Whitestown board denies special exception for proposed service station near apartments

The Whitestown Board of Zoning Appeals voted 3-0 on April 2 to deny a special-exception request from Bluffton 23 LLC to build a 3,500-square-foot service station with 10 fuel pumps on Indianapolis Road, citing concerns about driveway access, traffic, stormwater capacity and proximity to residences.

Board members said testimony from adjacent property owners and technical submissions in the public record undermined the seven findings the Unified Development Ordinance requires for a special exception. "The overwhelming testimony and evidence that we've heard tonight... I think justifies a denial of this request," the chair said during deliberations.

Why it mattered: Neighbors and property managers told the board the proposed site sits directly next to Neese Apartments and within walking distance of the new Mauer Commons park and a Little League complex. Speakers said the plan depends on a second entrance through Helm Street, a private drive for which neighbors said they "will not grant an easement off of Helm Street," a point the petitioner later acknowledged could be a "deal breaker." Residents and BAM Capital, an investor in the apartment community, also cited the I-65 overlay curb-cut spacing requirement and argued that the parcel’s roughly 304.75 feet of frontage does not meet the 400-foot spacing standard in UDO Section 2.7(d)(5)(e).

Neighbors and experts raised several specific concerns. Jeri Westrick, representing the adjacent apartment owner, told the board the applicant "has not been contacted by the applicant regarding access to Helm Street" and said without that access the traffic analysis is invalid. Chelsea Spickelmeyer of BAM Capital argued the station would create a "recognized environmental condition" that could force future Phase II environmental site assessments for nearby properties and depress their marketability. BAM’s submission also included photos and a claim that a detention pond serving the area currently overtops, and Spickelmeyer said the proposed site plan shows about 69% impervious coverage that would substantially increase runoff.

Petitioner James Huss, a civil engineer representing Bluffton 23 LLC, said the team had held a neighborhood meeting and completed a traffic study that identified mitigation such as striping to create a left-turn lane. But Huss acknowledged the absence of an agreement for a Helm Street entrance and said, "I'll be the first to admit that it doesn't work if Helms doesn't have access." He also said the traffic study used typical manual assumptions and that the applicant would accept conditions to revisit the traffic analysis if the board approved.

Board action and vote: During deliberations a board member said the combination of written evidence and public testimony provided enough basis to deny without parsing every prong of the special-exception test. The board formally moved to deny BZA26-007-SE; the motion passed unanimously, with the board recording three "yes" votes to deny the application.

What was in the staff packet: Staff described the request as a special exception under UDO 11.13 and said the parcel plan shows a 3,500-square-foot building and 10 fueling positions. Staff recommended approval in its report but told the board new issues had emerged during the week—chief among them concerns about the Helm Drive access and whether traffic improvements proposed in the study would route drivers onto the private drive.

Context and next steps: The petitioner does not yet own the property and said if access cannot be resolved the project would not proceed. Several residents suggested the town or nearby property owners could pursue alternatives, but town staff said the town does not own the parcel and is unlikely to purchase it. The board closed the public hearing, denied the special exception and adjourned the meeting.