Haysville zoning board tables request to reclassify 131 W. Grand for masonry business

HAYSVILLE, March 13, 2025 — The Haysville City Board of Zoning Appeals on Thursday moved to table consideration of a request to rezone Lot 1, Block A, Fox Edition (commonly known as 131 West Grand Avenue) from light commercial to heavy commercial so the commission and staff can study alternatives, including a limited storage exception or a protective overlay. The item was continued to the board’s March 27 meeting.

The matter matters to nearby residents because the change would allow heavier uses — defined by city code to include construction sales and service, limited manufacturing and outdoor storage — that staff said are not allowed in the current light commercial district. City staff told the board the requested heavy commercial zoning would permit outdoor storage of refuse containers and construction materials and would change setback and building-height rules for the site.

City staff (identified in the hearing as Debbie) told the board that heavy commercial allows uses “such as limited manufacturing, animal care, welding, construction sales and service, and wholesale business services,” and that the heavy commercial district has larger rear and side setbacks and a taller maximum building height than the current light commercial designation. The staff report recommended denial because the request does not conform with the city’s 2023 comprehensive plan, which designates the site for lower-intensity commercial uses. The report also lists development conditions the city would require if the board approved a rezoning, including solid screening for any outdoor storage, a hard or all‑weather surface for storage areas, parking and landscape plans, and a minimum of 1,920 square feet of street‑yard landscaping with four shade trees.

Agent Barry Davis, of Davis Building Company, spoke for the applicant and property owner and described planned improvements. Davis said the intent is to renovate the former car wash facility so it “doesn’t look like a car wash anymore,” add garage doors and a fence, and screen stored containers. He said the owner recently completed a separate $2,000,000 masonry project and that the masonry firm could present an improved facade for the Main Street site. The applicant, Nicholas Cardone, identified himself as the owner/operator of the masonry business and said the firm uses a small fleet and portable containers to serve job sites. Cardone said, “We only have 14 of them,” referring to 13‑ and 18‑yard containers, and that vehicles or containers kept overnight would be stored behind the proposed fence.

A nearby resident, Sonia Roland of 116 South Lamar, spoke during public comment and asked how the proposal would affect her property, raising concerns about noise, dust and visual impacts. City staff explained the public-notification process and reiterated that any outdoor storage area would have to be screened from view and maintained on an all‑weather surface. The staff report included one written opposition from the owner of 207 West Grand Avenue, who said Haysville’s Main Street should not be rezoned to allow heavier industrial activity.

During discussion commissioners asked whether the applicant had searched for existing heavy commercial locations and whether a temporary-use permit could address the storage issue without a rezoning. Staff noted that a temporary-use allowance in the light commercial district could permit outdoor storage for up to one year with written administrative approval but said the applicant’s plan appeared to involve longer‑term storage and therefore would not be fully covered by that allowance. Staff told the board that, under the city’s zoning definitions, masonry falls under “construction sales and service,” a use listed only in the heavy commercial district.

Several commissioners signaled preferred alternatives to a full rezoning. One commissioner proposed keeping the property in light commercial but creating a site‑specific exception for outdoor storage, and another said the board could adopt a protective overlay limiting uses to the applicant’s business if it approved a rezoning. Staff also offered a possible five‑year expiration on a protective overlay so the board could review longer‑term impacts before a permanent change remained with the property.

After debate the board voted to table the application for further study and directed staff to examine whether the storage need could be accommodated under light‑commercial rules, or, if not, to prepare protective‑overlay language and other conditions for a future vote. The item was scheduled for review at the March 27 meeting.

Votes at a glance: the board approved routine minutes and then unanimously voted to table the zone‑change request to March 27, 2025 for additional staff analysis and possible conditions.

Next steps: staff will return with options for the board’s consideration on March 27, including whether a temporary-use exception or a protective overlay can reconcile the applicant’s storage needs with the city’s land‑use plan.