Plan commission deadlocks on rezoning for State Road 67 parcel after neighbors raise contamination and signage concerns

The Muncie Metropolitan Plan Commission on Thursday failed to reach the five-vote threshold needed to send a rezoning recommendation to the county commissioners after neighbors raised environmental and visual-impact concerns about the proposed business use of a lot on South State Road 67.

Kathy Van Nuys, a land surveyor with Ashton Land Surveyor, presented the application on behalf of Integrated Solutions LLC, which seeks to rezone Lot 2 from farming to business to allow a bathroom/remodeling business, storage for trucks and a pole barn for equipment and vehicles. Van Nuys said the parcel is vacant except for a garage and is adjacent to property already zoned for business.

Neighbors at the hearing opposed the change. "Not once did I see any load of anything hauled out of there...My guess is they dug a hole. They buried all that there," said Charlotte Laws, who said she has lived directly across the street for 30 years and voiced concern about soil contamination from prior vehicle work on the site. Laws also objected to the prospect of prominent signs or billboards and said the change could reduce nearby property values. "I'm 100%...our property is gonna decrease in value," she said.

Brent Utemark, who identified himself as the lot owner and said he operates a plumbing business called Doctor Bath, told the commission the intent is to build a pole barn to store ambulances and materials and "to put them inside" so vehicles do not idle in the neighborhood. He said the ambulances are licensed and used in his business and said there is no current plan to erect billboards.

A board member asked whether the application mentioned billboards; staff explained that a business sign on-site is regulated differently from an off-premise billboard. A member of the public also noted that recorded sales sometimes list "in consideration for a dollar," which may not reflect the actual transaction value, as a clarification about a prior sale the neighbor cited.

When the commission voted on a motion for a favorable recommendation to the county commissioners, the roll call produced three yes votes and three no votes (Brand, Carol, Dishman — no; Lachey, Sipe, Smith — yes). The commission noted that five votes are required to forward a recommendation, so the tie meant no official action could be taken; the case was continued to the commission's next meeting on August 6 at 6 p.m.

The applicant will need to return to the plan commission for further consideration; neighbors and the public will have another opportunity to present evidence and testimony at the continued hearing.