Fishers BZA denies lot-split setback variance at Geist Pointe; 3-1 vote ends request

The Fishers Board of Zoning Appeals on July 23, 2025 denied a variance request for a lot split and reduced front-yard setback at 11690 Fall Creek Road (Geist Pointe), voting 3-1 to reject the petition.

The case, VA 25-11, asked the board to allow Lot 2 of the Geist Pointe plat to be re-parceled into Lot 2A and Lot 2B and to permit a 10-foot front-yard setback for the existing home where the UDO requires a 40-foot setback. The petitioner said the lot’s unique topography, floodplain and a shared driveway justified the smaller setback and a lot split that would create two single-family lots from a roughly 0.9-acre parcel.

Why it matters: Neighbor concerns and prior litigation shaped the hearing. Opponents argued the change would increase density, raise traffic and parking pressures on a narrow shared drive, risk property-value impacts and could bypass deed covenants that earlier owners accepted. The petitioner said courts have previously rejected a premature challenge to the re-parceling and that settling outstanding legal issues cleared the way for the BZA to consider the variance.

Petitioner Kyra Miller described the property’s history and the steps she and her husband took since 2019 to prepare for a possible second home on the parcel. Miller said the property has “very contoured topography,” an expanded floodplain and a shoreline restoration area that constrain where a house could sit, and that a shared access drive and stormwater easement reduce usable area.

City planner Christy Cashin told the board that the published public notice had mistakenly listed a 55-foot setback requirement but that the correct UDO requirement is 40 feet. Cashin said both proposed lots would meet the R2 zoning size requirements but explained that the existing house on Lot 2 would create a 10-foot front-yard setback on the newly created lot (Lot 2A), which is why the variance was requested. Cashin said staff had no recommendation but, if the board approved, recommended recording the approval letter and related documentation with the Hamilton County Recorder’s Office.

Opposition included legal counsel Tom Perkins, representing property owner Fadi Abdallah (FED Investments), who urged denial. Perkins told the board the previous lawsuit over the parcel was deemed premature by the courts and warned that approving the variance now could trigger further litigation. He raised three concerns he labeled “density, development and deeds,” arguing the plat change could push the number of residences per acre beyond intended R2 density limits, increase traffic on a constrained shared drive and allow a property owner to escape deed-based covenants by creating a new separate parcel.

Neighbors including Tom and Barb Arat and other residents reiterated worries about traffic, the narrow and rutted shared drive, potential construction impacts and loss of lake views. The public comments and attorneys’ arguments prompted board discussion about community character, sightlines and safety.

Board member Mr. Grinslake moved to deny VA 25-11 on grounds that it would be injurious to public health and safety with respect to traffic and would adversely affect adjoining property owners’ views and property values. The motion was seconded; the vote was Mr. Grinslake—Yes; Mr. Stevenson—Yes; Mr. Lannon—No; Mr. Ferrucci—Yes. The tally was 3-1 to deny the variance.

Next steps: With the denial, the proposed lot split and reduced setback will not proceed under the current application. Staff noted prior related filings (PP-19-1, SP-19-4, VA-19-5) and that additional reviews would be required for any future proposal. The board closed the public hearing and moved on to routine business.