Commission recommends against rezoning Toledo Avenue lot but approves several variances subject to council decision

The St. Joseph County Area Plan Commission on July 14 voted to send APC 3087-26 — a request to rezone a residential parcel behind an auto dealer on Toledo Avenue — to the County Council with an unfavorable recommendation, while separately approving several variances that the petitioner said are necessary to complete a screened, employee-only parking lot.

Staff presented the packet and recommended denial of the rezoning, telling commissioners the Toledo Avenue corridor is an established single‑family neighborhood of about 32 homes and that commercial buildings on the site would risk neighboring property values without adequate setbacks and screening. “We do recommend that this be sent to the county council with an unfavorable recommendation,” staff said. Staff also recommended approval of variances 2, 4, 5, 6 and 8 — but only if the rezoning is ultimately approved — and denial of variances 1, 3, 7 and 9.

Attorney George Lepanyotis, representing the petitioner (VHN Investments / S & H Auto), told the commission the lot was paved after the owner relied on contractor advice and that work stopped when the county red‑tagged the site. Lepanyotis said the intent is to use the lot for private employee parking and limited vehicle holding for service, not for public sales. He offered written commitments the petitioner said would "run with the land": no additional buildings, no public access from Toledo Avenue, no street lights and no public sales from the parcel.

Multiple nearby residents testified during public comment against rezoning and the existing paving. Todd Collins, who lives two doors from the paved area, said the lot had been maintained as grass by the previous owner and described concerns about runoff into private wells; Tammy Snyder, a 38‑year neighborhood resident, said the work appeared to have been done "illegally" without permits and urged returning the lot to grass. Kendra Tagon, the adjacent property owner, asked that permanent buffering be required and said relying on her family's private fence is not a durable mitigation.

Petitioners said engineering (a detention basin) will control runoff and offered to sign written commitments limiting lighting and use. Commissioners questioned operational details (employee arrival and departure times, whether cars would be static or moving) and discussed making approvals for variances conditional on County Council rezoning approval. The commission voted to send the rezoning to county council with an unfavorable recommendation and then voted to approve variances 2, 4, 5, 6 and 8 and deny variances 1, 3, 7 and 9, with the approved variances explicitly noted as subject to rezoning approval.

The commission’s recommendation is advisory; the St. Joseph County Council will make the final zoning decision. If the council reverses the commission on rezoning, the commission’s variance approvals remain conditioned on council approval per the motion’s language.

The APC meeting record shows staff concerns about setbacks, screening, and the neighborhood character, petitioners’ offers of written commitments and engineering controls, and neighborhood testimony focused on permitting, lighting, runoff and child safety. The matter will next appear before the St. Joseph County Council.