City of Bloomington Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting Summary - February 27, 2026

This meeting of the Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA) convened on February 26, 2026, and continued into the early hours of February 27, 2026, addressing a lengthy agenda including old business, staff reports, and multiple variance and conditional use petitions. The board considered seven major items, heard extensive public testimony, and made decisions on each.

Consent Calendar

• Approval of Minutes: The board approved the minutes of the previous meeting by a unanimous roll call vote (Ballard, Burrell, Fernandez, Throckmorton all yes).

Old Business: Lamar Advertising Lawsuit Settlement

• Presentation: Corporation Counsel Margie Rice informed the board of a settlement agreement regarding a lawsuit filed against the BZA on October 18, 2022, related to a Lamar Advertising digital billboard. The settlement had been negotiated in executive session. The board voted unanimously (4-0) to delegate authority to the chair to execute the settlement agreement. The chair thanked the legal department for their work.

Staff Discussion: Expedited Agenda Proposal

• Presentation: Senior Zoning Planner Jamie Crinley introduced a proposal for an expedited agenda to handle routine variance cases more efficiently. Items would have shorter time limits and be placed at the top of the agenda when staff recommends approval and no opposition is expected. The board expressed support and noted it would require a vote on rule changes in March. No action was taken.

Petition: ZR 2025-12-0114 – Paul Pruitt & Keith Klein (North Grove Subdivision)

• Staff Report: The petitioners requested seven variances for an 18-lot subdivision at 2511 North Dunn Street (R2 zoning). The variances sought were: minimum lot area (reduce from 7,200 to 5,000 sq ft), minimum lot width (60 ft to 50 ft), side building setback (8 ft to 5 ft), tree canopy preservation (retain 60% but only 36% retained), tree protection fencing, and riparian buffer disturbance in intermediate and fringe zones. Staff recommended approving the four environmental-related variances with conditions and denying the three dimensional variances because a by-right sustainable development incentive path exists in the UDO.
• Public Comments: Neighbors presented a petition with 236 signatures opposing the variances. Concerns included stormwater runoff, traffic safety, loss of maturing trees (many planted by former owner/botanist John Sinclair), incompatibility with neighborhood character, and emergency access. Speakers requested denial of all variances.
• Petitioner Response: The petitioners argued that additional city requirements (road extension, water line) added $300,000 in costs, making 15 lots necessary for affordability. They emphasized tree preservation efforts and a remediation plan with 70 new trees.
• Board Discussion: Board members questioned staff about the sustainable development incentive and the practicality difficulties. The board ultimately found no factual basis to overturn staff's recommendation on the dimensional variances.
• Vote: The board voted 4-0 to adopt staff's proposed findings: approve variances for tree canopy preservation, tree protection fencing, and riparian buffer disturbance (with eight conditions); deny variances for minimum lot area, lot width, and side setback.

Petition: ZR 2025-12-0115 – Value Built Inc.

• Staff Report: Petition for a variance from tree preservation standards to construct a triplex at 614 North Grant Street (RH zone). The property has dense closed canopy covering most of the lot; the petitioner proposed removing 11 trees and planting 9 new ones. Staff recommended approval with a condition to plant nine large-canopy trees and inspect within six weeks of occupancy.
• Public Comments: One speaker (Amy Butler) argued the tree removal is significant and the area is already a tree desert; she requested denial. Another speaker (James Ford) raised concerns about parking and long-term tree survival.
• Petitioner Response: The petitioner noted that the brick sidewalk removal is required by UDO, and additional street trees will be planted. He was open to the condition.
• Board Discussion: The board briefly discussed enforcement of replacement tree survival, acknowledging staffing constraints.
• Vote: The board voted 4-0 to approve the variance with the condition as recommended.

Petition: ZR 2025-12-0116 – H E Reynolds LLC (Eric Maston)

• Staff Report: Request for a conditional use permit to allow a duplex at 508 East Henderson Street (R3 zone). The proposed six-bedroom duplex would have one off-street parking space (a 13x50 ft driveway). Staff found the proposal met use-specific standards and recommended approval with conditions.
• Public Comments: Multiple neighbors opposed the project, citing incompatibility with the neighborhood (especially the Allen Street Greenway), parking overflow, pedestrian safety, and roof design inconsistency. Some speakers supported duplexes in general but felt this design was inappropriate.
• Petitioner Response: The petitioner stated he was open to adding a turnaround to avoid backing onto Henderson Street.
• Board Discussion: The board debated whether the proposal met comprehensive plan goals and noted the conditional use criteria require judgment. Concerns about parking were partially alleviated by the petitioner's willingness to add a turnaround. The board found no alternative findings to deny and noted that the design met UDO standards.
• Vote: The board voted 4-0 to approve the conditional use with the two staff conditions plus a third condition requiring the petitioner to work with staff to design a turnaround so vehicles do not back out onto the arterial street.

Petition: ZR 2025-12-0117 – Rusty Wampler

• Staff Report: Request for a conditional use permit to convert an existing single-family home at 105 East Driscoll Street into a duplex (R3 zone). The exterior changes were minimal; the proposal met all use-specific standards. Staff recommended approval with conditions.
• Public Comments: Two speakers from the Bryan Park neighborhood expressed strong support, praising the adaptive reuse of a historic kit house and the respectful design.
• Petitioner Response: The petitioner expressed gratitude for neighborhood support.
• Vote: The board voted 4-0 to approve the conditional use with the conditions.

Petition: ZR 2025-12-0119 – Monroe County School Corporation (Bloomington High School North)

• Staff Report: Request for a variance from electric vehicle (EV) charging station requirements for a new 268-space parking lot. The UDO requires 11 EV stations; staff recommended a condition requiring at least three. The project aims to expand athletic facilities and relocate an existing parking lot.
• Public Comments: Council member Hope Stosberg (as a resident) supported the school's request, noting that the parking lot would be lightly used for charging.
• Petitioner Response: The school corporation argued that 11 or even three stations would require significant infrastructure costs (at least $50,000 for three), ongoing billing costs, and raise equity concerns. They noted their already substantial investment in 44 electric buses and solar panels. They requested zero EV stations.
• Board Discussion: Some members favored requiring at least some stations to promote EV adoption; others argued the cost burden on the school system was not justified. The board debated whether a condition of zero could be supported by findings of fact. Ultimately, the majority supported three stations.
• Vote: The board voted 4-0 to approve the variance with the staff condition requiring a minimum of three EV charging stations.

Petition: ZR 2026-02-0002 – JC Bank (Administrative Appeal)

• Staff Report: The applicant appealed a staff determination denying two wall signs on an architectural feature above the main roof line on the north side of the bank building at 3002 East Third Street. Staff determined the signs were prohibited roof signs under UDO section 20.04.100. No staff recommendation was made due to the appeal nature.
• Public Comments: None.
• Petitioner Response: The bank argued that the architectural feature (a wing) is part of the building with its own roof and usable interior space; the signs were on a wall, not a roof. They noted prior informal discussions with staff did not flag the issue and that similar signs exist on nearby buildings.
• Board Discussion: The board recognized the unique structure and the previous approval of similar signs. The building's interior space under the wing made the determination ambiguous.
• Vote: The board voted 4-0 to uphold the appeal, allowing the signs as proposed.

Key Outcomes

• Vote Summary: All decisions were unanimous (4-0) unless noted. The board approved: delegation of settlement authority; variances for North Grove (partial); variance for 614 Grant; conditional use for 508 Henderson (with added turnaround condition); conditional use for 105 Driscoll; variance for school corporation (with 3 EV station condition); and the administrative appeal for JC Bank signs. No items were denied.
• Next Steps: The expedited agenda proposal will be brought for a vote in March. The Lamar settlement will be finalized with chair's signature. Petitioners for approved items must comply with conditions (e.g., tree planting, turnaround design, EV station installation).