Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Zoning Variances topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Indianapolis zoning board grants five variances on expedited docket
Summary
The Metropolitan Board of Zoning Appeals Division 2 approved five variance requests listed on its expedited docket and adopted staff-recommended conditions after a brief procedural dispute over public comment rights.
The Metropolitan Board of Zoning Appeals Division 2 voted unanimously to grant five variance petitions placed on its expedited docket during a public hearing of the board. Chair Craig Van Dalen, with members Patrice Duckett Brown and Tom Barnes present, cast the three votes that approved the petitions as read into the record.
The expedited items included five cases involving small residential additions or new single-family dwellings at addresses across Washington Township and Meridian Hills. Planning staff recommended approval of the amended or remaining variances in each case and the board adopted those recommendations without additional testimony after a motion to treat the cases as expedited.
Board procedure required petitioners and any remonstrators to alert staff in advance if they intended to speak on an expedited case. When two nearby residents sought to oppose one expedited item after the board had already voted, board counsel Chris Steinmetz advised that the public remonstrators should have notified staff before the expedited vote and that the board could not reopen the votes once cast.
Votes at a glance — case outcomes and key details: - 2025-DV2-029 (5907 Birchwood Ave): Petitioners Drew and Taylor Gaynor, represented by David and Justin Kingham; variance to allow an addition with an 8-foot rear-yard setback (20 ft required). Craig Van Dalen, Tom Barnes and Patrice Duckett Brown voted yes; variance granted. - 2025-DV2-030 (157 E. 60th St): Petitioner Julie Mahler; variance for an addition resulting in an 11-foot rear-yard setback (20 ft required). All three members voted yes; variance granted. Nearby residents Bill Bull and Kathy Gratton Corden later said they opposed the petition but had not notified staff before the expedited vote. - 2025-DV2-031 (55 Williams Creek Blvd): Petitioner Mary Elizabeth Seager Revocable Trust, represented by Brian J. Tuohy; variance for a 51-foot front-yard setback where the block average establishes 67 feet. Unanimous yes vote; variance granted. - 2025-DV2-032 (501 E. 70th St): Petitioner BTC Acquisitions LLC, represented by Matthew Peyton; variance to construct a single-family dwelling with a 33.5-foot front-yard setback where block average establishes 84 feet. Unanimous yes vote; variance granted. - 2025-DV2-033 (6445 Spring Mill Rd): Petitioners Patrick and Laura Steele; variance to construct a pool house with a 4-foot east side-yard setback and 28.33-foot aggregate side-yard (12 ft and 30 ft required). The petitioner amended the petition to remove an encroachment into a utility easement; staff recommended approval of the amended variances and the board voted yes; variance granted.
Staff and counsel comments: Senior planner Noah Stern confirmed staff’s recommendation to approve the amended variances for 6445 Spring Mill Road after the applicant adjusted the site plan to remove the encroachment into a platted easement. Steinmetz told members of the public who attempted to speak after votes that ‘‘it would have been incumbent upon you to notify the board in advance’’ if they intended to remonstrate on an expedited item.
The board took multiple procedural motions during the meeting: a motion to waive certain procedural rules to allow the board to vote on expedited petitions and adopt staff findings, and a motion to move specific petitions onto the expedited docket. Motions to place items on the expedited docket and to adopt staff recommendations were seconded and passed by roll call votes.
The expedited approvals clear the way for applicants to pursue required permits and comply with any conditions set by the board, such as landscaping, screening or settlement of easement issues. Where petitioners amended plans at the hearing to remove an encroachment, staff noted that compliance with commitments remains the petitioner’s responsibility and that the city would not assume liability for private easement disputes.
Provenance: The expedited docket was read into the record and the board’s roll-call grants are recorded in the hearing transcript.
