Board grants appeal over decorative stone but denies variances for 1205 S. Rogers

The Monroe County Board of Zoning Appeals on March 26 granted an administrative appeal from a notice of violation at 1205 South Rogers Street but denied three related variances that would have let the property exceed zoning limits on impervious surface and landscape area. The board voted to grant the appeal and later voted to deny variances by unanimous roll calls.

Staff told the board the department has applied a consistent interpretation of “decorative stone” in Bloomington zoning reviews — typically a washed aggregate in the 1½–2 inch range — and that the notice of violation was issued after a complaint in October 2025. Planning staff said the site’s new rock yielded an impervious surface calculation that would raise coverage to about 92% from an approved 69% and that the ground‑cover placement extended outside the limited areas the Unified Development Ordinance allows for decorative stone.

Petitioner Josh Alley, who said he replaced repeatedly failing grass with river rock to stabilize the property, told the board, “Honestly, I didn't know I was doing anything wrong.” He said the choice was driven by repeated plant failure, tenant complaints and the cost of trying to keep grass alive.

A public commenter with environmental credentials urged that smaller stone and loss of vegetation can produce runoff similar to an impervious surface, saying, “if you're doing the calculations ... it really is comparable to an impervious surface.” Board members focused debate on three issues: whether the material met the (informal) departmental definition of decorative stone, whether staff properly applied the code, and whether grounds existed to show a hardship for variances.

After deliberation the board concluded staff’s interpretation of decorative stone could be appealed in this administrative proceeding and granted that appeal, but it found insufficient evidence of a hardship or peculiarity to allow relief from the UDO limits on impervious coverage and minimum landscape area. The board denied the three variances and directed the petitioner to coordinate with planning staff to move the property toward the required 69% protected/landscaped threshold; staff said stone already located within code‑permitted locations (for example under stairs or adjacent to the building) could be reused there if the petitioner re‑arranged material to meet the code.

The board’s action leaves the notice of violation resolved by appeal on the narrow question of whether the stone qualifies as decorative stone but keeps the property subject to standard impervious and landscape-area limitations; the petitioner must work with staff to bring the property into compliance or return with revised plans.