Board of Zoning Appeals - Regular Meeting

Good evening. I'd like to call to order the Fisher's Board of Zoning Appeals for Wednesday, July 22nd, 2026. I ask that you please rise if you're able and join me in the Pledge of Allegiance. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, Secretary, would you call the roll, please?

Mr. Fruji.

Here.

Mr. Grinsley.

Here.

Mr. Silvey.

Here.

Mr. Stevenson. Here. Mr. Lannan. Here. Thank you. All members are present.

All members are present. We have a quorum to conduct business this evening. Our first order of business is approval of the previous minutes. Are there any modifications, revisions, suggestions for the previous minutes? Any changes? No changes. Motion to approve previous minutes.

I have a motion to approve our June 25th, 2026 minutes.

Any second? We have a motion and a second. All in favor? Aye.

Great.

Minutes approved. The first matter for our public hearing is the Harmeyer accessory structure setback. The address is 8827 Lindsay Court, case number VA26-6. It's a request for consideration of a development standards variance from section 6.2.2C.2 to allow an accessory structure side setback reduction from 10 feet to 2 feet Our petitioner is Maureen and Ethan Harmeyer. Are the Harmeyers here? Please approach the podium and proceed with your petition. Thank you.

Hello. Thank you for having me. My name is Maureen. I'm here to explain a little bit what this variance really is about, what we are intending to do. So let me show you. You already see the first picture. We're trying to literally build a storage shed to have tools, gardening tools, grills, Pretty much just the option to get it out of the garage into our storage shed. Here's the indication of where on the plot plan it would really fall into. We're really trying to stay away from any easements, anything that we're not officially allowed to. You see it here indicated with the red little box on the left top corner where that shed would be located. Yeah, so we're hoping to not having to stay away 10 feet from the property line, instead just going for two feet instead, so the shed would not be in the middle of the lawn, which would take away from really play area with our little one. so that we can have it on the side, which just, in our opinion, would be more beneficial. With that, we're also trying to increase the value of the property and trying to keep it upkeep and also applying to all our HOA requirements. So all of that has already been approved. The letter was already in the package as presented to you guys as well. And I also added more information on how the shed would look like, what we can expect here, and here's the plan.

Thank you. This time we'll hear from the staff.

Good evening. Grace Wiley, Senior Planner, City of Fishers. The item before you today is a request for development standards variance from section 6.2.2.C.2 to allow an accessory structure side setback reduction from 10 feet to 2 feet to install a shed. 8827 Lindsay Court is located in the Weaver Woods North subdivision east of Allisonville Road and south of 146th Street. Property is zoned R4 and regulated by the city's unified development ordinance. The surrounding area as shown here is zoned R4 as well. Fisher's 2040 comprehensive plan designates this site as suburban residential. The proposed site plan is shown above with the proposed shed outlined in red. The proposed shed is approximately 120 square feet in area and approximately seven feet in height. One public comment was received from the neighbor at the rear property expressing support for the request. Staff has no recommendation to the Board of Zoning Appeals for this request. Should the board approve this petition, staff recommends it is done with the following condition. The approval letter and related documentation be recorded on the property with the Hamilton County Recorder's Office. Staff is available for questions.

Thank you very much, Grace. Members of the board, do we have any questions for petitioner or staff?

I have one question for the staff. I know the request is for a variance regarding the setback. Does the size of the shed, is that consistent with our development standards as well?

So 120 square feet is pretty small for a shed. We have different setback standards for structures over 600 square feet. So this is significantly under that. If it was over 600 square feet, it would have to be set back at least the height, which in this case is seven feet. So it would still be 10 feet. But usually if it's over 600, it's a taller structure. Does that answer your question?

It sure does. Thank you. Petitioner, would you approach again? I have a question for you, ma'am. So the information we have in our packet doesn't really show us what's next to where your shed is going to go. Can you tell me a little bit about your neighbor? Have you talked to your neighbor and what's your neighbor going to look at? Is this their kitchen window is going to look at your shed or how's that work?

Now, it's really, between us and our neighbors, let's say in the middle of between us and even in front of it, we have huge, let's say, like Christmas trees. So there's really anyways already the blockage there. And they will just see the back of the shed. It's not anywhere to any of their windows or anything. It's just they have just grass and lawn pretty much right behind there. So, yeah.

So did I understand you correctly that there's a tree line between your neighbors and the shed's going to be up against the tree line?

No, the trees are in, if you open the pot plant in front of you once more, I can try to.

Yeah, there you go.

Can I have a, will that work? I'm trying to mark it for you to, if I can get there.

Yeah, oh, I see, okay.

That might be a little bit tricky. But there's just a fence in between. They have a fence. We have a fence. On their side, it's grass. Yeah.

Okay. You understand why I'm asking the question, right? Yes.

Okay.

Grace?

I'm not sure what's happened to the screen. Sorry. Okay.

Cool.

Okay. Sorry about that. The other question I have for you is, are you willing to agree that the shed's not going to be more than what you've depicted here? So if we go through with this, as depicted in the drawings that we have, because this is 120 square feet, if you put 180 square feet or 200 square feet shed in there, that Potentially presents a problem.

Absolutely understood. Even from our HOA, we have the requirements. The shed is not allowed to be bigger than 120 square feet. That is the maximum size. And as I said, we have the HOA approval letter. They will come after us if we do something different, which is truly not our intent. We also already have the order in for this shed. So we're really pretty much just on hold until we get the official permit.

Thank you. Thank you. Any other questions for petitioner or staff? At this time, thank you. You may sit down. At this time, I'm going to open the public hearing. If anyone is here from the public to speak to this petition, please raise your hand. Anyone here to speak to this petition? Seeing none, I'll close the public hearing and entertain a motion.

I'll make a motion. I'll make a motion that we approve VA 26-6 with the condition that the approval letter and related documentation be recorded on the property of the Hamilton County Recorder's Office and that the shed does not exceed 120 square feet as depicted to the board.

We have a motion. Do we have a second? Second. We have a second for Mr. Silvey. Secretary?

Mr. Grinslate?

Yes.

Mr. Silvey? Yes. Mr. Stevenson? Yes. Mr. Lannan? Aye.

Mr. Ferrucci? Yes. Motion passes. Good luck to you. Thank you very much. Our next order of business. is Loma Court Lot 7 Setbacks. The address is 7727 Loma Court, case number VA-26-7. It's a consideration of two development standard variances from Section 3.35 of the City's Unified Development Ordinance. to allow a front setback of 90 feet reduced from the required 100 feet and from Section 3.35B2C of the city's UDO to allow a rear setback of 20 reduced from 50 feet. So it's two development standard variance, 100 down to 90, 50 down to 20. And our petitioner is Mr. Whitsitt. Go ahead, sir.

Thank you, Mr. President and members of the board. Good evening. My name is Jack Whitsitt with Church Church Hiddle and Antrim 1067 Landron Road, Fishers. Here tonight with the applicant and property owner of 7727 Loma Court, John Gallagher. We're here tonight requesting two variances of development standards. One for the front setback variance, which would take the 100 foot standard to 90 feet and a rear setback variance which would take the 50 foot standard to 20 feet. This property is the last undeveloped lot in the Loma Corte Industrial Park. And our applicant wishes to construct a new industrial building to expand his existing business in Loma Corte, which is consistent with the industrial nature of the surrounding properties. As outlined in the application, we request the setbacks as it's implicated by the property's unique layout. being right up next to the Nickel Pate Trail. And so we request these setbacks to allow for the reasonable development of this industrial lot. We believe the request satisfies the required findings for the variance of development standards, and we respectfully request the board's approval. I'd be happy to take any questions, and we thank you for your time.

Thank you, Mr. Whitsitt. Staff?

Good evening. Grace Wiley, senior planner for the City of Fishers. Item before you today is a request for two development standards variances from section 3.3.5.B.2A of the city's UDO to allow front setback of 90 feet reduced from the required setback of 100 feet. And from section 3.3.5.B.2C of the city's video to allow a rear setback of 20 feet reduced from the required rear setback of 50 feet. 7727 Loma Court is located east of Hague Road adjacent to the Nickel Plate Trail. The property is zoned I-1 industrial and regulated by the city's UDL. The surrounding area as shown here is zoned I-1 as well. The property to the east across the Nickel Plate Trail is zoned PUDC in the cross point PUD. Fisher's 2040 Comprehensive Plan designates this site as Flex Employment Center slash R&D. The proposed site plan is shown here with the proposed setback shown in red. The 200 foot depth measurement of the property is shown to the left. No public comments have been received on this item. Staff has no recommendation to the Board of Zoning Appeals for this request. Should the board approve this petition, staff recommends that it's done at the following condition. The approval and related documentation be recorded on the property with the Hamilton County Recorder's Office. Staff's available for questions.

Thank you. Members of the board, do we have any questions for the petitioner or staff? We have no questions. At this time, I'll open the public hearing. If anyone is here from the public to speak to this petition, please raise your hand. Seeing no one from the public, I'll close the public hearing and ask for a motion. I'll make a motion.

Please. I move that we approve VA 26-7 Loma Court, Plot Number 7, with the recommendation that the approval letter be recorded with the Hamilton County Recorder's Office.

Do we have a motion? Do we have a second? Second. We have a motion and a second. Secretary?

Mr. Grensley?

Yes.

Mr. Silvey?

Yes.

Mr. Stevenson?

Yes.

Mr. Lannan? Aye. Aye. Sorry.

And Mr. Fruji? Yes. Motion passes. Thank you, Mr. Whitsitt.

Thank you.

Thank you. Our last public hearing this evening is, forgive me if I say this incorrectly, Blos short-term rental, address is 13817 Wabash Drive. It's case SE-26-3, consideration of a special exception to allow for a short-term rental use on property zoned R5, residential. The petitioner is Jared and Angela.

Blos.

Blos, thank you. You're welcome.

It's like close, but with a B.

Go ahead.

All right, I'm going to read because otherwise I'll ramble and you guys will kick me out. Good evening, members of the board. My name is Angela Blos. Thank you for your time and for reviewing our packet before tonight's meeting. My husband, Jared, sincerely wanted to be here this evening, but he had a mandatory work commitment that he was not able to change. We prepared this presentation together, but I will be presenting on behalf of both of us. We are respectfully asking that you consider the record we've established over the past year and grant our request for a special exemption so that we can continue operating this property in the same responsible manner that we've demonstrated since becoming owners. Although we were initially unaware of the city's registration requirement following our purchase of the property, we have immediately worked with the city staff once we became aware of it and have fully cooperated throughout this process. As I walk through these slides, I hope you'll see the care, planning, and accountability that we've put into operating this property, along with the intentional steps that we've taken to ensure that it remains a respectful part of the neighborhood. Since purchasing the property, we have focused on operating it responsibly and proactively. We live less than 20 minutes away. We remain personally involved in every reservation and respond quickly whenever something needs our attention. Our goal is simple, it is to provide visitors with a great experience while protecting our property and respecting our neighbors. Beyond how we've managed reservations and guests, we've also been intentional about how we've cared for the property itself. We care for this home the same way that we care for our own. That is why we invest in professional cleaning after every stay, weekly lawn care, prompt snow removal, and ongoing maintenance throughout the year to ensure that it remains a well-maintained part of this neighborhood. Before moving on to the next part, I'd like to share a brief statement from one of our neighbors at our primary residence. While I know this isn't about the rental property itself, we do believe it offers insight into the kind of homeowners and the neighbors that we strive to be. Members of the Fisher Zoning Board, I am writing in support of my neighbors, Jared and Angela Blose, regarding the zoning matter currently before you. My wife and I have lived next door to Jared and Angela for more than five years. During this time, they have consistently been outstanding neighbors and exceptional stewards of their property. Their home is their primary residence and they have demonstrated a genuine commitment to maintaining and improving it. Over the years, they have made numerous high-quality investments in their property, including extensive new exterior landscaping, upgraded exterior lighting, and installation of a beautiful new deck and railing system. These improvements have enhanced not only their home but overall the appearance and value of our neighborhood. In addition to being their adjacent property owner, I have spent my professional career in commercial real estate and currently serve as a real estate professional. On both my personal observations and my professional experience, I can confidently say that Jared and Angela have maintained their property to an exceptionally high standard and have consistently demonstrated pride of ownership. They have been respectful, responsible, and considerate neighbors whose actions have positively contributed to our community. I fully support their request to the zoning board and respectfully ask that you give their application favorable consideration. Sincerely, Dave Moore. Since purchasing the property, we have continued investing in the home to ensure that it remains an asset to the neighborhood. In our first year of ownership, we have already completed several improvements, including the replacement of the fence that was long overdue, which you'll see in this slide. We have additional projects planned because we view caring for this property as an ongoing responsibility, not a one-time investment. We understand that when people hear the word short-term rental, there can be concerns, and we can completely understand why. Before we began operating through Airbnb and VRBO, we honestly did not realize there were so many different ways a short-term rental could be managed. Over the past year, we've learned that owners make very different choices, and we have been intentional about the choices we've made for our property. We don't simply accept every reservation. Every guest is verified through Airbnb and VRBO. We personally review each booking request, and if something doesn't feel right, we ask additional questions, or we do decline the reservations. In fact, we did recently decline a reservation because the guests refused to answer additional screening questions. We'd rather lose a booking than take a chance that it could impact the neighborhood or our property. Our house rules, booking requirements, occupancy limits, parking restrictions, security cameras, and quiet hours are all designed to set very clear expectations before guests ever arrive. We believe that setting those expectations from the very beginning is one of the best ways to prevent issues and protect both the property and our neighborhood. While no system can guarantee that issues will never occur, we've put every reasonable safeguard in place to make sure that they are unlikely as possible. To our knowledge, the only minor operational concerns ever brought to our attention involved parking and or smoking. We appreciated receiving that feedback because it gave us the opportunity to reinforce our expectations with guests and further strengthen our management practices. However, no property, whether owner-occupied, a long-term rental, or a short-term rental, is immune from occasional issues. We believe that the difference is that as local and actively involved owners, we're able to respond quickly, address concerns directly, and help prevent them from becoming recurring problems. The slides above reflect the consistency of the ratings and reviews that we've received since becoming owners. We believe that consistency speaks to the care that we've taken in maintaining the property and managing the guest experience. Finally, being accessible to our neighbors has been important to us since the beginning. We introduced ourselves, shared our contact information, and let them know that they could reach us directly if any issues ever arose. When we learned that we needed a special exception, we personally delivered letters and surveys because we genuinely wanted honest feedback, whether that be positive, negative, or anywhere in between. While not every household responded, those who did share either positive or neutral feedback, which we greatly appreciated. The responses shown here are one from a next door neighbor who's right next door to us and then one from two houses away. We appreciate their willingness to share these experiences and believe their perspectives provide meaningful insight into how the property has been operated. Also, upon receiving feedback from our neighbors about their annual 4th of July cul-de-sac celebration, we have voluntarily chosen to block the future 4th of July weekends from our rental calendar. While it is one of the busiest rental weekends of the year, we felt it was more important to respect a long-standing neighborhood tradition and demonstrate our commitment to balancing the ability to operate our home responsibly with preserving the sense of community that our neighbors value. We included this slide because being part of the community also means contributing to it. In addition to maintaining the property, we've paid occupancy taxes while continuing to invest in the home itself. Our hope this evening has been to show you not only how we've operated this property, but how we've approached owning and managing it. Throughout the past year, we've focused on responsible ownership, active management, open communication, and doing everything that we reasonably can to operate the home respectfully while minimizing any impact on our neighbors. We do understand that some people have concerns about short-term rentals as a general concept, and we respect those concerns. Our goal has never been to dismiss them, but rather to demonstrate through our actions that this property can operate responsibly while remaining compatible with the neighborhood. We also recognize that until recently, no special exceptions for short-term rentals had been approved. As we prepared for tonight, we did watch last month's BCA hearing involving another homeowner in Harrison Green, the neighborhood that we are located in. and found that its emphasis on responsible ownership, active management, and respect for the neighborhood closely mirror the approach that we're taking in operating our property. Those are the same principles that we have tried to demonstrate this evening to you. In closing, we believe the evidence presented demonstrates that this request satisfies the standards for a special exception. Our operating history, the safeguards we've put in place, our responsiveness to neighbors, and our investment in the property reflect our commitment to be responsible owners and compatible with the neighborhood. Again, we are respectfully asking for your approval so that we can continue operating this home in the responsible manner that we have demonstrated. Thank you for your time and consideration. Happy to answer any questions if you have them.

Thank you.

Good evening. Grace Wiley, Senior Planner for the City of Fishers. The item before you today is a request for a special exception to allow for short-term rental use on a property zoned R5 residential. The State of Indiana does not allow municipalities to regulate short-term rentals that are owner-occupied, which means that the homeowner lives at the residence. This property is not owner-occupied and therefore requires a special exception to be operated as a short-term rental. 13962 Wakefield Place is located in the Harrison Green subdivision near Allisonville Road and 141st Street. The property is zoned R5 residential and regulated by the city's UDO. The surrounding area is zoned R5 as well, with the properties to the south being zoned R4. Fisher's 2040 Comprehensive Plan designates this site as suburban residential. The home is currently listed on both Airbnb and VRBO with immediate availability. The listing is for the entire home and up to 10 guests with four bedrooms, five beds, and two bathrooms. The listing appears to have been active. The listings appear to have been active since June 2025 and April of 2024, respectively. Screenshots from the listings are shown above. The illegal use came to the attention of staff as part of routine enforcement of the city's rental registration policy in April of 2026. The property transfer history is shown above. The current owners did not own the property until June of 2025, so it seems that the April 2024 VRBO listing is a continuation of a short-term rental operated by the previous owner. One public comment was received expressing strong opposition to the special exception request. The full comment was attached to your staff report. Staff has no recommendation to the BZA for this request. Should the board approve this petition, staff recommends that it's done with the following conditions. The approval letter and related documentation be recorded on the property with the Hamilton County Recorder's Office, and the special exception be tied to the user and specific use. If the current property owner were to sell or vacate the property, the special exception would be void. Staff is available for questions.

Thank you. Members of the board, do we have any questions for the petitioner or for staff?

No.

No questions? At this time, I'll open the public hearing. If anyone is here from the public to speak to this petition, please raise your hand. Sir, please approach the podium, state your name and address, and go ahead with your comment, please.

Hello, my name is Eric Gustafson. My family and I live at 13814 Wyandotte Place, and it's located directly behind the short-term rental property. My wife, Allison, has already shared our family's concerns through a written public comment, which primarily focused on our family's safety. Rather than repeat those comments, I'd like to address some of the additional factors this board considers, one being how the change in use of this property has affected the character of the neighborhood. So when my wife and I bought our home 11 years ago, we expected the house behind us to be occupied by neighbors. People who lived there became part of the community and shared a long-term investment in the neighborhood. Today, that relationship has fundamentally changed because the occupants change every few days. That is not criticism of the guests. It's simply just a different use than the residential neighborhood we expected when we purchased our home. Because our backyard directly borders this property, we experience that change every day. This is not a property several streets away. It is immediately adjacent to where our children play and where we spend time together as a family. I do acknowledge that the petitioners have made a genuine effort to operate the property responsibly, and I appreciate that they have maintained the property, have put safeguards in place, and have recently made an effort to communicate with the neighbors as part of this request. However, responsible management does not change the nature of the use as a short-term rental. The question before the board is simply whether the petitioners have been responsible operators. The question is whether this use is harmonious with the surrounding neighborhood and whether it changes the essential character of the area. The petitioners have described guest screening, occupancy limits, exterior cameras, and monitoring in-house rules. I appreciate those efforts. They may reduce the risk, but they cannot guarantee compliance. Our experience has shown that even well-intentioned rules are not always followed. For example, we have observed guest smoking of the property despite the stated no smoking policy. While minor in nature illustrates an important point, house rules ultimately depend on guest compliance. The owners can set expectations and take reasonable precautions. but they can't control every future occupant. My concern is not about whether the owners can control or what they can control, it is about what they cannot. If one of the standards the board considers is whether the request will impede the orderly development of surrounding property or change the character of the area, then I would like to point out that regardless of how responsibly the petitioners are operating the property, it does not eliminate the continual turnover of temporary occupants. Therefore, I believe approving this request would move the neighborhood further away from the stable residential character that families like mine relied upon when choosing to live here. If more homes transition from permanent residence to short-term rentals, that character gradually changes from a community of residents into an area with more temporary occupants and fewer long-term neighbors. Finally, the board considers whether this request is consistent with the city's comprehensive plan. My family chose Fishers because of its reputation as a community built around strong neighborhoods and families. I believe preserving established residential neighborhoods where people know their neighbors, build relationships, and put down roots is consistent with that vision. I appreciate the opportunity to speak, and I respectfully ask the board to deny this request for a special exemption. Thank you for your time and consideration.

Thank you very much. Anyone else from the public to speak to this petition? Seeing none, I will close the public hearing and ask our members again if we have any questions for petitioner or staff.

I have a question for the staff. This is really for the record, but can you share with us the notice requirements for these types of petitions and how many neighbors that goes to?

I'm not 100% sure off the top of my head. I believe it is either within 500 feet of the property or two properties deep, whichever is more properties.

Okay. Thanks, Grace.

I'm not 100% sure that's accurate, but it's something like that.

And if I could, I'd like to, for the record, please be patient with me as I read this, but as we consider this special exception, we're giving guidelines on approval of it. And so I'd like to state the elements of approval so that everyone's clear as to our deliberation on what's been presented today. A special exception may be approved by the board only upon a determination in writing that the special exception at the proposed location meets the following. Number one, the establishment, maintenance, or operation of the special exception will not be detrimental to or endanger the public health, safety, morals, or general welfare. Number two, The special exception will be designed, constructed, operated, and maintained to not be injurious to the use and enjoyment of other property in the immediate vicinity for the purposes already permitted, not substantially diminish and impair property value within the neighborhood, be harmonious and appropriate in appearance with the existing or intended character of the immediate vicinity, and not change the essential character of the area. 3. The establishment of the special exception will not impede the normal and orderly development and improvement of surrounding property for uses permitted in the zoning district. 4. Adequate public facilities and services such as highways, streets, police and fire protection, drainage structures, refuse disposal, water and sewer, and schools have been or are being provided and the special exception will not result in excessive additional requirements at public expense for such public facilities and services. Five, adequate measures have been or will be taken to provide ingress and egress designed to minimize traffic congestion and have vehicular approaches are designed as not to create an interference with traffic on the surrounding rights of way. Six, the special exception will be harmonious with and in accordance with the objectives of the comprehensive plan. And seven, this special exception will be in a zoning district where such use is permitted, and that all other requirements of the zoning district and this ordinance, and as may be applicable to such use, will be met. As our board members consider a motion for this, we'd like you to consider all of the elements that I've just read. Thank you. Do we have a motion? Can I make a comment before I'm just going?

I appreciate the letter that was sent in as a response to this petition and also the comments by the remonstrator and also the letter that the petitioner shared in support of her petition. It's my opinion, looking at the standards that we have to consider, I believe the petitioner has satisfied that to be consistent with what we have from the standards from the UDL. Do you have a motion, Mr. Cetus? Yes, I do. With that, I will make a motion to approve SE-26-3 with the following conditions. One, that the approval letter and related documentation be recorded on the property with the Hamilton County Recorder's Office. And two, the special exception is tied to the user and specific use. If the current property owner were to sell or vacate the property, the special exception would be void.

We have a motion. Do we have a second? Do we have a second? We do not have a second, so that motion will not be entertained for a vote. Do we have another motion?

I'll make a motion. I make a motion that would not approve FCE-26-3 on the conditions of public safety, traffic conditions, location on a cul-de-sac, and impact property values.

We have a motion. Do we have a second? Second. We have a motion and a second. Secretary?

And who is our second?

Our second is Mr. Lannan. And again, this motion is to deny the petition. Okay, Mr. Grinslake? Yes.

Mr. Silvey? Yes. Mr. Stevenson? No. Mr. Lannan? Yes. Mr. Ferrucci?

Yes. Motion is denied. Our next order of business this evening is any old business. Do we have any old business? No old business. Any new business? No new business. No new business.

Any staff communication? There will not be a BCA meeting in August.

No BCA meeting next month? At this time, I will adjourn the Board of Zoning Appeals meeting for July 22, 2026.