Area Plan Commission continues rezoning request for East Virginia site after neighbors raise loitering, noise concerns

The Area Plan Commission of Evansville and Vanderburgh County on April 3 continued a petition to rezone 624 and 628 East Virginia Street from R-2 and C-1 to C-2, allowing a proposed laundromat to be added to an existing convenience store.

The commission voted 8-0 to continue the petition to the May meeting and waive the refile fee so the applicant can submit a written use-and-development commitment and work with nearby residents to address nuisance concerns.

The petition was presented by Matt Layman of R. Layman & Son Consulting, who described the plan as neighborhood-serving. “Our client thought it would be a good opportunity to put in a laundromat to help serve the neighborhood,” Layman said. Neighbors directly adjacent to the site said they opposed the rezoning unless specific mitigations are included.

Resident John Hunsaker, who lives next door at 622 East Virginia, told the commission he and his wife have repeatedly found drug paraphernalia in the parking lot and that loud music and constant loitering make the shared property line difficult to live beside. “It is nasty,” Hunsaker said, describing noise that he said “literally vibrates” his windows.

Commissioners pressed the applicant on specific commitments. Commissioners noted a privacy fence, larger no-loitering signage and screening to reduce headlights and sound as possible mitigations. Layman said the owner, who was not present, had been contacted and that the applicant would submit a use-and-development commitment and was open to a privacy fence along the shared west property line.

Commissioners and staff clarified zoning constraints: C-2 allows a broader set of retail uses than C-1, including laundromats, and also includes liquor stores within the same use group. The petitioner has not yet finalized an interior plan; Layman said the proposed layout might include roughly eight washers and a dozen dryers but that a final floor plan and hours of operation were not yet determined.

Because APC recommendations are advisory for city rezonings, commissioners discussed whether conditions submitted to APC would bind the city council. Staff and commissioners reminded the audience that the APC’s action is a recommendation to the City Council and that conditions in a use-and-development commitment would be attached to the rezoning recommendation to council but that council is the final decision-maker.

The motion to continue, with a waiver of the filing fee, passed on a roll call vote of eight in favor, zero opposed. The commission asked the applicant to finalize and file a use-and-development commitment before the matter returns to APC or to request a continuance if more time is needed.

The city council will hear city rezonings considered by the APC at its April 28, 2025 meeting at 5:30 p.m., per staff announcement at the meeting.