Narayan Dhungel is broke, and he doesn't want his family to know it.

The longtime grocer, who has made a career owning stores in Chicago and, before that, in his native country of Nepal, is reeling after an unexpected defeat. Not against shrinking profits or aging infrastructure but Fairfield City Hall.

Some fear racism motivated the opposition to his proposed Asian grocery store.

Last year, Dhungel moved here to be closer to his parents. He hoped to convert a long-vacant former office building into a grocery, to service the area's Nepalese-American population. But he was met with outrage and, according to some, flimsy arguments.

One woman told the city's Planning Commission the store would attract "undesirables."

Jim Howell told the same body the area will decline if Dhungel succeeded in opening a small business. Howell told The Enquirer from his home across a busy street from the building that he opposed additional traffic.

Businesses dominate the surrounding area. Dhungel's building shares a parking lot with a Walgreens. Howell's home is separated by some shrubs and trees from a "Jocko's World Famous Chicken and Seafood" restaurant. There's also a gas station at the intersection of Pleasant and Symmes.

SUPPORT LOCAL JOURNALISM: Subscribe now for access to all our coverage

Fairfield Mayor Steve Miller said residents were "obviously" against Dhungel's store. City Council voted unanimously against Dhungel, an American citizen.

But not all residents, and particularly those living in the vicinity, agreed with the vote.

Bob Poteete and Cheryl Bassitt, who live closest to the building on an adjacent property, support Dhungel and have even offered to lend him a hand with yard maintenance.

Across Pleasant Avenue lives a Nepalese-American family. Saraswati Kharel said a nearby Asian grocery store would make running errands more convenient.

Her 11-year-old daughter, Salina, was excited by the prospect of Dhungel's store. She seemed stumped by its opposition.

"It's not that bad," she said. "More Nepal people might come there (to the store) because a lot of people live around here ... so maybe there's too many people and it might get packed. That's why they might (oppose it), but I don't know why they would."

Not one of the seven council members who voted against Dhungel returned multiple requests for comment from The Enquirer.

Greg Kathman, the city's development services director, spoke of a 2001 agreement that identifies Dhungel's structure as an "office building."

But Ronald Roberto, a Realtor who represented Dhungel, said the agreement "doesn't state that it needs to be an office at all, only that it was an office."

"It maybe isn't as clear as it could have been," Kathman acknowledged, "but the fact it's referenced as (an office building), we believe that any use other than an office use would require modification to the development plan."

Scott Sollmann, an attorney for a Mason firm, said by email to Roberto that he reviewed video of the Feb. 11 meeting in which the council rejected Dhungel's grocery.

"(I) don’t believe there was really a great deal of rationale set forth by the council members for City Council’s ultimate denial decision," Sollmann wrote.

Kathman said the agreement established the building as a buffer between the nearby retail and residents. Retail, Kathman said, is less desirable to residents than office space, due to later operating hours, lighting, added traffic and trash removal.

Poteete and Bassitt rejected that argument, and the Kharel family expressed unmitigated support for the project.

Howell, the neighbor and store opponent, expressed concern that Dhungel may wish to sell alcohol and cigarettes, items that are sold 50 feet away at Walgreens.

He also asked what Dhungel was "bringing to me" and repeated several times, "What is he bringing to the table?"

Roberto said that at least one resident appeared prejudiced when speaking out against the store at a city meeting.

Dhungel, meanwhile, said he's dumped nearly $200,000 into the project via the building purchase, architectural work and other costs. He is out of money. He's taken a part-time job packaging nails for $14 an hour. Scratches line his forearm.

He hasn't told his parents about the city's rejection of his plan, concerned they would worry. Dhungel didn't wish to have his photo taken for this story, fearing his picture would make it more likely his parents learn of his struggles.

He's 30 years old and wore a gold chain and large belt buckle. Sequins formed a pattern on his flashy shirt. He's spent more than a decade as a grocer.

Recently, he said he had to apply for social assistance because his wife is pregnant.

"We are not doing vandalism," he said from inside his empty building where he'd envisioned customers walking food-lined aisles. "I know how to handle my community people. They can trust me. ... Some of the people respect me because I respect them always."

But respect didn't greet him in Fairfield, he suspects.

Dhungel is also confused by the legalese used by his opponents.

Roberto, the Realtor, pointed to a map available on the city's website that designates the lot as part of a "C-2 PUD," with PUD a reference to the 2001 agreement. But C-2, in the zoning jargon of the city, also refers to commercial areas where groceries are allowed.

Chhabi Neopaney, also a real estate agent and Nepal native, is helping Dhungel as he tries to sell or rent the building, hoping to recover losses.

Neopaney would have frequented Dhungel's store had the council approved it. The building has stood vacant for four years, and he fears the city missed an opportunity to collect more taxes on it.

"It's limiting people from doing business," Neopaney said. "Keeping that property vacant is degrading the community."