Leah York, president of the Board of Zoning Appeals serving as hearing officer, and Mike Hollebaugh, director of community services and hearing officer, approved the Third Avenue Residences development plan and three related variances Wednesday, placing conditions that require final engineering sign‑off and a neighbor‑agreed fencing and landscaping plan.

The project, presented by Dan Moriarty of Studio M Architecture, proposes an eight‑unit condominium building on a roughly half‑acre C2 parcel adjacent to Merchants Bank and the Buckingham apartment building. The building would contain 18 below‑grade parking spaces and about 79% lot coverage. Moriarty said site constraints — including a Duke energy easement, a drainage/storm sewer easement, and AT&T infrastructure — forced the design to include below‑grade parking and limited the ability to shift the building footprint.

"We can look at, I was just thinking about ... replacing this with a fence is an option," Moriarty said when asked about buffering for neighbors, adding that the team would coordinate with the city arborist and utility owners about tree planting in easement areas.

Why it matters: neighbors argued the project removes privacy and undermines established buffer expectations in this part of Carmel. Mary Zajac, who owns property immediately north of the site, told the hearing officers, "my privacy will be completely eliminated" if a three‑story building is placed adjacent to her yard. Charlie Demler, who moderates the neighborhood Facebook page, urged adherence to Carmel's buffer standards and asked for a delay so a recent buyer of a neighboring lot could participate in discussions.

Planning staff recommended approval with conditions. Angie Khan of the Carmel Planning & Zoning Department explained the three variance requests: a buffer yard reduction (C2 standards generally link buffer width to nearest building height and cap at 35 feet; petitioner requested 0 feet), a small building‑height increase (maximum allowed 35 feet; request ranges from about 38 to 42 feet with stepping down toward the residential side), and modification to street‑tree requirements because the recent 3rd Avenue Southwest reconstruction narrowed available planting strips. "Planning staff is supportive of this variance request," Khan said, while urging additional plantings on the north side and consideration of a privacy fence.

Rachel Keasling, planner with the Department of Community Services, said most planning comments have been addressed but engineering review remains outstanding; staff had sign‑offs from urban forestry, fire, CRC, DOCS and utilities on other items. Larissa Glassby, senior project manager with the Carmel Redevelopment Commission, told the board the redevelopment commission voted to fully support the project as a transition between taller commercial buildings and single‑family residences.

Board members pressed the applicant on several details: whether an existing chain‑link fence shown as 'to remain' in earlier demo plans would actually be removed, how to protect trees along adjacent property lines during deep excavation, how HVAC condensers and rooftop mechanicals would be screened, and how trash would be handled (the design includes an interior trash room and property management would roll two‑yard containers to the street). Moriarty committed to a standard construction fence during work and to coordinate final protective measures and landscaping with neighbors and engineering staff.

Votes at a glance: the hearing officers approved docket PZ202500246 (DP/ADLS Third Avenue Residences) and the three variance dockets (PZ202500247V, PZ202500248V, PZ202500250V) with conditions requiring resolution of outstanding engineering/project‑document comments prior to permitting; a fencing/landscaping plan to be developed and agreed with west and north neighbors and filed with planning staff; and efforts to provide street/landscape trees where feasible in coordination with utility owners and the city arborist.

What happens next: the approvals are conditioned on the applicant addressing remaining engineering review comments before permitting and on finalizing fencing/landscape commitments with adjacent property owners. The hearing officers accepted the findings of fact and adjourned the meeting.

Noted moments: the public comment period was briefly interrupted by a bat in the meeting chamber and the hearing recessed for staff to secure the animal before continuing.