Residents urge council to deny rezoning at 191 Commerce Center Boulevard; matter sent to committee

City Council held a public hearing May 5 on Ordinance O15-2025, which would rezone parcel ID D08105472 at 191 Commerce Center Boulevard from R4 single-family residential and OC-1 office commercial to M2 light industrial. The council opened the hearing and invited public comment; no final vote was taken and the matter was referred to the Law and Ordinance Committee for a May 12 recommendation.

Neighbors were the principal speakers at the hearing and urged the council to preserve the existing R4 buffer between residences and the industrial zone. Jenny Bolton, a resident at 85 Norbert Drive, said, "we are not in opposition of Cameo Building ... Our concern lies with the rezoning request of the R4 parcel that surrounds our property and other neighboring properties." Bolton listed specific provisions of the City of Troy zoning code — including Sections 1.131.02, 1.137.08 and 1.149.11 — and said the change would reduce the buffer that currently separates the residential area from industrial development.

Several residents described recurring standing water and drainage problems in the R4 area. Donna Hormel, whose family has owned property on McKage for decades, said the neighborhood already experiences lengthy backups and standing runoff and asked whether proposed stormwater measures would be detention or retention ponds and how mosquito control would be handled. "We have a continuous stream running as the hill comes down from Commerce Center Boulevard," Hormel said, adding that the city should take a "measured" approach to further development.

Speakers also focused on truck routing and traffic. Multiple residents said prior agreements and expectations directed heavy truck traffic away from McKage (McKeag) and toward the city’s northern routes; they cautioned that allowing a distribution center closer to homes would increase semi traffic on nearby streets used by students and school buses. Veil Staley of 80 Norbert Drive said, "We're not against the development. We're just we just think it's the wrong place." David Pinkerton and others urged the council to consider long-term road and intersection changes before approving a rezoning that could change traffic patterns.

Representing the applicant, Craig Sweeney, who identified himself as representing Comeo Logistics, told council that most of the proposed facility would sit on land already zoned M2 and that the portion touching the R4 parcel is small and intended for stormwater retention and buffering. "This is an application for rezoning," Sweeney said, asking the council not to treat the matter as a variance request and noting the applicant's intention to add screening and vegetation.

Residents asked for specific mitigation if rezoning proceeds, including a landscaped berm or other screening between parking/parking trailers and homes, assurances about shielded lighting, limits on hours of operation, and clear routing instructions that would keep outbound trucks on the northern corridor. Several speakers referenced a memorandum prepared by Austin Idemiller (planning staff) that recommended approval; residents said they believed the memorandum understates the adjacent residential impacts and the amount of vacant industrial land nearby.

Council President read that the public hearing would be left open to public input at the committee meeting: the Law and Ordinance Committee will meet at 6:00 p.m. on May 12 to review the ordinance and provide a recommendation to council. The council did not vote on Ordinance O15-2025 at the May 5 meeting.

The public hearing included repeated requests from residents that the city provide detailed engineering and truck-routing plans before any rezoning is approved; the council invited the public to attend the May 12 committee meeting to reiterate those concerns.