The Fishers Board of Zoning Appeals took no final action on a petition to allow a drive-up window, exterior menu board and speakers for a proposed neighborhood shopping center in Fishers Marketplace (case VA-24-26). The board considered a motion to deny but clarified the item will return to the board next month when a fuller membership can consider it.

Petition representatives said the single-story neighborhood center would host roughly eight tenants, with the northmost tenant intended as a restaurant or coffee shop featuring a drive-thru lane behind the building. Mark Leach, land-use planner for the applicant, said the proposed menu board would be approximately 125 feet from apartments to the east and about 280 feet from townhomes to the north; the drive-through window would be about 167 feet from the apartments and 280 feet from the townhomes. The petitioner said the parcel is only about 340 feet wide and argued the UDO's 400-foot separation requirement creates a practical difficulty for this site.

The applicant proposed supplemental landscaping to screen the drive-thru components: 6-foot-height-for-planting pyramid arborvitae (mature 1525 feet) and blue point junipers (mature ~12 feet height, 8-foot width). The petitioner presented noise-research and a site visit to comparable drive-thru operations, reporting a target speaker sound level of about 64 decibels and saying real-world traffic noise would tend to mask speaker noise.

City senior planner Christie Cashin said staff had received a written public comment from Sue Anthony Palmer, regional vice-president for Regency Windsor Management, representing the Woods of Britton apartment complex; Palmer opposed the variance on noise-quality-of-life grounds. Resident Matthew Brands spoke at the hearing opposing the variance and argued that a reduction from 400 feet to 125 feet is a substantial deviation from the UDO standard and would materially affect adjacent residents and yards.

During disposition, a board member moved to deny the variance; after a second the roll call recorded two yes votes and one no. The presiding officer then clarified that the petition would be continued and would return to the board next month when more members can hear it, rather than being denied outright.

Clarifying details in the record include the petitioner's estimate of a roughly $4,500,000 total project cost and an early-2025 construction target with tenant openings in late summer 2025. Staff noted they had no formal recommendation to the board on this petition and asked that, if approved, the approval letter be recorded with the Hamilton County Recorder.

Votes at a glance (hearing disposition): VA-24-26—motion to deny introduced and seconded; roll call recorded two yes and one no, but the item was continued to next month for further consideration (no final denial entered).