A property owner hoping to turn his barn into an official venue for weddings and other events has received his second denial from the county.
The Bartholomew County Board of Zoning Appeals voted 3-2 Monday to deny Max Henry a use variance for an event venue that would be located at 13200 Bellsville Pike in Ohio Township. Henry was requesting that the board allow “medium scale recreation use” in an area zoned for agriculture.
Board members Arnold Haskell, Michael Speaker and Dave Flohr voted to deny Henry’s request. Members Eric Scheidt and Roger Glick voted against this motion to deny.
According to the staff report, the board heard a similar request from Henry in December of 2020 and voted to deny his request then as well.
The report added that there were “no substantial differences” between the old and new applications. Staff recommended denying the request as two pieces of decision criteria were not met.
These criteria, also mentioned in Haskell’s motion to deny, were #3, which states that “The need for the variance arises from some condition peculiar to the property involved” and criteria #4, which states that “The strict application of the terms of the zoning ordinance will constitute an unnecessary hardship if applied to the property for which the variance is sought.”
The report stated that while the property would not be viable for agriculture, it could still be used for a single-family residential home, which is already an allowed use. It also states that there is “nothing peculiar to the property that establishes the need for an event venue at this location.”
Speaker, who said he has an agricultural background, said that some agricultural uses might be feasible on the site, though Attorney Jeff Rocker, who represents Henry, said they agree with the planning department’s staff report’s statement that the property “would not be a viable agricultural operation.”
He added that since the Henry family already has houses on his other nearby parcels, a third house is not needed.
Scheidt also echoed both of these points and said that by denying the request, they are limiting Henry’s use of his property, as well as potential “economic activity.” He added that the intended use wouldn’t change the “character of the property.”
Haskell, however, pointed out that the ordinance on allowed uses already existed when the barn was built.
“And as decisions were made later to maybe consider that for different purposes, they knew the ordinance at that point as well,” he said. “And so, again, it’s all self-inflicted.”
Previous uses of the barn were also a point of some discussion. The staff report identifies it as one of two “accessory buildings” that would be used for the venue.
Rocker mentioned in a presentation that the space has already been used for events among family and friends, including athletic training sessions. There have also been high school and community sessions that the Henrys do not charge for.
Henry said that the building was “partly” built to be an agricultural space, though they were also able to use it for his son’s wedding, which caused him to think more about using the space for events.
When asked about his use of the space for non-agricultural purposes, he said that they were just “family activities” rather than commercial ventures, and he did not make any money off of these events.
In addition to comments from the board and planning staff, several members of the public spoke up at Tuesday’s meeting. About 50 to 60 individuals attended the meeting in-person.
A number of speakers, including Grandview Lake residents, spoke out against the request. Their concerns included bringing development to an area that residents prefer to keep quiet and secluded, as well as potential dangers of increased traffic.
“We are concerned about our property values,” said George Hill of 13509 Bellsville Pike, “because the reason people are interested in property like this is because we’re not in a developed area.”
Hill and other individuals also voiced worries about noise, despite a presentation given by Rocker on decibel limits of the venue’s speaker system, the limiting effect of insulation, tests that have been run on sound and how they expect very little noise to carry to nearby residences.
Some speakers and residents spoke in favor of the request. Their points included the business it would provide for caterers, scarcity of local event venues, visits to the site that assured them it would run well and not be a nuisance, impressions of Henry’s character and economic benefits of the venue.
Caleb Blackerby said that he would be the chief operating partner of Henry’s venue if it was approved. In addition to being one of the owners of Hangar 5, Blackerby’s hospitality expertise also includes ownership of Factory 12 Event Loft, catering and wedding planning — basically, he quipped, “If it’s part of a party, I can do it.”
“Frankly, we’re at a point where, even when we get the Loft and The Commons, I am sending clients to other communities to have events because we do not have the spaces to house them,” Blackerby said.
He added that his staff would facilitate events in this space responsibly, as he depends on word-of-mouth rather than paid marketing.
The variance application also included many letters of support, including 22 from Grandview area residents and 29 regional residents. However, some speakers said that 22 individuals is a small sample size compared to the overall number of residents living in Grandview.
