Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Fence Variance Hosbrook Grove topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board approves variance allowing installed front‑yard fence at Hosbrook/Grove property after developer testimony
Summary
The board unanimously granted a variance for front‑yard fencing at properties on Hosbrook Street and Grove Avenue; petitioner argued the fence matches surrounding development and provides functional outdoor space, while staff raised TOD and sight‑triangle concerns and noted potential right‑of‑way encroachment issues.
The Metropolitan Board of Zoning Appeals Division 1 unanimously approved a variance permitting front‑yard fencing at properties associated with 1002 Hosbrook Street and 815 Grove Avenue after petitioners and their representative described neighborhood precedent and functional need.
Attorney and developer Micah Hill told the board the fences were installed during redevelopment and are consistent with other front‑yard fences in North Square and Fountain Square. Hill said the site has a long redevelopment history and that matching neighboring fences and the adjacent Indy Parks fence was an intentional design decision. He provided photographs and letters of neighbor support and said the fences preserve usable green space on small historic lots.
Planning staff and the Division of Planning raised multiple objections. Staff noted that 1002 Hosbrook is a corner lot with two front yards, that sections of the installed fence exceed the 3.5‑foot front‑yard limit, and that portions encroach into the clear sight triangle and into the dedicated right‑of‑way. Staff said the area is within a transit‑oriented development (TOD) overlay and that front‑yard fences that obscure views can undermine the walkable, pedestrian‑oriented design the overlay intends to promote. Staff also told the board that approval of a variance would not automatically guarantee a separate encroachment license from the Department of Public Works or the Department of Business and Neighborhood Services.
Hill and the petitioners argued the fences match surrounding properties and parks, cited several letters of support from neighbors, and said a prior fence or enclosure existed historically at the site. The project team proposed conditions and said they would coordinate any necessary encroachment or curb‑cut permitting with city departments.
After discussion the board voted 5‑0 to grant the variance. Board members recorded unanimous support during the roll call. The petition record includes at least six support letters from neighbors and written support from the neighborhood association, according to the petitioner.
The approved variance allows the existing installed fences to remain as described in the petition; the petitioner and staff discussed follow‑up permits including any encroachment licensing that might be required separately from the zoning variance.
