Staff and fire, building safety push occupancy and change-of-use language into UDO review

City building-safety and fire department staff told the Carmel land use committee they are working on ordinance language to require clearer change-of-use and occupancy procedures for mixed‑use and industrial zones, and to align those rules with the ongoing Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) review.

Mike Halabaugh (DOCS staff) said the building safety and fire departments have been “really interested in updating the language to, allow, or to to better facilitate” inspections and clearer requirements for change-of-use and occupancy, and that draft language would come back as part of Article 9 amendments.

Staff described recurring problems in which businesses or property owners begin work without checking whether a change of use, change of occupancy or additional inspections are required, which can lead to stop‑work orders and higher costs for owners. A checklist developed by Bill and Chris Rohr and reviewed by fire and building staff is included in staff materials and will be used to help applicants understand requirements before work begins.

Committee members said the proposed language targets B-zone (mixed-use and industrial) properties where change-of-use issues have arisen in the past. Anita (committee member) emphasized safety as a core objective: “If we can prevent the injury, if we can prevent the tragedy, it would be much better than trying to respond to the tragedy.”

Staff described implementation steps: coordination with the fire department and building safety to define when inspections are required, whether some projects require pre‑ and post‑work inspections, and what triggers an occupancy review. Larger or longer‑duration projects would be expected to have inspections and potentially more stringent permit conditions; minor short-term work would not be subject to the same inspection burden.

The committee was told the draft will go to the planning commission as part of Article 9/U DO amendments, then back to council. Staff did not request an immediate committee vote; instead they asked the committee to expect ordinance language to appear in planning commission materials and welcomed feedback on the draft checklist and legal language.

No final ordinance was adopted at the meeting; staff were directed to continue drafting and to involve the fire chief and building-safety personnel in the forthcoming planning‑commission and council review.