Troy council declines amendment, sends moratorium ordinance back for second reading after heated debate

Council members spent more than an hour debating Ordinance O29-2026 on July 5, a first-reading measure that would extend a 90-day moratorium on new applications for community oriented residential social service facilities (CORSSF) while terminating a separate moratorium on automobile fuel dispensing stations and service stations as the city finalizes a new Unified Development Code (UDC).

Councilmember Schilling moved an amendment seeking to immediately end the moratorium provisions affecting the applicant known as Troy Station and similar prospective gas‑station projects. Schilling argued that applicants had already invested heavily in the planning and permitting process, saying the parties were "in like $700,000" and that immediate relief could let construction begin earlier and reduce winter‑work complications. "They're in like $700,000 to open up a convenience store gas station in Troy," he said.

Other council members urged caution. Councilwoman Snead, who chaired the Community & Economic Development Committee, and others said the moratorium was established to let the UDC process address how certain uses should be regulated, and that lifting it now could grandfather projects under the current code before a revised UDC takes effect. "We passed the moratorium to see how the proposed UDC would treat this category," Snead said, arguing that lifting the pause could prevent the city from making planned code changes.

Attorney Rebecca Simpson, who spoke during public comment representing Mandeep Singh and Troy Station LLC, said her client had been communicating with city staff as recently as December 2025 and believed his submittals met the moratorium's application threshold; she urged council to consider an exemption. Contractor Matthew Ward, speaking for the applicant team, told council the applicant would have filed an online application if told it existed and that the applicant relied on zoning staff guidance.

After debate the council voted on Schilling's amendment; the motion failed on a roll call vote. With the amendment defeated, the original ordinance remained on the table and was scheduled for a second reading rather than being adopted at the meeting.

Council members repeatedly framed the choice as weighing fairness to a near‑ready applicant against the policy purpose of pausing new permits while the UDC is finalized. No final ordinance adoption occurred July 5; council will reconsider O29 at a future meeting.