Sunbury commission pauses Bluestone rezoning after residents press for alternatives to auto uses

A divided Planning & Zoning Commission on Monday left undecided a rezoning request from Bluestone (Bluestone STP/Bluestone LLC) to return a 6.5-acre parcel along State Route 3 to a Planned Commercial District, after a lengthy applicant presentation and extended public comment urging alternatives to auto-related businesses.

Drew Zazowski, representing Bluestone, told the commission the development text being proposed reinstates commercial PCD conditions for four lots and explicitly removes "a gasoline service station as an allowable use" from the allowed uses. He said the firm has a lease with Valvoline for Lot 3, has identified a prospective medical tenant for Lot 4, and is seeking approval of the overall development plan, phase 1 infrastructure, the PCD conditions and a preliminary plat to enable leasing and tenant-specific site plans.

The hearing drew multiple neighbors who said the parcel — which the city has contemplated as commercial since 2005 — should be built with community-oriented, walkable uses rather than drive-through or auto-service businesses. "We don't want an oil change facility here," Susan Schrader told the commission, summarizing a frequent theme among speakers who cited traffic, noise and property‑value concerns.

Resident S2 raised legal objections, saying the 2023 zoning ordinance "violates the principles of uniform classification by singling out a small isolated parcel for commercial use" and signaled an intent to preserve rights to challenge zoning in court. The developer and staff framed the request as a land-use decision linked to the city's comprehensive plan; Alex, the city planner, noted that the proposed PCD text is generally consistent with the 2005 PCD and Sunbury's 2016 comprehensive plan while also explaining the reversion rule (land reverts to Agricultural A-1 if not developed within three years).

Commissioners pressed the applicant on several technical issues before any final action: driveway alignment and access (engineers flagged an offset drive that could blind opposing traffic), screening and landscape specifications along the residential boundary, parking and parking‑stall sizes, and operating hours for proposed occupants. Zazowski said the applicant has conducted multiple site‑plan iterations and neighborhood meetings, removed gas from the allowed uses, relocated power lines to free Lot 4 and is working on a landscape plan and fence options with affected neighbors. He asked the commission to approve PCD conditions to give brokers a contractual basis to pursue tenants.

Several commissioners said they were open to rezoning in principle but not to approving all four items (rezoning, development text, preliminary plat and phase 1 infrastructure) with the level of detail provided. One commissioner summarized the posture that guided the majority: approve zoning change only if it can be done with firm, enforceable conditions; otherwise continue the dialogue and require stronger screening, access alignment and operating-hour restrictions before final approvals.

Rather than take a final rezoning vote, the commission closed the public hearing by roll call and directed staff to continue discussions with the applicant and neighbors, and to return with clarified landscape and access plans at a later meeting. The agenda item remains open for future action; staff indicated the applicant has up to 60 days under the administrative schedule to obtain a decision or to return with revisions.

Next steps: Bluestone will continue negotiations with staff and neighbors on fencing, tree replacement and driveway alignment; tenant‑level site plans will return separately to the commission for final platting and major site-plan review.