Showing posts with label zoning. Show all posts
Showing posts with label zoning. Show all posts

Tuesday, January 13, 2015

Even If You Like Digital Billboards...

... you should hate Indy's proposed digital billboard ordinance.

I wanted to show an example of a City that put its community ahead of the billboard industry.  St. Petersburg, FL, and the 2012 deal they struck on digital billboards is the one example I'd like to point to today.  Gary Welsh, over at Advance Indiana, went through it's deal briefly a few weeks back, but I want to compare in some detail, their billboard deal with what is being proposed for Indianapolis.

Prop 250, written by the billboard industry and its lobbyists, will be back on the table at the January 26, Metropolitan and Economic Development committee of the City-County Council.

That proposal, unlike the St. Pete deal, has not only been written by the very industry the ordinance would regulate, it has not included any investigation of best practices nor any analysis from our professional planners in the Department of Metropolitan Development.  It's one thing to have a seat at the table, it is quite another to have them all. 

The only world view the Councillors have heard for three years is that of the billboard industry - their paid for 'science', their input on what is important for regulation, and their closed door rebuttals of points made late in the debate by the Community.

So, lets take a few minutes to compare what a vigorous public process produced, with what has happened here in Indianapolis.

 

Swapout Ratio and Total Number of Digital Billboards

St. Pete saw 83 static billboards come down, and a conversion of 6 others to digital faces, for a ratio of 89 to 6 or over 14:1.

Prop 250 would have an equal square footage of static face come down and a conversion of one static face for a digital face, for a ratio of 2:1.  The total number of digital billboards that can go up are 'limited' to 75 in the first three years, with no more than 4 per year until all static billboards are converted or taken down - for 500-750 digital billboards total.

 

Digital Billboard Spacing

St. Pete -- All digital billboards must be spaced so that a driver cannot read more than one face at a time, or a minimum distance of 2500 feet in any case.

Prop 250 -- Digital billboards may be separated by no less than 500 feet.

 

Ad Display

St. Pete -- Each ad must be shown for a minimum of 10 seconds, there can be no sequential ads (ala the old Burma Shave ads), and there must be an instantaneous change between ads.

Prop 250 -- Each ad must be shown for at least 8 seconds, there is no ban on sequential ads (which are known to distract drivers more than other ad types), and there may be up to a 2 second delay between ads (also known to cause driver distraction).

 

Regulation of Light Levels

St. Pete -- They adopted the best practice of measuring and regulating the amount of emitted light, rather than reflected light.  The equipment is pricier, but it allows the light emitted to be regulated so that it appears to be as lit as a static billboard, but no more.  Using equipment and standards for reflected light, does not allow such tuning of the appearance of digital billboards.  The billboard companies must pay for the equipment and pay for the training of code enforcement officers in the proper use of the equipment.

Prop 250 -- Relies on reflected light and the lighting standards generated by the billboard industry.  There is no requirement that the billboard companies pay for the equipment and training.

 

Order of Removal and Conversion

St. Pete -- All static billboards used as swapped boards, must be removed before any permit is issued for any digital conversion.

Prop 250 -- The static billboard to be removed as part of the swap must be removed within 30 days of the issuance of the conversion permit.  A letter stating it has been removed must be filed.  There is no requirement that the removal be verified by Code Enforcement.

 

Removal of Structures and Re-permitting of Swapped Locations

St. Pete -- All structures must be removed along with the faces of static billboards counted as a swap.  There is a prohibition on reconstructing any sign removed, unless the ordinance is invalidated in Court, and then reconstruction must abide by the time formula noted below in "Legal Challenges to Law" section.

Prop 250 - There is no requirement that the pole be removed when a static face is removed as part of a swap.  There is no prohibition on the reissuance of a sign permit for any location where a static sign was removed as part of a swap.

 

Twenty Year Limitation on Digital Billboards

St. Pete -- After 20 years, all digital faces must be removed and converted back to static faces.

Prop 250 -- Any digital face may remain forever, and is allowed morph into any new technology that comes forward to replace the current LED standard without further public input, debate, or permits.

 

City-sponsored Ads

St. Pete -- The City is entitled to 1 ad slot per rotation during 12 separate 10-day periods per year to provide ads for non-profits and civic associations.

Prop 250 - There is no provision for free ad space to the City.

 

Future Changes to the Law

St. Pete -- If the laws change in the future, driven by new safety standards, the digital billboards will NOT be grandfathered into the old standards and will be required to meet the terms of the new law.

Prop 250 -- There is no provision for changes to local, state or federal laws and standards generated in the future due to a better understanding of safety issues.

 

Legal Challenges to the Law

St. Pete -- Should legal challenges to the 2012 St. Pete law be successful in Court, there will be a limit on how many static billboard may, by right, be reconstructed.  If the Court overturns the law within 5 years, only half the original static billboards may be re-commissioned.  If it takes action between years 5 and 10, only one quarter of the original billboards can come back.  And if the Court acts after 10 years, then no static billboards can come back.

Prop 250 -- There is no provision for what happens if Court action overturns the proposed Ordinance.

 

Penalties

St. Pete -- Fines for violating the ordinance - $1000 per day for the first violation, $2500 per day for the second, and $5000 per day for the 3rd and any subsequent violation.

Prop 250 -- Does not change the current law, which appears to be $50 for the first violation in a 12-month period and $100 for the second and any subsequent violation.




There was not a single item contained in Indy's Prop 250 that was superior to the ordinance passed by St. Petersburg in 2012.  That probably is because the process used was behind closed doors and beyond the reach of any opinions other than those of the billboard industry.

Our community deserves a transparent and vigorous public process for any of our laws, especially one so important to the aesthetics of our City and the safety of our driving public.

Prop 250 should be killed off as it is not repairable and does not have any resemblance to good public policy for Indianapolis.



references: St. Pete zoning professionals' presentation to the City Council, Scenic St. Pete report on specifics passed into law, and City Council notes on the lease agreement.

Wednesday, December 31, 2014

2014 Zoning and Variance Decisions

If you could afford to file a rezoning petition for your property this year, you stood an 89% chance of having it approved.  If you could afford to file a variance petition this year, you stood an 86% chance of it being approved.


REZONING PETITIONS

Of all 100 zoning petitions decided in 2014, 89 were approved, 2 denied, and 9 withdrawn (89% approved, 2% denied, and 9% withdrawn).

Most rezoning petitions are assigned to the Hearing Examiner, with some going to the Indianapolis Historic Preservation Commission for their first hearing.  A small number are sent directly to the Metropolitan Development Commission by the HE for their initial hearing.  Any side of a contested petition can appeal the HE's or IHPC's decision to the MDC.

The HE made 77 decisions on zoning petitions in 2014 - 68 approved, 2 denied, and 7 withdrawn - otherwise 88% approved, 3% denied, and 9% withdrawn.

The IHPC cast decisions on 11 zoning petitions in 2014 - all were approved.

The MDC held initial hearings on 7 petitions and accepted the withdrawal of 1 petition prior to hearing.  All 7 were approved.

The HE's decision was appealed to the MDC 6 times.  One was withdrawn prior to the MDC hearing it (the HE had recommended denial).  Of three petitions which the HE had recommended denial, 2 were overturned by the MDC and 1 approved.  Of two petitions which the HE had recommended approval, 1 was approved and 1 denied by the MDC.

Overall, the MDC heard testimony on 12 petitions, approving 10 (83%) and denying 2 (17%).


VARIANCE PETITIONS

Of all 323 variance petitions decided in 2014, 287 were approved, 23 denied, and 23 withdrawn (86% approved, 7 % denied, and 7% withdrawn).   Looking at only those 123 petitions not on the expedited docket, 100 were approved and 23 denied - (81% approved and 19% denied).

Most variance petitions are assigned to the Boards of Zoning Appeals, of which there are three.  If a variance request is packaged with a rezoning or other type of petition that normally would be heard by the HE/MDC, then it is assigned to the HE and not the BZA.

BZA I had 111 petitions on its dockets in 2014.  71 were on the expedited portion of the docket, meaning Staff and any neighbors or neighborhood organizations recommended approval of the petition.  These are perfunctorily approved by the Board.  Additionally, 7 were withdrawn.  Of the 43 petitions for which BZA I took testimony, 29 were approved and 14 denied - otherwise 67% approved and 33% denied.

BZA II had 70 petitions on its dockets in 2014; 43 expedited, 7 withdrawn, and 20 for which testimony was taken.  Of the latter, 15 were approved and 5 denied - or 75% approved and 25% denied.

BZA III had 100 petitions on its dockets in 2014; 73 expedited, 5 withdrawn, and 22 heard.  Of those heard, 19 were approved and 3 denied - or 86% approved and 14% denied.

The HE got 34 variances; 30 approved, 1 denied, and 3 withdrawn.

The MDC got 11 variances (7 initial hearings, 3 appealed HE decisions, and 1 withdrawn).  All 7 for initial hearing were approved by the MDC.  Two of the appeals were approved and 1 denied.


This is actually better than I expected, having expected the mid-90% approval rate.  Still and all, the variances are supposed to be granted because of a hardship on the ground that sets that parcel apart from every other identically zoned parcel in Marion County.  It is hard to believe that such a standard was actually met for the number of approvals granted.

Monday, March 3, 2014

Administrative Approvals - Last 30 days - January 31 to March 3, 2014

Those of us in the neighborhoods who deal with zoning and variance issues are well aware of the impact of Administrative Approvals on what actually gets okayed to be built.  This type of petition is reviewed by Staff of Current Planning, and is of itself not a bad thing.  The problem is that the review is not public, nor is the determination of the Staff, nor is the fact that there was a determination by the Staff.  Furthermore, the public gets only 30 days to appeal any Administrative Approval - which they likely know nothing about.  But, since the public has no idea that anything has been submitted for review, much less approved, we are helpless in any real ability to appeal.

I found that the Citizen Access Portal in the Department of  Code Enforcement webpages, does allow one to find Admin Approvals.  Below are what I found listed as pending or approved less than 30 days ago.  It is possible that one was submitted in 2013 and not yet approved, so this list may not be complete.

Here then are those shown as having been submitted - but for which no decision has been made:


2014ADM027 -- elevations

6081 E 82ND ST

INDIANAPOLIS IN 46250

 
2014ADM031 -- elevations

36 S PENNSYLVANIA ST

INDIANAPOLIS IN 46204

 
2014ADM032 -- elevations

4747 KOLLMAN RD

INDIANAPOLIS IN 46241
 

2014ADM018 - elevations

9201 W WASHINGTON ST

INDIANAPOLIS IN 46231


2014ADM028 -- elevations

1300 N MICKLEY AVE

INDIANAPOLIS IN 46224


2014ADM029 -- elevations

6101 LEE RD

LAWRENCE IN 46216


2014ADM005 -- elevations

7745 SOLANA DR

INDIANAPOLIS IN 46240

Approved 2/28/14
 

2014ADM030 -- elevations

4133 MATHEWS AVE

INDIANAPOLIS IN 46227

 Approved 2/27/1


2014ADM019 -- cluster

7275 LAKESIDE DR

INDIANAPOLIS IN 46278
 
Approved on 2/26/14

 
2014ADM026 -- elevations

4309 W 79TH ST

INDIANAPOLIS IN 46268
 

2014ADM024 -- elevations

5694 W MINNESOTA ST

INDIANAPOLIS IN 46241
 

2014ADM025 -- elevations

3710 N MERIDIAN ST

APT 000

INDIANAPOLIS IN 46208


2014ADM011 -- elevations

4225 E 82ND ST

INDIANAPOLIS IN 46250

Approved 2/18/14

2014ADM023 -- elevations

1005 W 64TH ST
INDIANAPOLIS IN 46260


2014ADM022 -- elevations

4655 E 82ND ST

INDIANAPOLIS IN 46250

Approved 2/11/14

 
2014ADM021 -- elevations

5022 WATERSITE CIR

INDIANAPOLIS IN 46254

 

2014ADM020 -- elevations

6355 WESTHAVEN DR

INDIANAPOLIS IN 46254

Approved 2/6/14

 2014ADM014 -- elevations

4205 E 82ND ST

INDIANAPOLIS IN 46250

Approved 2/4/14

 
2014ADM012 -- elevations

930 W 10TH ST

INDIANAPOLIS IN 46202

Approved 2/3/14

 
2014ADM017 -- elevations

3000 W WASHINGTON ST

INDIANAPOLIS IN 46222

 
2014ADM008 -- elevations

2340 BROADWAY ST

INDIANAPOLIS IN 46205

 
2014ADM007 -- elevations

3800 W SOUTHPORT RD

INDIANAPOLIS IN 46217

Approved 1/31/1

 
2014ADM013 -- elevations

3800 W SOUTHPORT RD

INDIANAPOLIS IN 46217

 
2014ADM015 -- elevations

3801 FOREST MANOR AVE

INDIANAPOLIS IN 46226

 
2014ADM016 -- elevations

9107 E THOMPSON RD

INDIANAPOLIS IN 46239


Thursday, June 21, 2012

Key Indiana Court of Appeals Decision - Airport Zoning Authority Lies With City, Not Airport

In a key decision with wide-ranging implications, the Indiana Court of Appeals has sided with Zionsville in a dispute with the Indianapolis Executive Airport over who has the authority over zoning matters on airport owned property.

In an article posted today, IBJ reporter Scott Olson, says that the airport is run by the Hamilton County Airport Authority, even though a portion of the property lies within Boone County. 
Zionsville’s dispute with the airport’s operator, the Hamilton County Airport Authority, began in 2008 when the town annexed Union Township.

Hamilton County purchased the airport, which is located on East State Road 32 just within neighboring Boone County’s eastern border, in 2003.

Boone County Commissioners and the Boone County Area Plan Commission had allowed the airport authority to govern land use at the airport by creating a special airport district under the county zoning ordinance.

But, in February 2010, nearly two years after the annexation, Zionsville officials notified the authority that it needed approval from the town’s planning department before obtaining construction permits.
The Airport Authority took the matter to Court in Marion County, and that Judge decided in favor of the Authority.  Now, on appeal, the decision has gone the other way.
The Indiana Court of Appeals’ opinion was written by Senior Judge Randall Shepard, who retired in March as chief justice of the state’s Supreme Court.

“The Indiana Supreme Court has held that a general unit of government maintains zoning authority within its boundaries, even as to other general governments,” Shepard wrote.
Here in Marion County, the Indianapolis Airport Authority does its own zoning - with no public input mind you.  They do whatever they feel like, without regard to neighbors and their property values.  Take for example the hideous container storage use on the airport's north side in an area previously used for airport parking.  The effect of this eyesore on abutting private property is apparently of no concern to the Airport Authority.

With this ruling now in place, Indianapolis should restore its sole jurisdiction in zoning matters over at the Indianapolis Airport so that the Airport is forced to be a better neighbor, and so residents and private property owners can get a fair hearing - as opposed to no hearing at all.