We're filing a Petition for Judicial Review with Boone County.

On July 20, the Zionsville Plan Commission voted 5–1 to approve the gas station. Since that night you have heard almost nothing from us. This document explains why, where the case actually stands, and what happens next.

Nobody is being blamed here. Since July 20 it has been almost silent, and that silence is on us, not on you. You could not have supported something you did not know was happening. Residents have been asking what happened, whether it was over, and whether there was anything left to do — and we did not have a straight answer to give until now. This update is that answer.

What we would ask you to understand is what the last three weeks looked like. A handful of families have put in dozens of hours since the hearing: reading the Plan Commission record and the 2018 and 2023 PUD ordinances line by line, building a working transcript of the July 20 hearing, meeting with Town Council members and Plan Commission staff, working with the Hoosier Environmental Council, and calling law firm after law firm. That work is why there is still a case to bring. It is also why we are asking the neighborhood, now, to carry it from here.

In the weeks before July 20 we contacted over a dozen firms. Indiana land-use and zoning litigation is a narrow specialty, the hearing was days away, and firm after firm either had no availability or no relevant experience. One firm — Gibson Legal Group — had both. We retained them because they were, at that moment, the only real option — not because they were our first choice after a careful search.

The early work was good, and we are not disputing it. What followed was not what we expected:

• The July 20 hearing did not go the way we — or the roughly 150 neighbors who filled that room — hoped it would.
• Billing after the initial research phase substantially exceeded what we had been led to expect, including for a post-hearing conversation we were told would not be billed.
• Their proposed budget to carry a judicial review through to a decision was beyond what we could responsibly ask this neighborhood to take on.

We have ended that engagement and proposed a clean, good-faith resolution: both sides close the file on fair terms. We are not interested in a fight with our former counsel. We are interested in getting every bit of our effort pointed at the actual case.

We asked the Hoosier Environmental Council for referrals. Through that referral we retained Nabeela Virjee of Virjee Law in Indianapolis, who has now reviewed our case — the ordinances, the hearing record, the findings, and the arguments we have assembled.

Her assessment: we have a strong case for remand.

The Commission's job on July 20 was not to decide whether it liked this project. Under Zionsville Ordinance § 194.125 and Indiana Code § 36-7-4-1405, it had to find three things: that the plan is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, that it satisfies the requirements of the Holliday Farms PUD, and that it complies with the Town's development standards. Our case is that it never actually made those findings — on any of the issues residents put in front of it.

The arguments fall into two groups. One could end the project outright. The rest would send it back to the Commission to be done properly.

The argument that could end the project outright

The 2023 PUD amendment removed gas stations from the list of allowed uses on this block. The original 2018 PUD listed a gas station as a permitted use in the Central Mixed Use Block. In 2023 the Town amended that PUD. The amendment adopted a new Exhibit 4 use table that drops gas stations entirely, and it contains this sentence: "In the event of a conflict or inconsistency among the Holliday Farms PUD, the Holliday Farms Ordinance (First Amendment), and the Zoning Ordinance, the provisions of the Holliday Farms Ordinance (First Amendment) shall apply."

If that sentence means what it says, a gas station is not a permitted use here, and no condition or redesign can fix that.

The Town argues the 2023 amendment covered only the land added east of U.S. 421. But if the two ordinances governed entirely separate ground, that conflict provision would be meaningless — and Indiana courts do not read ordinance language as surplus. 600 Lands, Inc. v. Metropolitan Board of Zoning Appeals, 889 N.E.2d 305 (Ind. 2008); T.W. Thom Construction v. City of Jeffersonville, 721 N.E.2d 319 (Ind. Ct. App. 1999).

What helps us is the 2023 record itself. At the October and November 2023 hearings, commissioners objected to yet another gas station on this stretch of highway. The petitioner's attorney came back and told them he had removed gas stations from the use table. He never said "only on the east side." Six of seven commissioners then voted to recommend it.

We want to be straight with you: this is our highest-stakes argument and also our most contested. The amendment's title, maps, and property description support the Town's reading. Expect them to lead with it.

The arguments that send it back to the Commission

1. The written findings do not explain anything — and the Town's own case says why that matters. When a plan commission approves or denies a project like this, its written findings are the decision. Indiana Code § 36-7-4-1406(a) requires written findings for every decision to approve or disapprove a development plan. What was adopted here largely restates the ordinance checklist — "consistent with the plan," "meets the requirements" — without explaining why, and without addressing a single issue residents raised.

Indiana law is specific about this. In Kroger, the Court of Appeals held that findings are insufficient when they are "merely a general replication of the requirements of the ordinance at issue," and must "provide sufficient specificity to inform" the parties why the commission decided as it did.

Worse, three of our issues were not decided against us. They were never mentioned at all: whether the 2021 traffic study was still valid, the 100-foot fuel-storage setback, and pedestrian and path safety. There is a real difference between a commission that weighs an objection and rejects it, and one that never engages it. Silence gives a reviewing court nothing to review, and it is far harder for the Town to defend than a bad answer would be.

2. The Commission was told it could not weigh health, safety, or welfare — and said so out loud. Before the remonstrance even began, a commissioner asked counsel to clarify the Commission's discretion. Town and Plan Commission counsel Dan Taylor advised that development-plan review is narrow, and that "if the applicable standards are satisfied, the plan must be approved." He added that the Commission "may not deny a permitted use based solely on generalized opposition or policy concerns outside the governing standards." Both before the hearing and during it, he pointed the Commission to an Indiana case involving a gas station in Plainfield.

Residents then spent two hours putting evidence in front of them. Here is what the Commission said afterward:

• The Commission expressed significant concern about the environmental evidence, the proximity of sensitive uses, and the absence of any Zionsville setback standard for gas stations.
• Plan Commission President Brad Johnson stated he did not believe the Commission had the authority to deny the plan on environmental concerns.
• Commissioner Kendrick Davis expressed reluctance and said the Commission's "hands are tied."
• Commissioner Craig Melton voted no anyway.

This was not a body that weighed our evidence and rejected it. This was a body that found the evidence concerning and concluded it had no lawful way to act on it.

During deliberation, Mr. Taylor walked the Commission through The Kroger Co. v. Plan Commission of the Town of Plainfield, 953 N.E.2d 536 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011). His words:

"And in the Kroger versus Plainfield case, which was a gas station in the metropolis, the same thing. And I wrote it down because it sounds familiar."

"But in that case, the Plainfield Plan Commission denied the otherwise compliant development plan and even said it was compliant on these three bases: that the proposed development is not appropriate to the site and surroundings. The proposed development is not consistent with the intent and purpose of the zoning ordinance and the proposed development would create a public safety hazard."

"Sounds familiar? And the court of appeals said those are improper factors. Those are not the factors that you consider in a development plan approval in a rezone or a PUD. Of course you would deal with all of that."

Hear it for yourself at 149:27 of the July 20th meeting →

He paired it with a Hendricks County asphalt case to complete the point: "the court of appeal said you cannot do that because that would give the plan commission discretion and you have no discretion on development plans."

That is not what Kroger held. We have since pulled the opinion. The Court of Appeals did not rule that site appropriateness, consistency with the ordinance, or public safety hazard were improper factors. It ruled that Plainfield's findings were too vague — "merely a general replication" of the ordinance, failing to explain how the gas station created a hazard or why it was inappropriate to the site.

And here is the part that settles it. The court's actual instruction on remand reads:

"Upon remand, we instruct the trial court to remand the instant matter to the Plan Commission to allow the Plan Commission the opportunity to amend, if possible, the issued findings to provide sufficient specificity to explain how Kroger's Petition failed to meet the requirements of the Plainfield Zoning Ordinance…. [I]f the Plan Commission is unable to amend its findings to explain with specificity how Kroger's Petition failed to meet the requirements of the Plainfield Zoning Ordinance, the Plan Commission should grant Kroger's Petition."

What that passage proves. The court gave the commission a choice: write specific findings and the denial may stand — including on the public-safety ground — or, if you cannot, grant the petition. A factor that could never justify a denial would not be eligible for a rewrite. Kroger therefore establishes the opposite of what our Commission was told: public safety is a permissible basis for denial when it is properly explained.

What Kroger does not hold:

• That "public safety hazard" is an improper or forbidden factor. It is not — the court invited its re-use.
• That a commission may never deny a gas station on safety grounds. The opposite: it may, with specific findings.
• That environmental or health concerns are categorically off the table at the development-plan stage.
• That specificity in findings is optional. It is mandatory — that is the actual holding.

Three further points follow from the actual case

It cuts both ways. Indiana Code § 36-7-4-1406(a) requires written findings for approvals as well as denials. The same defect that sank Plainfield's denial — findings that merely restate the ordinance — is the defect in Zionsville's approval.

The consequence was a do-over, not a payout. The remedy in Kroger was that the decision did not stand. There was no damages award against the Town of Plainfield. That is worth holding next to the $5 million warning described above.

Plainfield later denied another development plan and won. In Brookview Properties, LLC v. Plainfield Plan Commission (Ind. Ct. App. 2014), the same Plan Commission denied a development plan and the Court of Appeals upheld it — because that time the findings were specific. The court also noted that Indiana Code § 36-7-4-1403 expressly permits a commission reviewing a development plan to consider compatibility with surrounding land uses.

So the case invoked to tell our Commission it had no room to act is, in fact, the case that now supplies our strongest argument against what it did.

And the narrowest point is the sharpest. Even on Mr. Taylor's own reading, nothing in Kroger, the Hendricks County case, or any authority cited that night prevented the Commission from continuing the hearing to ask for more information — a photometric plan, a current traffic count, a hydrogeologic analysis, a spill response plan. We are not arguing the Commission reached the wrong conclusion. We are arguing it was told it was not permitted to reach one. A body that cannot pause to gather facts cannot possibly determine whether the standards are met, which is the one thing § 194.125 required it to do.

This is why the mischaracterization mattered. Kroger holds that public safety can support a denial when a commission explains, with specificity, how the project creates a hazard. On July 20 the Commission was handed exactly the record it would have needed to write those findings — and was told the law forbade it from using any of it.

The air. Benzene is classified as a human carcinogen by both the EPA and the International Agency for Research on Cancer. Gas stations release it continuously — refueling, evaporation, tank venting — not only in spills. Columbia's Mailman School of Public Health found stations vent roughly ten times more benzene than previously assumed, with measurable effects up to a mile away. The American Journal of Public Health reports elevated childhood leukemia rates near gas stations. Kiddie Academy and the Interactive Academy both sit within 1,000 feet of this site, along with townhomes and Legato Living Memory Care. EPA guidance recommends evaluating fuel-dispensing facilities within 1,000 feet of school locations. California's Air Resources Board recommends 300 feet as an absolute minimum. Holliday Farms is slated to grow to nearly 600 homes.

A licensed environmental firm walked them through the hazard. Rachel Walker of Mundell & Associates presented the geologic and environmental case in person: underground storage tank release history, Boone County leak data, BTEX and benzene exposure pathways, vapor emissions during both refueling and tanker unloading, the Eagle Creek watershed, the adjacent ponds and drainage, and the difficulty and cost of remediating petroleum contamination once it occurs. Her presentation included a water-flow and drainage analysis mapping where a release from this site would actually travel. This was not neighborhood speculation. It was a professional environmental assessment delivered on the record.

The water, and where it goes. Stormwater from this site drains south into the adjacent pond, which drains through an unnamed stream into Cox Creek, a tributary of Eagle Creek — the watershed that supplies drinking water to Indianapolis through Eagle Creek Reservoir. A wetland sits within 300 feet of the station; three sit within 1,000 feet, two of them in the Cox Creek riparian corridor. The Town's own 2026 Comprehensive Plan identifies this lot within "ecologically important areas" for which there was "near-universal support" to protect (pp. 110–11, 113), and states that protecting Eagle Creek and its riparian corridors "is integral to sustaining quality of life for current and future residents" (p. 47).

Leaks are a question of when, not if. Mundell's data showed Boone County has recorded 74 releases across 179 underground tank sites — better than two in five. These happen at properly permitted, modern, legally operating facilities with leak detection installed. A leak of two drops per second can render nearly half a billion gallons of water unfit to drink. A former station in Whitestown, in this same Eagle Creek watershed, was found with gasoline-impacted water requiring remediation. An Indiana elementary school's groundwater was contaminated with the gasoline additive MTBE by a station 1,760 feet away.

And the operator is not hypothetical. The developer here, Mann Brothers, has a documented environmental compliance history: in 2025, IDEM issued Mann Brothers an $8,000 citation for a violation involving an underground storage tank. The Commission was asked to weigh that record against a proposal to place tens of thousands of gallons of gasoline in tanks above a drinking-water watershed. It made no finding on it at all.

The stormwater plan the Town's own engineers flagged. Section 16 of the PUD requires compliance with the Zionsville Stormwater Control Ordinance, and the Town's drainage rules single out new gasoline outlets as pollution "hot spots" requiring treatment for hydrocarbons and metals. The Department of Public Works' own review found the development plan did not include IDEM-required spill kit information or the locations of sumped inlets. It was approved anyway.

The traffic. Eight fueling positions operating 5 a.m. to 11 p.m., with four vehicular access points on 1.22 acres inside a residential neighborhood. The Comprehensive Plan required coordination with INDOT for improvements along U.S. 421 (pp. 161, 210). It was not done. Evidence in the record warns of "spillback into adjacent roadways and increase[d] potential for collisions."

And the people who brought it. Two physicians. A licensed environmental scientist. The Hoosier Environmental Council, a statewide organization. Peer-reviewed research from the American Journal of Public Health and Columbia's Mailman School of Public Health. Government guidance from the EPA and California air regulators. A neighbor who is a cancer survivor. More than 250 letters of remonstrance.

3. Standards nobody checked.

The traffic analysis was completed in 2021. Since then: Appaloosa Crossing, the Silo development at 116th and Sycamore, substantially more of Holliday Farms built and occupied, and six commercial lots converted to roughly 64 townhomes — which changes the kind of traffic the area generates, not just the amount. Nothing in the record identifies updated counts or any traffic engineer confirming the 2021 work still described conditions in 2026. The point is not that the study is old. It is that nobody checked.

The same is true of circulation. Four vehicle entrances and tanker deliveries, inside a neighborhood whose own rules require walkways and bike access and expressly permit golf carts on the paths. The plan shows driveways crossing that network. No finding was made about whether a continuous walking route to the store exists, whether crosswalks are needed, or whether a fuel tanker can maneuver without conflicting with people on foot, on bikes, or in carts. Drawing a line on a plan is not the same as deciding it is safe.

There is a second effort running alongside the court case, and we want to be clear up front: it will not stop the Holliday Farms gas station. It is not retroactive and it does not apply to a petition already approved. We are telling you about it because it is the promise we made on July 20 — that whatever happened to us, we would not let it happen to anyone else in Zionsville.

Zionsville has no setback standard at all for gas stations. That absence is the reason the Plan Commission felt it had nothing to apply on July 20. Several commissioners said so directly.

So we have been working with the Zionsville Town Council on a new ordinance. It has been drafted and proposed. It would establish a 500-foot minimum setback — possibly longer — between any new gas station and sensitive use areas, including:

• Single-family homes, townhomes, and apartment complexes
• Schools and daycare facilities
• Senior care and assisted living facilities
• Places of worship
• Parks and recreational areas

Kory Geyer and Jackie Phillips attended the August 3 Town Council meeting and were asked to speak. The response was overwhelmingly positive. Council members stated they fully support the ordinance and intend to move quickly to finalize the language and bring it to a vote at the next meeting.

Council President Jason Plunkett said he wants the Town Council and Zionsville staff to be more proactive in listening to residents on matters of public health, safety, and welfare. He personally thanked Jackie, Kory, and the residents of Holliday Farms for stepping forward and doing what the Town's current and prior councils and staff had not done to protect the community — and urged others to follow their lead in bringing forward ordinances that protect Zionsville.

Judicial review is a formal proceeding asking a Boone County judge to review whether the Plan Commission applied the correct law, followed required procedures, properly considered the evidence, and made findings adequate to support its July 20 approval. It is not another public hearing, and not a new vote on whether residents want a gas station. The judge reviews the certified record that was already before the Commission.

1. August 19, 2026 — hard deadline

   File the Verified Petition for Judicial Review in Boone County. Thirty days after the July 20 decision. This date does not move. If we miss it, the case is over permanently.

2. By September 18, 2026

   Obtain the Commission's certified record and transmit it to the court. A second clock — cases have been dismissed for missing this one.

3. Set by the court

   Briefing. Our initial brief, the Town's and developer's responses, our reply. This is the bulk of the legal work.

4. Set by the court

   Oral argument, then the judge's final order and findings — which can take several months after argument.

5. Realistic duration

   Six to twelve months or longer, and further still if either side appeals.

The Holliday Farms community wants to stop this gas station, and we are moving forward. We are filing a Verified Petition for Judicial Review in Boone County by the August 19 deadline, with new counsel who has reviewed the record and believes the case for remand is strong.

Thank you for reading all of this. We know it is a lot, and we know the last three weeks have been frustrating from the outside.

Mike, CJ, and Kory
on behalf of the Zionsville Healthy Neighborhood Alliance
hfnogas@gmail.com

This is a community update prepared for Holliday Farms residents. It is not legal advice, and no legal outcome is guaranteed.