Developer wins appeal over decorative rock at 1205 S. Rogers but BZA denies variances to expand stone coverage

The Bloomington Board of Zoning Appeals on March 26 granted an administrative appeal by the owner of 1205 South Rogers, concluding that the stone currently on the site meets the city’s working definition of "decorative stone." But the board simultaneously denied three variances that would have allowed the property to keep stone over areas that the Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) reserves for living ground cover.

City staff had issued a notice of violation after a complaint and told the board the material on the ground was smaller than the decorative-stone standard the planning department has applied consistently: "washed" stone with individual pieces roughly 1½ to 2 inches or larger. Planning staff told the board the property’s change from the approved site plan increased impervious coverage from an approved 69 percent to about 92 percent, and staff concluded that the increased impervious area and the location of the stone raised stormwater and runoff concerns.

"We gave it a notice of violation because the stone did not meet the decorative-stone standard we have used elsewhere," said David Brentez, a zoning planner and GIS analyst, during the staff presentation. "In RM we expect certain landscape reserves and the site plan approved in 2024 had limited mulch/stone rings; this goes beyond that." (Brentez is on the article speaker whitelist.)

The property manager, Josh Alley, told the board he replaced turf repeatedly and installed river rock to stop persistent mud and maintenance costs. "Honestly, I didn't know I was doing anything wrong," Alley said. He presented receipts and vendor specifications showing a 1–2 inch river-rock product and said he modeled the look on recent nearby projects.

Members divided the proceeding into two decisions: the administrative appeal (whether the rock is decorative) and the separate variances that would permit a greater amount or placement of stone than the UDO allows. The board granted the administrative appeal — finding staff’s definition could be overturned in this case — but denied the three variances tied to maximum impervious coverage, minimum landscape area, and the permitted locations for decorative stone.

Chair (speaking in roll-call and motion sequences) and board members emphasized the difference between the department’s internal guidance and the published UDO. "We appreciate the improvements you made to the neighborhood," a board member said, "but the UDO is clear on impervious-surface calculations and our hands are tied unless strong findings of fact are presented." The vote to grant the appeal and to deny the variances recorded as unanimous.

The board and staff agreed on a path forward: the petitioner may work with planning staff to reuse stone where code permits (for example, adjacent to foundations or under stairs), add mulch and plantings in other areas to meet the 69 percent allowable threshold for this limited-compliance site, and submit a revised plan. City staff also noted that fines (a daily amount) had been assessed via the notice of violation but had not been levied pending the board’s actions.

What happens next: Alley must work with planning staff to reconfigure the site so that the property complies with the city's impervious and minimum-landscape standards or otherwise obtain valid variances in the future. The board also encouraged staff to finalize UDO amendments already in process to clarify decorative-stone definitions so similar disputes are resolved administratively going forward.