Third and Grant Commerce Center PUD rejected by zoning board; council to retake item after heavy public comment

The Gary Common Council on March 27 took up CPO 2025-17, a petition to amend the city’s zoning code (Title 15, Land Use, Chapter 123) to establish a planned unit development for a project called the 20 Third and Grant Commerce Center. City counsel reported the petition had been unanimously rejected by the Board of Zoning Appeals.

Steve Jenkins summarized the BZA’s reasoning: the requested uses were "uncharacteristic of a residential neighborhood or the small business commercial corridor of Grant Street," and the board found the requested uses would have a detrimental influence on the surrounding single-family residential area and small business corridor. Jenkins noted the site is roughly 0.5 miles from the I‑80/94 interchange and expressed the BZA’s concern that permitting the requested uses could lead to a sprawl of warehousing and distribution along the corridor rather than concentrating such uses elsewhere.

Petitioners engaged an architectural representative, Carl Heitman of Heitman Architects, and said they had prepared a PowerPoint presentation that had been shown to the planning commission. Council members requested the same presentation for the council; the petitioner attempted to connect and display the slides but there were technical delays. Council members discussed tabling or sending the item back to committee so members could view the full presentation. One council member said it would be "more appropriate" to send it back to committee.

The meeting included extensive public comment. Residents voiced opposition to placing a light-industrial/small-business park in a residential neighborhood, citing concerns about truck traffic, compatibility with surrounding single-family homes, and the potential for future industrial sprawl. Renee Riddleham urged the council to place "the right development in the right place," citing the neighborhood’s existing middle-class homes and limited nearby amenities. Several other residents (Gary Lehi, Kwabena Rasul, and others) opposed the project for similar reasons. A smaller group, including Eric Allen of Urban Entrepreneurs Institute and other commenters, expressed conditional support for job creation and small-business space.

Council members agreed they needed to see the petitioner’s full visual presentation; with the slides not reliably visible to the council and public, members discussed tabling. A motion to table or return the item to committee was proposed; staff advised that an official motion to table or refer would need to be made at a formal meeting. The council signaled it would take the procedural step of returning the matter to committee to allow members to view the presentation and hear fuller discussion.

Why it matters: The proposed PUD would alter zoning and allowable uses in a residential area near Grant Street and I‑80/94. The BZA’s unanimous rejection and the volume of public comment illustrate neighborhood resistance and the potential land‑use tradeoffs between job-creation arguments and residential compatibility.

Procedural status: The Board of Zoning Appeals unanimously recommended rejection at its hearing; the council did not adopt the ordinance and indicated the matter would be returned to committee or tabled to allow a full presentation and additional review.