Bartholomew County Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting – May 27, 2026
STREAMING COPY IN PREPARATION — RECORDING AVAILABLE FROM THE ORIGINAL SOURCE
Bartholomew County Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting – May 27, 2026
The Bartholomew County Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA) met on May 27, 2026, to hear a variance request, approve findings of fact for previous cases, and discuss procedural improvements as well as broader issues of planning jurisdiction. The meeting was held as a judicial proceeding, with testimony considered under oath. The board approved all items on the agenda, and engaged in a lengthy discussion on the city’s two-mile planning jurisdiction and its impact on county residents.
Consent Calendar
- None, as each item was voted on individually. However, the approvals of findings of fact for BZA 26-21 and BZA 26-15, and the minutes from April 27, 2026, were uncontested and approved unanimously.
Public Comments & Testimony
- No public comments were offered during the public hearing portion for item BZA 26-40. The board closed the public comment period after no one came forward.
Discussion Items
- Variance Request – BZA 26-40 (Troy Staggs): The petitioner, Troy Staggs, requested a variance to allow an existing accessory structure (a barn, approximately 2,000 square feet) to remain on a newly created lot in Hartsville prior to construction of a primary structure. The property (2.85 acres, zoned R-2) was undergoing subdivision into seven lots, contingent upon removal of the barn or board approval. Staff reported that all variance criteria were met. Board members questioned the ordinance language regarding accessory structures, clarifying that the long-standing interpretation prohibited accessory structures before a primary structure. The petitioner explained the barn would be used temporarily for storage and electricity during construction of the primary structure within seven months.
- Procedural Discussion on Findings of Fact: A board member suggested batching approval of findings of fact for multiple cases into a single vote, rather than approving each individually. The city attorney had indicated no prohibition against such a practice. Board members expressed interest in aligning city and county procedures but noted the need to list case numbers in the motion for record-keeping purposes.
- Two-Mile Jurisdiction and City-County Relations: A lengthy discussion ensued regarding the city of Columbus’s two-mile planning jurisdiction, which extends into Bartholomew County. Board members and staff debated representation for county residents within this area, the impact of city decisions on county land (e.g., the NTN development in the west end), and perceived inequities in services (snow removal, road maintenance). Some argued that county residents lack voting power for city officials while being subject to city zoning and variance decisions. Others noted that county commissioners approve joint zoning ordinances and that county residents have representation on the city plan commission. The discussion concluded without formal action, acknowledging the complexity and historical nature of the issue.
Key Outcomes
- BZA 26-40 – Variance Approved: Motion to approve the variance for the accessory structure to remain on the lot before a primary structure, as all criteria were met. Motion carried unanimously by voice vote (all aye).
- BZA 26-21 – Findings of Fact Approved: Motion to approve findings of fact for case BZA 26-21. Approved unanimously.
- BZA 26-15 – Findings of Fact Approved: Motion to approve findings of fact for case BZA 26-15. Approved unanimously.
- Minutes from April 27, 2026 – Approved: The board approved the minutes from the previous meeting unanimously.
- No Formal Action on Two-Mile Jurisdiction Discussion: The board took no vote on the topics raised during the discussion; it was informational only.
Meeting Transcript
I was just gonna wait at least if they're out, which I believe. Maybe we'll all fill all the right. No, no. Yeah, yeah, yeah. Actually, yeah, really. They're following which EPS. I think Columbus might be right. But it was six and we've blown down the bankers county down there. Four and five members, four is three of the five. Jim Shield board attorney, Mike Speaker, Rodney Finky, Eric Scheid, Arnold Pascal. Melissa Bagley Planning Department. Hi, for our planning department. This is a judicial proceeding remarks made by petitioners and members of public are considered testimony. Okay. We will get started with uh issue BCH 2640. True and nine stags. Is it represented here? Come up to table and state the name regress. Uh Troy Sag's address is uh one two zero seven five, nice law drive. It's really Alaska, nine six six four. All right. All right. So uh this is uh for Troy and Dynast. Uh we're considering right now two point eight five acres and it's zoned R2 residential. Oh hold on. Um yeah, there we go. All right. Um so this property is within the Hartsville zoning ordinance. Um however, the agreement that uh is in place between Bartholomew County and um the uh board uh the Hartsville zoning, Hartsville Hartsville Town Board. Um we are the ones who actually apply the zoning and um do their uh kind of uh review and do all of their their board of zoning appeals and and things like that for um their ordinance there. So um this parcel, as you can see, is outlined in yellow, and uh Mr. Staggs recently went through plan commission to have that site uh subdivided into seven lots. Um and one of the conditions of approval for that was that one of the lots that is being created um has an accessory structure on it, an old barn. And so the zoning ordinance does not allow us to create violations. The subdivision control ordinance does not allow us to create violations when we create new lots, and so one of the conditions of approval for that subdivision was that either the barn had to be removed or they had to seek approval from this board uh to allow an accessory structure to remain on the site before a primary structure was uh constructed there. So um again, we're looking at the whole site here, and in some of the future uh um photos, you can see exactly kind of where the property is. So again, this is kind of the town of Hartsville, and um all to its um east would be uh single family residential R2 to I'm sorry, to the west, to the east is AP agriculture preferred, and that's all primarily uh tillable acreage, and then across State Road 46 is still um R2 and some C1 direction. Um as I indicated, um the uh uh proposal before you is to allow that existing structure, it's approximately 2,000 square feet to remain on this newly created lot, and the ordinance, the Hartsville ordinance. Uh this is the section where it states that no accessory structures are to be permitted on any lot prior to the establishment of a prior uh structure of a primary structure. Oh, if I can get this right. All right. So this again kind of shows the uh proposed subdivision um that again was approved by the plan commission uh contingent upon um getting a variance or the the uh structure being removed. That is the location of the existing barn. This is area context, and again the proposed lot is outlined in the dashed yellow lines, and much like in older parts of town, older plates, um, properties kind of function as one, they might be owned by several people, several lots might own, you know. Um one person might own several lots, that's the way to say it. Um so sometimes it looks as though there are um some accessory structures just on one lot. Um these are still considered separate lots. So there, I'm just kind of outlining the three accessory structures that are on still separate lots um right there um in close proximity to uh the petitioners. This is looking east into that subject site, and and that is the the barn. This is just turned around and looking directly to the west down the street um at the residential uh structures, and then you know, of course, some of their accessory structures that they have, and these are not any of them that are on single lots that are associated with houses.
openpublica.com