[{"_1":2,"_100":-5,"_101":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,76,88],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},"mediaId",6164211,"mediaKeyId","5430487-f9fec93441e4c50d4868b57dfa8e29bc","parentId",5430487,"title","Council rejects rezoning for Westbrook Estate subdivision after residents raise drainage, traffic and lot-size concerns","audioSeconds",2752,"startMs",1085000,"endMs",3837000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=5430487-f9fec93441e4c50d4868b57dfa8e29bc&start=1085&end=3837","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5430487-f9fec93441e4c50d4868b57dfa8e29bc/thumbnail_1085000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6164211/Ohio/Council-rejects-rezoning-for-Westbrook-Estate-subdivision-after-residents-raise-drainage-traffic-and-lot-size-concerns","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6164211-99600b9271e6d7b75177cb0bbc4da947/orig.mp4?Expires=1770416146&Signature=UeZAxUF0NtDfsjjKuEKrQQCLo2NHzctESw~1ii2~gg2XiDe5l7Bqv8u-rfFbb8qLIqUU3EZYhuQHNwuk6ixNmfp6wzl1e3nIpoGxR~200YV77S9d~4E93YWnokCuRsxtdQg6KAnlaPsWlhvsnX2J869xMwitDJcsRjNH35Xuve-EYyHjVw1c-XGmkFwE55GaZLQoPHVIwm2ZwgiIHdXM33PxNxhQPOV-Hdvc1JsyPQcIczJLumVEk4UOMHFmtphJNyoEqFtrZ8GkTatsuQaFoNatauSXKF4yUIYeAnhdtDq8KI8ygSVoO8vqP-02mQL~PQkOLGMy7tBYu7nIy5ub4w__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","City Council of Clayton, OH ","date","2025-07-20T03:31:54.61Z","article","Clayton City Council on an evening vote rejected a proposal by Shanghai Enterprises LLC to rezone a 30.4242-acre property near Westbrook Road and Taywood Road from RSD (residential single-unit district) to PDD (planned development district), a change staff said would allow a preliminary plan for detached homes on narrower lots.

The vote came after staff presented the application as Planning Commission case PC25-02 and recommended approval with conditions; staff’s packet described a preliminary plan for 98 single-family homes, three access points, right-of-way dedication for a multiuse path, and about 5.87 acres (19.29%) of open space. Planning staff told council the applicant would need to submit final development plans and a traffic study before construction permits could be issued.

The issue drew extended public comment and detailed responses from the applicant’s representative, Ben Schilling, who described engineering measures he said the developer would use to address neighbors’ drainage and safety concerns. “That basin will be sized to handle the flows from the development and to not increase the release rates from our development,” Schilling told council, describing a wet (retention) basin with a safety shelf and a swale to capture runoff before it reaches rear yards east of the site.

Why it matters: Council members and nearby residents said the proposal would increase traffic and could worsen flooding unless engineering measures and long-term maintenance obligations were carefully defined. Residents also pressed the developer about subsurface rock and whether bedrock conditions could make construction more expensive or affect how foundations are built.

Key details and debate

- Staff summary: Ellen Snyder, presenting the application, said the preliminary plan organizes roughly 98 single-family lots, includes new street and utility infrastructure and requires coordination with county and utility agencies. Snyder identified Plan Clayton chapters and city code sections that guide review and said Planning Commission recommended approval with specified conditions.

- Applicant response: Ben Schilling and Jason Lu (applicant) addressed drainage and traffic. Schilling said the developer had completed a traffic study that staff and a third-party reviewer had cleared, and that no off-site improvements were “triggered” by the study. He described plans for a multi-use path along Westbrook and right-of-way dedication along the frontage.

- Resident concerns: Multiple neighbors urged the council to deny the rezoning or require stricter protections. Questions included the projected home count (materials circulated different numbers; one commenter cited 92 on a slide while another referred to “103”), the depth of bedrock encountered in geotechnical borings, and who would maintain the proposed swale and basin. A resident who reviewed the geotech report summarized that roughly 29 borings were taken and several had “refusal” (very shallow rock) around 10 feet, raising concerns about foundation and utility construction costs.

- Stormwater and safety: The applicant confirmed the basin would be a wet basin with a safety shelf and said the swale would be placed within an easement designed to prohibit modification; he said maintenance could be assigned either to the city or to an HOA. Council and residents asked for clarity on long-term maintenance and whether easements or restrictive covenants would be used.

Council action

- Ordinance: Ordinance 00725-10 (Shanghai Enterprises LLC — rezoning RSD to PDD and approval of preliminary subdivision plan for parcel M601032090025, ~30.4242 acres).
- Motion: Motion to reject the ordinance (mover: Merkel; second: Henning). (Recorded on the council agenda as a motion to reject the recommended rezoning.)
- Vote: Yes — Council Member Farmer; Council Member Henning; Council Member Gorman; Council Member Merkel; Council Member Kelly (5). No — Council Member Bachman; Council Member Stevens (2). Outcome: Ordinance rejected.

What was not decided: No final development or plat was approved; staff reminded the council that any future subdivision or final development plan would require additional engineering review, a finalized traffic study (if needed), and public hearings.

Community context and follow-up

Residents repeatedly asked that any future approvals include explicit language about who will maintain drainage easements and the basin and whether covenants or deed restrictions could preserve buffers. Several asked the council to require stronger stormwater guarantees at the final plan stage. The council vote leaves the developer able to revise and resubmit, but the rezoning as presented was turned down.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","City Of Clayton, Council Meeting July 17, 2025","oneSentenceSummary","Clayton City Council on an evening vote rejected a proposal by Shanghai Enterprises LLC to rezone a 30.4242-acre property near Westbrook Road and Taywood Road from RSD to PDD, a change staff said would allow a preliminary plan for narrower lots and more houses.","taxTitle","Clayton City Council, Clayton, Montgomery County, Ohio","taxId",71947,"location","Ohio","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":77,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":78,"_41":79,"_43":80,"_45":81,"_47":82,"_49":83,"_51":84,"_53":85,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":86,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":87,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6164202,"Council repeals prior approval for Warner Village development; law director says repeal should make referendum moot",316,7160000,7476000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5430487-f9fec93441e4c50d4868b57dfa8e29bc&start=7160&end=7476","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5430487-f9fec93441e4c50d4868b57dfa8e29bc/thumbnail_7160000.jpg","/articles/6164202/Ohio/Council-repeals-prior-approval-for-Warner-Village-development-law-director-says-repeal-should-make-referendum-moot","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6164202-4adae82c2cc2f2a040e9118b66749da5/orig.mp4?Expires=1770416146&Signature=Th4Fj~Z858rgz8uuA8HgiFXNxfn1xCxi4o2k-IqIiSmYexPyiLrZ-pAsiO-IgoOor~sKf2Hfp8woVtreV9gFU8DW8zvQ5TF6kkcmq-IV2QQMsKkpkH~S~A7otIDZL5toppr4kT~P6TmPrl0h3wKRIICn~H4qw1n39fmayVCWGNnUyE~HVwnUePG9k1cM92GMVXkBWLl1bmvpCvm~IS7qm211YDNJFTRTG3iHW8wCDL3KgQ4IBbB6PLVG3fNbcWzNYkzSgMnbMltF-A0G2F8BEqxQxkTB99cEGo7V1UnjL8JHcTEpxr55lqk~lwsn1E3jbPuXB4ElnocObw1O4YNA~Q__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Clayton City Council voted 6–1 to repeal a previously adopted ordinance that approved the Planning Commission’s recommendation for a zoning change and preliminary development plan for SDG Warner Village LLC, a sizable development the prior ordinance had covered.

The ordinance repealed was listed on the council agenda as Ordinance 0012502; at the meeting, the repeal was carried by a 6–1 roll-call vote after council discussion and an explanation from the law director, Martina, who said Ohio case law supports the position that once a municipal legislative authority repeals an ordinance, any referendum filed against that ordinance is moot and the Board of Elections should not submit that measure to voters.

Why it matters: Repealing an approved ordinance for a major subdivision effectively withdraws city legislative approval of the project as it had been granted; the law director advised council that, under Ohio law and precedent, the Board of Elections should remove a repealed ordinance from the ballot even if petitioners had filed a referendum petition.

Details in the meeting

- The ordinance on the agenda (Ordinance 00725-12) was titled to repeal Ordinance 0012502, which had adopted Planning Commission recommendations approving SDG Warner Village LLC’s change from RSD to PDD and a preliminary plan for roughly 183.1044 acres near Sweet Potato Ridge Road and Main Street.

- Law director Martinez (identified in the meeting as Martina) explained her view that Ohio case law shows that repeal by the legislative authority makes a referendum moot and the Board of Elections should not submit the measure to voters. Martina read language summarizing that position, saying the board “shall not submit such ordinance or measure to a vote of the electors.”

Council action

- Motion: Motion to approve repeal of Ordinance 0012502 (mover: Gorman; second: Merkel).
- Vote: Yes — Council Member Farmer; Council Member Gorman; Council Member Merkel; Council Member Kelly; Council Member Bachman; Council Member Stevens (6). No — Council Member Henning (1). Outcome: Ordinance repealed (6–1).

What was not decided: The council’s repeal removes the earlier city approval in ordinance form; if developers seek to proceed they would need to refile applications and obtain fresh Planning Commission and council approvals. Any pending referendum petitions related to the prior ordinance should be rendered moot per the law director’s interpretation; the Board of Elections was advised not to place a now-repealed ordinance on the ballot.

Next steps: The law director’s office will provide the council with the cited case law and coordinate with the Montgomery County Board of Elections if a referendum petition had been filed to ensure the ballot reflects the repeal.","Clayton City Council voted 6–1 to repeal an earlier ordinance approving SDG Warner Village LLC’s rezoning and preliminary plan for about 183.1 acres, and the law director told council that case law indicates a repeal removes the need for a referendum and the Board of Elections should not place it on the ballot.",{"_33":89,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":90,"_41":91,"_43":92,"_45":93,"_47":94,"_49":95,"_51":96,"_53":97,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":98,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":99,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6164207,"Council tables final approval for Hunter’s Path Phase 3 after neighbors press to restore tree buffer and clarify legal protections",2475,3859000,6334000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5430487-f9fec93441e4c50d4868b57dfa8e29bc&start=3859&end=6334","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5430487-f9fec93441e4c50d4868b57dfa8e29bc/thumbnail_3859000.jpg","/articles/6164207/Ohio/Council-tables-final-approval-for-Hunters-Path-Phase-3-after-neighbors-press-to-restore-tree-buffer-and-clarify-legal-protections","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6164207-78c807ce56057f373d30b90cbd5782e9/orig.mp4?Expires=1770416146&Signature=bcuXWQ07YOfk8c38RffoalidzgrtzY3D-0ApZFfW8ZQtIAjxkfUyVFfJ1SLbDbODF9A-poaT~JvSmCqaj~iZ1D8lznhNpomylEwMIB3XABwa2J17-1x6RWbn8tPWqPSjx1SCiXkL6~mqhgx5CBqDukUreo5xjLBlY9wZqglmfDbVTNp7o8mdEYvDvqrzJGqrKlkjaimhThTtQUJjRy9TYBWQSRMLlHGwyHZU69lWCJQ53Qbc2Vfq3jSg2RemaOxoK8pvsN1HrVqZSNRPmwDzwDTw1vsCiUjD4TBW8jh21ouaVFka-uAixzOyf4ot-q2yZ9KPB-4KHI1OgtRS8A4bhg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Clayton City Council voted to table consideration of the final development plan for Hunters Path Extension Phase 3, a 17.09-acre eastern phase proposed by DDC Management that would develop 40 single-family lots, after residents and council asked for legally binding protections for a wooded buffer and clarity on long-term maintenance.

Why it matters: The project — a final-development submission to complete the previously approved preliminary plan (the overall preliminary plan covered a larger 37.1-acre site) — prompted public concern about tree preservation along the northeast boundary, cul-de-sac safety, bus and trash access in cul-de-sac designs, construction staging, and downstream drainage tied to an onsite stream. Council tabled the ordinance to allow legal staff to evaluate options such as restrictive covenants or deed restrictions.

What staff and the applicant said

- Staff presentation: Ellen Snyder summarized the final development submission for Planning Commission case PC25-03. The final plan covers the east half of the earlier preliminary plan, proposes 40 homes, about 5.66 acres (33.15%) of open space, extension of Falls Road, sidewalks, lighting and a multiuse path on Westbrook Road. Planning Commission had recommended approval without a previously proposed open-space strip along the northeast boundary; staff noted council could add a condition requiring restoration of a 20-foot buffer.

- Applicant response: Jonathan Bills of DDC Management said the final plan reflected minor engineering-driven lot shifts and that the developer is willing to add a 20-foot buffer along the northeast boundary as HOA-owned open space and said, “we don’t plan to clear it.” Bills said the developer would remove dead trees but otherwise preserve healthy growth in the buffer; he said the stream and downstream drainage issues would be addressed in later phases and that infrastructure would be coordinated with Montgomery County Environmental Services and utilities.

Public comments and concerns

Residents who live immediately north of the Phase 3 boundary urged preservation of the tree line as a security and privacy buffer. Bill Snyder, who said he lives at the northern cul-de-sac, said preserving trees provides separation from new neighbors and helps block short-cutting through yards. Other speakers asked whether the HOA would have sufficient incentives to preserve trees for neighbors outside the new subdivision, and urged legal covenants that would bind future owners.

Technical concerns raised in public comment included: access for school buses and trash trucks on the proposed cul-de-sacs; where construction vehicles will stage and park; the stream’s capacity in later phases to handle runoff; and whether a preservation easement or restrictive covenant could be included on the plat to provide long-term protection.

Council action and next steps

- Ordinance: Ordinance 00725-09 (DDC Management LLC — final development plan for Hunters Path Extension Phase 3, parcel and phasing details in staff report).
- Motion: Motion to table the ordinance to the next meeting (mover: Merkel; second: Kelly).
- Vote: Yes — Council Member Farmer; Council Member Henning; Council Member Gorman; Council Member Merkel; Council Member Kelly; Council Member Stevens (6). Abstain — Council Member Bachman (1). Outcome: Tabled; council requested legal counsel research covenant/plat mechanisms to protect the buffer and return with options.

What was not decided: Council did not approve or reject the final development plan. Planning staff and the applicant will return with legal language options for the buffer and any recommended plat or covenant language; if council imposes a condition it would be incorporated in the final plan or plats before recordation.

Community context: Residents said they want an enforceable protection for the trees because HOA control alone may not bind future actions; the applicant said it would accept HOA-maintained buffer space and would not clear the 20-foot area. Council requested the law director review whether restrictive covenants, plat notes or preservation easements are the correct legal vehicle and whether those could be required as a condition of final approval.","Clayton City Council tabled an ordinance on the final development plan for Hunters Path Extension Phase 3 (DDC Management) to allow staff and legal counsel to research covenant or plat protections for a proposed 20-foot wooded buffer and other conditions requested by residents.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Council rejects rezoning for Westbrook Estate subdivision after residents raise drainage, traffic and lot-size concerns

Council repeals prior approval for Warner Village development; law director says repeal should make referendum moot

Council tables final approval for Hunter’s Path Phase 3 after neighbors press to restore tree buffer and clarify legal protections