Troy's Planning Commission Talks Gas Stations

Vol. IV. No. 51. - Current proposal limits new gas stations to big box stores.

Photo by Mehluli Hikwa on Unsplash

Last week, the city’s Planning commission held a long discussion on the city’s draft Unified Development Code and while data centers were a part of that discussion, gas stations also took up a large part of the meeting, especially considering a current moratorium is potentially sunsetting next month.

The debate over gas stations is really a debate over what kind of commercial landscape the city wants to have ten or twenty years from now, and how it wants to use the last pieces of land zoned for business.

The proposed Unified Development Code doesn’t ban new gas stations outright, but it does change the way they are allowed. Instead of letting fuel stations stand alone as a principal use, the draft code would only allow them as an accessory use to a larger permitted principal use, like a substantial grocery or general merchandise store. In zoning terms, the pumps can’t be the reason a site exists; they have to hitch a ride on a much bigger retail investment.

That shift becomes easier to understand when you look at Troy’s remaining commercial land. Development staff has made it clear in public meetings that the amount of truly vacant business-zoned land is compressed. When you strip out built parcels and slivers, they identified roughly 22 acres ofcommercial land that are actually open for new development, and about half of that total sits in just two parcels. In other words, there are only a handful of places left where the city can decide what kind of commercial footprint it wants to see. If those few sites get used for single-purpose fuel operations, they are not available for other uses that might generate more jobs, more storefronts, or more long-term tax value.

Against that backdrop, treating gas stations as an accessory use has some clear benefits. Large retailers provide broader services and more employment per acre than a standalone station. Anchoring fuel to a big-box store or major grocer means a scarce commercial parcel carries a full-service operation: grocery aisles, general merchandise, potentially some outlot tenants, and then fuel as a customer convenience. For economic development, that is appealing. The city can point to a higher job count, more diverse offerings, and a commercial node that can support other nearby businesses. For corridor planning, it is also easier to negotiate landscaping, access management, and signage for one large site than for a scatter of smaller stations.

There are operational benefits too. Major chains tend to have corporate standards for lighting, fencing, and site layout that can be aligned with gateway overlay expectations. When fuel is part of a larger site plan, any conditions on hours of operation, truck deliveries, or noise can be woven into a single approval, rather than negotiated case by case at multiple corners. Residents who care about how key intersections look and feel may prefer one well-designed anchor with pumps over a patchwork of smaller stations.

But there are drawbacks, and the compressed land supply makes them sharper. Requiring gas stations to be part of a larger principal use effectively narrows the field to firms that can afford and justify a 50,000‑square‑foot building or similar threshold. Small, locally owned operators who might want to open a modest station or independent convenience store have far fewer practical options, because they can’t walk into a vacant parcel with the intent to build only fuel and a small shop. In a city that already has a limited number of business lots left, that rule can function as a filter that favors national and regional brands over local entrepreneurs.

This shift also affects competition and neighborhood choice. With fewer standalone options, the fuel market may be dominated by the chains that can pair fuel with large stores. That may bring benefits – loyalty programs, investment in site design – but it can also mean fewer local stations where owners know their customers and tailor services to specific corners of town.

There is a timing layer as well. While the new code is still being debated, the existing moratorium on gas stations is the main tool preventing another traditional station from locking up one of those last commercial parcels under the old rules. Planning commissioners have already signaled they want that moratorium extended until the UDC is adopted.

When residents look at this issue, they are really weighing two visions. One vision uses scarce commercial land to support larger anchors with fuel as a side feature, chasing more jobs and broader services per parcel. The other keeps the door open for smaller, independent gas and convenience businesses, even if that means some prime corners are devoted primarily to fuel. With so little vacant commercial land left, the choice Troy makes in its development code will echo for a long time.

Announcing our July Community Survey!

Every other month, this publication takes time to ask our readers how they feel about the happenings in their hometown! What are the challenges? What are the opportunities? Is your hometown headed in the right direction? Our survey is the easiest way for you to express your thoughts. Next month, this publication will report out on the results.

Thanks for your time and your participation! It is greatly appreciated!

This is what it looks like when residents stay informed. If you find value in this work, share it with a neighbor, a colleague, or anyone who cares about this community. Paid subscriptions keep it going — $5 a month.

Civic Capacity runs on one thing: readers who believe local journalism matters. If you want to support this work without a subscription, you can now make a one-time contribution through Buy Me a Coffee — or in my case, Buy Me an Iced Tea. Click the button below. Every contribution goes directly into the work you read here every day.