On Tuesday, March 18, 2008, the Broad Ripple Village Association (BRVA) sponsored another Town Hall Meeting held in the small auditorium of Broad Ripple High School. The format was quite different from the two previous meetings I attended last year and, for me, represented a marked improvement. The statements by the panelists were kept brief allowing a greater percentage of the meeting time for questions from the attending citizens who were asked to submit questions in writing. Written questions seemed to impart more rigor and precision to the process while reducing the emotional and confrontational elements. Even as many questions raised issues whose answer would require more time afforded by a town meeting forum and other questions posed complicated issues in oversimplified terms, the panel generally did a good job of responding to the intent of the question.

In terms of planning, most questions were fielded by Ryan Vaughn, District 3 City-County Councillor and Maury Plambeck, Director Department of Metropolitan Development (DMD). Our Councillor was most impressive. His answers were honest and intelligent. He appeared to be on top off the issues that came his way and it was obvious that he is proactive in addressing many of these in his personal initiatives with other council members and community leaders. Our community promises to benefit greatly from his work, forthright demeanor, and informed and considered opinion. We are fortunate to have him for we, as a community, have much that we must do. Mr. Plambeck also did a good job of fielding questions but his answers were less direct for he spoke as the head of DMD a large Unigov agency of 250 employees.

"In theory there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice there is", Yogi Berra. The theory: A community benefits from having a vision of a future and a plan to guide change toward that vision. The vision and the plan are best developed by the citizens of the community in an inclusive process that makes each citizen a stakeholder. The plan is primarily founded in concern for the well being of the citizens of the community while at the same time fostering and encouraging creative economic development. The plan contains built in flexibility and is implemented evenly and equitably. In practice: things are quite different indeed.

Development in Broad Ripple is directed by the Indianapolis-Marion County Comprehensive Plan that was originally adopted in 1965 and subsequently in 1969, 1977, 1984, and 1991-93. It has undergone an extensive update with the Indianapolis Insight initiative commencing in 2000 and ending in December of 2006. This update promises to change things for the better yet it has been, as of now, only partially adopted and it is difficult to anticipate how long it may take for the plan to influence real change in the zoning process. A huge amount of time, professional and volunteer, along with a sizable sum of money has gone into the development of this plan. You can sense the scope of the effort by visiting www.indygov.org/eGov/City/DMD/ED/home.htm. Even though the plan is updated every 4 to 8 years, it always seems to be behind the times.

Currently, Mixed Use (considered by many as a desirable approach to town planning where commercial space and residential units exist in the same building) is poorly accommodated by the current zoning ordinance. The approval of a mixed use project often requires special procedures such as Planned Unit Development (PUD), Rezoning, or Zoning Variance which are costly, time consuming and subject to subjective influences resulting in unpredictable outcomes. Let's consider the Zoning Variance process.

If an entrepreneur wants to build a mixed use project on a parcel whose current zoning does not allow mixed use he needs to apply for a Variance of Use. This 35 day process that often takes longer and sometimes can take years, begins with the filing of the petition. The paperwork is not impossible yet if you are serious about prevailing in the process, it is advised that you retain an attorney, or other professional, specialized in the zoning process. Once filed, the entrepreneur becomes the petitioner. The process requires the petitioner to mail legal notice to neighborhood groups and surrounding property owners no later than 23 days prior to the petition coming before one of three divisions of the Board of Zoning Appeals. The petition is assigned a planner, a staff member of the planning department of DMD, to review the project and produce a report with recommendations published 7 days prior to the hearing. This is where the process begins to accrue some subjective elements. Where projects that fit the requirements of the current zoning ordinance are approved as a matter of routine regardless of their quality, projects that require a variance are subjected to additional scrutiny.

At our town meeting, in response to a zoning question, Mr. Plambeck informed us that the planning staff and the five member Board of Zoning Appeals take five elements into account in zoning petition issues according to the requirements of Indiana Code 36-7-4-603, which requires that the Metropolitan Development Commission pay reasonable regard to:

• The Comprehensive Plan;
• Current conditions and character of structures and uses in each district;
• Most desirable use for which the land in each district is adapted;
• Conservation of property values throughout the jurisdiction;
• Reasonable development and growth;

Mr. Plambeck concluded that DMD does not and rightly cannot lead community planning at the neighborhood level. This is understandable. He did say that DMD is prepared to assist our community in such an effort as it has in earlier attempts. We in Broad Ripple would do well to come together and take him up on it.