Transcript
Terre Haute Board of Zoning AppealsSep 2, 2026
About this transcript
Automatic transcription, not the official record. This is what speech recognition heard at the meeting; it mis-hears names and numbers, and no editor has checked it. The clerk's minutes are the official record. Every line links to the moment in the recording — check anything that matters.
Voices were separated automatically and named from the meeting's speaker roster where the evidence supported it. An unnamed voice shows as Speaker 12 — a machine label, not a person's name.
- Meeting
- Terre Haute Board of Zoning Appeals · Sep 2, 2026
- Length
- 0:13:28
- Lines
- 67
- Transcribed by
- mlx-community/whisper-large-v3-turbo
0:00:00 — open the recording at 0 secondsSpeaker 0 (chair) All right. I'll go ahead and call to order the September meeting of the City of Terre Haute Board of Zoning Appeals. If you go ahead and have the roll call, please.
0:00:08 — open the recording at 8 secondsSpeaker 1 Bill Treadway.
0:00:10 — open the recording at 10 secondsSpeaker 3 (clerk) Donnie Jeffers. Jim Wallace. Present. Jason Saavedra. Here. John Collette. Here.
0:00:17 — open the recording at 17 secondsSpeaker 0 (chair) All right. Thank you for that. First item on the agenda is consideration of the previous minutes for August. I did notice something the summary of the the new business at the end actually says it was denied which it wasn't that doesn't matter as much as the findings of fact being accurate it should be correct it was actually approved
0:00:45 — open the recording at 45 secondsSpeaker 10 it was not I will fix that.
0:00:54 — open the recording at 54 secondsSpeaker 9 Yeah, it was probably just a copy-paste situation, I figured.
0:01:00 — open the recording at 1 minuteSpeaker 11 I would make a motion to approve. Okay, motion to approve.
0:01:04 — open the recording at 1 minute 4 secondsSpeaker 15 Motion to approve with the changes, correct?
0:01:06 — open the recording at 1 minute 6 secondsSpeaker 16 (chair) Second it. Okay, motion to approve and a second. All in favor say aye. Aye. Motion passes.
0:01:12 — open the recording at 1 minute 12 secondsSpeaker 19 (chair) Thank you. Next item is old business. Being none, we'll move on to new business. we have our first petition is bza 1326 335 south 22nd street and if we could have the staff report
0:01:26 — open the recording at 1 minute 26 secondsSpeaker 22 read please sure um the location is 335 south 22nd street the owners are david and lynn knight
0:01:35 — open the recording at 1 minute 35 secondsSpeaker 24 (staff) the petitioners are requesting a variance from section 10-136 e for a reduction of three feet from the required five feet setback to the south for a proposed garage and a variance of five feet from the required five foot setback for the existing house in an R1 single family residence district. The petitioners are requesting a variance from the side setback to the north for the existing dwelling, which was built in 1928 for Harrison Township Assessors. They are also requesting a variance from the south side setback to construct a two-car garage with an attached storage area.
0:02:10 — open the recording at 2 minutes 10 secondsSpeaker 24 (staff) The garage would align with the open space to the south of the primary structure for a future driveway from 22nd Street. The approval will not be injurious to the public health, safety, morals, and general welfare of the community. Construction of the garage will not be injurious to the public health, safety, morals, and general welfare of the property. The petitioner plans to construct the garage in compliance with all applicable building codes and safety requirements and enable off-street parking and secure storage space for tools and yard maintenance equipment.
0:02:34 — open the recording at 2 minutes 34 secondsSpeaker 24 (staff) The proposed use will not injure or adversely affect the value of other property in the immediate area in a substantially adverse manner. In their recommendation, the Department of Engineering states the intended request would not alter the neighborhood's characteristics or create any significant problems for the surrounding area as it matches the surrounding properties. Many homes and garages in the neighborhood do not meet the minimum setbacks. The strict application of the terms of the ordinance would result in a necessary hardship in the use of the property.
0:02:59 — open the recording at 2 minutes 59 secondsSpeaker 24 (staff) The petitioners do have a hardship due to the character of the neighborhood. The home is pre-existing and the petitioners wanted to bring the home into compliance for any issues in the future. most of the properties in the area have garages or dwellings on the lot lines. The Department of Engineering provided a favorable recommendation. Staff also
0:03:14 — open the recording at 3 minutes 14 secondsSpeaker 0 (chair) provides a favorable recommendation. Thank you so much. Before we move on I just want to clarify here because I'm a little confused to be honest. In the wording of the request it says we're requesting a reduction of three feet from the required five foot setback to the south for the garage and then we have
0:03:37 — open the recording at 3 minutes 37 secondsSpeaker 19 (chair) variance of five feet from the part five foot setback for the house okay so it
0:03:42 — open the recording at 3 minutes 42 secondsSpeaker 24 (staff) should be the three feet from five feet for the garage and a zero lot line for the house because it's sitting on the hotline that's what I thought okay I
0:03:53 — open the recording at 3 minutes 53 secondsSpeaker 19 (chair) just wondered if that might have been an error because I didn't see where the city of engineering mentioned that in their recognition it doesn't mean they
0:04:00 — open the recording at 4 minutesSpeaker 33 had to we kind of something changed in the middle he ended up not needing as much of a variance for the garage as he needed as he thought he did so we he
0:04:10 — open the recording at 4 minutes 10 secondsSpeaker 0 (chair) reduced his request right right okay that's that's why I just want to make sure we all are on the same page about what's what's happening okay thanks do
0:04:19 — open the recording at 4 minutes 19 secondsSpeaker 38 (chair) we have a petitioner present all right you know I guess they move the podium to the side but that's all right we can all hear you I'm sure would you like to speak on this petition at all or say anything in addition to your application
0:04:30 — open the recording at 4 minutes 30 secondsSpeaker 39 or anything
0:04:32 — open the recording at 4 minutes 32 secondsSpeaker 0 (chair) you gotcha okay simple enough all right I'm sorry state your name just for the record David Knight perfect okay you are the petitioner good any written
0:04:47 — open the recording at 4 minutes 47 secondsSpeaker 7 remunerances or anything like that you think so do you have anybody else who would like to speak on this particular application
0:05:02 — open the recording at 5 minutes 2 secondsSpeaker 49 (staff) have enough room to this office i think his expectation on that drive through garage would actually see alley in 20th street he does have a number to do that that was part by intention when he talked about variances he's not coming up the driveway that's been living since he has actually now the only way to align the garage door with his driveway would to encroach on one of the south side so otherwise the door would be all set from the alleyway to create a
0:05:29 — open the recording at 5 minutes 29 secondsSpeaker 51 I don't need too close to the phone to maybe get back to the card. Yeah.
0:05:35 — open the recording at 5 minutes 35 secondsSpeaker 52 Okay.
0:05:38 — open the recording at 5 minutes 38 secondsSpeaker 25 Makes sense to me. Do you have any questions for the board, for the petitioner, or in general?
0:05:47 — open the recording at 5 minutes 47 secondsSpeaker 0 (chair) Is there two no's? Okay. I don't have any questions either, so if we do have a motion, I will entertain it.
0:05:56 — open the recording at 5 minutes 56 secondsSpeaker 58 I'll second it.
0:05:56 — open the recording at 5 minutes 56 secondsSpeaker 16 (chair) Approve and a second. All in favor say aye. Aye. Motion passes.
0:05:59 — open the recording at 5 minutes 59 secondsSpeaker 19 (chair) congratulations all right let's move on to BZA 1426 221 north 14 and a half Street as well as 1626 Liberty Avenue we can have the staff report red please
0:06:13 — open the recording at 6 minutes 13 secondsSpeaker 24 (staff) the owner Stratt Stacker incorporated the representative is mr. Keller the petitioner is requesting a 300 square foot reduction from the requires 6600 square foot minimum lot size for two properties the property at 221 north 14th and a half street is zoned r3 multifamily residence district the property at 1626 liberty avenue is zoned r2 two-family residence district the proposed use for both properties is a single family home the approval will not be injurious to the public health safety morals and general
0:06:42 — open the recording at 6 minutes 42 secondsSpeaker 24 (staff) welfare of the community building single family homes would not be injurious to the public health safety morals or general welfare of the community the petitioner states that the proposed homes will be constructed in compliance with all applicable building codes permitting requirements and utility standards the proposed use will not enter adversely affect the use or manner of the property in the media area in a substantially adverse manner in both recommendations the department of engineering states the intended use would not alter the neighborhood's characteristics
0:07:10 — open the recording at 7 minutes 10 secondsSpeaker 24 (staff) or create any significant problems for the surrounding area the lots are average size for the areas and does not alter the residential nature of the property oh this one is strangely stapled, I apologize. The strict application of the terms of the ordinance would result in unnecessary hardship in the use of the property. The petitioners do have a hardship due to the size of the existing lot, which are smaller than the required 5,600 square feet. Without a variance, the petitioner would not be able to build single-family homes on the properties. The Department of Engineering
0:07:38 — open the recording at 7 minutes 38 secondsSpeaker 24 (staff) provided a favorable. Staff also provides a favorable recommendation for both variances.
0:07:44 — open the recording at 7 minutes 44 secondsSpeaker 41 (chair) If you do. All right, do we have a petitioner here to speak on this? Thank you.
0:07:49 — open the recording at 7 minutes 49 secondsSpeaker 68 Thank you.
0:08:19 — open the recording at 8 minutes 19 secondsSpeaker 38 (chair) good thank you I kind of did it backwards last time do I have any questions for the petitioner from the board yep kind of have a hard time hearing you sorry can you speak up a little bit
0:08:37 — open the recording at 8 minutes 37 secondsSpeaker 78 correct yes
0:08:49 — open the recording at 8 minutes 49 secondsSpeaker 81 uh i believe the one that we have foundation starting on that block
0:08:56 — open the recording at 8 minutes 56 secondsSpeaker 82 so uh i'm trying to think of which block that is it's on the alley uh you're doing one in like
0:09:01 — open the recording at 9 minutes 1 secondMr. Keller (petitioner representative) maybe two close there's one on 244 1115 that's right behind the lock right now yes absolutely okay there's two trees there if the trees if the trees are uh in the buildable
0:09:13 — open the recording at 9 minutes 13 seconds footprint of where the house will be or they're going to throw something we'll be delivering
0:09:25 — open the recording at 9 minutes 25 secondsSpeaker 95 they're dead
0:09:33 — open the recording at 9 minutes 33 secondsMr. Keller (petitioner representative) because we had a neighbor that the city was cutting down trees on the tree is
0:09:53 — open the recording at 9 minutes 53 secondsSpeaker 99 excuse me i'm sorry do you know
0:09:58 — open the recording at 9 minutes 58 secondsSpeaker 82 i believe that's in our third or fourth phase right now we're on our second uh
0:10:08 — open the recording at 10 minutes 8 seconds Thank you.
0:10:09 — open the recording at 10 minutes 9 secondsSpeaker 38 (chair) Thank you. All right. Good. So, technically, we do have to have the names and addresses of any speakers, so at some point if you can go up to the podium and write your name and address, we'd appreciate it. Any more questions from the board for the petitioner? There's nothing up there? I didn't write it down.
0:10:26 — open the recording at 10 minutes 26 secondsSpeaker 19 (chair) Never mind.
0:10:27 — open the recording at 10 minutes 27 secondsSpeaker 107 Can you just state your name? Yeah.
0:10:30 — open the recording at 10 minutes 30 secondsSpeaker 106 Pauletta Turner. Thank you.
0:10:32 — open the recording at 10 minutes 32 secondsSpeaker 0 (chair) Thank you. We'll get this figured out next time. more questions for the board for the petitioner or in general we have a
0:10:46 — open the recording at 10 minutes 46 secondsSpeaker 16 (chair) motion to approve do we have a second second I have a motion to approve in a second all in favor say aye aye motion passes thank you appreciate you building more housing stock in Terre Haute too we clearly need
0:11:07 — open the recording at 11 minutes 7 secondsSpeaker 49 (staff) he's got 30 lots for this project we have 180 lots required that don't meet the lot sizes so we have drafted ordinance that we're going to come up in order here the next couple months okay so you think it'd be an average would get approval and it won't take out the setbacks but they approve the setbacks instead of getting the range that is the lot sizes if you're going to be really aware of there's many lots that don't meet minimum sizes yeah so of the administration or her parents just help speed up this process of development through
0:11:39 — open the recording at 11 minutes 39 secondsSpeaker 49 (staff) redevelopment through thrive so it's just delays part of the process of getting permits because this this they were going to build this student but they're going to make them very great so that's part of just you got aware of it that hopefully that'll be this year hopefully that'll leave the
0:11:58 — open the recording at 11 minutes 58 secondsSpeaker 38 (chair) make it more efficient hopefully that would be nice just in general but um we're always willing to see whatever petitions come in front of us but we could have less that would be ideal so
0:12:08 — open the recording at 12 minutes 8 secondsSpeaker 0 (chair) right exactly all right we'll move on uh next item is communication received from the public
0:12:14 — open the recording at 12 minutes 14 secondsSpeaker 19 (chair) did we receive anything that we're not aware okay nothing received we'll keep going um next item is to consider the findings of facts this was for the august meeting again on the minutes it said it was denied but again it does
0:12:30 — open the recording at 12 minutes 30 secondsSpeaker 120 it is correct here that it says it was approved i'll fix it when i do my minutes for this
0:12:49 — open the recording at 12 minutes 49 secondsSpeaker 16 (chair) i didn't find any errors but i don't want to make a motion if you guys want to make a motion feel
0:12:53 — open the recording at 12 minutes 53 secondsSpeaker 124 feel free. I'll make a motion to approve it. Okay. We have a motion to approve in a second.
0:13:00 — open the recording at 13 minutesSpeaker 16 (chair) I'm prepared to say aye. Aye. Motion passes. And well, that's we're at the end, aren't we? Motion to adjourn. Anyone? Second. Motion to adjourn in a second. I'm prepared to say aye. Aye. Thank you.
0:13:16 — open the recording at 13 minutes 16 secondsSpeaker 131 I like to talk fast.
0:13:22 — open the recording at 13 minutes 22 secondsSpeaker 137 I've got two for next month. So far.
Marked moments above are where the archive's reviewed highlights were drawn from. Everything else on this page is unreviewed.