The Battle Creek City Planning Commission on April 23 voted to recommend rezoning a parcel along West Columbia Avenue (parcel number 0619-41-0 / 700-0) from R-1A single-family to I-2 heavy industrial. Commissioner Godfrey moved the rezoning; Mayor Behnke seconded. The motion carried on recorded votes by Commissioner Morris, Mayor Behnke, Commissioner Godfrey, Commissioner Hughes and Commissioner Gray and will be presented to the City Commission for introduction on June 17.

The rezoning request, labeled R01-25 in the packet, would return a strip of the owner’s property that fronts West Columbia Avenue to the I-2 district. Planning staff said the change is largely a “cleanup” of a 2023 rezone that left a mix of industrial and single-family zoning in the area; staff described the portion along West Columbia as long used for storage of asphalt and fill materials and “considered a legal nonconforming use at this point,” according to Travis, a staff member.

Neighbors said the storage and nighttime activity are creating noise, visibility and health worries. Cheryl Doust, who said she lives at 251 Newtown Avenue, asked, “what is this tar doing to our drinking water?” and raised concerns about a recently installed private well near the site. Diana Stive, who said she lives at 266 Newtown Avenue, told commissioners that “all that asphalt is right behind my house and my garage,” and said heavy equipment and tall piles have replaced woods behind her home.

Staff told the commission the parcel has been used for storage since at least 2016 and that the proposed rezoning would allow continued commercial development along West Columbia while keeping the portion that fronts Newtown Avenue zoned R-1A to protect existing single-family homes. Travis said typical I-2 setbacks, parking rules and other development standards would apply if the parcel were developed, but that the current storage use remains a legal nonconforming use regardless of the zoning decision and therefore has not been subject to site-plan review or permitting tied to redevelopment.

Commissioners discussed neighbors’ requests to postpone the item for 30 to 60 days to give the owner and residents time to negotiate limits on hours and operations. One commissioner urged a postponement to allow staff time to analyze whether the city’s nuisance and noise ordinances can address the late-night activity. Planning staff said nuisance and noise enforcement is separate from zoning and that staff and the city attorney will review whether the ordinances can be applied to the current use.

Commissioner Godfrey moved the commission’s recommendation to rezone the identified parcel to I-2 heavy industrial. Mayor Behnke supported the motion. The commission recorded five affirmative votes (Morris, Behnke, Godfrey, Hughes, Gray); there were no recorded negative votes and the motion was approved. Staff noted the application was filed by the city after the 2023 area-wide rezoning and not by the property owner; staff said the owner was present but had not previously been given the resident comments that were submitted and read at the hearing.

Planning staff also told commissioners that notices required under the state zoning enabling act were mailed to property owners within 300 feet for the planning commission hearing and that state law does not require the same mailing for the later City Commission legislative hearing. If the City Commission advances the item on June 17, that commission will hold its own introduction and later final action.

Staff and several commissioners emphasized that nuisance complaints (noise, dust, odors) and any potential environmental concerns are enforceable under separate city ordinances or state law, and that those enforcement avenues are distinct from the zoning decision. Staff said they had not previously received formal complaints tied to this property before the public comments at the April 23 hearing, and that investigations would follow any formal complaint.

For now the practical effect is procedural: the Planning Commission’s recommendation advances the rezoning to the City Commission for consideration; the property’s existing storage use remains legally nonconforming whether the commission approves the rezoning or not. Residents were encouraged to continue communicating with staff before the City Commission meetings.