Michigan City BZA continues decision on Crew Car Wash at former Red Lobster after split vote

The Michigan City Board of Zoning Appeals on March 10 continued consideration of a special-exception request from Crew Car Wash for the former Red Lobster property at 3353/4353 Franklin Street after board members deadlocked during a roll-call vote.

Attorney Christopher Willoughby, representing Crew Car Wash and contract purchaser Big Red LLC, told the board the site is zoned B2 and a car wash is a permitted use subject to special-exception requirements. Willoughby said the petitioner submitted traffic studies, site plans and sanitary information and emphasized the company’s planned investment and local job creation.

Planning staff recommended approval but attached several conditions: execution and recordation of a revised cross-access easement prior to opening; directional and safety signage and stacking limits inside the site; provisions for off-site staff parking via an updated easement; and that INDOT driveway permits and sanitary-district memorandum items be resolved before the business opens.

Al Wallace, district engineer for the Sanitary District of Michigan City, reported the 12-inch sewer serving Franklin Street currently operates at about 30% of design capacity based on recent flow monitoring. He said the proposed car wash’s estimated discharge of 17,339 gallons per day would raise the line to roughly 32% of design capacity — a modest increase — but he recommended verifying the capacity of an existing 6-inch lateral crossing the street. If the lateral proves undersized, Wallace said the developer would be required to upgrade it (for example, by installing an 8-inch pipe) at the developer’s cost.

Members of the public offered mixed views. Several residents supported the project, citing jobs and the company’s local track record. Other speakers urged caution or denial, raising concerns about traffic, aesthetic fit on Franklin Street and the property owner’s tax status; the Economic Development Corporation submitted a letter recommending denial, urging uses they consider more suitable for the corridor.

When the board moved to adopt the planning report findings and conditions and put the matter to a vote, one member (Brian Gross) was initially unable to participate on video. Chair and counsel ruled he could not vote on the petition because he had not been present visually for the presentation and public comment. The roll call produced two yes and two no votes, with one member excluded from the vote, leaving no conclusive decision. Under board counsel’s recommendation the item was formally continued to the board’s next meeting on April 14, 2026, at 6:00 p.m., so the petition can be considered with a full board and additional opportunity for public comment.

The record shows the planning department and sanitary district will expect the petitioner to address the specific conditions before any future approval: a recorded cross-access easement; clear on-site traffic signage and stacking limits; INDOT driveway permit approval for any state-rights-of-way work; and confirmation that the 6-inch lateral is adequate or, if not, a developer-funded remedy. The petition remains subject to those conditions when it returns to the board.