Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Rezoning Dog Daycare topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council approves rezoning for dog daycare at 5201 Cratesville Road with buffering and green‑space conditions
Summary
The council adopted a rezoning to allow a dog daycare and boarding facility at 5201 Cratesville Road, adding a use‑and‑development commitment that requires reasonable green space, a 10‑foot buffer and operational limits on lighting and breaks.
Get email alerts on the Rezoning Dog Daycare topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
The Evansville Common Council approved an amended rezoning ordinance for 5201 Cratesville Road on Dec. 16, clearing the way for a dog daycare and boarding facility subject to conditions added by the council.
Cassie Virgin of the Area Plan Commission summarized APC Docket REZ‑2024‑038 and said APC recommended approval with a required use‑and‑development commitment (UDC). The petitioner, Melody Hart, and project engineer Josh Stevens walked council members through site details; Stevens said the proposed plan respects a 10‑foot green space adjacent to residences and includes a shrub buffer with plantings estimated at 36 inches at installation.
Council members asked about traffic, noise, lighting and the longevity of UDC commitments. Council member Trotman asked for green‑space and buffering language to be added to the UDC. The petitioner’s counsel, Ryan Parker, and the engineer confirmed plans already include green space and buffers and agreed to incorporate the council’s requested language in the UDC. Council member Kayler Lindsey recorded on the public record that the petitioner agreed to a rotation schedule for dog breaks and to turn off exterior lights around 8 p.m.
The motion to include "reasonable green space and buffering" in the UDC passed without opposition. The council then adopted Ordinance R‑2024‑34 as amended by voice vote and roll call (9–0).
Cassie Virgin noted that the comprehensive plan recommends lower‑intensity residential or parks uses for the site, and that APC’s recommended UDC is intended to limit higher intensity commercial uses normally allowed in a C‑4 district. The petitioner agreed to file an updated UDC reflecting the council’s conditions before final site review.
The ordinance requires the petitioner to submit the updated UDC as part of the site‑review process and ties the buffering and green space commitments to the property so future owners are bound by them.
