The Logansport Board of Zoning Appeals continued a petition Sept. 15 from Joshua Weber and co-applicant Adelberto Narvaez to operate a commercial garage at 1879 Eighteenth Street.

Planning staff told the board the site is in the AB (agribusiness) district, where commercial garages are allowed only by special exception and must satisfy standards including minimum lot area (15,000 square feet plus additional area per service bay), buffering and screening of vehicles, limits on outdoor storage and a maximum seven‑day limit for vehicles awaiting repair. Staff reported enforcement letters had been sent after vehicles and signage appeared on the site without approvals and said the site plan relied on parking areas that appear to be on neighboring property.

Staff recommended several preconditions before operations could begin: a permanent, opaque six‑foot fence to screen vehicles and to be installed before operations; an agreed parking plan limited to property the petitioner controls (board members emphasized the board cannot authorize parking on another owner’s property); a County building‑commissioner inspection and sign-off on structures the petitioner intends to use; and time limits for repainting and site improvements (staff suggested a one‑year time frame for repainting and building repairs shown on the site plan). Staff also noted the comprehensive plan identifies the relevant roadways as key community entrances and recommended caution about uses that could conflict with future beautification.

Petitioner Joshua Weber said the business relocated from Market Street and described cleanup and plans to keep vehicle storage behind the building and concealed; he said he intends two service bays and two employees. He acknowledged some vehicles were placed at the front of the building during the move and said he has begun moving vehicles to the rear and is open to installing fencing and completing a property survey to confirm property lines. Weber said he had limited funds but expected to prioritize fencing and site cleanup.

After discussion, the board voted to continue the petition so the petitioner could provide additional documentation and complete actions staff requested, including locating vehicles behind a fence, obtaining any required surveys and having the county building commissioner inspect the buildings. The board recorded that if operations continue before those items are completed the petitioner could be found in violation and face enforcement action. The petitioner was advised that continuance means the matter will return to a future scheduled hearing and may be continued further if needed.

No vote on approval was taken at the Sept. 15 hearing; the board explicitly instructed the petitioner to: obtain a survey and conclusively establish property lines; secure the opaque fence and parking plan before operating; have the county building commissioner inspect structures to determine required work; and provide a more precise site plan including parking dimensions and elevations at the next hearing.