Mooresville planning panel sends unfavorable rezoning recommendation for Bridge Street impound lot

MOoresville, Ind. — The Mooresville Plan Commission voted 5-0 on June 12 to send a non‑favorable recommendation to the Town Council on a rezoning request for a gravel/parking lot at Bridge Street in the Samuel Moore area, citing unresolved drainage and land‑use concerns.

The vote sends the rezoning request to the Town Council for consideration at the council’s first meeting in July. The commission’s action does not remove the site’s separate permitting obligations for stormwater or preclude separate enforcement of alleged violations.

Holloway, the applicant’s presenter, told the commission he had provided a “preliminary drainage study” to town staff and that he had given a courtesy copy to a staff member earlier the same day. “The only reason it’s preliminary is because, we haven’t submitted it to the town yet,” Holloway said. He described the newly constructed lot as primarily surfaced with asphalt millings, with a total impervious area of about 0.897 acres and about 1.162 acres of runoff that drains off‑site to the north. Holloway told the commission the portion draining to a nearby detention basin is about 0.735 acres and that the basin he identified appears to provide roughly 2.4 acre‑feet of storage and has about five feet of freeboard, though he said some maintenance is needed.

Holloway also said the basin appears to lie in the floodplain of the nearby East Fork Of Whitelet Creek and noted the basin “doesn’t appear to have a discharge,” meaning water can remain until the creek level recedes. He said aerial photos indicate the basin was constructed after February 2005 and that vegetation and debris in the basin mean it needs maintenance.

Commissioners and other speakers pressed on several points: whether Morgan County Soil and Water’s earlier letter applied, how the request aligns with the town’s comprehensive plan, the risk of the lot functioning as permanent vehicle storage rather than temporary impoundment, and the potential for fluids from inoperable vehicles to reach the stream. One commissioner said the area now includes the Boys and Girls Club and an Ivy Tech facility and asked whether the industrial use is appropriate next to those uses.

The commission also discussed enforcement: several members said they had asked the property owner to stop site work when the matter was previously continued but reported that work continued. The applicant’s presenter said he expected to submit a formal stormwater permit application to the town’s permitting office within about a week and said he had discussed the project with Wessler, the engineering consultant, and Tim in the town office.

A member of the commission summarized the board’s concerns — vehicle fluids, proximity to youth facilities and career‑education uses, and apparent failure of the owner to stop work after the prior hearing — and moved that the commission send a non‑favorable recommendation to the Town Council. The commission seconded the motion, and the chair called the vote; the motion carried unanimously, 5‑0.

The commission clarified in discussion that stormwater permitting and any enforcement for alleged violations are separate administrative processes from the rezoning; the applicant may pursue permitting regardless of the zoning outcome. The commission’s non‑favorable recommendation is advisory to the Town Council, which will make the final decision on rezoning.

The commission closed the item by setting the Town Council review for the council’s first meeting in July and moved on to routine permits and inspections business.