Metropolitan Development Commission - Regular Meeting

Ladies and gentlemen, good afternoon. I apologize for the two minute late start. We had a very long pre meeting. Welcome to the 05/06/2026 meeting of the Metropolitan Development Commission. We will now come to order with a full quorum. Albany Hart, can you please go to the podium? Ladies and gentlemen, Albany is the director of communications for the DMD and the MDC. She has been wonderful and has done a great job. And Alvin and I have a great rhythm going, and we're really in sync. And I walk in today, and I find out she's leaving, and I'm crushed.

So I always wanna compliment you on a great performance, and please honor us with leading us with the pledge of allegiance, Dave. All rise.

Yes. Thank you, president Dillon. I pledge allegiance to the flag of The United States Of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Thank you. It has been an honor.

Please join me for all that. Moving forward, members of the commission, you received the minutes of the April 15 meeting. They were slim from a very short meeting. Are there any additions or deletions to that set of minutes? Hearing none, Commissioner Herget, can I take a motion to approve? So moved. Thank you. Commissioner Lyle, can I get a second?

Second.

Let me call the roll. Herget.

Herget, yes.

Lyle. Lyle, yes.

Moriarty. Moriarty. Yes. Murphy. Murphy. Yes. Robinson.

Robinson. Yes.

Schumacher. Schumacher. Yes. West. West. Yes. Dillon is a yes. They pass eight to zero moving forward. Do we have any requests for continuances, withdrawals, or special requests? Kathleen, I think you got one or two.

I have one president Dillon, and mister Cauldron is here to request that continuance. Counselor?

Thank you, and good afternoon, president Dillon, members of the commission, Joe Caldron, 11 South Meridian here in Indianapolis representing the petitioner in item number 10 under petitions of no appeal, 2025ZON11010302East30EighthStreet. We

do have Counsel, give it to me one more time. Which one is it?

2025 Z 0 N 110. Got it. Go ahead. 10302 East 38th Street. Got it. I have been in conversation with Kathleen, our planner on this matter. I was kinda pulled into this zoning case after the filing and while working on the commitments that staff had requested as part of the rezoning, I discovered that the legal description that was used when the rezoning was filing was incorrect. It

comprises the entire, quote, church property, properties owned by a church, whereas the rezoning is only supposed to pertain to a portion of that property. So

after communicating on several occasions with the client, they have hired a new civil engineering surveying company to prepare the legal. They tell me that it's ready in a few weeks, so I had requested to Kathleen that if the commission would be kind enough to postpone this to June 3, we would be ready. I understand that the commission and staff still remain skeptical of that. So, my understanding is that the commission might be more comfortable with July 1 as the date to have this finalized.

Is there anyone else here who would like to comment on this request for continuance? Are there any questions from members of the commission? Counselor, I'm gonna make a motion that we move twenty twenty five z o n one one zero to July 1. If it don't happen July 1, it's all over but the crime. Understood. This is the third time.

Yes. It is. And I know you're

in new to the deal. I get it. But enough's enough and tell our guys in New York, you know, I'm glad you're coming here, but this is it. Understood. I'll make a motion to move 2025 z o n 110 to be heard on 07/01/2026. Can I get a second, please? Second. Thank you. Let me call the roll. Hergot.

Hergot,

Lyle. Lyle, yes.

Moriarty. Moriarty, yes. Murphy. Murphy, yes. Robinson.

Robinson, yes.

Schumacher. Schumacher, yes. West. West. Yes. Dillon is a yes. Twenty twenty five z o n one one o moves to July 1 by a vote of eight to zero. And, counselor, we have an agreement you're gonna withdraw it if we're not ready to go.

We have to. Yes. Thank you. Thank you.

Kathleen, what else we got?

That's all I that's all I have, president Dillon.

Thank you. Are there any other requests for continuances, special request. I thought we had another one. Do we not, mister York?

That should be it, sir.

Thank you very much. Let's go to resolutions. Can you read the resolutions into the record?

Yes, thank you President Dillon and commissioners. Twenty twenty six R zero one three authorizes the Department of Metropolitan Development to convey title or an option to purchase title of property to the transferee as approved by vacant to vibrant review committee for the purpose of providing development that will best serve the interest of the city. Twenty twenty six A zero one two for public hearing. Final economic revitalization area resolution for TAG TAG Midwest Properties LLC located at 820582158345 Georgetown Road 4635 West 84th Street, and 4925 West 86th Street, Council District 1, Pike Township. Recommend approval of six years real property tax abatement.

Twenty twenty six A zero one three for public hearing. Final economic revitalization area resolution for TC Heartland LLC doing business as Heartland Food Food Products Group located at 82058215 And 8345 Georgetown Road 4635 West 84th Street and 4925 West 86th Street Council District 1, Pipe Township. Recommend approval of six years personal property tax abatement. 2026 E zero zero two authorizes the Metropolitan Development Commission to reimburse the Department of Public Works for reasonable expenditures associated with improving the alley known as North Alley 3750 behind the United States Post Office located at 80 located at 2830 North Sherman Drive, Indianapolis. 2026 A zero one eight, preliminary economic revitalization resolution for Zima International Incorporated located at 6900 English Avenue, Council District 20, Warren Township.

Recommend approval of seven years personal property tax abatement. 2026 P zero zero six authorizes the Department of Metropolitan Development to negotiate and execute an agreement with Nelson Nygard Consulting Associated Incorporated for a term through 12/31/2027 for a contractual amount not to exceed $350,780 to provide an inventory of available parking in various areas. Twenty twenty six HP zero zero one for public hearing adopts the Circle Tower Historic Area Plan 45 into the comprehensive plan for Indianapolis Marion County. The plan maps out two interior spaces that make up the historic area located at 55 Monument Circle and provides preservation guidelines and recommendations based on the historic architectural and cultural significance of the two interior spaces which include the 1st Floor lobby and the 2nd Floor 19 Thirties historic barbershop. This ends the reading of the resolution.

Thank you, Nancy. We have before us four policy resolutions that do not stand for public hearing today. Twenty twenty six r O13, twenty twenty six e o o two, '20 twenty six a o one eight, twenty twenty six p o o six. I'd like to take all four of those as one. Commissioner Schumacher, can I get a motion to approve those four?

So move.

Thank you. Commissioner Robinson, can I get a second? Second. Let me call the roll. Hergot.

Hergot, yes.

Lyle. Lyle. Yes.

Morarity. Morarity. Yes. Murphy.

Murphy, yes. With the exception Well,

that's we're gonna have a public hearing on it, so we'll come back to that one. Right. It's 2026 r 013, 202-6002, 202-6018, and 202-6006.

I vote yes on those.

Thank you. Schumacher?

Yes.

I think I just lost my position here. West. West, yes. Dillon is a yes. I apologize. Did I vote

a yes.

You're a yes? Thank you, commissioner Robinson. I got thrown off. And commissioner Moriarty, got you in as

well. Correct.

Okay. We have eight yes votes, and it all four of the policy resolutions not scheduled for public hearing pass eight to zero. Moving forward, our first public hearing is on 2026 a o one two, final economic revitalization area resolution for TAG Midwest Properties LLC located at 820582158345 Georgetown Road, 4635 West 84th Street, 4925 West 86th Street, Council District Number 1, Pike Township. This recommends approval of six years real property tax abatement. Welcome, staff.

Introduce yourself.

Good afternoon, president Dillon and commissioners. My name is Tanya Ellison, program manager with economic incentives. I'm here on behalf of resolutions two zero two six A zero one two Tag Midwest LLC, real property tax abatement, and resolution two zero two six A zero one three for TC Heartland personal property tax abatement. These resolutions are request for expansions of its existing Indianapolis location. The request is for a six year real and personal property abatement with a total investment of 91,000,000.

The project will retain 832 jobs 73% of those jobs are currently Marion County residents and will create 30 new positions all above the average wage of $28.75. The project is in the Dow Elanco Tiff allocation area and has received approval of the SB one from city county council on 05/04/2026. Staff is recommending approval for resolution two zero two six eight zero one two, real property tax abatement, and resolution two zero two six a zero one three for personal property tax abatement.

Questions for Tanya from members of the commission? Is there anyone else here who'd like to speak on this resolution today? Seeing commissioner Schumacher, can I get a motion to approve? So moved. Commissioner Moriarty, can I get a second? Second. Let me call the roll. Herget.

Herget. Yes.

Lyle. Lyle. Yes.

Moriarty. Moriarty. Yes. Murphy. Murphy. Yes. Robinson.

Robinson. Yes.

Schumacher. Schumacher. Yes. West. West. Yes. Dillon is a yes. It passes eight to zero and is approved. I'm assuming you're gonna handle 2026AO13 as well, the dovetail?

No, sir.

You're not? No. Who's handling that one?

I'm not sure.

Who from staff's got 202-6013, which is Heartland Foods?

Oh, I'm sorry. I am handling that as well. My apologies.

You're good. So we have before us 2026A013, final economic revitalization area resolution for TC Heartland LLC, DBA Heartland Food Products Group located at 820582158345 Georgetown Road, 4635 West 84th Street, and 4925 West 86th Street, Council District Number 1, Pike Township. This is recommended approval of six years of personal property tax abatement, and as I said, it dovetail into the last resolution.

Yes.

Thank you, your honor.

Thank you. Staff is recommending approval resolution two zero two six A zero one two real property, tax abatement, and resolution two zero two six a zero one three for personal property tax abatement.

Is there anyone else here in the audience who'd like to comment on this resolution? Are there any questions from members of the commission? We have before us 2026 a o one three. Commissioner Lyle, can I get a motion to approve? So moved. Commissioner Murphy, can I get a second? Second. Let me call the roll. Hergot?

Herget. Yes.

Lyle. Lyle. Yes. Morarity.

Morarity. Yes. Murphy. Murphy. Yes. Robinson.

Robinson. Yes.

Schumacher. Schumacher. Yes. West. West. Yes. Dillon is a yes. It also passes eight to zero. And for the record, Nancy, both of these resolutions were presented in the pre meeting two weeks ago to the commission at at quite a length. Thank you.

Moving forward, we now have a public hearing for 2026 HP o o one adopts the Circle Tower Historical Area Plan 45 into the comprehensive plan for Indianapolis Marion County. The plan maps out two interior spaces that make up the historic area located at 55 Monument Circle and provides preservation guidelines and recommendations based on the historic architectural and cultural significance of the two interior spaces, which include the 1st Floor lobby and the 2nd Floor 1930 historic barber shop. Who's presenting for staff? Please introduce yourself.

Hi. My name is Meg Bush. I'm the administrator of the Indianapolis Historic Preservation Commission. Thank you president Dillon and the commission and I respectfully request on behalf of the IHPC and DMD your adoption of historic area plan number 45 for the two interior spaces of Circle Tower into the comprehensive plan and I can answer any questions that you might have.

Thank you. Are there any questions for Meg? Is there anyone else here today who would like to comment on this matter? I will also show for the record, Nancy, that we had quite a discussion in the pre meeting this particular resolution and how it was developed. So, we have before us twenty twenty six HP001. Commissioner Robinson, can I get a motion to approve?

So move.

Thank you. Commissioner Lyle, can I get a second? Second. I'm gonna go through the roll.

Hergot. Hergot. Yes.

Lyle. Lyle, yes. Morarty.

Morarty, no. Murphy. Murphy, no. Robinson.

Robinson, yes.

Schumacher. Schumacher, yes. West.

West, yes.

Dillon is a no. It passes it passes five to three, and I hope that vote is heard loud and clear. Moving forward, Nancy, you wanna read the zoning petitions and no appeal into the record?

Yes. Yes. Thank you, president Dillon and commissioners. The petitions of no appeal recommended for approval by the hearing examiner are remaining on the docket, 2026 APP zero zero five at 4600 Sunset Avenue Washington Township Council District 72026 APP zero zero six seventeen oh two and 1706 Reckle Street and 516 East 17th Street Center Township Council District 13. 2025ZON112 amended at 641 Langsdale Avenue and 21102058 Doctor Martin Luther King Junior Street, Center Township, Council District 12.

2026ZON003 at 951 South White River Parkway West Drive, Center Township, Council District 18. 2026ZON012 at 2946, 2950, 29548. 202-6013 at 2910 McPherson Street, Center Township Council District 8. 202-6019 at 1714 West Minnesota Street, Center Township Council District 18. This ends the reading of the no appeals docket scheduled for your attention.

Thank you, Nancy. We have seven seven recommended for approval zoning petitions of non appeal, 2026 APP o o 5, twenty twenty six APP o o six, twenty twenty five z o n one one two, twenty twenty six z o 003, twenty twenty six z o n o one two, 202600 13, 20 twenty six z o NO19. Commissioner West, can I get a motion to approve all seven?

So

moved. Can I get a second from commissioner Schumacher? Second. Let me call the roll. Hergot.

Hergot. Yes.

Lyle. Lyle. Yes. You show me can you show me recused on number 112025 0 N 112 amended?

2026 0012.

20250112.

Ah, 2025ZON112. We will show you recused.

Thank you.

Got it. Morality. Morality, yes. Murphy. Murphy, yes. Robinson.

Robinson, yes.

Schumacher. Schumacher, yes. West.

West, yes.

Dillon is a yes. So six of the petitions pass Nancy eight to zero with the exception being 2025ZON112, which passes seven four, no against, one recusal. Wonderful. Alright. Moving forward on our hearings today, I'd like Nancy to call 2025 z o n one three two, which is agenda item 18, I believe.

Twenty twenty five z o n one three two as amended 5736 Madison Avenue, Perry Township, Council District Number 23, Jaden Investments GMA LLC. This petitioner come forward, please. Please introduce yourself and your address.

Good afternoon, president Dillon and commission. My name is Jay Sandifer. Address Jay? Yes. J a y. Jay Sandifer.

Please raise your right hand.

Do you swear or affirm on the opinions of perjury to tell the truth and nothing but the truth? Say I do.

I do. Thank you.

Let me explain the rules of engagement. You have fifteen minutes for the petitioner to make this case. Are there remonstrators here on this matter? Thank you. We'll have you come up, and you'll be sworn, and you'll have fifteen minutes to make your case. Are there any city council people here? I can't see anybody that looks like a council person. We'll then go to staff. I'll come back to you for five minutes rebuttal, and then I'll go back to the demonstrator for five minutes rebuttal if necessary. You're on the clock. Go.

Okay. I am here to discuss I don't know if do we need to state that again? The 2025 Zone 132 at 5736 Madison Avenue. We had previously submitted a request for this or for the zoning change back in, I believe it was December. Our attorney is no longer working with us anymore. My sister and I own the property. It was actually our grandmother's house. She lived there for maybe eighty years or something like that. We are looking for a rezoning on the property. It's a gorgeous piece of property on Madison Avenue.

If you look at the map up there, or I don't know if you have it in front of you, The light blue shaded area is the property. Just it's under two acres. There's a retent retention pond in the back. The house is quite a ways off the road. There are two entrances into the property off of Madison Avenue.

And then there's a drive that goes around the entire house with parking in the back. It is a large house 3,000 square foot home. We have requested to change that to office uses. We originally had talked about making it like a bistro or a boutique or something like that but we've since backed off of C3 zoning and now we're just looking at simple office use, possible medical office tax assistance, something like that. We do have access like I said, two accesses in and out of Madison Avenue.

It is on city sewer and city water. So, there's no concerns there of usage. I don't believe there will be any more traffic in that area than there would be if it's used as a duplex. The house can be set up as two it's got basically two kitchens in it, so it can be set up that way. I think office use would just be minimal for that location.

We've been in communication with Kathleen and staff. They still are not in agreement. A big reason is, and if there's any chance we can bring up the map one more time, I can talk through that. We are the location of the property. The bottom right hand corner that's a Kroger facility and all the strip center the Donatos the McDonald's everything else.

Just above that long strip, that's new apartments they recently put in, when I say recently, probably ten years ago, and then there's a bus stop directly in front of it and across the street from our location. The other blue bottom left darker blue that is a CVS and it also has a commercial building on the corner near Madison and Edgewood. Then the in between blue just below the the light blue that is a property that we have ownership of also. So the corner property is the only property between us and all the. Commercial district and we have approval from all the neighbors surrounding us.

They've signed an agreement that they agree with what our plan is. We go around and talk to everyone and let them know what we're thinking and what we're doing. It's a gorgeous location. The property is we have no plans to add, remove, change, or do anything else. It's a nice white house on top of a hill that just looks really nice and has plenty of area to be able to move around for office uses.

I think that covers about everything that I wanted to talk to. On the top there's also the top darker blue that is also commercial and then commercial runs down the road on Madison that way also. So I just feel with the location, the highest and best use for us since my sister and I took over would be to have office use possibly. We still have quite a few people interested in renting it for a residence, but we'd like to have the option to do office if that's a possibility, and we ask the commission.

Status of the daycare?

Daycare has been removed. We're not looking into daycare or anything else anymore. We pulled away from that. We know there was concerns, and it was actually gonna be more of adult daycare too. I think people were concerned with a a young daycare on Madison Avenue. It it was an adult daycare we had talked with a previous client about, and then we ended up not doing anything like that. So we're just looking at just simple office uses at this time.

Who owns the pond to the Southwest?

We do. That's part of the property.

And what is the status of the pond? It looks wide open to me.

Wide open as?

Not fenced.

It is not. It isn't.

It had a old fence that rotted. It was probably there for a long, long time. It's quite a way

fence there now?

There's no fence there now. Yes. Correct. It's quite a ways back on the property. We talked to staff. I think believe believe we talked to Kathleen about it, and I don't remember. I don't think there was a requirement for a fence, but we don't mind having that discussion of putting one up. It's that's not a concern.

President Dillon, members of the commission, yes, there was a discussion about that. Staff looked at the ordinance. There is no requirement there, but staff suggested that mister Sanford actually consult with the Indiana building code, which may require the fencing, and I don't know whether that whether he did that or not. But in terms of the ordinance, it is not required.

Thank you. Are you making a commitment as part of your petition to put a fence up?

Yeah. I think

we can

do that. That's that's not a problem.

So that's a yes? I'm making the commitment to put a fence up?

Yes. We can do that. Or Can

show that in the

record, please, Kathleen? Yes. Any other questions for Jay, members of the commission? In the day care center, you'll have to explain that to me how it's out and permanently out when we come to you.

Well, when staff had a concern about the fact that this was a commercial error that there were requesting commercial uses. Staff felt like a day care at this location would not be appropriate. Staff also believes that any any commercial use at this location would not be acceptable to staff. And then they amended the petition. They started out with a c three, which would allow the the child care. And then they amended it down to a c one, which will eliminate that and it will be limited to office uses with the c one.

Thanks, Kathleen. Go you have a question? Any questions? We'll come back to you. Yes,

sir. I do have one more comment. There the Thompson Edgewood Association, which is a small group there that keeps an eye on the area, I talked to both Greg Katzmiller and the other gentleman around this. They were siding with staff, but they had originally, in January, sent letters of remonstration against it. So I tried to reach out to them. They said they had not talked to anybody yet to remove, but I have communicated with with the association in that area, and they are aware of what we're asking.

Thank you, Jay. Remonstrators, please come forward.

Yes. My name is Dale Raber.

I'm sorry, sir. Missed your numbers.

Dale, d a l e. Dale?

Dale. Got it. Raber. Dale, can you raise your right hand?

Can you give your address?

5626 Laurel Street.

Thank

you. Do you swear or affirm on the penalties of perjury to tell the truth and nothing but this truth? I do.

I do. Thank you.

Dale, you have fifteen minutes, and I know you've been here before. Thank you for coming back.

Okay. Thank you, president. I live in that the neighborhood. I just live I built a brand new house in that neighborhood on 5626 Laurel Street. I'm about a block away from this.

I own two other houses within a block just within probably 200 feet from it on Gilbert Avenue and I own two also on Dudley which is two blocks from this and I'm very concerned about, you know, commercial coming into a suburban neighborhood like this. You know when I checked with citizen gas I know they say there's city water and city sewer there. Citizens gas I've checked with them three or four times and they do not have any water there. There's water available but they'll have to you know drop a petition you know let them know how much it would take to get it to the property. So you know you might want to consider that too and also too I'm very considerate about commercial coming in here I haven't seen any site plans or anything and I think you know it's very crucial when we come into suburban neighborhood like this to just automatically change, know, residential to commercial.

I know that they you know, it was denied back on the last petition by the administrator. And, you know, I think they required they like to see intervals of about a mile. They like to see them more at Edgewood and Epler, which we've got plenty of commercial at at Edgewood and Epler. I also want to bring to staff staff and the board here that, you know, if we go it's like going into Homecroft off of Madison Avenue and jumping into a suburban neighborhood of Homecroft and putting commercial in there. You know, I think, you know, we gotta consider between these intersections like Epler and Edgewood to keep this, you know, residential as much as possible, you know, to keep our values of our houses up.

Like I said, I own four houses within two blocks of this. And it's gonna depreciate our homes. And, you know, if I knew more exactly what was going in, I've always seen whenever zoning is changed, you know, they could just be changing this zoning just to sell it commercial. I've seen this happen many, many, many times. So, you know, we don't even know exactly like petitioner said, exactly what type of office, what type of business, or anything that's going into this.

You know, they just want the zoning change to c one, which, you know, we know what that includes, office bill, you know, offices and stuff, things like that. You know, we're we're on a creek here. This creek does have, you know, setbacks like when it comes out of its banks. There's been flooding over in this area many times and it's come out of its banks. We don't even know if they can meet the setbacks, you know, for the buffer zones, for the residential neighborhood.

You know, there's just a lot here to consider here when you start changing zoning without site plans. I would like to see some site plans. I would know wanna know first time when if you do change it exactly what's coming in there. You know, I I would ask that you stick to the denial of this petition. Thank you.

Thanks, Dale. Questions for Remonstrator? Hearing none. Thanks, Dale. Standby. Kathleen.

Thank you president Dillon, members of the commission. You'll note staff is recommending denial of this. We generally, as you know, you hear this all the time from us that we like to support the comprehensive plan which talks about suburban neighborhood as being the recommended land use on this site. As you know, there's a pattern book that goes along with that comprehensive plan, and it has guidelines in that plan that tell them to what would be required to mitigate any commercial use here. The two that I would like to talk about in the pattern book is that commercial nodes, yes, they are permitted, small commercial nodes are permitted in the suburban neighborhood typology.

However, that node should be located at the intersections of two arterials. The two arterials where the which is the dark blue over there to the Southwest and to on the and then to the Southeast on that on that photograph, on that depiction, is at the intersection of Madison Avenue and Edgewood Avenue. So that area right there is prime for commercial uses. But when you start moving and they're moving north, that's getting away from what the Pattern Book recommends. The other concern that staff has is that there should be some separation between those commercial nodes.

And it talks about no closer than one mile to another commercial node. We're 200 feet from that commercial node that's there on Edgewood and Madison. This is also locating a commercial use mid block. Yes, it is surrounded by residential to the North. It is surrounded by residential to the West, to the South, and to the East.

Staff believes that the encroachment and the and having this land zone commercial would not be appropriate and that staff is not supporting that. In the event that this is in fact approved, staff has and it is identified in the staff report beginning on page 97, staff is requesting if this is approved. We are requesting three commitments. One is that there's a wetlands on this area, and staff would like to see a delineation of that and how are they going to deal with that wetlands. The second one is the dedication of right of way along Madison Avenue.

As you know, we frequently will ask for the dedication of right of way based upon the thoroughfare plan from the Department of Public Works. And they and that plan is also looking into the future and any future con connections as far as greenways or trails. So in order to preserve that area for any future improvements, staff is asking for the dedication of right of way along Madison Avenue. And then third is keeping this area clean. Again, staff has and again, we would be adding a fourth, which is in fencing the pond. So staff would be glad to answer any questions that you might have, but staff believes this is not an appropriate request.

Questions for staff?

One. Please. Yes. Would staff also be concerned about the nature of the frontage road, the shared drive, the shared mailbox arrangement there?

Yes. That is a concern. Yes. And I'm not sure how DPW would look at that. Generally, DPW gets into the access to these sites and any conflicts and safety issues that might arise from that.

Other questions? While we're on the topic, what kind of fence do we want, Kathleen, on that pond? What what

do you suggest? What do you recommend? Wondering about the height of the fence. Recommendation? Well, I know that in residential areas we're talking about at least three feet tall and it should be some tie some type of secure fence that other you know, that people cannot get into that area. I don't know that a privacy fence would be appropriate. Perhaps a chain link fence would be appropriate in this area, but something that would again it gets back to what you are you're requesting it needs to be staff believes it should be at least three feet tall.

Final questions for staff. Thank you. Petitioner, you're back. Jay, you have five minutes for rebuttal. As we get into that, let's make sure you and I understand your commitment. It is a chain link fence, three foot high, secure. Agreed? Agreed. Agreed. You have it, Kathleen. You have five minutes, Jay.

If I could just, I'm sorry to interrupt. If there could be a time frame that would be placed where it would be installed, that would also be helpful.

Well, if if it's approved If it is approved. Immediately.

Immediately. Okay.

Thank dangerous as can be.

I I appreciate that clarification.

Thank you.

Can we have a time frame of, like, four months just to get everyone out there and figure out what we wanna get finished with it? If it's approved, what do you think? If it's approved. Yes.

Kathleen, what do you think is reasonable? Four months sounds like a long time to me.

Yes. It does to me. It would staff would think that maybe two months would be appropriate.

Two months.

We can work towards that. My only concern is contractors are booked up at the beginning of the year.

It's a yay or nay, Jerry. Are you in for that or not?

Yes. Thank

you. You have five minutes on rebuttal.

Okay. So I just wanna talk a little bit of the concerns. The entry into the property, so it has two entries now, one just south of the house. I don't know if can see the house very well in that image, but the house is closer to the road. The ponds sits back in that L shaped section there. That entry just goes up through our property and then around, and we have an exit out the other side of the property. So it is the shared mailbox. We can move it to our side if needed but we're okay with that. As far as the water, we are on city water. It's not under that address so we probably because that specific address is multiple parcels there.

So we probably didn't find that. As As far as the site plan, we have no site plan because nothing's changing. We're not adding or removing anything. We're keeping it as is, and we've already redeveloped or reimproved the house. We've repainted. We've redone the driveway. We've cleaned up the area. We've removed trees. We've cleaned up the pond. We refilled the pond. It used to be closed up. Everything's beautiful in that location, and we plan to keep it that way. We both live in the South Side Of Indianapolis, and this is important to us too. We live in that area. It's very important.

There is just to be clear, I know that it is not officially in a commercial area but we do have the apartments directly across the street. We have the bus stop directly across the street. We have approval from all the neighbors and there's one neighbor Between us and the commercial property. Has been in the family for. Since my grandmother and grandfather purchased it back in '19 probably forties or even longer. And we plan to keep it in the family for a long time after. This is important to us and our family to have it as part of of our lineage. And then I scribbled something down and I can't read it. I think that's about it.

Questions for the petitioner? Yes, president Dillon.

Commissioner Murphy.

In the memorandum of the examiner's decision, it states letters of opposition were submitted by two area property owners and by the Thompson Edgewood Residential Association and another area property owner appeared at the hearing. So my question where it says letters of opposition were submitted by two area property owners, Have those two owners rescinded their letters or submitted subsequent letters of approval?

They have not. So those are the two people that I was talking about was Greg Katzmiller and a Mark Bash. I have spoke to both of those individuals. They were unaware of what we were planning. I think their side was they were willing to to go with what staff agreed with, and I'm sure they would be willing to discuss that situation. They just did not reach out. I didn't follow-up apparently enough to make sure that they pulled those back Okay. At that time.

But And And and then when it states Thompson Edgewood Residential Association submitted a letter of opposition, has that been rescinded or have they submitted a subsequent letter of support?

Both those both those gentlemen are part of that group. The Mark Katzmiller or Greg Katzmiller

Well, but this would indicate that those gentlemen submitted letters of opposition as individuals and then the residential association as the association submitted a letter of opposition.

I think it is I said Mark is the president of the association.

I understand

that they're both

parties. Understand that may be the case but what they can do is they can submit letters as individual property owners and then if there's a neighborhood association, which apparently there is, the neighborhood association could submit a letter on behalf of the association, which apparently it did in opposition. Correct?

Correct. Yes. I understand what

you're saying. Re sended their letter, or has the association provided a subsequent letter of support?

No. They had not.

Thank you.

Additional questions for petitioner?

I'm also happy to follow-up with him too.

Thank you, sir. You're done.

Appreciate it. Dillon.

Oh, I'm sorry. Go ahead.

Has there been any further conversation about the conflict with the pattern book in the neighborhood association? Any of the other stakeholders in the area about how your anticipated commercial project does not align with the pattern book? Has there been any discussion about that?

There has not been any discussion of that. The only communication we originally had was the letters that came in and they came in the day before we first started this process. We had no time to reach out and talk with them. We have since reached out and talk with at least the president and another individual that's part of that association but we haven't. There has been no discussion or anything. If you want to know the truth, we didn't know there was association in that area. My and like I said, we've been my grandmother's lived there forever, so it was nice to find out we have something and someone's watching out for the area.

Thank you. Any other questions, members of the commission? Does the facility have water?

Absolutely. Yes. City water. And, Kathleen, can you confirm that?

I cannot, but I can certainly look into that.

Thank you. Thank you. Dale, you have five minutes for rebuttal if needed. Closing comments?

Yes. Again, Dale Raber. I I don't know. Has there been letters for he said that the petitioner said there's been support, you know, by neighbor neighbors. I have a you know, I I own four houses in the neighborhood.

I've they've never contacted me or, you know, ask me for support or anything or tell me exactly what's going on. So I'm wondering, you know, why the the monasterators aren't here for support. You know, that's a big question. And, you know, what I'm just saying is that without site plans, you know, coming into a suburban neighborhood like this with residents on all sides, I can see this house from two of my houses, you know, one on Gilbert at 1430, one at 1537 Gilbert. You know, I I the it it shares a driveway like they said.

It there's a frontage road here kinda like what Homecroft's got, and it'd be like coming in Homecroft and in the center of like Cardinal Drive or something and putting, you know, commercial building that it's just gonna cause a lot more traffic on the frontage road there and you know, it's we got a shared driveway there. It's just not set up for, you know, commercial and, you know, without site plans, not knowing what's going in there, you know, this is just a profit making thing, like, you get stuff rezoned like this, you know, without any site plans and that. You know, and I think it should stay suburban neighborhood. I've lived in this neighborhood. I've got a lot vested in this neighborhood.

I built I'm I'm taxed property taxed the highest in this neighborhood from a brand new house built in 2008. And I've raised my family here and then. I've invested in this neighborhood. I keep my properties up very nice. And I'd rather see the commercial stay at the intervals like, you know, Dudley and Madison. Not Dudley, but Epler and Madison. We've got a lot going on there. We got a lot going on at Edgewood. And just keep this to the south, Homecroft and this little neighborhood that I've vested in between Epler and and Edgewood. Let's just keep it suburban neighborhood like it should be.

That's the way it's set up. There's wetlands here. There's a lot of hoops that he's going to have to jump through here because that creek comes out of its banks and they they they haven't talked about any type of landscaping that separates the residential neighborhood to commercial neighborhoods and that that's always a requirement and you know commitments we're getting ready to go on another case here right after this on commitments that they haven't you know I'm very concerned about commitments by Jade investment you know you'll find out here on the next hearing, you know, we're we're on a modification on commitments that hasn't been done for twelve years. So, I just hope you take this all and

consider Let's stick to this hearing, Dale. Okay. Anything else?

No, that's about all.

Final final questions for the Remonstrator?

Yes. President Dillon Yes. A way, it's not really a question to Remonstrator. It's a question to staff, but along the comments of the Remonstrator. Does staff have in the file any letters of support from neighbors?

No. There are no support letters for this one. There are yeah.

Okay. Thank you.

Are there Thank you, Dale. Any other questions from demonstrator? Seeing none. Please go to your ballots.

There should be a support letter.

Thank you.

Okay. Part's done. Thank you.

2025ZON132 amended Jade Investments GMA LLC. There were eight ballots cast. There were two yes votes, and there were six no votes. This petition has been denied.

Thank you. The petition please show is denied moving forward. Take care. Thanks for coming. Councilor, do I see you over there? Which which hearing are you here for?

The next.

Alright. Well, I was not going to take it next, but I will since the City Council is here. Nancy, let's go to item seventeen twenty twenty five z o n o eight four. Please read into the record.

Thank you, President Dillon. Number 17 is a rezoning petition recommended denial by hearing the hearing examiner appeal filed by petitioner. 2025ZON084 at 4,001 South Keystone Avenue, Perry Township Council District 19, Amman LLC by Tyler Oaks. Requesting rezoning of 1.075 acres from the C 4 District to the CS district to provide for all C three uses and an automobile fueling station. Will all those intending to testify on this petition this afternoon please stand now to be sworn in and if you have not filled out a speaking slip and you do come for forward to speak, please fill one out at that time.

One more person. Alright. Thank you. Do you swear or affirm under the penalties of perjury to tell the truth and nothing but the truth? Say I do.

I do.

Thank you.

Counselor, how many are you gonna have testify in your remonstration?

Probably only I, but

Thank you.

See how things develop.

Thank you. Please introduce yourself, and I'll walk you through the rules of engagement.

Yep. Thanks, president Dillon. For the record, Tyler Oaks, Bose McKinney, and Evans, offices at 111 Monument Circle, Suite 2700, Indianapolis, Indiana, here on petitioner.

Thank you, counselor. The petitioner has fifteen minutes to present your case. I will then go to Remonstrator. Counselor, you have fifteen minutes to present your case. I then will go to the honorable city councilman for your comments, and then I will come back to staff. At that point, I come back to petitioner for five minutes rebuttal, and then I'll finish with Ramon Strater's counsel for five minutes rebuttal. You're on the clock. Go.

Thank you, president Dillon and members of the commission. Again, Tyler Oaks, Bose McKinnon Evans here today on behalf of the petitioner Amman LLC. With me today is Greg Khan, who's also a partner with Bose McKinnon. And we'd like to formally thank Councilor Mascare for his support on this project and and going through this process. Here today to request a rezone.

Currently, the property at 4001 South Keystone Ave is zoned C four with commitments. I'm here today to to request a rezone to a CS zoning classification. Some and and again as as was stated, this would be to allow for an automobile fueling station to be operable at the property. Currently, that site is used as a convenience store that's been up and running for about one to two years now. A little bit of site history just real quick.

This site was rezoned in 2016 from c three to c four. There is a well, at the time, it was a twenty first amendment liquor store that is across to the north of Hanna Avenue. That rezone was requested to eventually move that liquor store south that never occurred. So, the twenty first amendment is still located on the North Side of Hannon Avenue where it currently is. In 2022 and 2024, there are two separate hearings in front of this body to have a modification of commitments.

Both of those commitments were subsequently denied. And so we're here today requesting a rezone as opposed to those modification of commitments again to a CS, which would be all c three uses in that automobile fueling station. So we're going to reduce the current intensity of that parcel, which is a C four, bring it down to a C three. The only caveat is it would be allowed to have an automobile fueling station, which is only permitted in a C four, five, and seven for the commercial districts. So, additionally, some housekeeping just on the site itself to the north.

Like I said, we have that C force for twenty first amendment. To the South is commercial. We have an an appliance store as well as a tire store. To the east is residential. There are some houses that line Hanna Avenue. And then to the west is a large commercial development. You can kinda see it in the maps. It's a dollar a Dollar General's over there. There's another tire store over there. I believe there's some sort of spa that's located at that intersection as well.

The site sits on the Southeast side of that intersection of Keystone and Hanna Avenue. Those are both two major arterials with heavy traffic going both ways, particularly on Keystone Avenue. I've provided you a handout that has the zoning map if you want to see how it's laid out predominantly. Like I said, c three around it. Additionally, I've I've provided three different photos.

Two are from the Hanna Avenue viewpoint that show what the property is today. Those were taken, I believe, in 2025. So it shows the convenience store and how the property has been developed. When my client first bought this property in 2022, 2021, 2022, it had been vacant for about a five year period. My clients put quite a bit of time and effort and money into that property to make it a contributing parcel to the community again.

That includes cleaning up trash, landscaping, things of that nature. And so the convenience store has since now been running for about a year. It's been very successful so far. However, with modern economic viability, it's important that we rezone this to allow the gas station to come in so that the convenience store can continue to operate. We believe that the convenience store has been a great asset to the community.

We've spoken with community members who are thrilled about its existent, use it frequently. But for that to be able to exist long term to continue to benefit that community, we're gonna need to have the gas station as well, which is why we're in front of you today requesting that. Going through the staff report, staff has, recommended denial. We received denial at the hearing examiner as well. A lot of the reasoning stems from the comprehensive plan itself.

As staff has noted in the report, the comprehensive plan calls for this to be, a mixed village use. We understand that and and and the staff's report will tell you it recommends automobile uses not to go there. We would respectfully, I guess, contest and and argue that this is an appropriate spot for this gas station to occur. I've attached on page five of that handout. You'll see this is from NDOT's website.

It lists their traffic counts at the intersection of Keystone and Hanna. Roughly 14,500 cars are going through this intersection daily. That is significantly higher than what you'd see for a mixed village use typical area. Predominantly, on that on that graph as well, you'll see that in 2022, it was about 12,500 and it's since bumped to 14,000 pretty consistently since. So you've seen about a 15 to 20% increase in cars that have gone through that area since 2022 alone, and has held steady sense.

This gas station is a normal complimentary use of that convenience store that's already there. We're not coming into this area that has residential to eat to the east and introducing a new commercial node. This is simply an additional service that's going to be offered to the neighborhood. It provides a right in, right out gas station heading northbound on Keystone. That's South of Hanna Avenue.

The only one is up near the 65 exit. Again, you have two major arterials with a significant count. So even though the plant the comprehensive plan, we understand calls for mixed village use, and I understand that in theory, that would be the the goal to have that there. The reality of the situation is that there's heavy traffic in this that suggests that village use is not necessarily the best use for this property. The fueling station allows that convenience store which which we think is a great addition to the neighborhood.

It's cleaned up the property to really continue to thrive and serve that area. Additionally, you're gonna see, like I said, there's no increase in that commercial footprint. Nobody is going to be going to this site because a gas station was put there. It's not a destination. Now, at least I would hope that people aren't, you know, making a destination trip to go to a gas station.

Rather, this is to service drivers 14,000 a day who are already going north and southbound on Keystone Avenue. It allows them to to have another opportunity to stop and get gas and you're not going to see an increase of traffic that's gonna impact the area. It's going to remain constant. It's just providing another service for that area. Excuse me.

Additionally, I know staff has has addressed some concerns about the CS zoning and being using or using that as a tool as well. We think the the CS zoning is perfect. It's a great modern adaptation in the in the zoning ordinance that allows us for flexible zoning with this property. Here, we've seen an increase in traffic over the last three to four years. That's held pretty steady at 14,000.

We know that heavy commercial areas in the area, particularly at Troy and Madison, see about 17,000 cars that go through daily for, I guess, a good comparison for downtown. If you were to go southbound on the I 65 from Washington Street, that ramp alone also gets about 14,000 cars a day. So it is a significant amount of traffic that's going through the area. This is on par with other heavy commercial areas located on the South Side Of Indianapolis and so we believe that the gas station, again, economic viability can be a planning tool. It helps to ensure that that property is gonna stay in, you know, in operation, continue to serve the community, continue to be an asset to that community.

So, with all of that, we would respectfully request to grant this rezone to CS and I'm happy to answer any questions.

Questions for the petitioner? Standby, counsel. We'll be back

to you. Thank you.

Remonstrators. Welcome. How you been?

Good. Good to be here. President Dillon.

You have fifteen minutes.

Appreciate it. Thank you.

You're on the clock.

Thank you. My name is Greg Zubiak. I'm an attorney with offices at 10475 Cross Point Boulevard, Indianapolis, Indiana. I. Represent the Keystone food mart and its proprietor Mike Singh Mike would you stand please.

And that is. Located. Caddy Corner from the subject property. There are also some other demonstrators here today, and I think they are unlikely to testify, but I want them to be, I want to introduce them and recognize them, and these would be the owners and operators of the Conoco station, which is at 2202 East Hanna, which is about two tenths of a mile, folks. Would you stand?

And they are they are also opposed to this rezoning, and then also we have the folks at 3939 South Keystone at the liquor store, and they are opposed to this. I think they can acknowledge that they are, like just a nod, and they've taken the time to come down here. We also have a whole bunch of folks who've signed a petition in remonstrance to this. All that being said, we have presented you with some exhibits and I'll go through that and some of the history that we have at this site. Trust that Nancy has passed out these items.

The first exhibit that we have is, let me just say this, this is the sixth public hearing on this property. Some of you may know that and some of you may not. Some of you have been here over the last three years. This is now the sixth public hearing. We've had three hearings in front of the hearing examiner.

The first two there was one in 2022, modification of the commitment relative to no fueling station here. They lost in front of the hearing examiner. They lost in front of the commission. They waited more than a year, they filed another one. Again, modification of the petition, wanted a fueling station, wanted that commitment to be modified so that it wouldn't be in effect, went in front of the hearing examiner, lost, they took an appeal, they came to this commission, lost again.

Now, we had the fifth hearing on this property after they waited two years, so we've got 2022, 2024, now we're in 2026, and now we have another hearing, which is to rezone, but really the impact of it is to have a fueling station, which has already been denied at five previous public hearings. Now we're here on the sixth public hearing. So some of you may recall that and some of you may not. I'm not sure how long everybody's been on the Commission. The things I want to talk about, and I'll go through the exhibit.

First, the purchase of this property, this is our exhibit one, was in 2022, February 2022 for $199,999 by Amman LLC. And Amman LLC is located at 13150 Ditch Road Carmel Indiana. The secretary of state shows Pritpaul Carr is a member at 13150 Ditch Road which is a Carmel residence owned by Sukwinder Singh and Pritpal Kaur husband wife. You may recall that Sukwinder Singh testified at a previous hearing that we had on this case and we're gonna have a tape played for some of his testimony in this case. I note he's not here today.

Then four months later, after it was purchased, Aman by Sukwinder Singh filed a petition to modify and remove that prohibition against automobile fueling station. Staff opposed it, Mckenna opposed it, remonstrators came forward, and the petition to modify was denied. In 2024, petitioner filed that second petition to remove the commitments. Again, staff opposed it, demonstrators came forward against it, Mckenna opposed it, wrote a letter against the the the removal of that commitment, the petitioner appealed, and that case was was also decided. Now we have this rezoning petition, Again, the hearing examiner has recommended that the rezone not occur.

As counsel indicated, the c store has operated for over a year and the petitioner filed now to add this fueling station. So a bit of background. Did the we've talked about the exhibits. The first exhibit is the purchase for the $199,000 by Aman, and the fact that it was purchased with really nothing on it, that what was there was demolished. He started out with a clean slate.

The the second exhibit is the commitment that was made back in 2017 negotiated by a lawyer that I certainly hold in high regard, and I expect opposing counsel does, Tim Oaks. And it says here, the following uses shall be denied. This is our exhibit two, shall be shall be prohibited. And and it's this, automobile fueling stations. So an express commitment made in 2017 that there would not be a fueling station.

Exhibit three is a map of the fueling stations that are in this area. So, we don't have a lack of fueling stations. If you look at exhibit three, you'll see five fueling stations that are in existence, and the yellow at the very bottom of this gas station exhibit shows where the subject property is. Exhibit one is a BP station caddy corner from the subject. Number two, just to the left of that or to the west of that is a Conoco station.

We go up Keystone and on east side we have a Shell station. Number four is Speedway station. I'll skip 3,565, which I've written on this map that you'll see in red, and we go on to the North Side Of 65, and that fifth station is another BP station. So we have five existing stations within seven tenths of a mile of the subject property. I've added 3565 because this is going to come before you presently.

There was a and we can look at the next exhibit, I think it's Exhibit Number 4. This property at 3565 was recently in front of the hearing examiner, Kathleen was the staff person that wrote the report, and you'll see on Exhibit 4, there was a filing earlier this year on that property to have a quick trip fueling station and convenience store that was withdrawn, apparently the deal went away, Mr. Russell Brown represented the petitioner. They came back and had it rezoned as C4, asked the hearing examiner to rezone it as C4. Again, remonstrance was made asking that no fueling station be had.

That was denied. They got their C4, it's gonna come before you after approval by the hearing examiner, and you're gonna have that probably in the next couple of weeks, and staff supported that. So there's likely to be another fueling station in this stretch of Keystone Avenue. The next exhibit I want to talk about is exhibit number five. And this is in two pages.

And here you can see the front of convenience store. I went in not too long ago, bought a lottery ticket, didn't win, but that's okay. Wanted to go in and see this convenience store. This picture was taken, and it's called Keystone Food Center, and you can see all the signage in the windows, drive thru available, I'm not sure that they have permission for a drive thru, that's not under the comprehensive plan allowed. And milk, candy, T shirts, cigarettes, other things. Windows have all kinds of things about what's for sale here. This is a new building that was built. I'm glad to hear counsel say that it's been successful. That's good. It stands upon its own with these items that it's selling, and that's great news.

So we don't need another gas station, and I'll get to the rationale for that. Picture two is another picture of the station, and then I want to get to Exhibit six, which is a search for enforcement cases. Now, we had this discussion in one of the prior hearings, and certainly when the petitioner bought this property in 2022, we can't we're not suggesting that violations trash and other things should be on this petitioner, Amman LLC. But what's curious here is that we have, if you look at this, we have petitions here, there's a violation of zoning shown on the first page, page two of seven, filed 08/01/2025. We have one, a citation issued '25, enforcement citation for zoning.

We have another one on '25, enforcement citation for zoning, and then we have one below that, I missed one, in '25, an investigation for zoning. There's a little bit more information about these on the next couple of pages. Apparently this has to do with signage and some other violations. I'm not saying that this convenience store is a bad thing for this neighborhood. What I am pointing out is that there have been some recent violations in the 2025, oddly enough, right before they come in for this hearing.

So then the next thing I wanna talk about is our exhibit number seven, which is a letter from Satinder Kaur, who is and and we've talked about him at 2202 East Hanna, which is within a couple blocks of this station. And then we have several people who have signed petitions against us. Council last time criticized the fact that we didn't have addresses. Not everybody wants to give an address but these people all signed saying that they didn't want another gas station in the area. They said they either live in the area, own property in the area, or do commerce in the area.

Many of them do commerce and they're against another gas station. Couple of other things I want to talk about in my remaining time. The comprehensive plan. You know, this comprehensive plan shows this to be village mixed use. Our position is this is not mixing use, this is a repetitive other use.

There are all kinds of commercial uses that can be put on this property. And Kathleen talks about 50 or something like that in her staff report that are available. We've got a C store, he went ahead and bought the property, Aman bought the property, developed this C store, and then we have a pattern book that says, and this pattern book said, was, here's the resolution signed by John Dillon, President of this Commission, and this was was 10/2019. So it was before this property was purchased in 2022. So Aman LLC knew about this, and it was previous testimony in a prior hearing in front of the Hearing Examiner, where Sukwinder Singh came up and testified on questions from the Hearing Examiner, did you know of this commitment when you bought?

And the answer was yes. Appreciate the candor on that. Couple of things about village mixed use, the typology creates neighborhood gathering places with a wide range of small businesses, housing types, and public facilities. This typology is intended to strengthen existing historically small town centers, as well as to promote new neighborhood centers, businesses found in this typology adjacent neighbor serve adjacent neighborhoods rather than the wider community. And then, specifically, this comprehensive plan states, mixed use structures are preferred.

Automotive uses such as gas stations and auto repair and uses with drive through lanes are excluded. Not supposed to have this, the comp plan says it, he knew about the comp plan, he knew about the commitment. All these things were done before he purchased the property and developed the C store. The last thing I want to talk about is the C well, I have an exhibit to play, but the other thing is Kathleen will talk about this. Her report is spot on and covers every aspect of this property and why this should not be rezoned to CS.

Not only is it contrary to the comp plan, but it doesn't even fit definition and the purposes of the CS. There are five purposes, Kathleen, I'm sure we'll get into this. Staff believes the development of this site with a gasoline station does not align with any of the above purposes of the ordinance outlines for the CS District. The last thing I'm going to ask is that I have this tape played. This is from the last hearing that we had in front of this commission in 2024 when a commissioner asked the petitioner, Sukwinder Singh, who's the proprietor of Aman LLC, about whether he was gonna even open the convenience store. Can we get that played, please?

Did I understand you to say that if this petition is denied, you may or may not move forward with operating a convenience store in the building?

I'm not going to be open it. You won't open it? No, sir. Thank you.

I and I'm not I'm not sure who propounded the question. I don't recall. I'm sorry. But it was propounded by what might have been commissioner Murphy, but it was, he nods. So and he said he wasn't gonna open it, he opened it shortly thereafter. It's been a success as counsel said, I I noted that when he made his remarks. Respectfully, we request that now for the sixth time under this rezoning petition rather than the modification of the commitments that the that the members of the Metropolitan Development Commission deny this petition to have this rezoned to CS, which is contrary to the comp plan and really doesn't fit the definition of CS and does not really add anything to the neighborhood. Thank you. Happy to take any questions.

Questions from commission for the demonstrators? Hearing none, please stand by.

Yes.

I do have one question, maybe more of a point. Yes. I've actually been here through all this. I thought so. But you will recall, as I do, that it was a tough piece of property. And they have cleaned it up. They have built a very nice facility. They have said what they would do what they would do on that. Would would you agree with me on that?

I would agree it's a nice convenience store.

Coming from a tough piece of property that was vacant and torn up and dirty and trash everywhere and the whole deal. It was bad before. My point is they made some progress

on it.

They made some progress and they built a nice convenience store.

Thank you.

Sure.

Councilor Mascare, welcome. Good to see you,

sir. And

thank you for your support of the Metropolitan Development Commission.

Well, thank you. Thank you very much. And everybody needs to know they're they're doing this for free. Nobody's getting paid. I grew up on the South Side. I lived there all my life. I remember that as a as a gas station back in the seventies. And it was a window tint place, then it was a oil change place. And they've taken this building and just demolished it and made a brand new building. It's beautiful in there. You know, it comes down to it's a gas war. Right now, we're paying $56 $5 a gallon in gas. It's just competition that is remonstrating. We have neighbors in the in that area that are for this. I had a little old lady call me a couple years ago when you first came about this.

She was all excited about this being re redone. Across the street, we have a a huge center there that's just very, very running. I mean, there's hardly anything going on. I remember there used to be a theater there. I seen Bulleit when I was 12 years old there. My older brother came back from Vietnam, and he took me there to see that movie on the the screen.

Counselor, you're aging yourself here. Be careful. An old man. Go ahead.

When I play blackjack, I act like I'm 80, though. But I'd you know, I'd like to approve this thing. I don't wanna see it come to the full council. I don't want that to happen. But the only demonstrators we have is the competition. With gas prices the way they are, this we need more competition as far as the gas prices. But the neighborhood wants this. The there if you've been there, it's it's beautiful. It's a heck of a building. The other building I went or the other gas station I've been there, it's not in too good a shape. They sell a lot of crazy things in there.

Questions for councilor Mascare? Once again, thank you for being here. I appreciate your testimony. You stand for the petitioner.

Right. I do. And I I I appreciate what you folks do. And you've been through an awful lot lately for data centers and things.

Thank

you. Thank you. Staff.

Thank you, president Dillon, members of the commission. Again, staff is recommending denial of this request. This time, they are using the rezoning to the CS District. For those of you who are not familiar with the CS District, it's a commercial special. That district allows a mix of uses that would normally require specific districts.

For example, it will allow a combination of commercial uses and industrial uses. When this is rezoned to a CS District, the uses are specifically identified that will be allowed in that district. If that district if they want to add a new use, and this sounds a little crazy, they would have to rezone from CS to CS to allow that new use. In this case, staff does not believe that this is an appropriate use of the CS District. Just the first purpose, to encourage a more creative approach in land planning, superior site and structural design and development, and an efficient and desirable use of open space.

Staff does not believe the addition of a gas station at this site really complies and is appropriate for the CS District. As mister Zubek indicated, it's already zoned c four. There are 59 primary uses that are permitted with a c four, and then 26 accessory uses. And those are and then in addition to those primary land uses, they are kind of categories, and then within those categories, there are some additional uses. So staff does not believe, again, that this is an appropriate use of the CS zoning.

As is mentioned, as I've said before, comprehensive plan, village mixed use. Village mixed use is generally compatible with residential uses and as has been indicated to the east, there's a residential neighborhood. Stafford has recommended denial of all of the previous petitions that have come before the commission and continues to recommend denial of this because again, the comprehensive plan recommendation of village mixed use is not compatible with a gas station, drive or drive throughs. Again, staff is opposed to this and does not believe that this is an appropriate use of the CS district. And with that, staff would be glad to answer any questions that you might have.

Questions for staff? Commissioner Ryleson?

Yes. I see that you had put in here some recommendations. If it is approved, the commitments that you'd like to see? Yes. So are you still on board for those?

Yes. Thank you for bringing that to my attention. Yes. Thank you.

Can you go through those for me?

Well, let's see if I can find okay. There are two. And I believe the one has and mister Oaks can confirm this. I believe the right of way has already been dedicated, but I'm I don't know for sure because that's handled by another department. But there are the two two

commitments. Please come to the podium.

Yeah. The two commitments for dedication of right of way and then keeping the site clean and maintenance free.

Counsel, I'm looking at you. You guys have committed to those two commitments?

Yeah. My understanding is that as Kathleen has indicated that the right of way has already been dedicated. However, if it has not been, we are fine with that commitment as well and as well as the other one Kathleen's already suggested.

And the original Kathleen, you and I go back too far. The original one on keeping it clean in the trash was you and I because it was such bad shape and my recent visit down there, they've done a good job of keeping it clean. It looks like to me. I don't know if you've been down to see it.

I agree with you on all counts. It was when I first made the site visit at this site, it was really in horrible shape. Terrible. Yeah. They have removed that building and they have built a building and right now it is again, I'm not sure I would call a convenience store a beautiful store or a beautiful building, but it is cleaned up and

But we've come a long way, baby, from where we Yes.

Yes. Alright. Alright.

I I just want to point that out that we've got something done. Final questions for staff. Council, you have five minutes on rebuttal.

Thank you again, president Dillon and commission members. Tyler Oaks again for the record. I wanna thank the councilor and reiterate everything he had said in in his comments. Land use planning is not the appropriate forum as the hearing examiner has stated multiple times. Not the appropriate forum for a competition discussion.

So we'd reiterate everything that the councilor's already stated regarding competition, and we will not be delving into that further. In terms of the comments from staff regarding the mixed use typology. Our our response to that is this store, as evidenced by the letters of support that have been submitted and and to counselor Mascare's testimony regarding the neighborhood's desire. This store has been integrated into the community. It's offering a community service.

There are community members that are coming frequently. The residential residences, there is compatibility here. They have this convenience store that they're able to attend. The automobile fueling allows for this to be a sustained business through the process. It allows for that to continue to serve those residences and those community members that are that are coming frequently to visit the store.

So, from that standpoint, we disagree that this is not compatible with residential uses. We think it's been integrated quite well and especially given as been noted multiple times, the cleanup that's occurred on that site. Additionally, there's been some talk about how this is not appropriate for a CS zoning. And again, we would respectfully disagree. We think CS zoning is appropriate here for a couple reasons.

One, this is a little bit of a unique property. You've got two different entrances, one off Keystone, one off Hannah, and you've got a third one that that goes into the commercial property to the south. You've got residences boarding it directly to the east, so there's a significant amount of landscaping that goes into that to to keep that going but ultimately, it is a unique property. If you look at the zoning map that's provided or the map that staff has provided, it is a super weirdly shaped property. It is it is unique and additionally, when you look at the purposes that staff has laid out in in in her report regarding the uses for it, we would, know, again, we would point to number five in particular, which is to provide maximum adaptability and flexibility in zoning and development, controls to meet the changing and diverse needs of the metropolitan area.

We've heard feedback from community members that traffic, as you've seen in the last three years four years, excuse me, traffic has increased. Needs have changed. There has become a need for this convenience store to be sustained in the in the community. And so we think that based on number one, based on number five of Kathleen's report, the CS is absolutely appropriate. We're gonna take the intensity down to Kathleen's point. We're gonna bring that intensity down so that instead of the c four uses, it's just going to be c three. The only C4 use we're incorporating back in is that automobile fueling station. So other than that, there's no intensity being added to the property. It's already a commercial property. We're just giving it an accessory use that's compatible with the current use on the property.

So in closing, we've addressed obviously the competition and staff's report. But at the core, this is an appropriate use of an already developed commercial property. We're adding an accessory use for something that's already existing, and we want to continue to keep going. We've addressed the comprehensive plan, and although this is mixed use typology, we think that it's still a cohesive use that's going to be integrated into the community, continue to benefit that community as the councilor has stated. This is a pass by destination.

We're not going to increase traffic. It's going to be traffic, cars that are already on the road who are stopping to use this gas station. And, again, just to reiterate, this is a property that sat vacant for five years. In those five years, anybody could have come in under the zoning that was applicable to the property at that time and put something in, and nobody did. It took five years for a very prominent site at a prominent intersection in Indianapolis to finally be put back into productive use, and my client has done that.

And so economic viability, like I stated earlier, is a a factor that should be considered when making these decisions and we would respectfully request approval of that rezone so that we can continue to keep that property looking nice and benefiting the community and community members. Thank you.

Questions for petitioner? Final questions? Thank you, counsel.

Thank you.

Councillor Zubak, you've got five minutes.

Couple of things, I'm not sure what my opposing counsel has submitted as far as letters of support and the like. We've given you nine pages of people who are opposed to this. They're not all gas station operators. There are people who either own, as premise says on those sheets, those people either own property nearby, they reside nearby, or they conduct business nearby, and they don't want another gas station. There are plenty of gas stations in the area.

You know, it really always comes down, we've got somebody from a liquor store, we've got a liquor store operator here who doesn't want a gas station. They're across the street, and I think that their issue and I'm gonna ask somebody to come up and speak to this. Why not? Because it's really traffic at this location and more in and out. Counsel says it's not gonna create more traffic.

It may not create more than 14,800 cars or whatever he said goes by there, and I'll take him at his word, I guess, for what in dot shows the counts to be. You're going to have a lot more right in and right out with with Keystone which is a busy area and you've got and you've got a liquor store across the street, you've got a lot of other businesses, and they've already said that the and kudos to them for building a successful convenience store under zoning that allows it, even though he said he wasn't gonna do it the last time when he was here because he wanted to get that commitment removed so he could put a gas station in. Council has indicated today that it's been successful, and now he wants to call this an accessory use. A gas station is a primary use. It doesn't fit at this location.

It's gonna create more in and out. They wouldn't be asking for this unless they expected more cars to come in and out of this location on the Keystone where we already have 14,800 cars coming by. There is economic viability. Council says that's a factor to be considered. Don't disagree. The good news is that they built this, didn't have to build it, could've could've marketed to a CVS or a Walgreens or one of 58 other or 59 50 some odd other uses that would be permitted here. He built a convenience store, council says it's successful, great, you've seen the pictures of it and the kind of stuff that they're selling in there and what's all over their windows. It's a c store. This isn't a and he says it's successful. So that's good.

Kudos to them. Kudos to the neighborhood. I guess I guess I would you know, I've always wanted to do this. Chief Justice Roberts of the of the I'm getting a smile. Chief Justice Roberts has quoted Bob Dylan and other people in opinions that he's written. So I'm gonna probably the first time in forty six years I'm gonna do it. And I'm gonna say, I'm gonna quote the stones, you can't always get what you want, But you get what you need. And they got what they needed and that is they got a convenience store which it was which which was permitted under the zoning. They bought it knowing of knowing of the zoning. They got it knowing of the commitment.

He he said he wasn't gonna open the store, he opened the store, it's been successful, we don't need to to go contrary to what the comp plan says, and this is certainly not appropriate for a CS. Again, we respectfully request that this that the commission deny this petition as as we come before the sixth time this has been up for hearing for for a a fueling station. Thank you for your time. Happy to take any questions.

Final questions for a demonstrator. Counselor. Yes. I always enjoy you being here. Thank you.

Good to be here. Thank you, president Dillon.

Members of the commission, please go to your ballots. A yes passes the petition. A no defeats the petition.

Petition 2025ZON084. Amman LLC. There were seven ballots cast. There were three yes votes, four no votes. This petition has been denied.

Thank you. The petition has been denied. Moving forward. Nancy, let's go to 2025 Z 0 N 1. Up back up there we go let's go to 2025 M 0 D 024 if you would read that in the record

Thank you, president Dillon and commissioners. Next, we have modification petition recommended for denial by the hearing examiner. Appeal filed by the petitioner. 2025MOD024, 5601, and 5621MadisonAvenue and 1525 East Dudley Avenue, Perry Township, Council District 23. It is zoned C 5 TOD, petitioners Jade Investments of Indy Incorporated, requesting a modification of commitments number two and five related to 02/2007 subject to the site plan filed dated 11/18/2025 for landscaping and office location, previous commitments provided for administrator's approval for redevelopment or replacement of the residential structure, no other commercial use, and removal of the mobile office within twenty four months after final approval of the rezoning.

Well, all those intending to testify on this modification petition, please stand now to be identified and sworn in. Anybody else? Please raise your right hand. Do you swear or affirm that the penalties are perjury to tell the truth and nothing but the truth? Say I do.

I do.

Thank you.

Apply. You got fifteen minutes to make your case. I'll then go to Dale for his presentation. Go to staff. Come back to you for five minutes rebuttal, and I'll go back in closing to Dale for five minutes rebuttal. You're on the clock. Go.

Please state your name and address.

Jay Sandifer. Address, 5601 South Madison Avenue, Indianapolis, Indiana 46227. Thank you again, mister president Dillon and commission. This is another property my sister and I own. It is in close proximity to the previous one we had discussed. I don't know. Okay. So you have the image up. So in I think it's around 2010, we purchased the property. That image in the top left box shows what the property previously looked like.

In 2015, we around 2015, we purchased the connecting house that made it a complete rectangle of a property. The people were were moving. It was a rundown house. We put in for rezoning of the house with commitments. The house was falling down.

We've completely improved the house, turned it into an office. We do auto sales at this location. Two of the main commitments that we're going to discuss today that I think was going to be tried to brought up is going to be brought up is that we did not do our commitments and I wanna prove here that we have done what we said we would do. We did fall short on following through on a couple of items, but I'll point that out as we go along. The two major commitments, if you see on the top right corner, and it's kinda tough to see the top right corner box, the bottom right corner of that box, there's a little office trailer there.

It's a little white top roof that's there. One of the commitments was to remove the office trailer. It was not clear in the commitment that what we were allowed to do after that. We did remove that office trailer. We brought in another nice office trailer.

You can see on the bottom left box. That was changed out in 2015, which was one of our commitments to remove the office trailer and we did. We also planted, I think it was nine trees per the per the commitment. We did plant at that time. We had probably well, exactly of the nine, we had four five of the trees die.

Up to this day, we had a fourth that lasted a little while longer. So that was one of the commitments we didn't do a good job of keeping up with. We did that at the beginning. We replanted all of these trees around that location, just some died and we didn't follow-up on making sure. But I wanna clarify that we did everything that was proposed for our commitments at this original plan.

So the office trader, I think, is is right now one of the the pieces that's in contention of what we we plan to do. We have been in communication with Kathleen and staff, and we have, I believe, came to a resolution that we will remove the office trailer within twenty four months. That's part of the proposal we're putting out today. We have also already replanted trees. Those were easy to put back in again.

So all the landscaping plan has been met. We're just asking that we get some time because currently that is used that building trailer that's there is used as an office, and we just want some time because we plan to build a permanent foundation building at that location. So I want to make clear that we have followed through with every commitment that was expected when we originally did this plan. We also have, should have on file, and I wanna confirm all the neighbors' approvals and signatures. And I don't know, Kathleen, if you have that on file.

And this may be a mix up of our previous attorney. This is part of the reason we 're not working with him anymore and we're trying to finish it up ourselves. That proper paperwork and everything was not filed correctly, so that's my concern on our previous discussion because we do have full paperwork, full signatures, forms, and they've been emailed through to the team. So that being said, we have improved the location. We keep it clean, nice in that area.

We do our best to employ individuals, bring them into the community. We lease this property out. We do know the individuals. They are very aware of what's going on with the situation, have changed some of the things they do based on our our challenges with getting this cleared up. If you look to the bottom right, that's the plan and it's pretty close to what it's basically what we have today, but it will be removing the office trailer and then eventually putting a permanent structure in that location.

But the landscaping and everything is all in place at this time. Like I said, we do have approval from all the neighbors, surrounding neighbors, and we are aware of of what car lots can turn into and what they can look like, and we try to stay on top of that and make sure that is not the case. There has not particularly been major issues with the the look. We're dealing with one violation. Currently, we've had it extended dealing with the city on that, and that's part of the reason we're requesting this change.

There was confusion, I think, on the office trailer because in the commitments, it says the office trailer needed to be removed. We removed that office trailer. We did bring in a different one. It has been there for now ten years, but we are willing to take that off the board and remove it and put a permanent structure in there down the road just to bring a better office into the location. So I'm happy to take any questions anyone may have.

Questions for the petitioner?

Yes, sir. President Dillon.

Commissioner.

So just so that I'm clear, in 2025, you signed the statement of modification for the attached exhibit b, which exhibit b said that the mobile office structure at that time in 2025 was able to remain for twenty four months before needing to be removed. Yes?

Correct. Yes. It's 2015. We we agreed to that. Right. Yes.

So was that removed within twenty four months? Yes. And it was replaced with another one that was also permitted or no?

Correct. The gentleman that leases the property well, the previous gentleman that leased the property brought it in and they were responsible for all the permits. I think they went through that process if I'm not mistaken. So I don't know how it slipped through the cracks, but the the old building was really rough condition. The new place was nice, had all it had a ramp and everything to it

and and all of that. So our understanding was it was the building that the physical looks of the building that were the problem. Sure. You would spare me the the history that I wasn't there in 2015 to know what conditions were, but just from the commitment that you signed, you did say that the mobile trailer would be removed in twenty four months.

Correct. And we did.

But then there was another one there. So my question is, was there approval for the new replacement trailer if there wasn't permission to have one after twenty four months?

I believe there should have been. We didn't handle that. Our tenants did.

So as the owner, do you have documentation of that approval?

I can check with them, but I would I mean, I'd I'm not a 100% positive what they've done.

Kathleen, the answer to that's a no, I think, isn't it?

That is correct.

Commissioner, the answer was no. There was not permission granted.

Thank you, sir.

Other questions? I have a question. Commissioner Murphy.

And forgive me if you covered this and I missed it but so the other structure not the temporary office but the other structure that looks at one time is probably an old house. What is it being used for?

Correct. It's currently being used as office space. Okay. And that was the original reason that we started the rezone because it was previously all c five around it, just not that little house right there.

Are both structures being used for the same business or is it two different businesses?

Currently, right now we have one individual, but we have previously had two individuals with two offices.

So right now the singular business being run off the site is auto sales?

Correct.

Yes. And they're utilizing both the permanent structure and the temporary structure? Correct. Thank you.

Final questions for petitioner? Jay, stay close. Dale? Please reintroduce yourself and your address.

Dale Raber. 5626 Laurel Street. I'm just one block west of 505621. If you look at that print up there, it shows four lots up there. That's the new one that they just submitted.

If you notice, there's no parcel number on the one that's in green. I guess that's where they wanna put their new structure there. But they're gonna have to have a parcel number. If you go back in your pamphlet and look at the 2015 structure, it'll show 56 let's see. 5621.

5621, the old one, it shows three parcels. It the green's not in it. 5621 goes back on the green and that. And then you got 5601 and you got the one on Dudley. So and then it does have all the parcel numbers on those three parcels.

So there's something going on with that site plan with no parcel number on that green. And I think the problem is what's going on here this was approved in 2015 without city sewer. That should have come up in 2015 before this board. I don't know if any of you were on this board in 2015. You guys should have asked.

Whalen, Dudley, and Gilbert, there's no city sewer West Of Madison, East Of Madison Avenue. So right now they can't build anything on that property without city sewer. So all this stuff that they're talking about, they're gonna get building permit, they're gonna put another structure in there. They're not gonna be able to do it. There's no city sewer there. Now, you go up to Edgewood or Madison, I mean Edgewood or or or Eppler? Yes. There's city sewer there. I own a property East Of Of Madison Avenue on on Gilbert. I just the last December ended up putting a $40,000 septic system in there.

I researched this area. I know this area. I'm not talking about now call insidences of the energy group. I'm talking about I researched it. There is no city sewers East Of Madison Avenue on Dudley, Whelan, or Gilbert to the railroad tracks. And how this ever approved back in 2015 with no city sewer, I don't know. With the two mobile sites there, two offices. That shoulda came up. That's why I'm questioning like this, know, water and stuff. I know this area very well.

I like I said, I own five houses in this area. And, they had two years from 2015 to remove this mobile site. That's 2017. Where's 2026 and it's still there? Now they want asking for another two more years.

I don't it should have been gone a long time ago and do like like staff said, there wasn't no permits. There was no way they could have got permits with those sewers to bring in another one. There's no way because it takes water and sewer to even you bring in a residential site. So, you know, there has never been sewers here. When they built those apartments behind back by Kroger's, they had to add on and, you know, buy that lift station just to get sewers to those apartments.

But here then I had to have a new septic system put in in December because they elevated that ground on Gilbert Street to seven feet and caused problems with my septic system. I would I was fighting with them for years, but, anyways, that's hindsight. But, anyways, that area, I know it's hard to believe there's no septic no sewers in that area. It's it's just weird. No. Nobody that comes out in that area says, oh, come on. There's gotta be city sewers here. No. There isn't. Or I would be hooked up to city sewer last December.

Their septic system. So I'm just trying to say is is that the site plan from you you should have them both in your folder. Three parcels, and they can't be shared in a septic system that those two mobile offices. There's not enough land there for a septic system for two offices or two buildings. You know, it's a car lot. It's all hard surface. It's all hard surface from fifty six zero one to 5621. That's all hard surface up front. The old. So what they're doing is right now, they're sharing a septic system on that green space that you see up there.

They have to be. So or the the landscaping plans, again, I don't know even know. I would like to see the commitment that they had ninety days. They had ninety days when this was approved to to submit a landscaping plan because they didn't have one. Did you ever get a landscaping plan within ninety days? I'd like to see it because I've never seen a landscaping plan when you approved of this in 2015, and they had ninety days to submit it. I'd like to know that. Thank you.

Questions for Remonstrator? Thank you. Dale, standby. Staff.

Thank you, president Dillon, members of the commission. The request on this petition relates to modification of the commitment. So I would like to draw attention to the commitments there on page 70 of the staff report, commitments number one and five. The first one there's been discussion about the landscape. It says a landscape plan providing the minimum of 10 foot front yard long street frontages and a 20 foot east transitional yard shall be submitted for administrator's approval within thirty days of the approval of this request with implementation of the landscape plan within ninety days of the approval.

Staff did a search of the records and the administrator's approve there was nothing ever submitted for man administrator's approval for the landscaping. And it was obviously, I don't know whether it was in again, this is we're talking about eleven years ago. I don't know if that was installed at that time, but there's nothing that would indicate the administrator approval was given for the landscaping. It was indicated that there has been trees installed along this the frontage, but there's been no administrator approval submitted for that and in fact, staff made a second site visit within the last week or two and it is not compliant with what the ordinance requires for landscaping on frontage frontages. They have three frontages.

They have Dudley, they have Madison, and they have Waylon. Putting trees, only trees there is not it should have been there should have been a plan submitted for administrator approval that identified the plant material that was going to be in there. There should be shrubs in there. Nothing was submitted. As you as you may or may not know, there are some prohibited trees.

Staff has no idea what trees have been installed here. So staff has a concern about that. The other commitment and then this goes back to 2015. The mobile office structure indicated on the site plan, file dated February 1135, shall only be permitted to remain on-site for twenty four months after the approval of this rezoning. Thereafter, it shall be removed from the site.

I don't know how much clearer that could be stated than that mobile home should have been removed from the site and not replaced. Staff has a concern about that. There have been some violations. It was indicated that they have they have satisfied those violations. The one that staff would disagree with is that they have failed to provide a hard surface for outdoor display.

In this last visit, again, within the last couple of weeks, there is grass growing up and it's particularly along Dudley which is on the southern or excuse me, Wayland which is on the southern portion of the site. It is it is not paved and it was should have been paved and you'll also you'll see those in the photographs that were taken earlier that there's mud and and now there's grass growing up in that area. So, staff has a concern about that. However, all that being said, in an effort to move this forward, staff would recommend approval and that's has changed their position subject to the commitment and I tried to get more ex specific about this. The mobile home structure indicated on the site plan file dated 03/23/2020 shall only be permitted to remain on-site for twenty four months after the approval of the modification.

Thereafter, the mobile home structure shall be removed and no other mobile home or temporary structure shall be permitted on the site. Any new structure or changes in the site plan shall be submitted for administrator approval prior to the issuance of an improvement location permit and or any land disturbance. Again, this has been going on for eleven year or excuse me, yeah, eleven years. And they were aware of the violations that were issued two years ago. Staff is concerned about the appearance of this site, but in again, in an effort to move on and try to get this resolved, the staff will support the request with that change in the commitment number five with all those other commitments that were previously agreed to to be remain in place.

How many commitments? How many commitments are there?

There are five. It's on page 70 of the staff report, but number five

Number five is the last one you just

Yeah. Five is the one that would would be changed to the one that's the staff has has placed in the staff report on page 57.

Questions for staff? Jay, go ahead. Question. Commissioner.

I'll I'll direct it to staff. I don't know if that's the preferred route though. If can we get some clarification, please, on what a yes vote does and what a no vote does, please?

If there is a yes vote on the modification, it would be subject to the four commitments that are on page 70, which is going to require, and these are from the old twenty fifteen commitments, which will require administrator approval, and then a change with number five on page 70. That would be that commitment would be substituted by the one that is on staffs in the staff report. So the four would remain, and then the fifth would be changed to what staff is requesting. And with that, staff would recommend approval.

The no vote

means that's There why

are no commitments? Yes.

That's why staff is offering this commitment so that it can move forward in an effort to clean up this site and get it in compliance with the

ordinance. And

I noticed that

you complied with previous

That is a concern. Yes.

So a no vote might be status quo.

It would be status quo. Yes. A no vote would mean that those five commitments that are on page 70 would still remain and be in effect, which requires the removal of that mobile home office.

And then we would follow-up to make sure those happen? Those four requests. Those four commitments.

Yes.

Other questions for staff?

Yes, sir. President Dillard. Commissioner. Excuse me. So with these commitments being over a decade old, what mechanisms are there to enforce them?

The mechanism would be, again, filing a complaint with the Department of Business and Neighborhood Service and having a zoning inspector go out there. And that's what occurred two years ago with the violations. Yes.

Right.

Okay. Thank you.

Final questions for staff? Jay, five minutes rebuttal. Bye, ladies. Good luck to you.

Thank you, commission, for hearing this. So a few points to bring up. We did have an attorney previously when we went through this first process. Our understanding was that we were good with the landscaping. I don't know what was missed, but we're happy to correct that however we can.

I also do see that there is a misunderstanding on the office. We are happy to correct that. The fact that it's lasted this long is a surprise and we apparently, it was a mistake on our side, so we're happy to correct that issue also. As far as the green space, the green space, if you bring up if you're able to bring up that image one more time, the green space sits directly behind the office. The images these images that come up are mostly taken in the fall I think to get a better view of everything, but it's not very green looking at those images, but there is a nice green space there.

If we did a new building, it would be right on the edge of that and we'd still continue to have that green space in front of it. Speaking of the new building, there are sewer access. It's just across Madison Avenue, which is quite expensive to get across, but there is sewer access across. That location has two septic systems. It has one from the old house that was we purchased and then it had a septic system for the original property was that was there before.

So it has two septics on that property to date. That property is multiple parcels. I think after the purchase of the house it turns it into four parcels that I believe, if I'm not mistaken, pulled into one. That was part of our plan or our original 2015 when we hired an attorney. I think that's it. Request, our site plan originally didn't have we we would like to asphalt and make that all a nice area. So if you saw areas that weren't, we our plan is to make that make it that way, and this is part of that approval to be able to do that.

Jay, let's be straightforward.

Yes, sir.

There are four commitments now, five commitments which have just been added that have been read into the record. Are you agreeing to all five commitments?

Yes, sir. Thank you. Including removing the trailer

for good. Final questions for petitioner?

Just one. Go ahead. On the old house that you bought, it has a septic. Right?

Correct. And

you paved what appears to be the entire lot?

No. It come the septic comes back out to that green area through there. So the house, the septic runs, it would be south of where the house currently is. There's a holding tank that has a a cap and a lid, and then the fingers run over to the green space.

Can we see that view brought down? Well, there but

so He's talking about

right here.

It doesn't look like it goes off.

Off the house, the backside, which the backside would be the so you're looking at it south would be south in this view. So south of it, there's a holding tank right there, and then the fingers stretch further south to the green space.

Is that a separate parcel?

No. The parcel, that's a little longer, I think. That that house parcel was a little longer, and then the original parcel was a little bit split.

Okay. Thank you.

Final questions. Jay, if it passes, and maybe even if it doesn't pass, I'm gonna file a complaint myself, just so you know. If it's not done, it's coming from me, and they will follow-up on it. So you know for the record. Thank you. Thank you. Remonstrator. Dale, you've got five minutes if needed. Again,

it turned in in 2015 to be three parcels. Now it's four parcels with the green space with with no parcel number on that green space. There is of record three parcels there or you wouldn't be allowed to have that trailer there without using that green space that's behind that house on Dudley at at at 5th 1525 East Dudley. You'd have to have two holding tanks, finger systems. I just put one in.

It takes up the whole entire yard. You can't have two properties on that little bitty lot that's it wouldn't even be suitable, septic system just for the office, let alone another mobile site. This mobile site's gotta go now. I don't I think if you sent the Board of Health out there, it's not legal. And I don't think there's a septic system hooked up on that trailer because I don't know how they would've got it permitted to do it.

I know I just did one in December and they had a fringe on because of the lot being so small. Just so the house wasn't condemned on Gilbert at 1537, the house I own. But I got it done through Mac Mac's septic system. But how this was ever approved, what I'm saying with the this, before this board in 2015, without City Sewer, Bob's lock service, two doors, three doors down between Whelan and Gilbert, they couldn't even open up when they bought that system. The question came up whether they were on city sewer, and they weren't.

And they had a tunnel under Madison Avenue on the on the West Side to hook up to sewers. That's very expensive. You might say, how could they do it at Edgewood? How could they do it at Eppler? Because they're sewers.

There's no sewers on those three streets, Whelan, Gilbert, and Dudley. These questions, I believe, has to come up before this board whenever you allow rezoning, whether they're septic and and sewers and water. This is very important, I think, because it makes it very hard to even build a house or anything on these small lots, and they don't like anything on septic system in Indianapolis anymore. But I think say the trailers gotta go now because I don't think it's legal. And they had like I said, 2015, it should have been removed in 2017.

We've needed commitment should not be disobeyed. The you know, there's too much on you, president, to try to enforce these things if everybody disobeyed commitments. I think we I need to think you need to enforce this maybe with fines that it has to go, like, tomorrow, the trailer. And maybe the house, whether that's got a legal septic system that handled those three parcels. A lot of people coming and going.

There's not a fence put on up separating a residential on that back behind that trailer that it was supposed to be done. You know, commitments are very important, and you shouldn't guys should have to bury the burden to enforce things. And, you know, comm commitment shouldn't be taken lightly. And I think you should enforce something here today on this.

Final questions for the demonstrator?

Yeah. I've got a question. Okay. If if you've got a house in that neighborhood or anywhere and you've got nowhere to flush a toilet, that house is subject to condemnation. Is it not?

It can be condemned. Mine my property, is court of health

Is the same true for a commercial structure?

Commercial is different. They won't won't even allow allow business on commercial use. The residents, the only reason I got one done is because they didn't wanna condemn the house. The lots only 40 by a 120 feet. Really, it it the tanks are are in the front yard and all of my finger works is between the garage and the house and in the back. And they still didn't have enough square footage, but they had to put it in writing. That's the best they could do till city sewers come in.

Was an office commercial facility condemnable if it does not have a septic system?

I don't I can't say that for sure, but I'm just trying to say before it is approved, I know they wouldn't allow it. I do know that.

Kathleen, you know the answer to that?

I from what I understand, if there is a commercial use, it has and there are sewers in the area, it has to be connected to that sewer.

So the trailer commercial building is in violation?

It would appear so.

If to to be brought back in violation, would would you give someone 24 months?

Well, that would be up to the commission, but if you wanted to cut that back to maybe I don't know what would be reasonable in order to get plans developed and submitted for for permitting, you know, perhaps maybe a year. I don't know. Are you talking about the new building to replace the

No. I thought you'd you'd say no, that you wouldn't give somebody that long to be within compliance. He's been asked to have the building vacated in twenty four months, so I thought, well, why what how do we give him twenty four months to move a building when really it could be condemned and

Yes.

Removed for that reason in a time faster than twenty four months?

Yes. You that is correct. Yes.

The temporary structure. Yes.

And I'm not you know, I I understand what you're asking now is that, you know, something you would want that addressed and taken care of within less than twenty four months.

How how could we even allow a building to be there in for twenty four months if we know it's in violation and condemnable.

Yeah. That I cannot well, we shouldn't be doing that and I don't know if the zoning inspector would have picked up on that or not.

Permitting would have. They said they pulled pulled permits when they brought that new trailer in. They would've It's

a code enforcement matter. We Thank And

it would be the Department of Health to to would deal with that.

So somebody would have to turn that in.

I know they pick it up on

That is true.

And just

Final questions for the demonstrator. Thank you, Dale.

President Dillon,

before Commissioner Murphy.

Before we vote on this, I'd like to make a motion, I assume that's the right methodology, to modify or change the commitment or requirement as stated by staff where it references that the mobile office be removed within twenty four months after final approval of the rezoning and reduce that to twelve months.

Jay, can you come back, Commission's desire that the twenty four months, which started what, forty eight months? Where where did we start with?

Well, initially

Excuse me. Initially, it was twenty four months with the original commitments.

But I thought we backed that down. We did not No.

That was that was in 2015.

Yeah. The commission wants you to make another commitment, which would be number six, to take the mobile office removed in twelve months, not twenty four months.

We would agree to that. Would that be a change in commitment five then?

No. It's it's a change. It's

believe it would be a change to commitment five. I was just gonna add

Yes. That would be it would not be a sixth commitment. It would just be modifying the fifth commitment that staff is recommending. Read

me number five.

The one that staff is recommending would be the mobile home structure indicated on the site plan file dated 03/23/2026 shall only be permitted to remain on-site for staff had twenty four months. What the motion is asking for is twelve months after the approval of the modification. Thereafter, the mobile home structure shall be removed, and no other mobile home or temporary structure shall be permitted on-site. Any new structure or any changes in the site plan shall be submitted for administrator approval prior to the issuance of improvement location permit and or any land disturbance. That's the commitment the staff is proposing to replace the original number five to make it clear that that mobile home office needs to be removed.

Got it. Within twelve months? Yes. So he now has agreed to number five being twelve months?

Twelve months. Yes.

And I'm gonna send a letter to permitting probably by the end of the week asking them to review the site and telling them what we if this passes what we've agreed to. If it doesn't pass, then they're gonna have to deal with permitting.

Yes. Okay.

Thank you, Jay. Members of the commission, with the five commitments, Go to your ballots. A yes passes the petition. A no defeats the petition. And the record will show I'm sending a note, formal letter to permits to take a look at the site and so they understand, Kathleen, where we're at.

Petition 2025 MOD 024, Jade Investments of Indiana Incorporated of Indy Incorporated. There were seven ballots cast. There were five yes votes, two no votes. This petition has been approved with the conditions.

The petition has been approved. Jay, I suggest you get to business quickly. Alrighty.

I do. Who just went

off here?

Cancer, give us five minutes. Would you please apologize for a quick restroom break?

Okay. Now, we're gonna have to decide what we're gonna do with this petition. We have still seven.

Counselor, I apologize for the delay. Nancy, can you read the next case into the minutes?