OPENPUBLICA · PUBLIC MEETING RECORD
Record of Proceedings

Bloomington Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting - July 24, 2026

Board of Zoning AppealsFriday, July 24, 2026
BodyBloomington, Indiana
SessionBoard of Zoning Appeals
DateFriday, July 24, 2026
StatusFILED
Video Record

STREAMING COPY IN PREPARATION — RECORDING AVAILABLE FROM THE ORIGINAL SOURCE

Transcript — Verbatim
0:00

I'm gonna call to order this meeting of the Board of Zoning Appeals for Thursday, July 23rd, 2026.

0:05

We're gonna take the roll.

0:07

Please call the roll.

0:08

Smith.

0:10

Here.

0:11

Burrell.

0:13

Here.

0:13

Cosinko.

0:14

Here.

0:15

Throckmorton.

0:17

Here.

0:19

Did we have minutes that were distributed?

0:21

I did not see them.

0:23

Yes, I believe there were.

0:24

Was it just for the last meeting?

0:26

Yes.

0:28

From the June 25th meeting.

0:29

June 25th.

0:30

Is there a motion to approve the June 25th minutes?

0:34

Motion to approve June 25th.

0:38

Second.

0:38

I have a second.

0:39

Uh call the roll.

0:41

Burrell.

0:42

Yes.

0:43

Could Senko?

0:44

Yes.

0:45

Smith.

0:46

Abstain.

0:48

Throckmorton.

0:49

Yes.

0:51

All right.

0:53

So what we'll what we're gonna do here is go through the reports, resolutions, and communications and um from the staff.

1:02

Do we have any at this moment?

1:04

Um just one.

1:05

Um and it is uh in regards to the um uh kind of technically the third petition that is on the agenda tonight, or I'm sorry, the fourth petition that is on the agenda.

1:17

Uh I'm so sorry.

1:19

Thirdly rephrase that.

1:20

Uh we have two cases on the expedited agenda.

1:23

Um, and then at the beginning of the regular agenda, there is a petition for 716 South High Street.

1:29

Um, so we have a notice from an adjacent property owner um that the sign that is required to be placed on the property um was not visible um from high street uh at least 21 days prior to the hearing date.

1:45

Um so in the uh section of the code UDO that talks about um defects in public notification requirements.

1:54

Uh it does talk about that appearance at any hearing on a petition or proposal uh in person or by representative shall waive any defect and notice unless the alleged defect is raised at the beginning of the hearing.

2:08

Um so the petition uh the adjacent property owner is simply notifying that at the beginning of the hearing uh that this defect did occur and did not does not therefore waive uh their rights.

2:21

Um the petitioner uh did give us the affidavit stating that they did mail the public notice letters and did post a sign.

2:29

Um so we are just simply um relaying to the board that uh an adjacent property owner did not observe the required sign at least 21 days.

2:40

They uh an adjacent property owner didn't happen to observe it 21 days in advance.

2:45

They they did not observe the sign being placed prior 21 days prior to um the hearing.

2:51

And has that uh resident have they requested us to continue this because of that?

2:56

Um they they have not.

2:59

Um it's certainly um I think and we can ask legal if there's any recourse to that if the board wants to uh hear from the adjacent property owner uh regarding a request for continuance.

3:12

Um you certainly can.

3:13

I they didn't know.

3:14

I think I think my question really goes around with uh, you know, because this is unusual to get this.

3:19

Yep.

3:20

Um is to just say if if the resident feels that they are somehow being um denied their rights under our code, meaning that they want to assure they have three-week notice.

3:31

Um what would be the best way for us to proceed?

3:34

I mean, we could continue to just say, okay, the sign didn't go up, then we move it back, or if the resident says, well, it wasn't posted 21 days in advance, but I don't feel that my rights are infringed upon.

3:43

The the resident is in the audience, um, so you're you're welcome to seek um if they hear from them.

3:50

They're here in the audience?

Discussion Breakdown — Share of Meeting
Engineering And Infrastructure███████████████████████23%
Procedural█████████████████████21%
Parking Management███████████████████19%
Signage Regulations██████████10%
Public Engagement███████7%
Public Works██████6%
Public Safety████4%
Signage Regulation████4%
Transportation Safety███3%
Summary of Proceedings

Bloomington Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting - July 24, 2026

The Bloomington Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA) convened on Thursday, July 24, 2026, at 6:28 PM local time to hear three expedited petitions, three regular petitions, and one continuance. The meeting covered conditional uses, variances for driveway width, impervious surface, sidewalk installation, build-to line, and sign standards. The board also addressed a public notification defect and received public testimony.

Consent Calendar

  • Minutes from the June 25, 2026 meeting were approved by a vote of 3-0-1 (Smith abstained).

Public Comments & Testimony

  • Leo Pilachowski (adjacent property owner at 720 South High Street) notified the board that the required public notice sign for 716 South High Street was not visible 21 days prior to the hearing. He stated he did not object to hearing the petition but wanted the defect noted to preserve his rights.
  • Jennifer Long (online) expressed concerns about flood impacts from the multi-use path project at 2101 East Covenant Drive and 1213 South High Street. She requested a no-rise certification, drainage studies, and mitigation measures. She later emailed her full comments.
  • Leo Pilachowski also spoke on the 716 South High Street variance, asking that any required shrubs be planted at least 5 feet inside the property line to avoid blocking the vision clearance triangle.
  • Pamela Hurt (adjacent resident) spoke on the 1219 West East Branch Road petition, voicing concerns about setbacks, utility lines, potential flooding, and whether the home would be rental or owner-occupied.

Discussion Items

Expedited Agenda

  • ZR 2026-06-0032 (2101 East Covenant Drive / 1213 South High Street) – Conditional use for development within the floodway and floodway fringe as part of the High Street Multi-Use Path Project. Staff found all criteria met. Petitioner Neil Copper (Engineering) stated the project is a priority in the city’s transportation plan and uses federal funding. Approved 4-0 with condition requiring floodplain development and site development permits.
  • ZR 2026-06-029 (120 South Walnut Street) – Variance from sign standards to allow a 13-square-foot wall sign on the second floor for a tenant (Merchant Bank) due to historic architectural elements on the first floor. Staff recommended approval. Approved 4-0 with condition that approval applies to current and future users of the tenant space.

Regular Agenda

  • ZR 2026-06-025 (716 South High Street) – Variances from driveway width (max 18 ft) and impervious surface coverage (max 40% in R2 zoning). The property currently has ~55% impervious surface. Petitioner Carly Swift proposed a parking/turnaround area for safety on busy High Street. Staff recommended a 20x20 ft pad with six shrubs. After debate, board approved a modified motion: maximum 20 ft width, 360 sq ft, two parking spaces, no shrubbery. Vote: 3-1 (Throckmorton dissenting).
  • ZR 2026-06-027 (1219 West East Branch Road) – Variances from required sidewalk installation and front build-to line (15 ft) for a new single-family home. Staff recommended approving the build-to line variance (due to a water main easement) but denying the sidewalk variance. Petitioner Sable Byers noted the payment-in-lieu committee does not meet until September 28, 2026. Public comment raised concerns. Board approved the build-to line variance and denied the sidewalk variance, requiring sidewalks on both frontages per staff conditions. Vote: 4-0.
  • ZR 2026-06-030 (3430 West Third Street) – Variance from drive-through sign standards in MC zoning (max height 5 ft, max sign area 12 sq ft) to allow a 71-inch-tall, 20-sq-ft electronic message center. Staff recommended denial, noting the UDO now allows drive-through signs and the petitioner could comply with existing standards. Petitioner Christina Blackwell (Crew Car Wash) argued the sign is operational, not advertising. Denied 3-1 (Cosinko dissenting).

Key Outcomes

  • ZR 2026-06-0032: Approved (4-0). Conditional use granted for floodway development with permits required.
  • ZR 2026-06-029: Approved (4-0). Variance for wall sign on second floor.
  • ZR 2026-06-025: Approved as amended (3-1). Variances for driveway width and impervious surface, limited to 360 sq ft, 20 ft width, 2 parking spaces, no landscaping required.
  • ZR 2026-06-027: Approved (4-0). Build-to line variance granted; sidewalk variance denied (sidewalks required).
  • ZR 2026-06-030: Denied (3-1). Sign variance not granted.
  • Continuances: ZR 2026-07-003 (530 South Washington Street) continued to August 27, 2026; ZR 2026-05-022 and ZR 2026-07-05 (412 East Wiley Street) continued.

Meeting Transcript

I'm gonna call to order this meeting of the Board of Zoning Appeals for Thursday, July 23rd, 2026. We're gonna take the roll. Please call the roll. Smith. Here. Burrell. Here. Cosinko. Here. Throckmorton. Here. Did we have minutes that were distributed? I did not see them. Yes, I believe there were. Was it just for the last meeting? Yes. From the June 25th meeting. June 25th. Is there a motion to approve the June 25th minutes? Motion to approve June 25th. Second. I have a second. Uh call the roll. Burrell. Yes. Could Senko? Yes. Smith. Abstain. Throckmorton. Yes. All right. So what we'll what we're gonna do here is go through the reports, resolutions, and communications and um from the staff. Do we have any at this moment? Um just one. Um and it is uh in regards to the um uh kind of technically the third petition that is on the agenda tonight, or I'm sorry, the fourth petition that is on the agenda. Uh I'm so sorry. Thirdly rephrase that. Uh we have two cases on the expedited agenda. Um, and then at the beginning of the regular agenda, there is a petition for 716 South High Street. Um, so we have a notice from an adjacent property owner um that the sign that is required to be placed on the property um was not visible um from high street uh at least 21 days prior to the hearing date. Um so in the uh section of the code UDO that talks about um defects in public notification requirements. Uh it does talk about that appearance at any hearing on a petition or proposal uh in person or by representative shall waive any defect and notice unless the alleged defect is raised at the beginning of the hearing. Um so the petition uh the adjacent property owner is simply notifying that at the beginning of the hearing uh that this defect did occur and did not does not therefore waive uh their rights. Um the petitioner uh did give us the affidavit stating that they did mail the public notice letters and did post a sign. Um so we are just simply um relaying to the board that uh an adjacent property owner did not observe the required sign at least 21 days. They uh an adjacent property owner didn't happen to observe it 21 days in advance. They they did not observe the sign being placed prior 21 days prior to um the hearing. And has that uh resident have they requested us to continue this because of that? Um they they have not.

SUMMARIZED BY OPENPUBLICA AI
TRANSCRIPT VIA PUBLIC VIDEO
openpublica.com