way to County Line Road.

The corridor again is fully built out.

Every surrounding land use, the subdivision, the apartments, the commercial uses exist without sidewalks.

This is not a gap in a network.

It's a corridor that has never been designed or constructed for pedestrian use.

Again, a comprehensive approach is the best solution as proposed by EndOT.

Tab 4A.

So I've been in contact with NDOT, and even recently as of today.

But here are some of their responses.

EndOT clearly acknowledges that the city of Indianapolis cannot require a sidewalk to be constructed within NDOT Ride of Way.

Their comment further states in a separate email a sidewalk will not be required at this location.

Despite this, staff remains insistent that the small business owners spend money to design a sidewalk, secure NDOT permit, and construct improvements that NDOT itself says are neither required nor appropriate for them to require a sidewalk, given the fact that they have a current sidewalk project in place.

Then having that sidewalk tied directly to the issuance of all the permits for the expansion will unnecessarily delay the project for several months.

This will put our permit request in their triage, and we'll just have to wait our turn.

4B.

Written commitment that we're offering.

To further demonstrate our willingness to work with the staff and support their long-term goal of achieving sidewalks along this corridor, we are offering the same commitment language that was successfully used on a very similar project.

In that case, also within NDOT Rideaway, NDOT provided correspondence indicating they had a corridor project on Rockville Road that included sidewalks.

Staff and the petitioner worked together and reached an agreement on a written commitment that tied the sidewalk installation into NDOT's future project.

Rather than requiring the business owner to independently design, permit, construct improvements within an NDOT's right-of-way.

That was my case before BZA 1 on August 5th, 2025.

And I provided you a copy of that written commitment, the approval letter, and the site plan that that variance was granted for.

The similarities.

On our ILP site plan, we showed the sidewalk, but we clearly put a footnote subject to NDOT's sidewalk plan.

We listed the project number.

And then we had the recorded commitment we included that we're willing to cooperate whatever NDOT needs to make sure that sidewalk is constructed on the subject property.

The other similarity is the variance allowed for 2,336 square foot expansion on a 31 square foot building, 3100 square foot building, which is almost identical to the request we're asking for today.

We are proposing that that collaborative approach be used here.

This is not setting a precedent, it's actually following consistent practices that other boards have received and approved.

So before I get into my final slide, those are the findings of facts that I'm going to present to this board, and I want to go through them one by one.

So I'm going to conclude my presentation now, and I'll save the rest of my presentation to present my findings in my five-minute rebuttal.

Um, available to answer questions that board members may have of me.

Are there any questions for the petitioner?

Are there any remonstrators present?

Let's hear from staff.

Absolutely.

Uh thank you very much, uh person staff members of the board for your time and volunteering.

Uh, thank you very much to Mr.

Gilman for your comments this afternoon as well.

Um our staff has a split recommendation for this petition.

Uh we are supportive of the variance requests related to the uh TEPX and parking, uh, given the odd lot shape and configuration.

However, uh, we don't feel that um site specific practical difficulty in an extreme sense would exist to justify a waiver of the sidewalk placement for which the petitioner would be responsible as a result of the building addition proposed.

Uh for context, this is a triangularly shaped parcel along US 31 under one acre in size.

Uh the current structure on the site was originally residential in nature.

It was converted to a photography studio via a variance of use in 1985 and then rezoned to VC 1 office commercial zoning district in 2001.

It's an irregularly lawn and thin lot.

Much of the northern section of the lot has a width under 65 feet due to its proximity to US 31 and the curvature of that road, as is being shown on the screen up there.

As mentioned, surrounding land uses include offices to the south, single family homes to the west, and there are apartments across US 31 to the northeast.

The homes are buffered by fences and trees.

The apartments are across from the wide roadway, as mentioned.

The owner is seeking to expand the size of the existing building and also to place accessory parking additions for the building's new size.

It would maintain the existing buffer yard landscaping and would add new plantings as well.

However, these planes do not show the addition of any sidewalks along the frontage.

Variances would be required for this site layout.

There's more detailed bullet points within the report, but to summarize, the front yard parking areas would require a 20-foot separation, and we're proposing a six-foot separation.

That's because of the apartments to the northeast.

And then the number of parking spaces proposed would exceed the maximum for the use and square footage per reordinance ratio of a couple of spaces.

Staff would noted the building itself meets setbacks, as just parking areas are a bit closer.

The parking layout shown is a minor deviation from the maximum requirement of a petitioner, also was amenable to adding bicycle parking per staff's request, and the oddly shaped lot requires some degree of creative maneuvering in order to place ADA parking stalls.

For those reasons, our staff recommends approval of those requested variances.

Broadly speaking, people want sidewalks to be placed and want multimodal transportation options to be built out.

Staff desknowledge V letters or signatures of support on that letter within the petitioners exhibits.

It looks like that letter itself does not mention anything about sidewalk exemptions, although as noted, that was part of the legal notice that would have been mailed to directly surrounding properties.

The city's pattern book within the comprehensive plan explicitly indicates that all land uses within the office commercial land use typology should have sidewalks installed.

Our ordinance, unfortunately, only offers a few chances for sidewalk additions to be compelled or contemplated.

It would be during the plating process would be one time, which would be unlikely here given the blot shape and configuration, or when build conditions are placed.

As mentioned in this case, 130 linear feet of sidewalk would be required, not the full frontage, just a portion of it as shown within the petition petitioners' exhibits in their slides.

Again, as mentioned, uh the frontage for US 31 is under in dots jurisdiction.

Um Mr.

Gilman is correct that in dot approval and permitting would be required to add sidewalk here.

That jurisdiction wouldn't remove the need for sidewalk installation due to the building addition occurring on this private Marion County property per ordinance rule, so just as the additional step would be needed to seek and have an NDOT permit granted for placement of that sidewalk.

The city can't compel NDOT to place sidewalks on any sort of timeline or approve sidewalk placement within their right-of-way.

Um if NDOT had indicated that the petitioner couldn't obtain a permit for the sidewalk addition or that they would not be supportive of those collaborative efforts.

It's possible the staff could revisit by recommendation.

However, no such indication had been given.

And in fact, NDOT had been developing a one-point plans for placement of sidewalk along this property as well as surrounding properties along the corridor.

Petitioner findings do mention the drainage ditch in the area as a difficulty preventing the installation as well as DND jurisdiction.

Staff would note that the section of ordinance talking about sidewalk waivers mentions extreme topography changes at a rate of over three to one slope as being or like waterway crossings of like very extreme instances of being in instances in which sidewalk waivers could be contemplated.

We do feel that even with the drainage ditch fair, that burden of roof would not necessarily be met to establish that difficulty.

We discussed the um the jurisdiction piece a little bit already.

Um NDOP project, as mentioned, had been previously planned for the stretch of US 31 that would have resulted in sidewalk placement.

Um as project number 220074 per documents that were provided to us by our DPW liaison multimodal project coordinator.

The fact that these plans existed and showed placement of sidewalk laundress frontage showed that sidewalk installation could happen along the corridor.

It would not be an engineering impossibility for it to be placed.

The exhibits within the staff reports show a page from those plans.

My understanding is that those drawings are several years old, but they demonstrate the feasibility or the lack of extreme topographic difficulty that would make sidewalk installation impossible.

Um there would be an additional cost of installation, as I'm sure would be the case for a lot, any sort of lot.

However, that is not considered a requirement by the statutory findings for variance approval.

Um based on our discussion with Jill Palmer, who again is DPW's liaison with DMD, works with multimodal project development, then has a lot of coordination with NDOT.

Um, that project was canceled in May of 2026 due to funding issues not related to engineering.

My understanding from those conversations that these project this project could be revisited in the future, although there isn't a guarantee that it would be done so, and but the projects and funding typically work on five-year timelines.

So the absolute earliest of this would be be revisited by NDOT would be in the year 2031.

Uh staff will contend at the fact that NDOT had plans for sidewalk installation at this location that indicates potential likelihood that they would support permits or coordination should be petition or apply to have this sidewalk leg added in.

Um staff would also note that sidewalk network build out is an iterative process.

Um it's stepwise, you know, we didn't get to the point of walkability that we're at overnight, and we're not going to fix it overnight necessarily either.

But the more smaller legs that are placed, the more feasible it becomes to come back and finish out projects and expand them in that manner.

Um it would be less a sidewalk to nowhere or a stub to nowhere but a sidewalk to the future, maybe, uh, to borrow a phrase.

Um staff would also know the placement of a bus stop nearby to the south, close to the intersection of US 31 and Southport, or likely his appetite for walkability in this area, even if it's only being placed partially a little bit at a time.

Uh the petitioner also mentioned a somewhat similar case uh on Rockville Avenue.

That was at uh 8310 Rockville Road.

Um, our staff would note there are several small differences between this case and that every one there.

Uh the grant of that petition mentioned a variance for the setback, but it did not mention a variance for sidewalk placement.

And as far as we're able to tell from this decision letter, the petitioner was not absolved from their sidewalk responsibility given that it was not part of the text of the approval letter.

So in that case, it sounds like the NDOP project was an in the stages of going forward.

But if an NDOT project had stalled or hadn't resulted in installation, a petitioner would still have responsibility for placement as part of the ILP process.

And as mentioned, the plan submitted for the ILP did show placement of sidewalk lawn viaas where required in that somewhat similar case.

So if the petitioner expressed their openness to withdrawing the sidewalk variants from this request, and then having that commitment indicating that they would work within dot for sidewalk placement, um, that's a situation where our staff would be able to recommend approval if the sidewalk variance request were to be withdrawn.

Um but again, uh, given the lack of extreme site-specific practical difficulty preventing the installation and the likelihood that NDOT would cooperate to allow for permits for partial installation within fair right of way.

Uh, we recommend denial of the sidewalk exception.

We'll recommend the approval of the remaining variances as a reminder to the board.

Uh, you do have the ability to split the vote into two if you so choose based on the variances on which staff is recommending approval or denial.

That would be up to your discretion, though.

And I'm happy to answer questions that you might have.

Are there any questions, staff?

Okay, remonstrators to have five five minutes.

Petitioner, yeah.

Thank you.

Um we have written correspondence from NDOT saying they do have a sidewalk project.

I think it's it's not canceled.

The funding may not be available.

But my early years as a transportation planner, these projects are very fluid.

You get a grant to do engineering, and and the plans that I saw, that plan showed a sidewalk just for the purpose of can we put a sidewalk in and fit it within our existing right of way?

That's the first hurdle you have to cross with MDOT.

Yes, you can.

But that plan clearly indicated it did not take into any consideration of site conditions.

It was just a plan to show that sidewalk could fit within the right-of-way.

Um, the permit manager and I have had discussions.

They have a project, but he mentioned today in an email, and he's going to verify this.

The sidewalk project could very easily be on the east side of US 31 and not our west side.

If that's the case, this whole sidewalk on our on the west side is for not.

And and we're worried about that.

We offered this commitment that I've presented to you in your handouts to remove the variance request for the sidewalk.

Staff did not want to agree to that to allow NDOT to control when that sidewalk is installed.

Staff wanted it tied directly to our expansion and our permits that are issued for this building.

Otherwise, it would be exactly the same commitment following the same process as staff agreed to with this on 8310 Rockville Road.

So again, it's almost identical.

We would agree to withdraw the variants for the sidewalk if staff would agree to the commitment that we presented to you in your your handout.

It doesn't say we'll put in the sidewalk if N DOT doesn't get on Rockville Road.

It says N DOT's going to decide where that sidewalk goes and when it goes in, and it's not for us to make that decision.

So in my findings, NDOT already has a program project for this corridor.

N DOT US 31 sidewalk project is not dead.

It's simply lower in the current priority cycle due to funding.

As someone who has prepared Indianapolis Regional Transportation Improvement Programs, myself, I can tell you once a project is on a list, it is part of a long-range plan, it will move forward.

Forcing a petitioner to build a sidewalk in this location where NDOT already has planned a newer, safer integrated facility is clearly a practical difficulty.

Any sidewalk built today will be temporary and ultimately demolished.

A sidewalk constructed now will sit unused, deteriorate, and then torn out when NDOT advances its corridor improvements.

The ordinance would require the petitioner to build an improvement that is guaranteed not to remain for a number of reasons related to geometry, alignment, drainage, grading, new N DOT standards, 88 compliance, etc.

Strict enforcement creates an unnecessary unreasonable burden with no public benefit.

The petitioner spends money on a sidewalk that cannot be used, does not connect to anything, does not improve safety, and will be removed.

The community gains nothing, the petitioner gains nothing.

That is a definition from unreasonable burden.

The petitioner is placed in a lose-lose situation.

If it if he builds it, it deteriorates and becomes a liability.

When NDOT proceeds, it is demolished.

Either way, to petition or loses financially and practically.

Granting relief supports the intent of the ordinance.

The ordinance purpose is safe, connected pedestrian infrastructure.

And this corridor, that purpose is best served by allowing NDOT's future sidewalk to be the permanent ADA compliance solution rather than forcing premature, wasteful temporary improvements.

For these reasons, we believe strict application of the ordinance does create a practical difficulty and an unreasonable burden and the variance is justified.

We hope that you will take our findings as part of our petition, include them in our recommendation.

We still want to honor the written commitment that we will agree to allow N DOT to put sidewalks along our entire length of our frontage when that time's appropriate.

Here to answer your questions.

Thank you.

Are there any questions of the petitioner?

Okay.

So if we are splitting, if we're splitting the ballot, how would we do that?

We'd have ballot A for what staff is recommending.

And then so you could have A B for the um sidewalks and B B for the balance of the request.

Okay.

All right.

Chairperson Taft.

Yes.

There should be spare ballots in your packets.

Thank you.

So make sure you write your numbers on the spirit ballot.

Okay.

So does everybody um know that so uh A will be if you are in support of the petitioner's request for a sidewalk?

There for a what's the right word?

It's not for a sidewalk, it is sidewalk it's uh a variance from the um sidewalk requirements in the so basically A means no sidewalk required by the petitioner, and then B is everything else.

Correct.

Okay.

So A is no sidewalk.

So if you vote no to no, that's a double negative.

No would be staff.

Yes would be okay.

Just want to make sure everybody's voted knows what words they're they're using.

Okay.

This this work is hard.

Okay, for twenty twenty-six D V three zero one nine Assures.

No.

Okay.

Sorry about that.

Uh Bohannan is yes.

I think that this is my hand is yes.

And uh land is yes.

That part is approved.

Did I vote?

Twenty twenty six D B three.

Did did I vote?

Did you you didn't read mine?

Did I vote?

I'm sorry.

Uh tapped is yes.

We're twenty twenty-six D B three zero one nine B tapped is yes.

Hannon is yes, binder is yes, Bohan is yes, and bland is yes.

That part is also approved.

Thank you very much.

I appreciate it.

Thank you, sir.

Is there any other matter to come before the board?

Uh I have uh sets of findings for signature, including one from last month that uh did not get signed.

All of you uh approved that.

Okay, then we are adjourned.