Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Zoning Variances topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Vigo County Board of Zoning Appeals hears objections to variance request for pole barn on South Jean Street

5806841 · September 12, 2025
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

Property owner Robert Hopingarner asked the Vigo County Board of Zoning Appeals for two variances to allow a pole barn and an attached 28-by-58-foot addition to remain at 1639 East Davis Drive (South Jean Street). Staff recommended conditional approval, but neighbors strongly objected and no final decision is recorded in the transcript.

The Vigo County Board of Zoning Appeals on a September meeting heard a request from property owner Robert Hopingarner for two variances affecting a pole barn at 1639 East Davis Drive (South Jean Street) in Terre Haute. Hopingarner asked for a variance from the 25-foot front-yard setback and for permission to allow an accessory structure to remain on a lot without a primary single-family dwelling; staff described a need for a 0-foot front-yard setback because a historic pole barn sits in the county right-of-way.

The variances were the only new-business item on the agenda. Staff told the board the pole barn dates to 1946, that a recent survey showed conflicting right-of-way widths (the survey showed a 30-foot right-of-way while county records show 60 feet), and that county engineering staff advised the petitioner to request that the county commissioners vacate the portion of right-of-way up to the front edge of the building. Planning staff recommended approval of the variances on the condition that the commissioners vacate the right-of-way to the front edge of the building and that an improvement location permit be issued for any new structures or additions.

Hopingarner told the board he sold his business on East Davis Drive and needs indoor storage for tools and materials. "I have a lot of stuff... I have been on a waiting list there ever since I sold my building for a larger space to lease... I'm in really in, dire need of having storage space," he said, adding that he planned to add "28 By 58 to the north side of the Pole Barn" where the older home was attached.

Neighbors strongly opposed the request. Dave Rogers, who said he has lived across from the property for more than five decades, said the area is residential and that commercial activity and trucks would harm the neighborhood. "I really don't care for that... once he gets his, his toe in this, that he can do anything he wants and put it and move commercial things over," Rogers said. Craig Fox, who said he developed the lot next door and built a home there, told the board the pole barn no longer has an ancillary residence and therefore should not be treated as an accessory building. "That building is no longer ancillary to any residential purpose," Fox said, adding concerns about congestion and underground utilities near the existing structure.

Other neighbors said they had circulated a petition opposing the variance, described children playing in the street, and expressed alarm that trees on the parcel had been cut down. Troy Taylor said he had obtained signatures from neighbors and told the board, "Every house in that set of vision there is dead against us here." Several residents raised safety and quality-of-life concerns tied to vehicle traffic, equipment storage, and the loss of trees.

Planning staff and a member of the board emphasized the limits of the variance process. A staff member said the action requested "simply allows the building to exist on a parcel without a home," and another board member noted that granting the variance would not authorize a commercial operation: "We're not being asked to approve commercial use. He would have to rezoning the property to do that." Board staff also noted that any approval would be contingent on the county commissioners' action to vacate the right-of-way; if the commissioners decline, the petitioner would face separate legal and permitting hurdles.

The transcript records staff recommendations and extensive public comment but does not include a final vote on the variance request. The petitioner and staff described the next steps as (1) pursuing a county-commissioners' vacation of the right-of-way to the front edge of the building, and (2) obtaining an improvement location permit for the proposed addition or any future structures.

Votes at the meeting unrelated to the item: the board approved the minutes from a prior meeting by voice vote earlier in the session (motion passed; no roll-call tally in the transcript).