Mishawaka Plan Commission approves contested two‑lot subdivision over neighbors' objections

The Mishawaka Plan Commission voted to approve plat 26‑07 on June 9, allowing the creation of a 60‑foot lot on East 18th Street that neighbors said would be inconsistent with the block’s character. The motion passed on roll call, 6–1.

Neighbors, led by Tom Myers of 755 East 18th Street, urged the commission to deny the two‑lot minor subdivision, arguing the proposal would “dismantle” the neighborhood’s low‑density character. “A 60‑foot lot dropped into a neighborhood of 100 to 200 foot frontages does not conserve anything,” Myers said, citing the city’s comprehensive plan and sections of the subdivision control ordinance as grounds for denial.

The applicant’s representative, Andy Hzel of Dan Turner and Associates, told commissioners the proposed lots comply with the subdivision and zoning ordinances and meet setback and lot‑area requirements. “We are meeting the comprehensive plan desires in that regard,” Hzel said, and added that the plat would create two legal lots per the ordinance.

Ken Prince, the city’s director of planning and community development, told the commission that state law and local procedure limit the body’s review to technical compliance when a plat meets ordinance standards. “This commission’s job is only to determine compliance with the subdivision control ordinance,” Prince said, adding that property owners have an established right to divide property that conforms to those rules.

Commissioners recorded the following roll‑call votes: Chris Jamrose — yes; Matt Carroll — no; Sam Cressy — yes; Randy Frost — yes; Kathy White Gadage — yes; Mike Portal — yes; Chris Tory — yes. With six votes in favor and one opposed, plat 26‑07 passed.

Neighbors had presented a petition with about 15 signatures and showed site photos, while raising questions about long‑standing informal uses along a driveway edge and potential precedent for additional splits. Hzel and staff said there were no outstanding code‑enforcement issues identified that would prevent approval and that the plat had been reviewed by city departments and prepared by a licensed surveyor.

The commission’s approval concludes the plan commission’s role in the plat review; the action was recorded in the meeting minutes and no further action on the item was taken at the June 9 meeting.