Brad Davis | The Republic
People gather at Columbus City Hall Monday night to hear discussion about a planned expansion for Henry Chateau in the Grandview Lakes area.
Bartholomew County officials have approved a request for conditional use to allow expansion of a retreat center near Grandview Lake.
The Bartholomew County Board of Zoning Appeals voted 3-2 Monday on the request by the applicant, Max Henry of Henry Chateau, who sought to amend commitments related to his retreat center at 13200 Bellsville Pike in Ohio Township.
Board members Arnold Haskell and David Flohr were the votes against.
Henry asked to allow events to host 125 attendees, 50 more than the original commitment of 75 maximum, which was included when county planning officials agreed to allow for the retreat center in an agricultural zoning district in 2023.
Included also were requests to permit alcohol service at the retreat center and for events to end by 11 p.m as opposed to 10 p.m. Alcohol service at the site would be served by permitted caterers.
The matter was subject to intense opposition from neighbors when originally approved in 2023, and that remained the case this time around. Representatives of the Grandview Lot Owners Association (GLOA) showed up wearing white— as they did a couple years ago — to express their opposition to the project.
GLOA and company asked for the request to be tabled when it was to be originally considered on Aug. 25.
Mark Thacker, vice president of GLOA, asked the board for a continuation of 60 days to “secure appropriate local counsel to coordinate with a large group of affected property owners and address the legal and practical complexities involved.” The board ended up granting a 30-day continuance, which led up to this week’s meeting.
The property is 56 acres and heavily wooded. Residences to the north and east are lots on Grandview Lake and separated from the property by a large, wooded area owned by the GLOA, according to city documents. To the south and west are large-lot residential single-family residential properties.
A retreat center is defined by the zoning ordinance as: “A facility used for professional, educational, or religious meetings, conferences, or seminars which provides meals, housing and recreation for participants during the period of the retreat or program.”
That definition was the source of back and forth, with neighbors alleging that weddings and wedding receptions that have been held there were in violation of the original approval. Max Henry and his legal counsel, Jeff Rocker, responded by saying that “religious meetings” do encompass weddings and accompanying receptions.
During public comment, neighbors pointed to what they saw as other violations of the original 2023 approval. Mike McNally, a Carmel-based attorney who represented GLOA residents, said he was “apparently the 14th choice” of counsel on behalf of residents because of the number of conflicts of interest local attorneys had.
McNally went so far as to say that Henry had potentially perjured himself in his application to the planning department and asked for denial, or at the very least, continuation.
“He signed the form under penalties of perjury, saying that he was in compliance with all the ordinances and regulations,” McNally said. “… “He’s held events on site that are not consistent with the use of a retreat center.”
McNally also pointed out that the final certificate of occupancy was not obtained for the site until February of this year. Henry said no events were held there in 2024 because the site was undergoing improvements.
At one point, Haskell referred back to meeting minutes from 2023 and read back questions he had asked Henry at the time.
“I asked if this would be used as a retreat center instead of a wedding venue and you stated that you would stay within the guidelines of what is approved,” Haskell said.
For a moment, Henry asked if he could consult with Rocker about his Fifth Amendment rights against self-incrimination, although the attorney said that wouldn’t be necessary.
Rocker said there had been weddings for “family friends” there, but that they were not commercial in nature.
“When we did have that last meeting, there was a discussion, I believe, between just the board members about whether or not family events such as that could happen and I believe the answer was affirmative that they could,” Rocker said.
Rocker noted that in most of the two years since approval “there have been no complaints conveyed to the applicant nor has the county contacted (the) applicant with any concerns regarding the operation.”
But that changed two weeks ago after the new application was filed.
“We mysteriously had code enforcement sent out to visit as well as the fire marshal, both of whom found nothing out of the ordinary,” Rocker said, observing that Henry was not asking for a new use, but rather “a fairly simple set of changes that we are asking for.”
Grandview residents opposed Henry’s current and past applications, citing reasons such as the board’s previous denials, possible traffic hazards, a desire to keep the area rural and residential, along with concerns about noise, property values, and alcohol being served at the venue.
During public comment, most who spoke were opposed to the request, but a couple were in favor, including Columbus City Councilman Jay Foyst, R-District 6.
Foyst commented on the vast amount of acreage in the area not impacted by Henry Chateau and the increased economic activity the expansion would enable.
Matt Ellegood, a Grandview lot owner, also spoke in favor of the request, saying that his neighbors were behaving like the applicant was a “criminal” and that “I didn’t know at Grandview Lake we hate weddings so much.”
Like Rocker earlier in the meeting, Ellegood said that Grandview has “mega-parties” and drew that in contrast with the staunch opposition his neighbors had with the project.
“We can have live bands, we can get loud fireworks,” Ellegood said. “But he’s down the road, and we’re acting like he’s a criminal. He’s trying to get his place in compliance… We’re acting like it’s a murder trial.”
Planning staff in their report said that the site was in violation of the zoning ordinance because it was operating without an approved zoning compliance certificate, however that had been obtained since the report was put together, according to city officials.
Staff had put forward a favorable request with some commitments including that Henry demonstrate compliance with applicable Indiana building fire and building codes resulting from the request.
Seven additional commitments included are that there will be no amplified, outdoor music on site, that the property remain substantially wooded and that the 125 attendees maximum encompass organizers, caterers and guest speakers as well. The majority of the commitments were carried over from the initial approval, with changes to the number of attendees and one that previously restricted serving alcohol.
Henry previously submitted applications for an event venue at the same property, which were heard and denied by the board in December of 2020 and July of 2021. The matter was continued twice over a few month period in 2023 before officially being approved in a 3-2 vote that September.
