Fishers BZA ties on rehearing for Wilson Garage variance; petition continued to next month

The Fishers Board of Zoning Appeals on July 23, 2025 reached a 2-2 tie on a rehearing request from petitioner Amanda Jeske seeking multiple variances at 16465 East 100 And First Street, and the petition was automatically continued to next month.

The rehearing, listed as VA 25-9, asked the board to reconsider a previous denial and to permit an increase of an existing legal nonconforming accessory structure from 240 square feet to 576 square feet (a 140% increase), reduce a minimum lot-size requirement from 15,000 to 4,950 square feet and reduce a required front setback from 11 feet to 7 feet. The petitioner said the lot split and addition are needed to provide driveway access and make a planned house build feasible.

Why it matters: the requested variances would allow an existing accessory structure and a narrow parcel to be reconfigured to create vehicular access and enable construction on a separate three-acre parcel. Neighbors and staff raised questions about private access, stormwater runoff and impacts to adjacent properties; staff told the board that, if approved, the accompanying documents should be recorded with the Hamilton County Recorder.

Petitioner Amanda Jeske described the practical constraints that led to the rehearing request. “I have 3 wooded acres in Hamilton County that I can't build a house on because I can't get to it, and I can't get construction equipment into it,” Jeske said. She told the board she and her late husband had relied on a neighbor’s driveway for years and that recent sewer work reduced a 10-foot access strip to roughly 8 feet, complicating construction access and prompting the request to buy and attach a narrow strip from a neighboring property.

City planning staff, represented by senior planner Gabrielle Heron, summarized the variance request and noted the site’s designation and recent UDO amendments that affect front-yard setback standards. Heron said both accessory structures on the property are legal nonconforming because they predate the 2018 Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) and that the split would move roughly 0.11 acres to an adjacent parcel (16423 East 100 And First Street) through the platting process. Staff took no formal recommendation on the rehearing but, should the BZA approve, recommended recording the approval letter and related documentation with the Hamilton County Recorder’s Office.

Staff and engineering comments addressed access and drainage. City staff said the gravel shared drive labeled Park Drive is not public right-of-way and is held in fee by the adjoining property owners, so the city would not perform ongoing maintenance or improvements; any petitioner relying on that drive would need cross-access easements negotiated with those owners. On stormwater, staff noted that any future building permit would trigger a stormwater review and that property owners must manage stormwater on site under city rules.

Several nearby residents testified in opposition or raised concerns about drainage, maintenance and construction impacts. Danielle Almond Clark, who lives at 16455 East A Hundred And First Street, said runoff currently collects in the low spot between her property and the proposed driveway and that a new driveway could redirect runoff into adjacent yards. “When it rains, all the water between our property and Michelle’s is collected in that area,” she said. Christine Moschel, at 16475 East 100 And First Street, said the shared drive is very rutted and that construction trucks would worsen conditions; she also said trees that form a buffer would likely be removed and asked what would be done about the existing low area where rainwater collects.

Board members discussed the standard variance considerations—public health and safety, effect on neighboring property values and whether strict application of the ordinance would cause practical difficulties. A motion to approve the rehearing (moved by Mr. Lannon and seconded by another board member) produced a tie vote: Grinslake—No; Stevenson—No; Lannon—Aye; Ferrucci—Aye. Under the board’s procedures, the 2-2 tie results in an automatic continuance to the next monthly meeting when a full board is expected.

Next steps: The petition will return to the Board of Zoning Appeals at the next scheduled meeting for further consideration; staff indicated that, regardless of the BZA’s decision, the petitioner must secure any necessary easements from private property owners for access and comply with stormwater review if a building permit is pursued.