Kokomo council rejects rezoning for drive‑through convenience store at 501 James Drive, 5‑4

The Kokomo Common Council voted 5‑4 to defeat Ordinance 71‑86, a rezoning request to change 501 James Drive from R‑3 (medium‑density single‑family) to C‑1 (small‑to‑medium general commercial), preventing a proposed drive‑through convenience store from moving forward at the site.

The vote followed a 20‑minute public comment period in which several nearby residents pressed the council to keep the lot residential, citing concerns about crime, student pedestrian safety, drainage and trash pickup. Casey Harrington, a resident at 505 James Drive, told the council she found “eight calls to a nearby convenience store within the past two months” on a local scanner page and asked, “is that something that you want 20 feet from your house?”

An agent representing the property owner said the action before the council was only a rezoning and that site‑plan and engineering details would return to city staff and the Planning Commission if the rezoning passed. “All we’re doing is rezoning,” the owner’s representative said, adding the owner had combined lots because a sanitary easement and parking requirements affected the site layout.

Other neighbors said the proposed store would sit immediately adjacent to private yards and a six‑foot privacy fence, and that driveway access would align with neighboring driveways. A resident who said she monitors neighborhood posts and local scanner pages said convenience stores are frequently targeted for violent incidents and urged the council to vote to keep the lot residential. Another resident described local trash‑collection routes and said a new commercial use would complicate pickup operations.

Council discussion on the item was brief and proceeded to a roll‑call vote. The motion to pass Ordinance 71‑86 on second reading failed 5‑4; the council president announced the result: “5 to 4. The motion did not pass.” The transcript includes individual vocal votes during the roll call (several members explicitly recorded as “nay” and “aye”), but the council’s official tally was reported as 5‑4.

Why it matters: rezoning would have changed permitted uses at a neighborhood lot and, if approved, would have allowed a commercial site plan (including a drive‑through) to be considered by city staff and the Planning Commission. Opponents said the change would increase local traffic and safety risks for schoolchildren and remove a residential parcel from the neighborhood housing supply.

The council did not adopt any conditions or give staff direction to study mitigations; the item failed and will not proceed to site‑plan review unless brought back by the applicant or introduced again.