Board of Zoning Appeals Division III Meeting - August 18, 2026
Board of Zoning Appeals Division III Meeting - August 18, 2026
On Tuesday, August 18, 2026, at 1:00 PM, the Metropolitan Board of Zoning Appeals Division III held a public hearing in the Public Assembly Room of the City-County Building, Indianapolis. Acting Chair Brian Hannon presided, joined by board members Rhana Bender, Rod Bohannon, and Percy Bland (who arrived later). Legal counsel Chris Steinmetz and planning staff were present. The board heard special requests, continuances, one expedited petition, and three public hearings, with votes on variances for a fence, a drive-thru, and a chicken flock.
Consent Calendar
- Expedited Petition (2026-DV3-028): A variance of development standards for a hot tub, deck, and legal establishment of a home without public street access at 6335 Old Orchard Road was granted unanimously (4-0) after the board waived rules of procedure to vote without additional testimony.
- Withdrawal (2026-UV3-007): A petition for a soccer field at 1531 Hunter Road was acknowledged as withdrawn.
- Automatic Continuances: Item 1 (2026-UV3-011) at 2001 West Washington Street was automatically continued to September 15, 2026, by a registered neighborhood organization. Item 3 (2026-UV3-014) at 4038 & 4040 Otterbein Avenue was continued to September 15, 2026, at the petitioner's request for additional legal notice.
Public Comments & Testimony
- Case 2026-DV3-014 (4202 Carson Avenue – 6-foot fence): Neighbor William Richardson (4028 South Rural Street) testified in support of the petitioners, citing safety concerns from a nearby homeless encampment and gunfire from the Stone Lake Apartments. He described an incident where four bullets struck his home.
- Case 2026-DV3-016 (10220 East Washington Street – drive-thru access): Jacob Morales, representing Central Indiana Cycling Advocacy, spoke in opposition to the variance as designed, requesting a one-month continuance to allow for a direct pedestrian/bicycle connection through the site. He cited the Washington Square Vision Plan, safety concerns, and the need to uphold TOD standards. He noted a 2023 fatality at the site where a man in a wheelchair was struck and killed.
- Case 2026-UV3-015 (3305 Pinetop Drive – chickens and fences): Two remonstrators spoke in opposition. Teresa Nagellin (3334 Maple Ridge Court) raised concerns about noise, waste, flies, property values, and precedent. Frank Weibel (7427 Maple Ridge Drive) cited health risks (salmonella, E. coli, parasites), rodent attraction, and economic impacts, and provided documentation of prior violations at the property.
Discussion Items
- Case 2026-DV3-014 (4202 Carson Avenue – 6-foot fence): Petitioners Kevin and Heather Davis requested a variance to maintain a six-foot-tall fence in the front yard (maximum 3.5 feet permitted) and had originally sought a variance for encroachment into the clear-sight triangle. They described safety concerns due to increased crime, gunfire, and a nearby homeless encampment. They withdrew the clear-sight triangle request and committed to angling that portion of the fence. Staff recommended denial, citing the ordinance's preference for ornamental front fences and noting that visual buffering could be achieved by compliant fencing or landscaping. The board voted 3-1 (Bland, Hannon, Bohannon yes; Bender no) to grant the variance for the six-foot fence, minus the clear-sight triangle.
- Case 2026-DV3-016 (10220 East Washington Street – drive-thru access): Petitioner Indy WS40 LLC (represented by Joseph Calderon) sought a variance to allow a drive-thru coffee shop (Dutch Bros.) to be accessed via a private ring road instead of an alley, as required by TOD zoning. Staff recommended approval, noting the ring road functions as a rear access and the site plan includes a bypass aisle, a walk-up window, and enhanced sidewalks. The remonstrator (Jacob Morales) argued for a direct pedestrian connection between Washington Street and Target to reduce vehicle conflicts. The board voted 2-2 (Bland and Bohannon no; Hannon and Bender yes), resulting in an indecisive vote, so the petition was automatically continued to the September 15, 2026 hearing.
- Case 2026-UV3-015 (3305 Pinetop Drive – chickens and fences): Petitioners Min Sung Zi and Mang Hluan (represented by daughter Minzi) requested variances for: (A) more than 12 chickens (they have 35: 15 adults and 20 chicks); (B) a chicken coop with a 16-foot front-yard setback (25 feet required) and located in the front yard; (C) a six-foot-tall front-yard fence (3.5 feet max); and (D) reduced side-yard setbacks for accessory structures. They stated the chickens are for personal use, not commercial, and that the fence was a replacement of an older fence. Staff recommended denial, citing the agricultural nature inconsistent with the D-3 zoning and neighborhood opposition. The board split the vote. On portion A (up to 35 chickens), the vote was 1-3 (Bohannon yes; Bland, Hannon, Bender no) – denied. On portion B (fence, coop setback, and other structures), the vote was 3-1 (Bland, Hannon, Bender yes; Bohannon no) – granted. The petitioners are allowed to keep the existing fence, coop, and other structures as they are, but must reduce the chicken flock to 12 or fewer.
Key Outcomes
- Expedited Case (2026-DV3-028): Variance granted unanimously (4-0).
- Case 2026-DV3-014 (Davis fence): Variance for six-foot fence granted (3-1); clear-sight triangle variance withdrawn. The fence may remain.
- Case 2026-DV3-016 (Indy WS40 drive-thru): Indecisive vote (2-2); petition continued to September 15, 2026 hearing.
- Case 2026-UV3-015 (Chickens): Variance for more than 12 chickens denied (1-3); variance for existing fence, chicken coop setback, and accessory structures granted (3-1). The petitioners must reduce the flock to 12 chickens within a reasonable time (enforceable by code enforcement).
Meeting Transcript
Good afternoon. This is a public hearing of the Metropolitan Board of Zoning Appeals, Division III. I am Brian Hanning, Brian Hannon, Acting Chairperson of Division III. The other board members present today are Rhana Bender, Rod Bohannon, and joining us shortly will be Percy Bland. Legal counsel for the board today is Chris Steinmetz. Staff members present today from the Division of Planning are Bryce Patts, current planning administrator, Noah Pappas, current planning manager, Michael Weigel, Principal Planner 1, Adrian Baker, Principal Planner 1, Josh Lavek, Senior Planner, Adam Shaveski, Senior Planner, Drew Haynes, Senior Planner, and Marty Weistie, senior 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 this 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 an address for the record before beginning to testify. Statements and arguments in support of the petition. Staff will then present the administrators' comments regarding the petition, and the petitioner will then be allowed five minutes for rebuttal and summation of their case. Rebuttal must be limited to the subject matter of the initial presentations. Remonstrators will 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 is at the discretion of the board. Please limit your testimony and evidence to the matters covered in the statutory requirements, which must be met in order for the board to grant a variance. 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 a 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. It must include the person's full name and correct mailing address and a reference to the board's petition number. Forums are available and may be obtained by 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 respectful and orderly at all times. And please be sure that your cell phone ringers are turned off. Please note there are four members of the board present today. This is usually a five member board. We have four present today. It does require three votes to take action on any request. We will take this into consideration when hearing requests for continuance. If your petition receives an indecisive vote, your petition will be automatically continued to the September 15th, 2026 hearing. Is there anyone in the audience with any questions about our procedures? All right. Before we hear special requests, I will ask for a waiver of waiver of rules of procedure to allow the board to vote for all expedited petition petitions and adopt their findings of fact without any additional testimony from the individual petitioners. Is there a motion? Bohannon so move. And a second. Land second. Okay, we have a motion and a second. I'll call the roll. Uh bender? Yes. Bland? Yes. Bohannon? Yes. And Hannon is yes. Thank you.
openpublica.com