took ownership of the site and the adjacent house, he has made tremendous, visible improvements. He also noted that State Road 67 is a thriving highway suited for small business growth.

• Jason Hanvey (residing almost directly across the street for 10 years) expressed support for small business development. He observed that the applicant's renovations of the neighboring residential structure were 'fabulous' and believed the new commercial building would be of similar quality. He stated that the visual improvement of the property would raise surrounding property values and noted that commercial signs and billboards (including a large billboard a quarter-mile away) are common along this stretch of State Road 67.
• Richard Burns (7520 South State Road 67, residing immediately adjacent to the subject property) stated that he lives in the residential home that was originally part of the lot before it was subdivided. He testified that they had renovated the house and mowed the lawn. He argued that establishing a local business would create jobs and stimulate the economy, and he strongly supported the request.

Public Testimony in Opposition: The following residents spoke in opposition to the rezoning application:

• Charlotte Laws (residing nearby, accompanied by her husband Tim Laws) expressed deep concerns regarding the commercial use of the site. She submitted an email and photos illustrating the unplated, non-operational ambulances stored on the property, noting that she witnessed at least one being towed onto the site by a wrecker. Ms. Laws pointed out that the adjacent property (referred to on Beacon as being purchased via land contract under 'Titan Properties') has also been running an unpermitted commercial operation out of the house. She testified that a camper and a tent were recently erected in the backyard of that residential property, indicating that individuals are residing outdoors there, which prevented her from using her backyard pool. Furthermore, she expressed concern that if the property is rezoned to BV, Mr. Uitermarkt could immediately sell the land, leaving the neighborhood vulnerable to any high-intensity commercial use permitted under the BV classification. Ms. Laws also presented data regarding safety on this section of State Road 67. She testified that the stretch is highly prone to motor vehicle accidents, citing two fatalities in the immediate area—one occurring directly in front of her home. She detailed numerous incidents of vehicles crashing into front yards, including a recent roll-over accident involving a local Muncie attorney who demolished several mailboxes. She also noted that a collision had occurred just two weeks prior at the newly constructed Dollar General store, arguing that introducing semi-trailer truck traffic and commercial turnarounds within a quarter-mile of 400 South and the Village Pantry would exacerbate an already dangerous traffic situation.

Applicant Rebuttal and Board Questions: Mr. Uitermarkt returned to the podium to clarify several matters. He confirmed that he owns eight ambulances, keeping three on the subject property and operating four on active commercial routes daily. He stated that his primary commercial enterprise focuses on custom bathroom remodeling funded by Medicare, which has been in business for 8 to 10 years, and that 'Dr. Bath' is his newly launched residential remodeling branch. He explained that his employees do not store materials or conduct construction on the property; rather, they meet at the site, park their personal vehicles, and take the business trucks directly to client locations or commercial supply stores like Menards. He reiterated that he needs the rezoning to legally house his business vehicles and store plumbing materials, which are delivered by semi-truck once a month. Regarding his timeline, he stated that he would like to break ground on a building this fall, though realistically construction would commence in the spring of 2027 with a target completion date before summer.

Ms. Sipe made a motion to forward a Favorable Recommendation to the County Commissioners. Mr. Brand seconded the motion. Voting in favor: Ms. Sipe and Mr. Smith. Voting against: Mr. Brand, Mr. Carroll, Mr. Dishman, Ms. Hensley, Mr. LaChat, and Mr. Landess. Motion failed with a vote of 2-6.

Mr. Dishman made a motion for an Unfavorable Recommendation to the County Commissioners. Mr.Brand seconded the motion. Voting in favor: Mr. Brand, Mr. Carroll, Mr. Dishman, Ms. Hensley, Mr. LaChat,