Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Zoning Changes topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
APC recommends against rezoning for Granger car wash; commission cites compatibility and resident concerns
Summary
The commission voted unanimously to recommend an unfavorable rezoning to permit a commercial car wash and to remove prior written commitments on a parcel along State Road 23, citing the county comprehensive plan’s future land‑use guidance and concerns about noise, lighting and drainage.
On March 18 the Saint Joseph County Area Planning Commission voted 7‑0 to send an unfavorable recommendation to the County Council on a petition by GFE Enterprises LLC that would rezone a parcel on State Road 23 from B (Business) to C (Commercial) and terminate written commitments and a final site plan created under Ordinance 17‑15. The proposal would have allowed a commercial car wash (John's Auto Spa franchise) on the site; the commission’s unfavorable recommendation means the County Council will review the petition and the commission’s recommendation before taking final action.
Planning staff, represented by Fariel Sharif, recommended an unfavorable recommendation. Sharif told the commission the county’s future land‑use map designates the site for “light commercial” intended to buffer residential areas from more intense business uses and said rezoning to a higher‑intensity commercial category “is not in line with the land use map of the comp plan.” Sharif also relayed county engineering and health department comments: the engineer said that the site must meet stormwater standards and that the current concept plan may not reserve sufficient room for underground stormwater chambers; the health department noted requirements for wastewater discharge and treatment.
Petitioners and their representatives defended the car‑wash proposal as a relatively low‑impact neighborhood service that could be less intrusive than many types of retail otherwise allowed under the existing written commitments. Engineer Brian McMorrow of V3 Companies and operator John Wyant described a concept plan showing a 4,900‑square‑foot building, three queuing lanes and outdoor vacuum stalls, a 25‑foot‑wide berm and landscaping along the residential edge, and building siting that the petitioner said would be farther from neighboring townhomes than what was allowed by the 2015 site plan. McMorrow told the commission the proposed footprint was smaller and set further from adjacent homes than the previously approved option: “The building as we propose it, with a footprint of 4,900 square feet is far less than the building that is approved by right of 13,650 square feet,” he said. John Wyant, the proposed operator, stated hours and said the operation uses modern equipment intended to limit outdoor noise.
Neighbors who live immediately adjacent to the property spoke in opposition at the hearing and submitted written remonstrances. Residents voiced concerns about light and noise from vacuuming and dryer equipment, vehicle queuing and headlights, pedestrian cut‑throughs, potential wastewater or groundwater impacts, and property values. Eric Kindler, who gave his address as 51100 Cherry Road and said his home backs up to the site, asked the commission rhetorically, “What if this was your backyard?” and urged the commission to consider the impact on immediate neighbors. Townhome residents said the existing vegetation is not passable and that changes could create a new thoroughfare unless the petitioner installed robust screening. Several residents urged retaining the current B (Business) designation or an office‑buffer designation rather than rezoning to C (Commercial).
Staff also noted two written remonstrances on file from neighbors citing property‑value, light, noise and wastewater concerns. After public comment and rebuttal from the petitioner, commissioners moved to recommend the County Council deny the rezoning and removal of the written commitments; the motion passed 7‑0.
The petitioner said it had met with nearby residents twice before the hearing and proposed mitigation measures including a berm and detailed lighting and trash controls; the petitioner also offered on the record to consider a future written commitment to revert zoning if the car‑wash business failed, though staff cautioned such reversion clauses can be difficult to enforce. Additional technical reviews will be required if the County Council takes different action, including a more detailed stormwater plan, confirmation of water supply and health department approval for wastewater handling. The County Council will consider the petition and the APC’s unfavorable recommendation at a future meeting.
