Bloomington Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting – August 22, 2025
Bloomington Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting – August 22, 2025
The Bloomington Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA) met on August 22, 2025, at 1:54 PM (ET) to hear four variance petitions. All three board members – Ballard, Casinko, and Burrell – were present. The meeting included staff presentations, public testimony, and unanimous votes on each agenda item. Key outcomes included approval of a fence height variance, a clean-up motion for a previous case, a sidewalk variance with conditions, and a front setback variance for an accessible addition.
Consent Calendar
- Approval of minutes from the July 2025 meeting was moved, seconded, and passed unanimously by roll call.
- No reports, resolutions, or communications from staff or the board.
Petitions Continued to September 18, 2025
- The following petitions were continued: AA Vesh 17-22; Joe Camp Construction, LLC; Blackwell Construction Inc.; CU-33-24 (Hat Rentals LLC); CU-32-25 (Spring Point Architects, Barry Clapper); and CU-33-25 (Way Engineers, St. Rami HOA).
Discussion Items
Petition V-13-25 – Carolina Lopis (on behalf of mother Patricia Lopez)
- Staff Presentation (Joe Patterson): Request for a variance from fence height standards (section 20.04.08) to allow a six-foot tall fence along the front east side of the property at Park Ridge East Subdivision (R2 zoning). The fence was built without a variance. Staff found the first two criteria (no injury to public welfare, no adverse effect on adjacent property values) were met, but the third criterion (practical difficulties peculiar to the property) was not satisfied because the neighbor dispute is civil in nature and the slight grade change is not significant. Staff recommended denial.
- Petitioner Testimony (Carolina Lopez): Explained the fence was needed to stop harassment from the adjacent neighbor, who had leaned six-foot panels against the existing four-foot fence, damaging it. The neighbor’s property is cluttered and the neighbor has a protective order against him for verbal abuse and harassment. The fence has improved safety and blocked visual blight.
- Public Testimony: Six individuals spoke in support, including neighbors Nancy Martin, Michelle Wilson (neighbor behind), a neighbor from Saratoga Drive, Craig Mercer (across the street), Tia (real estate agent), Kathleen Bogas (Solar for All volunteer), and Georgia Fry (former neighbor). They described the neighbor’s erratic behavior, trash, hateful signs, and harassment. The protective order and arrests were cited. Many argued the six-foot fence is necessary for safety and property value.
- Board Deliberation: Board members discussed the slope of the neighboring property (uphill) as a peculiar condition making the four-foot fence insufficient. Staff confirmed fines are now accruing for the neighbor’s property violations.
- Vote: Motion to approve with alternate finding for criterion three (practical difficulty due to higher slope of adjacent yard). Seconded. Roll call: all yes (3-0).
Petition V-22-25 – Auto Vest LLC
- Staff Presentation (clarification): This was a clean-up petition from a July hearing. The board had previously granted variances but one condition (street tree spacing) needed to be struck to align with the variance approval. The motion was to strike conditions two and three from the staff report and approve as modified.
- Board Action: Motion to approve with striking conditions two and three. Seconded. Roll call: all yes (3-0).
Petition V-29-25 – Value Built Construction
- Staff Presentation (David Brantez): Request for a determinate sidewalk variance at 1017 East Aaron Court (vacant lot in Walnut Creek neighborhood, R2 zoning). The petitioner seeks to keep existing four-foot sidewalk on Azalea Lane (instead of required seven-foot) and not install any sidewalk on Aaron Court (no existing). Staff recommended denial for Azalea (no peculiar conditions, safety concerns) but approval for Aaron Court (low traffic, short cul-de-sac, no pedestrian destinations). Recommended conditions: street trees 30 feet on center along both streets and recording of zoning commitment.
- Petitioner Testimony (Sabra Bowers): Petitioner Ernest wants to keep costs down to provide affordable housing. He is willing to replace damaged sidewalk panels but not widen the entire sidewalk. The existing four-foot sidewalk on Azalea has 18 of 24 panels in poor condition.
- Board Deliberation: Board members discussed financial impact (estimated $35,000 for both sides) and uniformity. A motion was made to approve the variance on both Azalea Lane and Aaron Court, allowing the four-foot sidewalk on Azalea with a condition to replace damaged panels in compliance with engineering standards, and street trees 30 feet on center on both streets. Alternate findings for Azalea: criterion D (other pedestrian networks exist) and E (uniformity of development best served by keeping existing width). Seconded. Roll call: all yes (3-0).
Petition V-31-25 – Kathy Church
- Staff Presentation: Request for a variance from the front yard building setback (15-foot build-to line) to allow a 10x16-foot sunroom addition at 318 East Wiley (R3 zoning). The house is currently 22 feet from the property line; the addition would extend to 12 feet (3-foot encroachment). Staff recommended denial because there is no peculiar condition – the property is typical size, no topographic/utility constraints, and a seven-foot-wide addition (complying with setback) could be built.
- Petitioner Testimony (Kathy Church): The existing house is small and dark; the addition would provide a glassed den for herself and her disabled son. A seven-foot-wide room cannot accommodate wheelchair maneuvering (requires 60-inch turning radius). The west side of the house has a basement exit that would be obstructed, and other sides are not feasible. Parking will not be impacted.
- Board Deliberation: Board asked if the doors could be relocated to meet setback while keeping dimensions. Petitioner said the design allows entry from both ends; shifting would compromise function. Staff noted ADA needs are personal, not property peculiarities, but Assistant Director suggested the house’s proximity to the street makes an accessible addition infeasible within setback.
- Vote: Motion to approve the variance based on the peculiarity of the house’s location on the lot, approving the design as shown (12-foot setback, 10x16 foot addition). Alternate finding for criterion three: the house’s position prevents a compliant accessible addition. Seconded. Roll call: all yes (3-0).
Key Outcomes
- V-13-25 (Lopis/Lopez): Variance approved 3-0. The six-foot fence on the east side is permitted. The board cited the uphill slope of the adjacent property as a peculiar condition justifying the extra two feet.
- V-22-25 (Auto Vest): Approval with conditions two and three removed 3-0. The variance for street tree spacing is now consistent with the July decision.
- V-29-25 (Value Built): Determinate sidewalk variances approved on both Azalea Lane and Aaron Court 3-0. Conditions: street trees 30 feet on center on both streets, replacement of damaged sidewalk panels on Azalea Lane as directed by engineering, and recording of a zoning commitment.
- V-31-25 (Church): Variance from front setback approved 3-0. The 12-foot setback and 10x16-foot sunroom addition as shown in the petition are allowed. No additional conditions beyond standard permitting.
- All votes were unanimous.
Meeting Transcript
Board of zoning appeals uh meeting on recording in progress 21st 2025 can we have um roll call please Ballard here Casinko here I would like to call for the approval of the minutes I move to approve minutes from July meeting. Second roll call, please. Yes. Casinko? Yes. Ballard. Yes. Are there any reports, resolutions, and communications from staff? No, sorry, no reports or resolutions from staff. All right. Any from the board. Okay. So today's agenda, uh, we are going to um I'm gonna first say the petitions that have been continued to the September 18th uh meeting are AA Vesh 17-22, Joe Camp Construction, LLC and Blackwell Construction Inc. Uh CU dash 33-24 US 2024-11-00868, hat rentals LLC. Also CU dash 32-25, Spring Point Architects, Barry Clapper, uh, and finally, CU dash 33-25. Oh, uh way engineers, uh say uh St. Rami HOA. And the petitions we're gonna hear tonight are four petitions. Uh first petition will be V dash uh 13-25, Carolina Lopis. Uh second petition will be V-22-25 Auto Vest LLC. Third one will be V 29-25 value built construction. And the last will be V-31-25, Kathy Church. May I have the first uh petition, please. Good evening, Joe Patterson, zoning and long range planner. Before you use a variance from fence height standards to allow for a six-foot tall fence along the front east side of the property. This property is located in a residential medium lot R2 zoning district. This is on the far east side of Bloomington in the Park Ridge East Subdivision. As you can see, the parcel itself as well as all surrounding parcels are zoned R2, and the long range plan calls for this to be neighborhood residential. At issue here, uh you see on the left side of the picture is is a six-fall tents behind the landscaping there. Uh there is also a four-foot tall fence along the front edge of the property there. Uh that that fence, as described in the staff report, has been in discussion with engineering department uh and is a separate issue. Um so we're just looking at the six-foot tall fence along the east side of the property line. So the fence was fence was built without requesting the variants at first, and the petitioner's statement uh largely describes there being safety concerns and issues with the neighbor. And so the question that we're looking at with the UDO is that the fence height was found to violate section 20.04.08, specifically forward of the front building wall of the primary structure, fences and walls shall not exceed four feet in height. So the criterion findings for this variance, the first one we look at is that the approval will not be injurious to the public health, safety, morals, and general welfare. Uh we find that granting of the variants would not be injurious to the public health safety morals or general welfare. And it was specifically installed to maintain and promote that health and safety concerns from the home homeowner with their neighbor. And uh based on the number of feedback and letters of support from neighbors, uh it appears that it would be uh well received and would further improve the safety and welfare of the neighbors and residents in the area for the second finding the use and value adjacent to the property would not be affected in a substantially adverse manner. We find there would be no adverse impacts to the use and value of surrounding properties as a result of the requested variants. And if realtor additionally found that the fencing would likely improve the likelihood of resale value for the owner's property. And the homeowner has also indicated that fence is necessary for them to enjoy the use of their property. However, neighboring properties, uh their uses and values are likely unaffected. For the third criteria that the strict application would result in practical difficulties with the use of the property. And that there are no peculiar conditions to the property that would necessitate the variance. While disputes with neighbors are common, we find that those concerns are civil in nature and that the fencing was installed specifically regarding the safety and privacy concerns and not as a result of a characteristic of the property itself. While there is a slight grade change on the property, it is not significant enough to warrant relief from the fence height requirements. So while this variance would not be injurious to the health safety or general welfare, and it would not adversely affect adjacent properties, there are no peculiar conditions with the property that merit approval from relief of the established fence height requirements. And therefore his recommendation that the that you adopt the proposed findings and deny this variance. Thank you. Now we're gonna go for the petitioner.
openpublica.com