MDC denies Broadmoor Investments rezoning request for country club property

The Metropolitan Development Commission (MDC) on Wednesday denied two companion rezoning petitions from Broadmoor Investments LLC that would have rezoned portions of land adjacent to Broadmoor Country Club to permit up to 35 new homes.

The petitions — 2024ZON073 and 2024ZON073B — sought multiple district changes to allow denser single‑family lots and smaller “alley‑fed” lots. Staff and the hearing examiner recommended denial, and commissioners voted with five “no” votes and one recusal to reject both petitions.

The petitioners’ filings and presentation, delivered by attorney Russell Brown of Clark Quinn, described a plan for 35 homes tied to commitments intended to support the nearby Broadmoor Country Club (BCC). Brown said the developer holds the underlying real estate and leased much of the club property to the club under a 30‑year lease with a 30‑year renewal option and an option to purchase; he described the plan as a way to bolster the club while adding housing types he said are missing from the local market. Brown said the revised concept plan (identified in the record as Concept Plan G) reduced overall lot count and added design commitments including larger exterior lots, tree preservation buffers and a requirement that new homeowners have access to club amenities.

City Councilor Brianne Delaney, representing District 2, urged denial. City Councilor Brianne Delaney said the proposal ‘‘fails on those counts and should not move forward,’’ citing concerns about heritage tree removal and density that she said were inconsistent with the adopted comprehensive plan and the neighborhood’s character.

Residents and neighborhood representatives who spoke against the petitions argued the proposals conflicted with the area’s DS zoning and the comprehensive plan’s recommendations. Lori Meiser, a longtime resident and former Indianapolis Metropolitan Planning Organization executive director, said the neighborhood supports development that ‘‘is consistent with the DS zoning that was laid out for this area in the recently adopted comprehensive plan’’ and warned that departures from the plan could destabilize the area. Homeowners including Jason Mackey and Scott Monckett detailed what they called unusually large, wooded lots and said the proposed small‑lot layout would be out of character.

Staff testimony described the surrounding area as very low‑density with large lots and said the comprehensive plan’s designation (regional special use / comp plan recommendation) did not contemplate the residential intensity proposed. Staff asked the commission to deny the petitions; staff noted several outstanding concerns even where the applicant had offered commitments, and said public infrastructure impacts and compatibility with surrounding development merited denial.

Petition details presented in the hearing record included: a proposed mix of roughly 22 smaller lots in a D52 zone (approximate building pad dimensions discussed at the hearing were about 35 by 60 feet, with lot areas around 4,000 square feet) and about 13 larger lots in a D4 zone with average lot areas the petitioner said were closer to 7,500 square feet; a total reduction from an earlier plan of eight lots; elimination of through‑traffic to the country club; and a commitment to seek right‑of‑way dedication for portions of East Kessler Boulevard. The petitioner also stated commitments requiring owners to maintain a social/club amenity at BCC and to be bound by the submitted concept plan.

Opponents said the petitioners had not secured sufficient agreement from neighbors or from staff, raised concerns about loss of canopy and habitat along Crooked Creek, and argued that DS zoning and one‑acre plus lots are the appropriate, stable form for the neighborhood. Remonstrators pointed to the hearing examiner’s recommendation and several letters of opposition filed in the record.

After public comment, the commission took two separate ballots (one for each zoning petition). The clerk announced six ballots cast, with five “no” votes and one recusal on both petitions; both petitions were defeated.

Commissioners and members of the public said the parties could return with a materially different proposal; remonstrators referenced media reporting that petitioners had indicated intent to rework the plan if the commission denied the petitions.

The record for the hearing includes the petitioner’s concept plans and commitments, staff analysis and the hearing examiner’s report.