Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Rezoning topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Hearing examiner recommends denial of Kittle Property Group rezoning at 6501 Mann Road

5827685 · September 25, 2025
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

The hearing examiner recommended denial of a request to rezone 26.83 acres at 6501 Mann Road to allow a D7 multifamily development, citing inconsistency with the comprehensive plan and neighborhood concerns including floodplain, traffic and past maintenance issues at the developer's properties.

The hearing examiner recommended denial on Sept. 25 of a rezoning petition by Kittle Property Group that would have rezoned about 26.83 acres at 6501 Mann Road in Decatur Township to allow a D7 multifamily residential development.

The proposal, filed as petition 2025ZON077, sought to rezone the parcel to permit a multiunit project that the petitioner described as affordable workforce housing and that would include three-story apartment buildings, single-story cottages on the eastern edge and amenities such as a clubhouse, pool and dog park. The petitioner said the plan had been revised several times and that the latest version reduced the unit count and added green space and trail connectivity.

The rezoning drew opposition from neighbors, the Decatur Township Civic Council and township officials. A representative of the Civic Council said the site is designated in the county comprehensive plan as a rural-estate neighborhood — a designation the council said envisions roughly 0 to 1 unit per acre — and argued that much of the parcel is environmentally sensitive or in the floodplain. Tony Elrod, a nearby landowner, told the hearing examiner he feared increased trespassing, traffic and safety risks for farm residents and hunters that live adjacent to the property.

City planning staff, represented at the hearing by Des, recommended denial. Des told the hearing examiner that roughly 40 percent of the parcel lies in the floodplain and that, while the overall density across the full parcel calculates to about 9.5 units per acre, the developable (dry) portion of the site would produce an effective density of roughly 18 units per acre. The staff report also noted the property’s comprehensive-plan designation and the lack of neighborhood support for multifamily at this location.

Kittle Property Group’s representatives argued the project would meet a near-term need for affordable workforce housing, would extend sewer service and could help connect the site to planned greenway and trail improvements along the White River. Counsel Joe Calderon, representing the petitioner, said the developer had met with township and parks staff and revised the site plan to add amenities and increase open space. A Kittle representative, identified in the hearing as Mr. Pozen, said, “I wanna emphasize this is affordable workforce housing.”

Officials from Decatur Township testified to enforcement and safety concerns tied to other properties owned by the developer. Lauren Hudson, division chief of fire prevention for the Decatur Township Fire Department, described repeated fire-inspection visits to units at Lyndhurst Park Apartments and said those properties have had numerous reinspections over recent years; Hudson told the hearing examiner that as of the inspection described at the hearing the current outstanding violations had been corrected.

Remonstrators also raised long-term maintenance and tenant-support issues tied to the developer’s other Marion County properties and urged caution before approving denser development on land that includes wetlands and slopes down to the White River.

After hearing testimony from petitioner, staff and remonstrators, the hearing examiner said the comprehensive plan designation, environmental sensitivity of the site and neighborhood opposition weighed against the rezoning. The examiner said the most recent site revisions were noted but that they did not change the examiner’s view that the proposal was inconsistent with the comprehensive plan and recommended denial. The recommendation will be placed on the Metropolitan Development Commission agenda for Oct. 15, 2025.

The hearing record for 2025ZON077 includes traffic and site studies, multiple site-plan iterations and testimony from township fire prevention and civic representatives; the matter will next be considered by the Metropolitan Development Commission on Oct. 15, 2025.