The Logansport Board of Zoning Appeals voted on Sept. 15 not to approve a use variance and related variances that would have allowed James Gross to operate a commercial garage at 2105 North Third Street.

Planning staff told the board the site has been the subject of enforcement letters for operating a business and for an excessive number of inoperable vehicles and parts visible to the public; the property had been placed on the Cass County Plan Commission’s unsafe‑property list earlier in the year. Staff described required standards for a commercial garage: minimum lot area and parking, limits on outdoor storage and a requirement that disabled vehicles not be stored in the open. Staff also said the petitioner proposed a six‑foot privacy fence to screen vehicles and suggested several commitments if the board were to approve the use, including disposal of fluids, limits on outdoor storage, a seven‑day maximum for vehicles awaiting repair and a prohibition on salvage‑type operations.

Multiple neighbors testified in opposition. Neighbors said they had observed up to 15–20 cars on the property at times, complained about noise at varied hours, expressed concern about traffic and safety on the residential streets, and raised worries that a commercial operation would reduce property values and change the character of the neighborhood. One pastor who lives across the street said he and his family had not felt unsafe and offered support for the petitioner; other neighbors disagreed.

During the hearing the board and staff discussed a set of commitments staff had drafted — for example, requiring the fence before operations, limiting the number of vehicles awaiting repair on site, and setting hours of operation. The board proposed a lower cap on vehicles awaiting repair (three) and worked through proposed hours (the board ultimately discussed Sunday–Friday 8 a.m.–9 p.m. and Saturdays 8 a.m.–10 p.m. as possible limits) as possible conditions, but members then proceeded to a vote on the petition itself.

In a roll‑call vote the board declined to approve the requested use variance (one yes, three no). The zoning administrator told the petitioner the board would send a written notice of the decision and reminded him of the 30‑day appeal period to circuit court. The petitioner was advised that existing enforcement actions remain in effect and the county could pursue further enforcement if violations continue.