and Mr. Landess. Voting against: Ms. Sipe and Mr. Smith. Motion carried (6-2), an Unfavorable Recommendation will be forwarded to the County Commissioners for their August 17, 2026 regular meeting.

(clarification was provided that Mr. Uitermarkt remains legally permitted to construct a pole building under current farming zoning to store personal, registered vehicles, but cannot utilize the property or structure for any commercial business operations or commercial vehicle storage under the current zone).

NEW BUSINESS:

Being a consideration of an application filed by Rea Riggin & Sons, Inc., requesting a change in zone from the split zoning of R-5 Residence Zone and BV Variety Business Zone to the BV Variety Business Zone located at the Northwest corner of East Riggin Road and North Old State Road 3, Muncie, Indiana, as more accurately described in the application.

Applicant Representation and Case Presentation:

Kathy Vannice of Ashton Land Surveyors appeared on behalf of the applicant, Rea Riggin & Sons, Inc. She explained that the 12-acre parcel is currently subject to a split-zoning classification, divided between R-5 (Multi-Family Residential) and BV (Variety Business). The objective is to eliminate the split zoning by classifying the entire 12-acre parcel under a uniform BV Variety Business zoning. Ms. Vannice stated that split zoning is contrary to best planning practices, a principle supported by both current and previous zoning administrations. She detailed that the parcel's current BV portion is extremely shallow. Because the property falls within the city limits of Muncie, any development must comply with strict city corridor setback standards. To widen Old State Road 3 to standard city specifications, a significant portion of the road frontage must be dedicated back to the city as right-of-way. Once these setbacks and dedications are applied, the remaining depth of the pre-existing BV zone is too narrow to accommodate a modern commercial footprint, rendering the commercial portion unusable. She noted that the property is under contract to a prospective buyer who has not finalized a specific site design, but whose business portfolio includes self-storage facilities, apartments, convenience stores, and family restaurants. Ms. Vannice emphasized that a uniform BV zone would give the developer options, as R-5 multi-family developments are still permitted under the BV classification.

Board Inquiries & Clarifications:

Board members evaluated the planning, economic, and logistical aspects of the rezoning:

• Unidentified Development and Transparency: Mr. Dishman voiced strong concerns regarding voting on a rezoning without a binding development plan. He compared the situation to a previous rezoning on State Road 67 where a developer refused to disclose details, and neighbors feared a high-pollution sulfur or battery plant. He also referenced the high secrecy surrounding the Raising Cane's restaurant development and stated that he strongly dislikes voting on secretive projects.
• Zoning Rules vs. Binding Uses: Ms. Swackhamer clarified that the matter at hand was for a vote on the zoning classification itself, not a specific development plan. She reminded the board that even if a developer submits a rendering or promises a restaurant, they are not legally bound to build it and could change the use the day after approval. She explained that developers typically seek rezoning as step one before spending thousands of dollars on architectural and engineering drawings.