[{"_1":2,"_122":-5,"_123":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,75,86,98,110],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},"mediaId",6520299,"mediaKeyId","5333109-a25a5229b2acb1a30db59d30c5e48c53","parentId",5333109,"title","Votes at a glance: BZA Division 2 actions, waivers, continuances and expedited grants","audioSeconds",8085,"startMs",327000,"endMs",8412000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=5333109-a25a5229b2acb1a30db59d30c5e48c53&start=327&end=8412","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5333109-a25a5229b2acb1a30db59d30c5e48c53/thumbnail_327000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6520299/Indianapolis-City/Marion-County/Indiana/Votes-at-a-glance-BZA-Division-2-actions-waivers-continuances-and-expedited-grants","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6520299-7ebd020463df6f44afa8f93fdb730595/orig.mp4?Expires=1771169475&Signature=XHFDnFqdoKL9s6O2wwwDMhDYaF4dB8JGf39fmtrPYVdSuSNAwCZwVrAIO041G3I04532SWvIAQoNebAoPRoL0TVyTdQioD8jOgFbuMCrUHRj3i4Xe43Uh4Zm49dT46URc-QCYo0f9jMovdnKIbxla7Ge4OH9Kohar7ciL-4W~wSDlviygw7ikPyqjapno~Nf5mJVeE0P7cM1Lm3QNgquUSlglNFmoHu6r3bsKsez-scD1~oHaIIMvDltVo0sBXFRsVLB9qvxZ3ehmDZoice5m4ggJGl0BKEIZ-X90xuz~nHN5zW5OYVy5AVLC~EYCpcsIua1ERdOvmZAKCBZ6NAcuw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","City Council of Indianapolis, IN","date","2025-07-08T00:00:00Z","article","The Metropolitan Board of Zoning Appeals Division 2 took multiple procedural and substantive actions during the hearing. Below are the cases and formal outcomes recorded on the hearing record.

Votes at a glance

- Case 2025DV2-018 (5469 North Capitol Avenue) — Variance of development standards for a single-family dwelling rear-yard setback. Board vote: yes (Craig Von Dalen, Aaron McBride, Tom Barnes). Outcome: variance granted (expedited docket).

- Case 2025DV2-024 (4353 Washington Boulevard) — Variance to allow detached garage side-yard setback; staff supported a short waiver/expedited handling and the board later granted the variance on the expedited docket. Waiver: a 4-day notice-waiver was granted earlier in the hearing (staff unopposed). Outcome: variance granted (expedited docket).

- Case 2025UV2-010 (802 Roche Street) — Petitioner Josh Myers requested a continuance; staff had no objection. Outcome: continued to August 12, 2025, without additional notice.

- Case 2025UV2-009 / fee transfer (3889 West Perry Street) — Petitioner Justin Bridgeman asked to withdraw the variance and transfer paid variance fees to a rezoning application. Staff supported transferring fees but cautioned that staff support for rezoning was not guaranteed. Board action: fee transfer and withdrawal acknowledged; motion passed.

- Case 2025DV2-025 (1435 North Hamilton Avenue) — Petitioner requested a 3-day notice waiver early in the hearing; staff had no objection. Later in the docket (substantive hearing) the board granted a variance to allow an existing carport to remain despite reduced side-yard setbacks. Outcome: variance granted.

- Case 2025DV2-023 (5338 West Edwards Avenue) — Petitioner requested a 6-day notice-waiver; staff had no objection. At the substantive hearing the board granted a variance for a 6-foot fence and a shed. Outcome: variance granted.

- Case 2025MO2-001 (2510 Millers Mill Road / moved to Board 3) — Petitioner requested the petition be transferred and continued to the August 19 hearing before Board 3; staff had no objection. Outcome: continued to August 19, 2025 (Board 3) without additional notice.

- Other automatic continuances acknowledged by staff: 2025DB2016 (various West New York addresses) and 2025DV2-021 (1144 Navajo Trail South Drive) were acknowledged as continued to the August 12 hearing due to remonstrator/notice issues; 2025DV2-022 (1337 Olive Street) was continued following a registered neighborhood organization’s timely request.

Expedited docket and procedural votes

- At the start of the hearing the board waived its normal process for expedited petitions and agreed to adopt findings and hear expedited items together; the roll call for that procedural vote was recorded as yes by the three present members.

Notes and next steps

- Several waivers were granted on the record where staff said notice materials had been delayed or a short waiver was warranted (3-, 4-, and 6-day waivers documented in the hearing record).","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","City Council of Indianapolis, IN - Board of Zoning Appeals, Division 2 - Jul 08, 2025","oneSentenceSummary","Summary of actions the board took at the Division 2 hearing, including expedited grants, waivers, fee-transfer approval and continuances.","taxTitle","Indianapolis City, Marion County, Indiana","taxId",3627,"location","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":76,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":77,"_41":78,"_43":79,"_45":46,"_47":80,"_49":81,"_51":82,"_53":83,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":84,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":85,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6520302,"BZA grants variance allowing existing carport to remain at 1435 North Hamilton",840,7572000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5333109-a25a5229b2acb1a30db59d30c5e48c53&start=7572&end=8412","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5333109-a25a5229b2acb1a30db59d30c5e48c53/thumbnail_7572000.jpg","/articles/6520302/Indianapolis-City/Marion-County/Indiana/BZA-grants-variance-allowing-existing-carport-to-remain-at-1435-North-Hamilton","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6520302-7ccb98ca89ae1fb56791a4359f43c262/orig.mp4?Expires=1771169475&Signature=SC2ZK2Dhpp14HdsuwUqTUS1rKCzqXrb7O0CEdjBR7rukSGXJx3z8Q4PEb0lQu9bXpkXbNTG2O9jRzbkxMVzMLkxzXpcrhiBkdj9BqEtJKBhZrEdV5k-CDOIQqsgqt7WebGwS8XEDCXxaawGWoAXwwQuPiGuJIBIgjZvff4FIUuw5VeqNhwK-KMfgo1dWFKh4L6XvbE83Mrs8nRnQvIr0chU4K47O~gwvt4epURviqoKrR2gjo-hqOIr0cS9sfeMmNOKKA-jsQ9qj~eTU4meTi8pvEAk1U57ij1ty-HkDCVydgNglSE40gS08pxxC9C8drJ8qb2eZoYWOxMMviWE6sQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Metropolitan Board of Zoning Appeals Division 2 granted a variance allowing an existing carport at 1435 North Hamilton Avenue to remain in place despite side-yard setback violations (case 2025DV2-025). All three board members present voted to grant the variance.

Petitioner representative Josh Smith explained the carport was constructed without permits and that stop-work orders were issued; the petitioner later sought to regularize the structure. Smith said removing and relocating supporting posts to meet a required additional setback would be costly, and the homeowner is an immigrant family who built the structure with limited permitting knowledge.

Staff recommended denial, citing that the carport is wide for a 40-foot lot and that nonpermitted construction should not be rewarded. Staff also warned that reducing the side setbacks could increase runoff onto neighboring properties unless gutters and other drainage measures are installed. Staff raised that practical difficulty had not been demonstrated beyond financial hardship and that the issue was self-imposed by building without permits.

Board conversation explored whether the setback measurement is taken from foundation/footing or from eaves and whether shifting the support posts inboard could resolve the violation. Staff and board members discussed pursuing a practical solution that would allow compliance without full removal. The petitioner said he would consider moving support posts if staff confirmed that would bring the carport into compliance.

After discussion, the board voted yes. On the record the secretary announced: Aaron McBride votes yes; Craig Von Dalen votes yes; Tom Barnes votes yes. \"The variance is granted,\" the board secretary said.

What happens next: The petitioner may complete required finishing work (gutters, coverings) and follow up with staff for final verification and any required affidavits of compliance.","The board granted a variance for a carport previously built without permits at 1435 North Hamilton Avenue, after the petitioner and board discussed options to move support posts to meet side-setback measurements.",{"_33":87,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":88,"_41":89,"_43":90,"_45":91,"_47":92,"_49":93,"_51":94,"_53":95,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":96,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":97,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6520304,"Board grants variance for 6-foot privacy fence and shed at 5338 West Edwards",1370,3440000,4810000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5333109-a25a5229b2acb1a30db59d30c5e48c53&start=3440&end=4810","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5333109-a25a5229b2acb1a30db59d30c5e48c53/thumbnail_3440000.jpg","/articles/6520304/Indianapolis-City/Marion-County/Indiana/Board-grants-variance-for-6-foot-privacy-fence-and-shed-at-5338-West-Edwards","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6520304-2c1ea4fbbf4c71457cfbcd9b298a96c0/orig.mp4?Expires=1771169475&Signature=fzaJBeszG9p0nZbEAW3wjPcnQzJK8fyHcxIguSLMrzEVz--gh~S5th~y~LrIqW8~ihMdO~NU9he7o4Q4PNYIQf6gwTrd1FycpBm0I-8yjHrVorjw1vCW4rzFRB3H8NQBIAWyyEf2fgkkwZptIGlYhvTqOf2wtq3ewpPLrO--oIIxtgCE-4QMhsIrBTaZF5TFWPIGnm3wEG0GjDb7xEGz5QW0F7J6igAKVea7oMhyOstCoX~5R3-oNm0JvlFkPreGWiH~BpUx3IhSTENKvFhB984EjkBG6UQGKVZzEq7pY46Oswq3XQkA5T6UqJeOuhb2G~BZBwf~Uk4qBM4MuDhtSg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Metropolitan Board of Zoning Appeals Division 2 granted a variance to allow a six-foot privacy fence and the placement of a garden shed within the yard at 5338 West Edwards Avenue (case 2025DV2-023). Chair Craig Von Dalen, Aaron McBride and Tom Barnes voted yes; the variance was granted.

Petitioner Austin Young told the board he bought the house in 2021, has three dogs and sought the fence primarily for safety and security. Young said he consulted neighbors before proceeding and provided door-to-door confirmation that adjacent owners supported the proposed improvements. He explained the shed was relocated to improve driveway access and would sit behind the rear-most leading edge of the home.

Pat Andrews, chair of the Decatur Township Civic Council land-use committee, testified the township council reviewed the petition and voted unanimously to support it. Neighbor David Taylor spoke in favor as well.

Staff recommended denial, noting that for corner lots the ordinance treats both street-facing sides as front yards and limits opaque front-yard fences to 42 inches (or 48 inches for certain chain link). Staff urged that tall, opaque fences on a narrow collection of frontages could create a “canyon” effect and reduce walkability. Staff also pointed to the option of substantial landscaping or other containment measures and said the shed could be relocated behind the leading edge of the house to comply.

Board members weighed the petitioner’s claims of impracticality if required to limit the fence to 42 inches, the petitioner’s documentation of neighbor support, and the civic council endorsement. After discussion the board voted in favor of the variance. On the record: Aaron McBride voted yes. Craig Von Dalen voted yes. Tom Barnes voted yes. \"The variance is granted,\" the secretary announced.

The petitioner committed to construct in accordance with the submitted plans and to remove fence posts that encroached on the public right of way. Staff recommended landscaping or other measures for neighborhood compatibility; the board granted the variance with the petitioner’s commitments.

What happens next: Petitioner may complete the installed fence and shed in line with his stated commitments and the board’s order; staff may follow up on the right-of-way adjustments.","The board granted a variance allowing a six-foot privacy fence and placement of a garden shed in a yard treated as a second frontage at 5338 West Edwards Avenue (case 2025DV2-023).",{"_33":99,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":100,"_41":101,"_43":102,"_45":103,"_47":104,"_49":105,"_51":106,"_53":107,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":108,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":109,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6520306,"Owners of 3870 Broadway ask for more time after staff flags sight-line and right-of-way issues",964,1303000,2267000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5333109-a25a5229b2acb1a30db59d30c5e48c53&start=1303&end=2267","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5333109-a25a5229b2acb1a30db59d30c5e48c53/thumbnail_1303000.jpg","/articles/6520306/Indianapolis-City/Marion-County/Indiana/Owners-of-3870-Broadway-ask-for-more-time-after-staff-flags-sight-line-and-right-of-way-issues","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6520306-8f84ff0e3392001edf79466bcdd7adc6/orig.mp4?Expires=1771169475&Signature=JAg-PEMUaRKVo237ciXkEXdkjHRCnPvV3Iyc5lS-bauYAK8sa8vLk-BNxt4qt92XXSJW9~SFLg6BMl0aJumCsp7IUB~OxZYaNh1T8T1PBxtEd66h1opXCxdxQ9xhL~EHpIleOOuZnvfmzGjMQv3uYFiNDC~~Lai7lMRH-Edzkyiy7PvOr01v5zEh5fImYpQh2PVHY4TW~Jiu0ae164oOAWazK822VrG8Pa9VcDxefEDBynJOb5G-WQgkySJe4XLhc6UpKgubALP5KMjMBzY9ACpsCEYKSUhmTuPSBnACXfcXrg-LwPPhATBvsCxWedfPwHcKEyoGTobMFzBkGYXjdQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Metropolitan Board of Zoning Appeals Division 2 continued a petition by Carlos Garcia and Martha Rivas (case 2025DV2-019) seeking to retain a 6.5-foot fence on a corner lot at 3870 Broadway Street. Petitioner representative Rebecca Garcia asked for a continuance after staff and board members raised questions about how fence height is measured on a lot with a retaining wall and whether the fence encroaches on the right of way and the clear sight triangle.

Staff said the site is a corner lot in a B-5 district and that the proposed fence exceeds the ordinance height for front yards (3.5 feet) and also encroaches into the clear sight triangle and the public right of way. Associate planner Kaya Mullins explained that, under the ordinance, height is measured from the sidewalk grade in the presence of a terrain change; even accounting for a two-foot height tolerance tied to grade change, the top peaks would remain out of compliance.

Petitioner Rebecca Garcia said the fence was installed after a nearby shooting and that neighbors provided letters in support, arguing the fence increases safety and privacy. She said architects had recommended material changes to increase visual permeability while maintaining safety.

Board members questioned whether the fence should be measured from the inside (behind the retaining wall) or from the sidewalk grade, and whether a guardrail requirement for the retaining wall would affect permissible fence height. Staff said measurements are taken from the interior lot grade when determining compliance but noted that the fence as built still appears to exceed allowable heights. Staff recommended denial but agreed to help the petitioner identify possible fixes.

The petitioner agreed to a continuance to allow staff to confirm measurements, consider alternatives such as changing materials for greater visibility through the fence, and resolve right-of-way questions. The board voted to continue the petition to the board’s next hearing.

Discussion points included fence height measurement on a retaining wall, clear-sight-triangle safety concerns for drivers and pedestrians, the distinction between inside and sidewalk grade for height measurement, and the petitioner’s willingness to alter fence materials. The board acknowledged the petitioner’s safety concerns tied to a nearby shooting but emphasized visibility and right-of-way rules.

What happens next: Staff will investigate site measurements and advise the petitioner on options (material changes, partial removal, or reconfiguration). The petitioner will return at the continued hearing with clarified measurements or proposed fixes.","A homeowner petition to retain a 6.5-foot fence at 3870 Broadway was continued to allow staff and the petitioner to clarify measurements, sight-triangle impacts and possible material changes.",{"_33":111,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":112,"_41":113,"_43":114,"_45":115,"_47":116,"_49":117,"_51":118,"_53":119,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":120,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":121,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6520308,"Board denies request to reclassify Spotlight Center as primary event center over parking concerns",3381,2308000,5689000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5333109-a25a5229b2acb1a30db59d30c5e48c53&start=2308&end=5689","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5333109-a25a5229b2acb1a30db59d30c5e48c53/thumbnail_2308000.jpg","/articles/6520308/Indianapolis-City/Marion-County/Indiana/Board-denies-request-to-reclassify-Spotlight-Center-as-primary-event-center-over-parking-concerns","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6520308-ae43384b3acf7e5f486a19e9b990c109/orig.mp4?Expires=1771169475&Signature=Id2eVoy-SFRm3GM6PzTIO1BRudmgdAuM-m6fffoPAbWwLfuctmtouCipntjFywhNMobLOghJ2GhPaqVm-wNx6ps-ofalQvO54BklKjn086GiJXZLrZlLvos1lUJJbohZ8j6oCYRSJvO0t62U-CFkicOJTfeC492W4ina4fWMwHF38WFW0CIW8-jH6UgbkcqG4xOc25boTZfLFYUKYnmRCxUuk9UTSWbfwB8OrNatYFtJhq~CMhM4qqyekUADS15e~75mfyXgwLTTp4Wy4YoOEaAXXu1y0zYgaSnHC32rm~bSy-PojIb9Muf-5utWtbIoygWqM948aPMi3JFiRSRH2g__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Metropolitan Board of Zoning Appeals Division 2 on Thursday denied a variance request to allow the Spotlight Center Northeast at 5060 East 60th Street to operate multiple indoor event spaces as a primary use rather than as an accessory use (case 2025UV2-006). The three board members present — Chair Craig Von Dalen, Aaron McBride and Tom Barnes — voted no; the variance was not granted.

The petitioner, represented by architect Lester R. Carver of Carver Design Studio, asked the board to treat the building's three assembly rooms as primary indoor recreation/entertainment uses so all three could be used simultaneously. Carver told the board the building has 12,000 square feet and an occupant load listed on submitted plans of 576 people for the whole facility; the three main rooms together would total 441-person capacity when used concurrently.

Staff recommended denial, saying the site’s parking supply would not meet the ordinance requirement for an event center of the proposed size. Senior planner Robert Uhlenhake told the board the petitioner’s submitted site plan shows about 109 on-site spaces and did not include certain shared spaces; by the staff’s calculation the petitioner’s occupancy would require roughly 144 spaces (1 parking space per 4 occupants based on the submitted occupant numbers). \"Staff is certainly concerned that adequate off-street parking provisions would not be provided due to the amount of parking needed for the proposed use,\" Uhlenhake said.

Opposition came from Binford Plaza LLC, represented by attorney Yogi Snyder, and from neighborhood organizations including BRAD (Binford Redevelopment and Growth Board). Snyder said the southern parking area is not exclusively controlled by the Spotlight Center and that the surrounding retail plaza has businesses that also need those spaces. BRAD president Kevin Senninger and City-County Councilor Dan Boots (District 3) urged denial; Boots said the proposal would effectively introduce a higher-intensity C-4 use into a C-3 neighborhood-commercial area and repeated community concerns about parking, deliveries, and traffic during event hours.

Carver and the petitioners argued that the comprehensive plan and zoning context support community-oriented gathering uses and that the facility has operated as a community venue since 2019. Carver said the center provides space for nonprofits and community events and described on-site security and operating practices. The petitioners said they control 36 parking spaces directly in front of the building and have permission to use an additional 24 spaces, while opponents disputed the exclusivity of those spaces.

After hearing witnesses and staff, the board voted. Aaron McBride voted no. Craig Von Dalen voted no. Tom Barnes voted no. \"The variance is not granted,\" the secretary announced.

Discussion points: staff calculations of required parking (approx. 144 spaces vs. 109 shown), lack of an on-site kitchen (likely reliance on caterers/food trucks that require parking), shared versus exclusive parking rights for the 36-space area north of the building, and prior code enforcement history flagged by Councilor Boots. The petition was denied; no conditions or continuance were offered by the board during the vote.

What happens next: The petitioner may revise the proposal, supply additional evidence about exclusive parking or off-site parking agreements, or pursue different uses that comply with C-3 zoning. The board did not set additional requirements or a follow-up date.","The Metropolitan Board of Zoning Appeals Division 2 denied a petition to allow the Spotlight Center Northeast at 5060 East 60th Street to operate multiple indoor event spaces as a primary use, citing insufficient on-site parking and potential impacts on adjacent businesses.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Votes at a glance: BZA Division 2 actions, waivers, continuances and expedited grants

BZA grants variance allowing existing carport to remain at 1435 North Hamilton

Board grants variance for 6-foot privacy fence and shed at 5338 West Edwards

Owners of 3870 Broadway ask for more time after staff flags sight-line and right-of-way issues

Board denies request to reclassify Spotlight Center as primary event center over parking concerns