Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Redevelopment Plan Discrepancy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Wabash board finds 107 Walnut Street plan departs from redevelopment bid; matter reset to July 16
Summary
The board took up final plans for 107 Walnut Street (Bear Creek Homes LLC) on April 16 and was told the accepted redevelopment bid and plan envisioned a single‑family home, not the duplex proposed; the board voted to take the matter off the table and reset it for July 16, 2026, allowing the applicant time to work with the redevelopment commission.
The Wabash Board of Zoning Appeals revisited final plans for 107 Walnut Street on April 16 after the item was continued from the March 19 meeting. The board heard from the redevelopment commission's attorney that the redevelopment plan and the accepted bid contemplated a single‑family dwelling, while the proposal before the board was for a duplex.
The attorney for the redevelopment commission told the board the redevelopment plan calls for a one‑family, energy‑efficient home and that the bid accepted by the commission envisioned a single‑family dwelling. He noted a discrepancy between the meeting advertisement, which said "owner‑occupied," and the redevelopment plan, which did not impose owner‑occupancy. The attorney said the commission reserved the right to reject bids and to waive irregularities, and that if a variance or exception had been required it should have been specified in the bid.
Board members and the applicant, identified in the record as John Clayton Ellett of Bear Creek Homes LLC, discussed options including withdrawing the variance request, returning to the redevelopment commission to seek a change or rebid, or proceeding and risking an action for failure to comply with the terms of the accepted bid. The attorney explained there was no explicit time‑to‑build in the bid; a court would likely read in a "reasonable period" and that a one‑year period might be considered reasonable depending on circumstances.
Members noted nearby properties include some duplexes, and the board discussed practical options such as rebidding the lot or having the redevelopment commission approve exceptions. Several board members recommended the applicant consult the redevelopment commission before asking the zoning board for a variance.
A board member moved to reset the matter to July 16, 2026, at 6:30 p.m., characterizing the vote as a three‑month extension for the request (the motion as stated referenced Mr. Alex Duran's request for three months). The board approved the reset by voice vote. The board then adjourned.
The record shows the board took the item off the table for consideration; further progress will depend on whether the applicant returns with plans that conform to the redevelopment plan or the redevelopment commission approves a change.
