Larry Gilbert asked the Sellersburg Planning Commission on Aug. 18 to rezone 105 Ackerman Court from B-3 (general business) to I-1 (light industrial) to improve the property’s marketability and potentially move part of his cabinet and countertop operations back into the building.
The petition matters to neighbors because the property borders residential lots and residents said the change could allow industrial uses they believe are inconsistent with the area’s character.
Gilbert discussed the site’s history and his reasons for the request, saying the change would make the building “much more marketable” if he decides to sell and could allow him to return some operations to the original location. Jeremy, a planning staff member, told the commission that storage and some industrial uses are addressed differently under the UDO and that staff prepared background materials to assist the commission’s review.
Neighbor Ken Alexander, who lives at 701 East Utica Street, said he has lived near the building for decades and repeated concerns about inserting industrial zoning into a primarily residential and small‑scale commercial area. “Just to make a little extra money or to sell it is not a reason for a zoning change,” Alexander said, urging commissioners to consider the comprehensive plan and the community’s long‑term character. He also pressed for clarity about enforcement: “If it changes, the I says there will be no noise outside. ... Are you gonna enforce that, or is it gonna have to be a battle?”
Commissioners and staff clarified that some storage uses could be allowed without rezoning and that a building’s prior use may be a legal nonconforming use if it predated current zoning. Staff noted that manufacturing of cabinets would not be permitted by right in B-3 but that certain nonhazardous storage can be permitted in industrial districts. Commissioners repeatedly cited the need to check the town’s Unified Development Ordinance (UDO), zoning history and whether the property had been legally designated industrial in the 1970s before approving any change.
After discussion, a commissioner moved to table the rezoning petition to the next meeting so staff could research the UDO, prior zoning and nonconforming‑use status and so the applicant and neighbors could provide additional information. The motion was seconded and the commission approved the tabling; the item was set for 30 days.
The commission did not adopt a policy change or rezone the property at the meeting. The applicant may pursue storage uses allowed under current zoning while the commission reviews the file. The rezoning petition will return to the planning commission after staff completes the requested review and compiles records about prior zoning and the UDO.