TROY – Prior to its regular open meeting, Troy’s Board of Aldermen hosted a public hearing Monday night on five topics ranging from expanding subdivisions to a new pet store.

However, the one topic that received the most citizen feedback by far proved to be the only issue the board wouldn’t vote on during its regular meeting.

While the developers withdrew their proposal prior to the planning and zoning meeting, the hearing on the proposed zoning change allowing for construction of 12 new homes at Park Hills Estate became unnecessary.

But with the item on the agenda and several people attending wanting to discuss it, they were given that opportunity and the feedback was unanimously opposed to the new project.

“I thought that was green space. How in the world is somebody going to build anything on that,” Terry Black, who lives in Park Hills, asked about the 3-acre tract of land. “I understand they own it. Somebody owns it and they can do something with it. But that looks to me like it ought to be a buffer zone. I just don’t see how approving tiny homes … how that’s going to improve property values.”

Debbie Vitale said she enjoys seeing the open green space provided by the parcel currently zoned commercial.

“Personally, I like the nature,” she said. “I like the trees, and you know, there’s weeds and stuff, but I kind of like that area. Because you can see deer and wildlife laying down in the grass that’s back there.”

In response to concerns about what the houses would be used for, aldermen Rachel Dunard and Dennis Detert both said they met with the developer and were told they would be sold as single-family homes and not used as rentals.

More than one resident though commented they didn’t trust the developer, Rowles Construction, anymore.

“You know, they told us a lot of things, too. I don’t think anybody (who) bought a home trusts them,” Phillip Zerillo said. “So your comment…about getting in writing, whatever you all decide to do and vote on… you do get it in writing. Because like Alexis said, they tell us a lot of things and they do the exact opposite.”

Zerillo also expressed concern about the developers plan to use blasting materials to clear away debris and the impact it would have on homes, especially his which is located 15 feet from the blast zone. He said he asked the developer why they were using blasting and was told it was to save money.

“Why are you going to put my home, all of these good people’s homes at risk, (just) because you want to save money,” he said. “Okay, that doesn’t fly with us. They can chip it out. That won’t cause any problems with our homes, our foundation. It will be some seismic activity going on. There will be some shaking. But it won’t be like what we’re going to see with the blasting.”

Mayor Ron Sconce assured everyone in attendance once the city receives permit applications, these concerns will be discussed.

“Once we get a permit application in, we’ll sit down and review of all these concerns and make sure we touch base with everybody,” he said.

The only other comments during the public hearing came from a resident in the Hamptons Subdivision, not necessarily related to the proposed expansion but regarding the condition of the current neighborhood.

He cited numerous issues including poor streets, a retention pond that isn’t maintained and a lack of sidewalks.

Officials with Buchanan Construction had sought a change to the multi-family permit already granted to the land so they could reduce the number of units by 297. The original permit called for multi-story apartment buildings while Buchannan now wants to build single-level condos and townhomes.

However, their permit change was tabled as Dunard requested the city’s on-call engineer to determine “safety and traffic” issues resulting from the change.

The board of aldermen did approve the conditional use permit for the new pet store which will be located at 15 The Plaza. Jason Branch of Puppies LLC had submitted the request.

The other two items, including an update to stormwater, water and sewer connection fees and a bill requiring public improvement maintenance guarantees were read by title for the first time in the open meeting. They will be discussed again at a future meeting and voted on.