City Council - Regular Meeting

Mr. Mayor.

Good evening. Hello. We have a presentation on the proclamation issue. And it's clear a journal month is coming up in June.

Is that better? I guess that works now. Sorry about that. All right, before we get started tonight, we need to present a proclamation to Kelly here for scleroderma month in June, and I'd like to read it. It says, whereas scleroderma is a chronic autoimmune disease that causes a hardening and tightening of the skin and connective tissues, and in its systemic form can also affect internal organs such as the lungs, hearts, kidneys, digestive tract, and whereas more than 300,000 Americans are estimated to live with some form of scleroderma, which can impact people of all ages, genders, and background, although it is more common in women and typically diagnosed between the ages of 30 and 50. And whereas there is currently no cure for scleroderma, but early diagnosis and treatment can help manage symptoms, slow the disease progression, and improve quality of life for those affected. And whereas Scleroderma Awareness Month in June provides an opportunity to increase public understanding of this often misunderstood disease, support ongoing medical research, honor the strength and resilience of individuals and families living with scleroderma, and promote access to education and resources through organizations like the National Scleroderma Foundation. and whereas the City of Beaver Creek values the health and well-being of all of its residents and recognizes the importance of community awareness and support for those facing chronic health challenges. Now therefore, I, Don Adams, Mayor of the City of Beaver Creek, along with the entire City Council, do hereby proclaim the month of June 2026 as Cholera Derma Awareness Month in the City of Beaver Creek. I encourage all residents to learn more about scleroderma, show support for those affected, and participate in awareness activities throughout the month. Would you like to say a few words?

Sure.

I know Major Adams, every time he gives me a mic, he cringes because he thinks I'm going to go over my time limit. But I always, always would like to thank the Beaver Creek City Council for over the many years that we've been doing this. I could not do it without your support. My family thanks you. Just seeing your faces every year and throughout the community when I'm traveling just makes my heart smile, and I appreciate you. and also for attending the bowling event throughout the years, so I appreciate you. June of every year, globally, is National Slayer Derma Month, and just having the city of Beaver Creek, along with other supporting cities throughout Ohio and the nation, proclaiming June the Slayer Derma month means a lot to all the families and Slayer Dermas sufferers and people living with Slayer Derma it means a lot to them and a lot to us who support them so again I appreciate the city of Beaver Creek and every year the last Saturday of September I know it's football season but we hold a bowling charity event at the beaverview bowling alley from two to four every saturday once not reset but the last saturday of september so i have some flyers on the back table if you like to bowl or you're thinking of it just give me a call and i will give you additional details and again thank you mayor adams i really appreciate you and city council

We'll call this meeting to order. Have a roll call, please.

Council Member Kern. Here. Council Member Dewar. Here. Council Member Bills. Here. Council Member Littoral.

Here.

Council Member Bales. Here. Vice Mayor Upton. Here. Mayor Adams.

Here. I'll now turn it over to Vice Mayor Upton.

I ask everyone to please stand for the pledge and a moment of prayer.

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

Please join me in a moment of quiet reflection and gratitude as we open today's meeting. As we gather here to serve our community, our hearts are heavy with the recent remembrance of Memorial Day. We pause to honor the profound memory of the brave men and women who gave their lives in service to our nation. We acknowledge the immense sacrifice they made and the enduring grief of the families they left behind. May we never take for granted the freedoms we enjoy today, bought at so high cost. Let their legacy of selflessness inspire us in this room as we conduct the business of public. Grant us the wisdom, humility, and compassion to serve our community with the same spirit of dedication and unity. May our actions today honor the peace they fought so hard to protect.

Amen.

We have an agenda before us. If there's any changes, corrections, additions. Move to approve the agenda for tonight, Your Honor. Second. I have a motion and a second to approve the agenda. Please signify by saying aye. Aye. Opposed? We have some minutes in front of us as well. April 27, 2026, regular meeting minutes. Any changes, corrections?

Move to approve.

Second. I have a motion and a second to approve the minutes of April 22nd. All those in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. Opposed?

I abstain.

Thank you. And then we have the May 11th work session minutes. Any additions, corrections?

Mayor, page 20, I don't love the way it's been attributed. I don't seek a formal amendment, but all I'd like to say is I think the park, the community park that we were discussing is a great one. My children thoroughly enjoyed playing on it, and I think it has many unique aspects of which I approve and see as very valuable.

Second. I have a motion and a second to approve the minutes of May 11th. All those in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. Opposed? Prescheduled speaker, Chief Hawker. Welcome.

I'm going to have to grow a little bit here. Okay. Mayor Adams, council members, good evening. Thank you for the opportunity to speak before you tonight. My name is Christine Hawker and I began serving as the fire chief on January 15th of this year. I appreciate the chance to introduce our new command staff and provide a brief overview of their current roles and responsibilities. I also want to thank the city for the opportunity to collaborate and provide quarterly updates on the fire department. I believe this to be extremely valuable, not only for the fire department, the township, the city, and all of our residents. We are excited to lead the organization and continue advancing the fire department to new heights. Currently, our command staff includes the following positions. Myself, the fire chief, assistant chief, division chief of administration and technology, the division chief of operations, the division chief of training, and the fire marshal. To share a little bit about myself, I graduated from Wright State University with a bachelor's degree in education. I began a 10-year teaching and coaching career after that and then transitioned into the fire service, a transition that I am very, very thankful for to this day with no regrets. I've served in the fire service for more than 25 years, including 23 of those years serving Beaver Creek and the community of Beaver Creek. I'm very proud to work alongside the outstanding and committed command staff that we have gathered. I would like to begin by introducing our assistant chief, Dustin Harrison, who will then introduce the next member of our team.

Good evening, board, or council, I guess I should say. Sorry, we're used to the board thing. And community. Assistant Chief Dustin Harrison. So I'm a 1997 graduate of Beaver Creek High School. Grew up here and lived here for the majority of my life. Pretty exciting to be in the position that I'm at now within the fire department. So I started working for Beaver Creek Fire Department about five months after I graduated high school. So went through all the schooling and have moved through the ranks up to the point where I'm at now. Super excited, like Chief said, about the direction that we're headed as an organization. Things like this, the collaboration that we're able to do and just get out within the community is something new for us as a command staff. And it's something we're excited to be able to share about what our department brings to the table. So as the assistant chief, one of the main roles that I have is in charge of our quality improvement and planning. So as you can imagine, with an organization of our size and the diverse things that we have to deal with, that can be pretty comprehensive. So one of the key components of that is an accreditation process. So similar to what your police department has gone through, The fire department has an accreditation process as well. So we've been managing that and going through that and hopefully we'll wrap that process up here in August. We go in front of the commission scheduled for the second week of August to have our hearing and finally get that approval, we hope, for the accreditation process. It's been a very neat, comprehensive look from the organization, top to bottom. you know everything that we can think of looking under every rock you know to try to find the best way to improve our department and and move us forward in a positive direction so really excited about that like chief said can't do it without the team so the next person we got to keep it short they said so I could I could sit here and talk to you all day about it but the next person will be Nathan Heaster he's our division chief of administration and technology

Good evening, Council. My name is Nathan Heaster. I'm Division Chief of Administration and Technology. Unlike Dustin, I'm a transplant. I grew up in Miami County, Ohio, but transplanted to Beaver Creek in 1999 and have served my career here ever since. I've been working through a whole bunch of different roles within the fire department over the years, but right now my division is a division that is The one that, if you look under the hood of the car, is the engine that keeps all the other divisions running. So I manage everything from the budget and payroll all the way through the technology aspects and everything else in between. So that's a little bit about my division. And up next is Division Chief Lee Polis from the Operations Division.

Good evening, council. My name is Lee Polis, the visiting chief of operations. I've worked with Beaver Creek Township Fire Department since 2003. And so a little bit over 20 years here. Did get a degree from Miami University in human resource management and business administration. So kind of made a big change in my life there, which my parents kind of were not thrilled about. But they're very proud of me now. And I'm utilizing my skills I gained during that time frame in my current role. I'm in over the three shift commanders that we have. We have three different shifts and they do a 24-48 schedule. But below that, I have 72 firefighters and officers that I take care of on a regular basis. So just making sure that they get out on the street, have the equipment they need, have the training that they need and everything else. So other than that, moving on to our Chief of Training, Division Chief of Training, Alex Ferguson.

Good evening.

I'm Alex Ferguson. I am, last but certainly not least, the newest addition to the team here. I took on the division chief of training for Beaver Creek. This is a new role for our department. We've always had training. Training is just a massive part of our job for safety in every aspect of what we do. So my current role is just taking a look at everything we do, fire, operations, EMS, technical rescue, driver training, professional development. new hire academy probation process. So it's a big job. It's a big role. So I'm taking that on and looking at everything that we're doing, analyzing it, and making sure that we're meeting state and federal regulations and standards and making sure that we're compliant in every aspect of that. I'm excited to be here. I've been with Beaver Creek since 2009. I've been a firefighter for 20 years. I started off as a volunteer in Spring Valley, and now I'm here in Beaver Creek. So it's been a great ride and glad to work here. So thank you very much. Appreciate it. Appreciate the time. And now I'll pass it off to Fire Marshal Grosjean.

Chief Counsel, good evening, Mayor. I'm Randy Groschen. For those who don't recognize me, I'm Fire Marshal Beaver Creek Township Fire Department. I'm kind of the oldster because I started volunteering in 92 as a transplant into Beaver Creek. So I think I've got up there on the seniority from the volunteer aspect. But I just want to talk a little bit about the community risk development of the fire department. We just had someone retire, Jim Henley. He's been with us for about 26 years. We, with his retirement, we transferred someone in from the street who's very interested in the prevention, the community risk department. And so we have three members total that are full-time in there. I just wanted to comment that we have a good relationship with the city zoning department and engineering department. For any new projects that come in, we make sure that there's code enforcement appropriately and work that same with the township zoning also. Our department focuses a lot on the new development coming in, including zoning aspect all the way to the building, make sure life safety is appropriate in that. We work closely with Green County Building Regulations because the three inspectors, myself and the two others, are Board of Building Standards certified fire protection inspectors. So we work in conjunction with the county for fire protection inspections and making sure that the buildings are safe when they are given occupancy. We do have some other duties around the community including Things like fuel tank pulls. There's still a lot of fuel tanks that are occupying some of the residents underground in the community. We do multiple public education items, including presentations for senior center, fire extinguisher training, and obviously the open house. Again, good team, the community risk department. And if you have any questions, I can answer them later. But I'll throw it back to the chief then. Thanks.

So thank you again for your support. We really appreciate it. We look forward to attending these meetings quarterly, providing as much information as we can, not only about our organization, but what we do for the community and how we're moving forward. As you can see, I have a very experienced and talented command staff and we are looking to do great things. So we appreciate your support and thank you for inviting us tonight.

We thank you, too. We thank you for everything you guys do. I've kind of worked with all of you at one time or another, and it's a real honor to be a part of that. And I was fortunate enough to be there when you had the change of command and all those different promotions kind of all falling in place really was a good thing to see. So we appreciate everything you guys do.

Thank you very much.

Hey, public hearing PD 26 dash two.

Mr. Mayor, before we begin, it's been strongly suggested that I recuse myself from this due to a family tie to an adjacent property. So I'll be exiting.

PUD 26-2, an application filed by Jake Shields, Gray Fox Party, LLC, 6161 Oak Tree Boulevard, Suite 260, Independence, Ohio. The applicant requests approval to rezone 22.4 acres from B2, Community Business District, and R1A, One Family Residential District, to MX PUD Mixed Planned Unit Development. The property is located at 3870 Indian Ripple Road, further described as Book 3, page 19, parcels 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, and 66 on the Greene County Property Tax Atlas. ordinance number 2615 and ordinance rezoning 22.3 acres from r1a one family residential mb2 neighborhood business further described as book 3 page 19. parcels 50 51 52 53 54 55 and 66 on the property tax maps of green county ohio to mx pud 26-2 mixed use planned unit development thank you we have an applicant here

Hi, my name is Jake Shields, 6161 Oak Tree Boulevard. Thank you members of council, mayor, staff for allowing me to take the time to present this project, this rezoning request. But before I do, I thought I'd just like to talk a little generally about who I am and Gray Fox as a company and what we do. how we do it. So, again, my name is Jake Shields. I've been in development for roughly close to 15 years now. I work for Gray Fox. It's a development firm out of Cleveland, Ohio, Independence, Ohio, just south of Cleveland. And our main focus in terms of development is more residential, whether that's we're developing for Home builders doing you know selling lots to home builders or we also have a our own rental community that we build own and maintain Of ranches and towns luxury ranches and towns actually one is being built in Beaver Creek Township as we speak right now but we also do commercial as well, so we have flexibility and what we build and and how we build it and I kind of say that because from our standpoint We are not trying to push a square peg in a round hole. We obviously have market experience from other cities and other areas that we do development. But I'm not on city council. I'm not in the community. And so from our standpoint, we really want to make sure that whatever project we move forward with It's hand in hand with the community. It's hand in hand with staff, planning commission, and city council. And so before even putting together this rezoning application, there were many conversations with staff and trying to determine what should go here and how should it look. Obviously, we're just at a rezoning standpoint and the plan, assuming a approval, would be coming immediately afterwards. But from our standpoint, we do not want to push something that is not wanted. We want to be working hand in hand. And so with that being said, I'd like to move forward. There we go. And just a couple, I guess one thing I forgot, just a couple prior and existing projects that we're working on across Ohio recently. So it is a lot, it's a mix. It's a lot of single family, attached, detached, for sale, it's also rentals, it's also commercial like Aldi's, Chick-fil-A, those types of retail, more retail oriented. So the site itself, off of Indian Ripple Road, it's roughly 22 1⁄2 acres. Most of it is underutilized. It's overgrown woods. I believe looking back at some of the historical imagery back in the 50s, it was a farm. And then, yeah, it's just overgrown since. We do have two homes on the property, one commercial building as well. The two homes, one is off of Grange Hall Road and one is off of Indian Ripple. I have not had the ability to walk those inside. So I'm not too sure kind of what the status is of those homes yet. But we'll get into this obviously in a minute here. But my anticipation is that we would be at least demolishing the one off of Indian Ripple Road for commercial uses. The commercial building, I have had the opportunity to walk through. We have, and we've done a lot of reno commercial buildings. Actually, there's one in downtown Cleveland that we bought, a large building that we renovated, and we were able to reuse it and made it actually really beautiful. We got something that was just, you know, wonderful wooden beams and it was just a really great redevelopment. After reviewing this commercial building, our preference is to also demolish this and utilize this space for future updated commercial. It's also on the northwest side, you see that there is a connection, a road connection as well. So moving into this, I'm kind of getting ahead of myself, but there will be that road connection there back down to Indian Ripple Road. So the zoning request, as is mentioned, this site has a couple different zoning districts on it, kind of a hodgepodge of commercial and low residential. The reason why we're even here really came about because of a future land use plan that was just recently approved within the city. The future land use plan designates this site as neighborhood mixed use. So some of the uses that are within in that future land use plan for this site attached single family, townhomes, multifamily, mixed use with retail, commercial, and has five to ten dwelling units an acre and one to three stories tall. So that's That's essentially kind of the, upon seeing that, from our standpoint, we see that as it makes sense, right? This site is not far out nearby farms. This is more of a infill site, you could say. It has commercial around it to the south, east, and west, and then obviously the neighborhoods to the north. So it is already something that is what we would say underutilized. Now what the MXPUD, why we're requesting MXPUD, obviously there's not a district called neighborhood mixed use district. So we had to find the most compatible zoning district that works within the future land use plan. And so the MX PUD enables all those uses that are requested within the Future Land Use Plan. It also allows for the city to have a multistage review throughout this entire process. So assuming a rezoning to MX PUD, there's going to be a PUD agreement. There's going to be a lot more meetings as we go through the plan process, how it lays out, what kind of open space, how does that look like, what kind of amenities are being used. And so really what this opportunity, what this is, is an opportunity for the city to be more involved with this process, which is something that we think is a great idea, to be honest. We really want to make sure that it's done right. And I understand that we're not going to make everyone happy, but we want to make most people happy. We want to work with the community. Well, a couple things that MXPUD does not allow. It does not allow tall apartment towers, heavy industrial warehousing, as well as large-scale retail centers. So it is removing some of those, and we'll even go a little bit further in a moment of things that we're willing to do to reduce. Because as it stands, neighborhood mixed-use, 10 dwelling units an acre on 22, 22 and a half that's 225 units. We're not coming in here asking for that. We don't believe that that is the right path forward. And so we have voluntary commitments based off discussions with staff and obviously looking at what should go here. We're willing to commit to a reduction in density and a reduction in uses for the commercial. Specifically for residential, because I think that that's probably the hot topic, if I had to guess. We kind of look at it as a way of intensity of uses. So to the south, you have commercial that is tied and connected with the existing commercial that's already there. As you go further north and are next to that commercial, you have a higher density residential. And then further, you reduce that intensity of residential so that by the time you're getting to the neighbors to the north, it is not as dense, not as significant. We're also, you can kind of see this little arm that shoots off to the right. That little arm next, I guess, behind the Grange Hall house, that's a low point. One of the lowest points on the property. So that is a natural for our standpoint from a site planning perspective. That's going to be the stormwater. That's going to be a natural buffer that we're going to be putting in place. Obviously, this is, you know, not a plan review, but zoning. But just to give an idea kind of what we're thinking, it's going to have a reduction in that residential so that it's not so significant and so impactful to the neighbors to the north. A couple things, too, in terms of the commercial uses. Staff had provided a list of restrictions for those commercial uses. We completely agree. I mean, there's quite a list. Some of those account for no bars, no discount stores, no hotels. We're willing to work exactly within what the city's looking for here. So this was set for Planning Commission, but we are at the City Council first reading right now. We will be having several more meetings ahead of us, assuming a rezoning is approved. Again, this is a time, this is just the beginning of the process. We want to continue to work with the city throughout this entire process, entire planning, layout, site design. We want to make sure that what we're putting forward is something that the city wants and we're not wasting anyone's time. From my standpoint, I don't want to try to build something that nobody wants in the community. So I want to make sure that it's done right. Some of the benefits we believe this rezoning is going to give, it's going to give a little bit of housing diversity. Something that is like attached products is not something that is pretty prevalent in Beaver Creek. It allows for a different lifestyles, different, you know, where people are at in terms of where their life is. We're able to own a house within the city of Beaver Creek. It allows and provides new tax revenue and it also, with this commercial, it also allows for some walkability and connectivity that residents could have to the new and existing commercial on Indian Ripple Road. And again, this is going to be something that we want to be working hand in hand with. So this is something that the city has a lot of ability to and flexibility to make calls on what should and shouldn't be here. And so we're excited for this opportunity to develop the site. I'd love to hear any questions. I guess a couple of things that I just notes based off of last meeting of Planning Commission. There was a comment about, in Planning Commission, about whether it's for sale, for rent. We have the ability to do both, and we are currently undecided on that. So we do build luxury rental communities. We also work with, you know, partner with home builders to sell very nice homes. So we have flexibility in what that is and I'd love to hear what the city would like because we are undetermined on that. There was a couple comments on the environmental. So we, obviously this is early on in the process, but we went ahead and did a phase one on the site. We have not gotten that back yet, but I did call our Our team that's doing it, they have found no RECs yet. There was a concern about maybe a landfill from the Xenia tornado in 1974, I believe. They found a lot of some trash and things like that, but they had no concerns preliminarily. Obviously, I'm going to wait until the final, but I wanted to provide that as an update. And yeah, so any happy to answer any questions you have now or later. So thank you for your time.

Thank you.

Beth.

Mayor, members of City Council, I think the applicant stole my presentation, so I don't want to be too redundant here, but I'll go through fairly quickly. The applicant's looking to rezone approximately 22 and a half acres from what is now commercial and single family, one family residential to a medium density and high density residential on a majority of the site, and then some mixed use commercial along Indian Ripple. Just an overview of the process. The PUD process is a two-phase process, and we're in the second step of phase one, which is phase one is the rezoning process, and so a public hearing at Planning Commission and a public hearing at City Council today. The rezoning phase, we're really talking about specific uses and conditions and densities, just a general overview of the PUD. Once we get into the specific site plan phase, which is phase two, that's where we talk about street layouts and stormwater detention and landscaping and particular designs of buffers and screening and architectural elements in the building. So this first phase, again, we're talking about uses, generalized zoning and densities. The project's located in southern Beaver Creek. It's just west of the intersection of Indian Ripple and Grange Hall Road. This is the blue line represents the 22.3 acres in the application for use from this evening. It has about 540 feet of frontage on Indian Ripple Road and about 80 feet of frontage on Grange Hall Road and it does harbor drive does stub into the property from the west. There are two single family homes on the site right now, as well as a 20,000 square foot commercial structure and a wireless telecommunication tower in the southwest corner of the property. In terms of zoning, again, the majority of the property is zoned R1A. It does have some B2 along Indian Ripple. To the west is a B4 and then also some CPUD. The B4 has some storage and other high intense businesses. And then the PUD has a day facility for adults and then office buildings along Harbor. To the north is a single family residential neighborhood and to the east is a single family residential neighborhood. And then ultimately to the south is commercial development and a high density residential development. As the applicant stated, this area is designated as neighborhood mixed use on the recently approved land use plan. That's highlighted in the pink area. In that development category, It encourages small-scale walkable development that blends in with the neighborhoods. It's got residential retail office and service uses within or near existing neighborhoods. It recommends limitations of one to three stories in height. residential at densities between 5 and 10 dwelling units an acre, and then commercial intensity of between 20,000 and 50,000 square foot an acre. Recommended uses include attached single-family, townhomes, multifamily, mixed use with retail, or mixed use with office. So what they're asking for this evening, and we'll go through the concept plan here in a minute. The applicant already showed that briefly. What they're requesting this evening is compatible and is in line with what the land use plan that was originally approved designates for the area. Seen here is the concept plan. And I just want to point out that there was some confusion on areas of where you could do commercial or areas where you could do residential. If you look along Indian Ripple Road, which is the bottom portion of the PUD in the dark orange, that would be the only area in the PUD where you could have commercial development. So where you've got the commercial listed in the proposed ordinances, the only area you could have those commercial uses would be in that dark orange area. Residential A, which is the higher density residential, is in the medium orange color, the middle orange color. One thing I want to point out in the proposed ordinance, there's a conflicting number in there, so I wanted to propose a change to that in 2A. where it says the allowed uses are two-family and three-family dwelling units. Condition 8 says that residential A can have up to four units of building. So I wanted to add in four family dwelling units in commercial A, just to give that flexibility, whether they can do duplexes, threeplexes, or quads, just in the medium orange, the middle orange color area. And then in residential B would be limited to three dwelling units in a building. So the largest building would be a three-plex and that's limited to six dwelling units an acre. They do show a 25-foot buffer along the northern and western property lines and then a 50-foot building setback. So that buffer would be It would remain as is we can when we get to the second phase the specific site plan phase we require fencing along that 25 foot area and temporary fencing to make sure that it doesn't get graded in the landscaping or the existing wood stays and but overall they're looking at a density between the two between the two about an overall density of about 6.4 dwelling units an acre which is on the low end of that range with a 5 to 10 dwelling units an acre in the land use plan a few of the conditions Again, one is that up to 80 units would be allowed in residential A and 48 in residential B, which yields that overall density of 6.4 dwelling units an acre and limited to no more than 116 units overall. In both residential A and residential B, they'd be limited to two-story buildings. And again, there's limitations on each of the areas for the size of those buildings in terms of the number of units where Residential a is duplex three plex and quads and then residential B is duplex and three plex Talk about the buffer I know that There's concerns about stormwater detention that's held. We go through that when we come up with this. If we get to the second phase, the specific site plan phase. But overall, they will still be required to meet all requirements when we get to that phase of the stormwater regulations in our code of ordinances. So what that says is you can't have The runoff from this development can't be at any higher rates than the runoff that you have today. So they will have to create stormwater detention ponds. and hold that water so that it doesn't run off at any faster rate than what you have out there today. In the commercial area, which is just a southern fort, around four acres, there's an abbreviated list of B3 uses that are permitted. Some of the list uses that were excluded and not allowed in this PUD, like banquet halls, bars, taverns, Dance halls, hospitals, hotel, motel, apartment hotels, vehicle repair stations, both minor and major, vehicle service stations, which is the gas station. So gas stations will be permitted within this PUD. And in general, I just wanted to talk, and I go through this on most rezonings that I go through, about the city's role in development. We hear a lot of, we need to stop development, we need to preserve green space, open space of the woods. the city doesn't have the ability and zoning is not intended to stop development zoning is there to help guide development in an orderly fashion but not intended to stop development and create non-developable zones the only way to do that would be if the city owned the land and said we're turning it into a preserve and to do that we need to use taxpayers dollars to buy the land Also, when you're considering a rezoning, you can't consider school impacts, the school being a separate political entity. And traffic impacts cannot be used as a reason to deny a rezoning. The only way to do that is if there was a traffic study done by the city and that shows that the impacts couldn't be mitigated in any way. So adding a lane wouldn't help or anything like that. So schools and traffic can't be used as a factor to deny a zoning application. I've got more on that if anybody wants to scan that QR code. There's a paper on the Planning Department's webpage going through all this. Went to Planning Commission with this case earlier this month. Planning Commission recommended approval of the applicant's request. subject to the 17 conditions and staff is also recommending approval of that request again if before if you move to the second phase I would like to see a motion to amend that condition to a to allow Four or quads to be allowed as a permitted use within just residential area a so again Staffs recommending approval and I'll be happy to answer any questions that Council has following the public hearing.

Thank you very much This is a public hearing. So if anyone would like to come and speak to this either for it against it or just Say something about it. Please come to the podium state your name and address and you will have three minutes. I

I have a question. My name is Wendell Kintzer, and I live on Eagle Point Drive. It does not abut this property that we're talking about. It's around the corner, but there was a gentleman here, forgive me, I don't remember your name. I have problems hearing as well. My address, I didn't give you this, 3921 Eagle Point Drive. I thought I understood him to say that it was a recently changed or approved land use plan. Gentleman Dales is shaking his head yes. Was that an arbitrary decision on the part of the city? Or was that a decision based because of a developer? requesting a change in that land use plan.

Oh, I think we did the land use plan and it was not requested by anyone.

It was just an arbitrary decision on the part of the city just to go in and change the land use plan.

We hadn't done anything in the city for 45 years, so we had to update the land use plan and everything else because of some of the other things that were coming in.

Okay, it just seems like it happened at a very beneficial point in time.

Actually, when we did that, this wasn't even thought of.

Well, that was the only question right now. Thank you.

hello my name I'm short I'm even shorter than the fire chief my name is Amy Eichner I'm here with my husband Eric thank you for giving me the opportunity to speak we live at 3855 Eagle Point Drive and we've lived there for 35 years I'm the current president of the Eagle Point Homeowners Association, and there's a number of our residents that are here this evening. I understand that the removal of green space, wildlife traffic issues, and the fact that our schools are already overcrowded are not matters that concern this particular meeting and the council at this time. But for purposes of this particular, or for this zoning discussion, but for the record, all of these matter. to us all of these issues are pertinent to the current Eagle Point land owners whose properties about the properties which are the subject of this meeting multi-unit housing is convenient and affordable for transient populations who need housing for now with no long-term plan for upkeep of the neighborhood Safety and security are reduced when multi-family units are introduced to any R1A neighborhood. Beaver Creek is already having to deal with an increase in theft and vandalism around the recent multi-unit complexes built along County Line Road. There are constant notices posted on the neighborhood app regarding car and home break-ins. In addition to safety concerns, Noise increases with the increased number of people and vehicles. The management of multi-unit properties can be complex. There are issues such as maintenance, tenant relations, conflict resolution, ensuring that the common areas are all well maintained. Once this is built, how is that going to be maintained? You're all discussing adding a road. parking lots, multi-unit housing with transient residents within 25 to 50 feet of where some of our children will be playing. The City of Kettering has recently added multiple high density housing units near single family home neighborhoods and those neighbors are currently suffering the consequences. A number of them are very good friends of ours. As of As a 35-year resident of Beaver Creek, I would respectfully request that this council decide to minimize the traffic and the noise impacts, preserve our safety, security, and a beautiful wildlife green space refuge. Please keep the parcels in question zoned as R1A. Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Bob Trout, 2187 Bassett Court. Thank you for giving me the opportunity to speak. Actually, some comments. I've noticed the package that was submitted seemed to be some of the maps were rather outdated. I don't know if they've had access to some more current maps or not. The other question I have is on how are they going to provide water to that area? the infrastructure able to withstand the increased demand that that's going to create? And I'm asking that because I don't want to have to pay for more infrastructure improvements for new buildings. So meaning to say that the developer, I am hoping, picks up all the tab and passes it on when they get ready to sell the property. So that's just some of the things. The other thing that I do have a question about is the fact that high density housing does increase your population. Some of them, since they didn't specify demographics as far as cost of the rent or purchase of the homes and stuff like that. But on Herbert Drive, there's a lot of facilities there frequented with folks that need medical issues or old timers and stuff like that. And having people that might look at that as a target of opportunity for old people, I ask that we be considerate of that and at least be aware and be able to mitigate it. That's the maximum amount of my questions that I have for tonight, so thank you very much.

Thank you very much.

Good evening, Mayor, City Council. My name is Marianne Sherrits. I live at 3873 Eagle Point Drive. I've lived in Beaver Creek for 40 years, and our property will join the new development. Beaver Creek is considered one of the most attractive and desirable locations in the Dayton area, offering a premier quality of life and is characterized by spacious, rolling environment, providing a very attractive setting for many outstanding residential neighborhoods. I want to keep it that way. I speak to you tonight to request you vote no on the rezoning request from single family to multi-use zoning. My property backs up to the property in question, so I have a direct interest in how the land is used. When we moved to our residence, we loved the greenery behind us and the fact that if and when the land would be developed, it would be used for single family residences, I was fine with. It scares me to think of how changing this zoning will impact our neighborhood and our lifestyle. I have several concerns. First of all, the proposed setback or barrier is not nearly large enough for a development of this proposed density. It especially terrifies me since Mr. Self of the Planning Committee pointed out that we already have a zoned multi-use property in Beaver Creek, The Green. Let me point out that the green is bordered on three sides by roadways and by apartments on the fourth side, which enjoy a considerable setback. In fact, I think it would be fair to say that there is not a single family residential house within a quarter of a mile of the green itself. To think that the green may become our backyard is frightening. The second concern I have is the green space that will be destroyed. I know, go ahead and laugh. While the undeveloped land has been described as nothing more than honeysuckle and poison ivy, Many species of birds and mammals call it home. In our neighborhood, we enjoy the many species of birds, the stately deer that roam through our neighborhood, and the rare sightings of a red-tailed fox. I would propose that some of this undeveloped land be preserved for these creatures. Mr. Doerr, You mentioned on your biography page that Beaver Creek already has a great framework to promote green spaces, and you seek to support continuous green zones, farm areas, and parks, as well as greenery and developed areas to mesh economic development with as many green spaces and wildlife of Beaver Creek as possible. Ms. Bills, you also mentioned in your election biography about preserving the ecology and wildlife of Beaver Creek. Mr. Littrell? Your 2023 election bio speaks about continued efforts to maintain green spaces. This is a perfect opportunity to maintain a green zone that already exists and create a larger setback that I think this development severely needs. Thirdly, I'm concerned about the change in social climate and crime that may occur due to the multifamily temporary nature of rental housing which may go in. Higher density dwellings lead to less social cohesion, less concern about their neighborhoods, and creating a neighborhood environment. This is totally opposite of the environment that we foster in our neighborhood and has the potential to greatly degrade our quality of life due to increased crime and lack of investment in the community. Mr. Bales, on the Beaver Creek website, you mentioned it's not about politics, it's about public service.

Ma'am, you've got three minutes. Do you have someone that can donate time to you?

My husband.

You have to come to forward.

I have about 30 seconds more.

Well, you have to come forward and give your name and address, please, and donate your time.

At Schoolcraft, 3881 Eagle Point Drive. I also back up to that area, and I donate my three minutes to Mary Ann. I don't have three minutes left. Well, I'll give you a second.

Okay. Anyway, Mr. Bale said it's not about politics, it's about public service. It's about listening to your community, really hearing your people and getting things done. Council members, you have promised to listen to the residents you represent. We are the community. We are your constituents. Please imagine how you would feel if this was your potential backyard. Thank you for listening.

Thank you very much.

Hello, my name is Kevin Switzer. I'm at 3889 Eagle Point Drive. Recently moved to the Beaver Creek area in June of last year because of the community that it fosters. My only question would be, I guess, to Gray Fox or to the council. It's already zoned R1A, if I'm using the correct term. We've seen on Gray Fox's site and their boastings that they have been able to successfully build R1A and make it profitable, make it better for the community. I'm just curious why we see the need to rezone when they said they can do it, when they have told us they can do it. They just recently did it, or are working on it, in North Royalton, Ohio, which is near Independence, up near Cleveland. They bought Albion Elementary property, rezoned it to R1A, and they got 29 units, single-family homes, on 59 1⁄2 acres, which still seems like a lot, but they at least made single-family homes in that space. I just ask that that be taken into consideration. They have the ability to do it. It's within their scope, just for consideration. Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Hi, good evening, Mayor, council members, fellow community. My name is Amanda Markham. I live at 3899 Eagle Point Drive. My property is our property. My husband and I, Steven, will be directly affected by this project. And we can talk about arbitrary things all day long about, well, we don't know how it's going to affect our school. We don't know about traffic patterns. We do. It's going to affect us and everyone in that neighborhood. There's already two new neighborhoods being built in that area off Swigert and Darst and then another one off Alpha Bellbrook. We do not need any more apartments. Beaver Creek prides itself on R1A. Please keep it that way. Thank you.

Thank you.

My name's Tom Wood. I live on 3838 Indian Ripple Road. Been there close to 10 years. the best, safest place I've ever lived. And it's about the only woods in Beaver Creek that's left that's big enough to have deer and foxes and exotic animals. And I think you're just going to crowd it and make all the animals have no place to live, including crowd up the city and congest the road. The traffic's already pretty bad getting out of my driveway already. And it's just going to crowd up this city and turn it into Dayton. I think you ought to reconsider it and keep this city, you know, with a little bit of woods and green space and people's privacy and enjoyment of not being crowded up. That's best I can say. Thank you. Thank you.

Anyone else?

I'm Richard Sherrits from 3873 Eagle Point Drive. You've already adequately heard a lot of my viewpoints from my wife. But I'd like to donate my time to Janet Schoolcraft or anybody else in the neighborhood that would like to also add to the input.

I'm Janet Schoolcraft, 388 Eagle Point. I live directly behind. I can see my backyard on your map up there. And I'm not opposed to building one behind us. I mean, when I moved in almost 36 years ago, that was something we looked at. As my letter stated, and I hope you've all read the letters that we've all sent out to your council members, we're fine with the development. But we're not fine with the fact of the higher density apartment buildings, potential rentals, and how that's going to impact our backyard. We enjoy our nature, we enjoy the birds. I've learned more about birds and critters than you can well imagine in the years that I've lived there because they pop their head into my backyard all the time. One of my biggest concerns about this is right now we're looking at a rezoning. What happens if this developer pulls out? Now we're rezoned, a new developer comes in and decides to build the green. What's going to happen? It's already zoned for it. So what argument would council have to say no to them? That's a big concern of ours. It is what really will go in back there. We know there's already been one developer of interest a year ago who has suddenly disappeared into space and was going to build 55 and above community in there. And again, something like that might even be fine. But the transient nature of multiple community housing right in the midst. And it's surrounded, if you look at the picture, you're surrounded by R1A. And the fact that you're changing it on us after we've purchased a property is very upsetting to the folks that were diligent enough to look into that prior to wanting to buy these homes that we did. So I feel like you're pulling the rug out from under us. Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Hi, everyone. My name is Dan Hunt. I live at 3907 Eagle Point Drive. Thank you for your time today. I'd like to just point out, as a resident of the Eagle Point community, just the rough density that we have and that we like to enjoy. Of the 30 or so, approximately 30 houses in the Eagle Point community, We represent close to around half acre lots, meaning two density unit per acre quantity. And the proposed, not only the plan that the planning commission has, but the proposal is somewhere in the realm of two to three times that. And I'd like to stress that we do enjoy the space between our property. We do enjoy the privacy that it holds and the safety that it currently resides in the community. And we'd like to keep it that way. So I'd like to state that we would propose, if the community is developed in this proposed plan, to keep it as R1A. single unit homes for everyone.

Thank you. Thank you very much.

My name is Jill Kinser. I live at 3921 Eagle Point Drive. And it's been interesting this evening to see a lot of this. It was our understanding that the proposal was for a mixed PUD. Is that still the same under the new, I think it was the old plan switched over to the new plan. So this is under the new plan. Someone had said that they checked with you to see what else in Beaver Creek was zoned this way and they said it was the green. Is that correct? Is that the only other property that's zoned in that particular category? Pardon? There are others. There are others? Could you tell me what some of the others are? You know, if you say the green and you think of this, it's like, wow. So I need something to help me feel safer about what might happen if this were passed. Obviously, if any of you have driven down Eagle Point Drive, you've had a chance to see it. It's a lovely setting. And we don't want anything to have to ruin that for us. So that was just my question. Can you tell us some other places that have this zoning that we might know? Are you allowed to do that?

No, we're not.

We'll respond to that after.

You'll respond? Okay, that's fine. Thank you.

I have a question. The map doesn't reflect what I think it should reflect. Today, sir, Mr. Curran. Oh, I'm sorry.

Yeah, ma'am. Unfortunately, you're only able to speak once. We don't have your time allowed, so.

Is that map the most recent one?

We'll address that. We didn't address that.

We'll address that. Anyone else? All right, seeing none, I will close the public portion of this and we'll go to council. Councilman Curran.

Thank you, Your Honor. I certainly can appreciate the development out there and the results of the committee that changed the type of zoning that provides for commercial residential rental mix. But I have a great deal of concern about two things out there that makes me very uncomfortable tonight. And it has to do with the residential area. The most northern part of the property I'm concerned your honor about the density and I'm also concerned about the buffer Subjectively, I think it should be a lot a larger buffer walking through that area. I just think the closeness of that's going to be brought to where that residential neighborhood is is really going to impact that area. I just feel very uncomfortable in those two particular areas. I think the residents deserve a little closer look We certainly want to see the development be able to go through. I think it's innovative, provides a lot of new quality. But I think the residents along that area there really deserve a little closer look at the issue of density. I think it's a little bit high, subjectively speaking. And most importantly, I think the buffer should be much, much greater than it is. I'd like to see it 75 or 100 feet. Perhaps that can't be done, but I think a lot of times We're kind of sacrificing the existing single-family neighborhoods that we have in the community for perhaps a new innovative idea. I think we've got to provide a little balance. Some would argue that this buffer that's in here in number 10 condition is adequate, but When you go out there and walk around and look, you're really going to be bringing those apartments up close to those properties where these people have made a substantial investment. That's my opinion at this point, Your Honor. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Councilwoman Bills.

I share many of the same concerns as Councilman Kern. I think... I would like to see the buffer expanded as well. I share the concerns of the audience members that spoke about the environment. I also, my house abuts up to the current development on Alpha Bellbrook. The first time I drove past that and saw My jaw hit the floor of my minivan. So I'm sympathetic. When Sky Crossing was built, I had deer coming out my ears in my yard because they were chased out of all those woods back there. So I'm extremely sympathetic to that. I do like the idea of diversity of housing. think I can see both sides I'm hesitant I'm hesitant to speak out against diversity of housing because one of the very first places I lived when I was growing when or when I was coming into adulthood was an apartment building right smack in the middle of a suburban neighborhood I loved it we loved our neighbors it was a positive experience So I don't necessarily, I'm afraid to step into assuming stereotypes about renters. I just don't think that's a fair way to speak about people who just need a different kind of housing. So I think we need to be really careful how we look at each other. That's it for me for the moment.

Councilman Bales. Thank you, Mayor. Randy, would you please address the map?

This map is the same one in the ordinance as the map in the ordinance.

I think the question just was it current? I mean, I don't know exactly what the audience meant by that, but I want to make sure we're all talking on the same page.

Yeah, I mean, it's the most current map. It's just an overlay of the map in the ordinance with an aerial photo. OK. County GIS aerial photo. The aerial is from March of 2025. That's their most recent.

Thank you. I think that's all the questions I have for you at this point in time. I share Councilmember Curran's concerns completely. As a homeowner who is currently living through a development that's happening right next to my house, it is an R1A development and still we had concerns about the densities and so on and so forth. And so I feel extremely sympathetic because the property owners on Eagle Point who did their research, moved into our community, understood it was R1A adjacent to them, have every right to believe that single family residential may be developed there at some point in time, according to our densities and everything else. So from what I heard tonight is there were no real objections from the people who are here about a single family residential development. And so I like to hear that. I agree with that. I do appreciate the land use plan and the idea of a mixed development, especially towards Indian Ripple Road. To me, that does make sense from a long-term plan from how we envision that corridor developing. So I have some questions for Mr. Shields. Yes, please. First, thank you for your presentation. I think that you are very transparent in what you plan to do, how you've done other developments in the past, and how successful multiple different types of developments can be. And I do think Beaver Creek is a great area for the type of developments that you build. But I think we just have to get it right this the first time because once the zoning is changed and we lose a lot of that flexibility so first of all with all due respect to Councilwoman Bills, I do appreciate ownership. And I think that our residents certainly budding that development would appreciate ownership. And so I don't know if you asked for our opinion on ownership versus rental. I do think that More medium density offers a diversity in price point, which could be more affordable for those, because it is challenging to buy a house in Beaver Creek. I mean, there's no doubt about that. And so I do think that what you put before us has some merit. My questions to you, and I think I'd like it to be a discussion, and then perhaps a council discussion, is about the buffer. Because 25 feet doesn't cut it for me. I'm not going to support it. So Council Member Kern suggested 75 or 100. But I'm wondering what your flexibility is on that. Because I'm willing to make some modifications if you are, you know what I mean?

Absolutely. Yeah. So in terms of buffering, obviously we have put together our own concepts internally, right? This is obviously not the time to, you know, it's a rezoning, right? But with that comes this whole buffer, you know, question, right? So I completely understand where you're coming from and I'm happy to talk about that. I will say And I kind of mentioned this earlier, too. There's going to be some natural buffering as well that's going to come into this. And I'd like, if possible, to be able to present that as showing the site as a whole, kind of show how it will work. Really, from our standpoint, that northwest corner next to the therapy. Sorry, I can't read, even with glasses. The building right next to the, on the west side.

Yes, thank you.

We have that designated for a stormwater pond. So that's already going to be a natural barrier. As well as on the east side, like I said, there's going to be a stormwater pond there. Because those are the two low points for this property. It all kind of flows to those specific locations. So in terms of minimum density, I believe that's going to be ample. Now the question is right in the middle, right there. like right in between those points and i am willing to negotiate on on you know what that minimum buffer is um but at the same time i'd also like to negotiate on opportunity for coverage of landscaping one of the things that we were talking about as well is not just buffering but mounding putting additional trees fencing because we're actually i mean we're going to be doing the same thing on the west side that all that manufacturing warehouse that that's all we i mean we want our community to build right we don't want them to be looking at that in our backyard so we are planning on putting in ample coverage and that's something that obviously could be entered into now or when we get to the PUD agreement, those requirements.

I appreciate your willingness. And I'm very inclined to act now because once we change the zoning and we get into specific site plan, it makes it a lot more difficult for us to hold many cards. Have you ever thought about the residential B area being R1A and the residential A area being more residential B? Because I'm not opposed to this mixed opportunity, but just the bordering properties to the single families, that's where my heartburn is.

I understand that. We have looked at this for, we've looked at all of this for, honestly, for single family. The biggest thing that we came across in our analysis is we have manufacturing very close by. We have also a cell tower on the property. We have a couple items here that, you know, personally, if I was looking to buy a home, I'd be looking out further, maybe on, you know, Swigert Road. I mean, where it's more open, where there is the larger homes. But here's the thing. These homes that are being sold in Beaver Creek are $500,000, $600,000, $700,000. For us, to be able to provide a different housing type, if it was townhomes, we're talking $350,000 to $400,000. It allows and opens up a different type of person to be able to live in Beaver Creek that still will be a very great member of the community. And in terms of rental, just to go back to that quickly, our product specifically is for age and place style of community. For people who are downsizing, who are wanting to live in Beaver Creek, but not uphold, you know, hold onto a large house, a large yard, and all the maintenance with that. So that would specifically be the product that we would be putting here. I understand that YOU KNOW, IF WE WERE TO BACK OUT WHAT IS LEFT. AND THAT IS WHAT THESE CONDITIONS ARE FOR, TO RESTRICT, YOU KNOW, AND MAINTAIN WHAT CAN BE BUILT. BUT FROM OUR PERSPECTIVE, THAT IS OUR INTENTION, IS TO PROVIDE A DIFFERENT STYLE PRODUCT THAT CAN ALLOW FOR DIFFERENT PEOPLE TO LIVE IN BEATLE CREEK.

WELL, I GUESS AS JUST A FOLLOW-UP TO THAT, AND I UNDERSTAND IT. Honestly, I think that the product would be well received if done right. But then is it still attainable if that buffer is 100 feet? Because that's, in my opinion, as Council Member Curran stated, That's the rub. It is. And the development will look nice. I believe it. I believe it will give options. But the rub just immediately adjacent to that Eagle Point neighborhood is.

So you're just referring to the north buffer. Yeah.

There's plenty of buffer elsewhere.

So as it stands, right, we have the 25 foot buffer, then we have additional 25 foot before the building.

Setback, but. Yeah.

So I, no, no, no, I guess I just, is that, you're saying like, would it be 75 and then 25? Or 50 and 25 to get to 75? Obviously it's the will of council, but.

I think 125 or something like that.

JUST PERSONALLY, LOOKING AT, I MEAN, OBVIOUSLY, WE DON'T HAVE A PLAN IN FRONT OF US, BUT GOING BACK TO THAT, IF WE DO IMPLEMENT THAT SIGNIFICANT AMOUNT, IT IS GOING TO RESTRICT QUITE A BIT, OBVIOUSLY, FROM A DEVELOPMENT STANDPOINT. I GET AND COMPLETELY UNDERSTAND WHERE YOU'RE COMING FROM ON THIS. IF WE COULD MEET IN THE MIDDLE ON AN INCREASE TO 50-FOOT BUFFER, 25-FOOT ADDITIONAL SETBACK FROM THE BUILDING, I THINK THAT WOULD BE attainable on our end, but I think additional to that would be difficult to lay out the site in a correct manner.

I mean, I agree. Okay, well I appreciate your perspective. Absolutely, absolutely. Let's see if I had any other questions for you. Is the stormwater pond on the northwest corner something you are comfortable with putting in as a condition that it must be there? Because again, that's a lot of the buffer.

That would eat up a lot, even more than the buffer. My engineer would probably not like me to say that, but that is the intent. I mean, it is our intent, right? And ultimately... If there is a buffer in place, we're held to that anyways. But that is our intent. I mean, if that's a request to council, you know, that is what it is from our standpoint.

Just trying to, you know, get a talk together.

Absolutely, and I completely understand. Yeah.

Okay, thank you.

Yes, thank you.

I think that's all for now. Council Vittorio.

Thank you, Mayor. Randy, I have a question, a couple questions. I'd like to also thank everybody for showing up tonight. I really appreciate it. It's always great when the seats are filled. I appreciate all the letters. There's a lot of reading. Thank you. And full disclosure, I was part of the planning Beaver Creek project. I sat on the steering committee and this was something that was over about a year, maybe.

About a year long process.

About a year long process and it was open to, there was at least two public hearings and we had meetings that were advertising and anybody could show up to any of those meetings so it wasn't i don't want you to feel like we sprung this on everybody for this for this applicant um randy going back to the planning maybe i just don't remember but when we were talking about mixed use there was several corridors where we talked about putting mixed juice in but was there ever a discussion of how we would set back or buffer these areas we didn't discuss that during any of that time did we

No, I mean, not from a land use plan standpoint, just because.

Zoning was coming?

Right. Well, and that's more addressed within zoning rather than the land use plan is more of the 80,000 foot view where you're kind of trying to generalize things and not get too specific. Because what might work as a buffer in one place might not work in a buffer in another. So you don't want to over

codify things in the land use plan just give a brief broad stroke overview of what you're looking for I just I just wanted to you to refresh my memory on that because I I I know that there are several areas now that could be zoned mixed-use and within Beaver Creek now because of the new plan Beaver Creek the way it came out there's areas that could come before us for rezoning

yeah and it's not just this location just to just to reflect on there's mxpuds in the city now um one is that i'm i mean the green is obviously one of them this one i know that someone brought up that this would be like the green um it's only in the fact that it would allow both commercial and residential but as you as noted from the the concept plan only a very small portion would be allowed as commercial and the other 18 acres is residential only so it's it's not mixing the entire development as a commercial or residential the only area you could have commercial or commercial with residential is that southern four acres Other MXPUDs, Mission Point is one up on Colonel Glen. There's an MXPUD at Willow Creek, which is on Hibiscus and Park Overlook, which the Sewing Medical Center is part of it, so is the single family residential that's multi-family residential is behind it and then the single-family residential that's on the west side of Royal Gateway it's got multi and single-family residential so that's all one MXPD I'm trying to think of another MXPD this this would be Similar to that, except it would be flipped, where the commercial is along the commercial corridor, and then the residential is away from the commercial corridor. And I guess that's similar to what Willow Creek is. It does have some other commercial mixed in with it. There's not a question. I can't remember.

I think you hit on it. They wanted to make sure that there was more of these in Beaver Creek. It wasn't just the green. I wanted to make sure that that was stipulated.

The only similarity is that you could do commercial and residential in the green, but Other than that, this isn't comparative. And even if the applicant went away, the proposed conditions with the three max units in residential B, four max units in residential A, commercial mixed in the commercial area, those don't go away. That's not applicant-driven. That would stick with the PUD regardless of who the applicant is.

Okay. And there was one other question that a citizen brought up that I wanted to know if you could help, I guess, let them rest assured that whenever a new developer comes into the city and there's changes or modifications to the area that requires more water, more sewer, that they are the ones responsible for upgrading those systems.

Correct. They'll work with Greene County Sanitary Engineering, who provides the water and the sanitary sewer. And Greene County, of all the developments I've seen, Greene County requires the developer to lay the water and sewer lines. Very good.

Okay.

All right, I appreciate it. Thanks, Randy. I am not going to bring up the applicant. I don't see the point in putting you through that. The buffer is a problem, obviously. And I thought of that as soon as I saw it. Even with the setback and the buffer of 25 feet, you're still only talking 25 yards. 25 yards is, I mean, let's be real. Anybody that's watched a football game, 25 yards isn't that far, all right? I would I would say that the setback should be a minimum of 25 yards before we even start talking about a buffer between if we're going to do these two family dwellings and three family dwellings. I do know the applicant didn't seem like they could or were kind of interested in and changing that as Councilman Bales brought up zone b being more of your single family home style residence with that being said i would not be in favor of adding uh four family dwellings per the section a if we can't get them to reduce section b um but i would be willing to add that in there if we could get that outer area be more of a sold property, houses of some kind? I can't support this as presented right now with the buffer problem. And when we're talking about so close to residential homes, possibility of three family dwelling units sitting right directly behind their house. I and and I have not walked this property. I'm not 100% I know exactly where it's that I drive through that area all the time. I am not sure of If there is a natural buffer of some kind, if there is a slope or mounds or what this buffer was going to be, if it was just going to be leave the weeds or bushes or whatever is already there and then we'll start building after that. Or if we were talking about building mounds. And I understand that would get more into whenever we're actually doing the site plan. But as of right now, the way it stands, I don't know. I would like to get some more things nailed down before I could move forward with this. Thank you.

Thank you very much, Councilman Dewar.

Thank you very much, Mayor. Much appreciated. I'd like to start by thanking the applicant for really some creative ideas with the land use plan and for a desired investment in Beaver Creek. I don't take it for granted, and I know that there's a lot on the line with that. Furthermore, I'd like to thank all of you for being here today. Much appreciated. It tells us a lot. And for the many letters we've received as well. In many ways, this discussion is a microcosm of something larger at the national level with regards to zoning issues, a national housing shortage, zoning concerns, and also different generational ideas on these things. I say that as prelude because I do indeed have significant concerns over the density and the buffer, like a number of others have mentioned. Mr. Burkett, if you could come up and flip between slides five and six on your presentation, I want to point something out.

I want to point here. Okay. And flip to six.

So the point I want to make is that the triangle to which I pointed is zoned R1A. It is not in the land use plan, but it is included in the parcel, and it does have an impact on the dwelling units per acre. And as such, I concur with Council Member Curran in that the rationale for a buffer should be larger because that triangular portion was not what we voted on on the land use plan. And in my view, it should be kept as R1A and we'd have every right to keep it as such. So that's what I'd like to make as an opening point Mrs. Schoolcraft asked us to read the letters, we did. In her letter it brought up a question that I do not have the answer to, and that is, there is a noise abatement at Burns Is that above and beyond the ordinance for noise within the city? Is there something specific to this area that we should know?

When Burns was going through, and this has been several years, from my recollection, Burns was doing a lot of work with forklifts and small trucks. They were moving around a lot of materials and equipment with forklifts and loaders and backhoes and so in order to help mitigate some of that noise from those particular that I mean it because it was a It was part of their business operation was to move around mulch and move around rocks and move around stone and And so in order to help mitigate that I think that some concrete barriers were put up from my recollection it's been a while but I think what you'd see on a highway median where like the temporary concrete I think that they added some of the those up to help block some of the direct noise and deflect that noise but that was based on the operation of this being a guard that being a garden center with the constant delivery and and replenish of the materials on the site

So it's site-specific?

Correct.

Thank you. Question for you and perhaps legal counsel. You did a very nice job, Mr. Burkett, of giving us an overview of what can be considered or not today. But there are a number of other factors that came up in the letters, like noise, environmental degradation, stormwater, safety issues. To what degree can we take any of that into account in our decision-making today, Mr. Burkett or Mr. Staley?

I'll jump in first and I'll let Randy supplement it. But under Ohio law, cities may regulate for promotion of health and safety and general welfare for zoning. The PUD process is a beast of our zoning code. There's standards set out. Under fifteen one five eight zero zero six that was included in the staff report I'll let Randy kind of supplement and describe what those conditions are Generally council's not being asked whether they quote-unquote like the project they're being asked whether The criteria set out and our zoning code is being met by the evidence provided during the hearing So I'll let Randy kind of describe what the standards are and then we can kind of maybe tackle one of those issues to see if it fits the standards or not

pull them up give me one second here yeah they're in the zoning code there are ten standards by which a PUD can be approved or should be approved by if they can meet these standards where it complies with the intent of the zoning code it promotes health safety and general welfare of the president and present and future inhabitants of the city the conditions and requirements in this specific PUD provide for minimizing impacts on surrounding developments. So there are conditions in there that help provide to minimize the impacts. The site will be accessible from current or planned thoroughfares that are adequate to carry the traffic. Potential impacts on public services can be mitigated by site and building design, which benefit and the benefits which accrue to the city and public. So whether any perceived issues can be designed through, where existing and proposed utilities for the proposed population densities and non-residential uses are or will be available to the project i know that there is water and sewer all up and down down indian ripple and again going back to the answer is the the public facilities within the development will be provided by for the the applicant um The proposed development complies with the applicable requirements and conditions of 158.064. I don't have that in front of me. But I believe that's compatible with the land use plan. But I'd have to double check on that, 064. Each individual section or sub area of the development, as well as the development in total, can exist functionally as an independent environment. or adequate insurances have been provided by the applicant to the satisfaction of the city that such, that basically it can be a standalone development. All the uses, permitted conditional accessory uses are based upon findings in accordance, basically all the uses are compatible with the particular PUD, so the MX PUD, so whether the proposed uses are compatible with the MX PUD. And the PUD can substantially be completed within the time frame specified. I don't see any, there's no evidence to the contrary on that. And so I guess it comes down to health, safety, and general welfare.

I think the easiest way to put it is under the Beaver Creek Code, we must approve the PUD if it satisfies the criteria. To deny it, council must find that one or more of those criteria that Randy just read through were not supported by the findings and evidence in the record today. So otherwise, if we were to decide on factors that are not included in that criteria, that would be considered what is an arbitrary and possibly capricious decision. So the standards are really where we're spending our discussion. And a lot of the issues we need to tie back to the standards. I think a good example of that would have been discussing setbacks. I think in my opinion, if I read criteria number three, whether it would impact surrounding development, setbacks obviously are a control we use to mitigate that. So the question of whether there's setbacks fits in the criteria. So as those issues come up, we tie them back to the standards. Other issues like possibly traffic or whether it's rental versus non-rental, I don't necessarily see those in the plain reading of the criteria there. So like I said, we can kind of tackle each one if you have a question, but I think that's kind of the general overlay.

Mr. Shields, I have a couple questions for you, please. Question is regarding the triangular area that I pointed out that's zoned R1A. That factors into your calculation of dwelling units per acre under residential B, is that correct?

I believe so, yes. I was trying to find the, while we're sitting here, trying to find the acreage of that. I'm not, I wasn't able to unfortunately do that.

To lay out, that's concerning to me because that's outside of the land use plan. Mr. Switzer brought up the idea of keeping some areas R1A. Are you amenable to that, to that idea?

We are, just from my standpoint, we are trying to adhere to what was just approved in the future land use plan. So to your point, leaving that parcel R1A and not including that in the density, we'll adhere to that if that's the decision of council but in terms of the remaining acreage we are looking to adhere to the future land use plan which does have this as as a minimum total unit you know dwelling unit per acre has a minimum of five to ten units five being the minimum so we are i believe at six and a half And I believe that's not including the commercial acreage as well. So we are trying to be within that future land use plan requirement or request.

To what degree are you amenable to keeping the commercial and making everything else R1A? Is there a mechanism by which that would work for you?

There is not, and I'll just be honest.

I appreciate the candor. That was the question.

We would walk away.

I want to bring up Mrs. Sherrits' question on green space. What's your view on adding green space at various points in residential AOV?

Yeah, absolutely. So from our standpoint, we actually are looking at trying to do like little pocket parks, making sure that there's trails connected to both roads. Actually, in planning commission, there was a discussion of potentially getting a bike trail out to Grange Hall so that people can access the recreational center to the north. So we are open, absolutely. From our standpoint, we want people to enjoy where they live. So it is important for us to add as much open space and green space and park space as possible. And so that is important.

Thank you. I yield, Mayor. Thank you.

Thank you very much. I have one quick question. I know you were talking about...

renting or owning uh if you were rented what what's the average price of what the unit would go for yeah so um in beaver creek township the development we're just starting to lease at i believe and and please feel free to look this up but it is um i think around 22 to 2300 starting rent And that, depending on the size of unit, because some of these have extra sunrooms, you know, extra additional amenities attached, but they could go up to 27, 2800 very easily. We do have some single unit dwellings. Sorry, single bed. So like one bed, I believe it's one bed, one bath, and one car-attached garage that are maybe like at a $1,700 or $1,800. But that is obviously a much smaller size.

OK. I'm getting the feeling that we need to discuss this a little bit more. Yes. I think there's some middle ground here that we can reach listening to what the citizen said and what we're hearing up here. And I know we usually go with two readings. I would be willing to... entertain something take this to a third reading have one more public hearing give you guys a chance to talk a little bit more about some of the things that we've discussed here tonight because i want to make sure that this fits in and i agree with councilman bills i would like to see something different but i also agree with the residents you know i want to make sure that they're protected as well and if we can if you're willing to to do that i think that would be something that i think would be something worth doing

I would be more than willing. And from our standpoint, it's great to hear all these comments because I'm going to now go back to my team, try to see what we can come up with, make sure that it fits, and so that I can come before you and say what we think works from our standpoint and continue this conversation. So I appreciate it. Thank you.

Sure.

Absolutely.

Would you consider, if council were to table the discussion, would you consider taking time then after hearing all you've heard tonight to talk to staff and kind of rehash and go back to the drawing board and maybe think about some of the modifications we've requested so that we're not quite on this timeline?

That's a good point because... Yeah, what would be the next...

Well, the next reading would be the first meeting in June.

Can we put a timetable on it?

No, I understand that. But we table for a specific time or just table? Okay, so then we can give them a chance to work and then when they're ready, they can bring it back. Yeah.

From my standpoint, I want to make sure that whatever is being presented is something that most people can get behind. So we will go back and work on this.

And I think everybody's brought up a lot of great points, and I think you've heard the number one issue is that buffer.

Absolutely. Yeah, and that's something, you know, from my standpoint, I want to make sure, you know, we put together our concept plans and, you know, more thorough than what we're seeing today. I'm excited to go back and see what we can do. So, yeah.

And I'd like to do that mainly because I know you can't answer these questions tonight. You know, there's just no way. I mean, you're basing on what you have. And we brought up a lot of points and the audience has brought up a lot of points, too, that I think really need to be discussed. And I think tabling it might be the best option at this point.

Absolutely. And I will say too, I mean, if there is a strong desire for this not to be a rental, I mean, please let me know. I mean, I know it seemed like it was a kind of a mix. But again, we're, like I said in the beginning, and I truly mean it, we are flexible. Obviously, it has to work for us. But it has to also work for the city and the community. And so we want to make sure that it's done right.

We appreciate that. We appreciate that. So we have a motion.

Yeah, I'll make a motion to table PUD 26-2. Second.

All right, I have a motion and a second to table PUD 26-2. All those in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. Opposed? All right. Go back to work, guys, and come back with something. And everyone will be notified again when it comes off table, so you'll have that opportunity. We want to make sure that everybody's involved in this and want input. And I really appreciate everyone showing up tonight. Mr. Upton can come back now.

Wake him up. Someone's got to go wake him up. He may be out there.

He may be back there sleeping. I think he was asleep. Yeah, he fell asleep. Next up we have ordinance resolution PUDs, ordinance 26-12.

Ordinance 26-12, an ordinance vacating drainage easements over land owned by Green Crossings LLC.

This is a second reading. Is there anything else from staff? No changes. No changes. Council?

Mayor, I move to approve Ordinance 26-12. Second.

I have a motion and a second to approve Ordinance 26-12. All those in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. Opposed? Resolution 26-26.

Resolution 26-26, a resolution authorizing submission of an application for the Greene County Council on Aging Vehicle Grant.

Mr. Wake.

Good evening. Hope everyone's doing well. I'm here tonight to seek a resolution to apply for Greene County Council on Aging Grant in the amount of $40,000 to help us purchase a new bus for the Senior Center. Every two years, the Council on Aging makes this funding available for the purchase of transportation vehicles for their member agencies. We're one of only three senior centers in Greene County that do have transportation services, so it's great to be able to get this funding opportunity. We have two buses we're looking to replace this year. Those are the two larger ones that are out and about every single day. The estimated purchasing price is about $160,000. This $40,000 grant will go towards replacing one of those. And if you also recall, we were awarded a federal grant from ODOT in the amount of $116,000. And we've also fundraised about $240,000 for the purchase to replace both of these buses. So it's really incredible to our senior center team for all the work that they've done with this grant. We'll be able to purchase both of those buses at no cost to our local taxpayers. It's all through grants and donations. So I'm happy to answer any questions, but I am seeking resolution to authorize city manager to sign that grant application.

Council?

Your Honor, I move we approve Resolution 2026. 26-26.

26-26.

Pardon me. Second.

I have a motion and a second to approve Resolution 26-26. All those in favor signify by saying aye.

Aye.

Opposed? Opposed? Zach, before you leave, please let your staff know how impressed I was with what they did yesterday for the Memorial Day ceremony.

Yeah. Absolutely. Thank you for that. Thank you for all your hard work with that.

All right, liquor license. Chief, it's your turn.

Good evening, Mr. Mayor, members of council. So we have a liquor permit transfer request. The Ohio Department of Commerce Division of Liquor Control sent notification of our request for a liquor permit transfer from Gilligan Company LLC to 1326 Twin Pillars Krishna LLC at 1326 North Fairfield Road. The required record checks were completed on two applicants and staff has no objections to the issuance of the permit. Staff is recommending this application request move forward without comment.

Move to accept without comment. Second.

No, not for this. Sir, if you're going to come to the counter, if you can talk.

Bob Trout, 2187, Madison Court.

If there's a transfer of a liquor license and there's a church within 500 feet, have they been given an opportunity to make comments against it or not? I do not know, so.

I'm not aware if they've been given that opportunity.

Isn't that... Yeah, that's through the state. That's not a matter for us.

That's not on us to do that. That's up to state to do that. Do we have a motion and a second? We have a motion and a second. All right, I have a motion and a second to accept without comment. All those in favor signify by saying aye. Aye.

Opposed?

Okay. Decision item, board appointment to the Tree Advisory Board. We've had apparently an opening.

Yes. Somebody had to retire from the Tree Advisory Board. That's right. Which created a vacancy.

So it's your fault.

It is. But I would love to move to appoint Debbie Whitaker to the Tree Advisory Board for the term beginning 5-26-26 and ending on 2-28-27. Second.

Have a motion and a second to appoint Debbie Whitaker to the unfilled term from 526 26 to 228 27. All those in favor signify by saying aye.

Aye. Opposed?

Very good. Now what you've all been waiting for. Citizen comments. The time has come for you to come forward and speak on any subject to counsel. Please come forward, state your name and address and you will have three minutes and you can have up to six minutes donated by someone else.

I was at 3160 Shaker Town Road and I'd like to donate my time to Heather.

My name is Nhu Dang. I would like to donate my time to my neighbor, Heather.

And where did you live, ma'am?

3170 . Thank you. I apologize in advance.

I have to go fast.

My name is Heather Harvey, and I live at 3180 Shaker Town Road. Good evening, Mayor and City Council. I stand in this room once again to deliver key facts in reference to the Shaker Town Road widening project. I have organized a large group of residents, and tonight you will hear from almost every property impacted by this project. Those unable to make it tonight have given their permission for us to speak on their behalf. I hope you are all listening to the data shared during last week's meeting, specifically the traffic counts. Those numbers are much lower than what was reported and presented to you for grant approval. This is what we've been trying to tell you. Traffic is not a problem on Shaker Town and therefore you gave the go-ahead for the project that is absolutely not necessary. Allow me to break this down for you. I encourage you to write these numbers down and reference NPRPC's publicly reported traffic counts as evidence. 3,453 vehicles per day was reported for grant approval. Last week, those numbers were 2,331, 2,958, and 3,033. In 2013, it was 5,800. In 2018, it was 5,200. And in 2019, it was 3,800. According to this data, traffic on this road has been cut in half over the past decade. How on earth can anybody make a claim that traffic is a concern? What evidence do you have to support that? How can you justify this when the numbers speak for themselves? The most recent project on North Fairfield had traffic counts of 20,300 and 24,900 with legitimate accidents, and you just now added the center turn lane. When engineers were asked why it has taken so long to address this actual safety issue in our city, their response was that they had been turned down for several grants. I need you to help me understand the urgency for our project if North Fairfield had traffic counts over 20,000 for years and tons of accidents. Our road is nowhere close to that. If the city is truly concerned about the safety of our community, then why complete all these smaller unnecessary projects? Save that money and apply it where it really matters. We could have funded the North Fairfield project ourselves without relying on a grant. My question to you all is who verified the accuracy of the information engineers submitted? Do you just take their word? Do you do your own investigations and look up traffic counts and number of accidents? Have you questioned the police? I have. This last drive has all the quote accidents on our road. Not a single one could have been prevented by a center turn lane. Most of the accidents were either deer strikes or failure to yield while turning out of one of the side streets. Are you, as council members, willing to accept responsibility for contributing to actual problems? I've spoken to Chief of Police Lindsey more than once, and he agrees that traffic and accidents are not a problem on this road at present. What is a problem is speeding, and this project will only make that worse. So by approving this project, you are acknowledging that risk. Will you assume full liability for what's to come? Only after I practically begged was a speed tracker placed on our road. I think we can all agree that the data shared during last week's meeting was useless at best. Due to all the side streets and the obvious slowing down to turn or pull into driveways, that low threshold is completely unreliable. Please tell me you heard the engineer report speeds in excess of 75 miles per hour outside my house. We've been complaining about this for years. I think we all have a right to see those reports. It isn't the low speeds we're concerned about. Let's see how many cars are driving above 50 miles per hour. We have kids. Most of my neighbors are elderly and have to risk their lives just to go get their mail. Again, this is an actual problem. What have you done to fix it? After multiple complaints, city engineers reassured us that reducing the speed limit was a done deal. When we questioned why the new signs had not been placed, they then changed their story and told us that all sorts of other steps had to take place prior to it actually happening. Even in last week's meeting, it was presented to you as a potential to reduce the speed. What they neglected to tell you is that they had already promised us it would happen. I encourage each of you to come sit at my house. See this with your own eyes. I have worked from home every day that I have lived in that house. So for the past nine years, I have a direct line of sight to our road. My office window is level with the road, and my blinds are always open. Come sit with me. Watch how smooth traffic flows, how traffic never backs up, and how fast people fly by. The door's always open. Our road is currently designed to force people to slow down as others are turning onto side streets. We do not have rear end accidents occurring. Adding a center turn lane will remove that safety barrier and allow people to speed more. Remember, if the speed limit is kept at 40, the city will have to ask ODOT for a design exception and more land will have to be purchased from all of us to increase tree lawn space. This project is forcing people out of their homes. One of the properties you have to buy land from is already for sale and I believe actually sold. And personally, I know three others who are speaking with realtors at this moment. This isn't right. Most of these people have lived on this road for decades. At the last council meeting, I requested the sidewalk ordinance be updated. I formally requested that the city be responsible for anything larger than five feet. I believe the language in the current ordinance already covers that, as it breaks down the difference between a sidewalk and a shared use path, and all the items listed in that ordinance only reference a sidewalk. Therefore, I'm now requesting that we receive a statement from the City in writing reflecting that the residents are not responsible for maintaining the 10-foot shared use path, and that any language contradictory to that be immediately removed from this project. ODOT was not aware that we were literally right on the existing bike path. Perhaps this information was withheld in order to obtain the grant money. We already have a perfectly accessible path to walk or ride our bikes on. And let's remember, there's absolutely nowhere to go on this road. These paths are not connecting businesses to businesses like they state. The closest to actual business is well outside of the standard distance of a normal walk per ODOT. Even with the reduced speed limit, people are not going to slow down. They're going to fly down our road, making it unsafe to utilize any sidewalk or shared use path. Every step of this project has been poorly communicated to the impact of residents, to include a recent letter that a few residents received demanding internal access to their homes. We were not told which appraisal company would be contacting us. My neighbors reached out with complete confusion as to why they received these letters. I called the engineering department and requested to speak to Nick. I was told that he was, quote, in the middle of dealing with a big mess with ODOT. Shocker. I informed the lady that I was calling to protect my fellow neighbors. She hadn't heard of that appraisal company before. When I told her they demanded internal access to their homes, she agreed it seemed like a scam. I told her I was not about to let my elderly neighbors be ambushed in their homes. I never received a call back as promised. Instead, I received an email that said it was determined this should be the appraisal company reaching out to us. Those proper residents were not notified. I had to be the one to do that. A property appraiser does not have a legal right to enter our homes. This type of request for interior access is not a standard or routine part of road widening or infrastructure projects. What is the specific documented reason for this request? This is a privacy issue and not necessary for project valuation. I don't recall anyone needing access to the inside of my house when you raised my property taxes by $450 two Octobers ago. Would you allow this type of access to your home for a road widening project? Are you aware of the countless phone calls, emails, and meetings we have with the engineering department? We met with them in this very room at least a handful of times and filled every single seat. Has the information we presented to them been shared with you? Have our questions been passed along to you? Have you heard the answers we were given? None of our meetings were recorded. Nobody was there taking notes except for us. According to ODOT's proper road widening project plan, number six states that it's compliance and record keeping. The city is to follow ODOT's policies and standard procedures for public involvement and document all outreach activities, meeting and public comments for compliance and transparency. I bring this up for two reasons. Number one, we brought forth a ton of valuable information and questions and it's unfortunate you have no knowledge of it. We requested your presence several times, but we were denied. Number two, Andrea at ODOT has made it clear that each complaint they received from us was well documented and included in their project notes. So if they're keeping the notes, why aren't the engineers? Are you aware that ODOT's public involvement activities per project development process requires the following? Small group meetings, public involvement meetings, workshops, focused, specific, dedicated meetings for the project, high level info on web, email, and social media, press releases, property owner meetings. Either we're in the twilight zone or something fishy is going on here because none of that has occurred thus far. Each and every meeting has been arranged by us, set up by us, et cetera. Are you aware that it's not safe to construct a shared use path over a high pressure gas line? And doing so would almost certainly violate both engineering safety standards and legal regulations. Do you even know we have a high pressure gas line on our road? Are you aware that construction crews have hit two gas lines in our city in the last six months? The safest approach is to design the path outside of the utility easement. Are you aware that the grading and stormwater swell work is being constructed outside of the public right-of-way? Are you aware that we are not being compensated for this permanent reduction of our properties? Most municipal codes and state regulations require that grading, drainage features, and stormwater controls be located within the designated right-of-way. Per current project maps, the edge of the 10-foot shared use path ends exactly at the right-of-way line, meaning all grading and stormwater swale work will be outside of that. What variance or special provision have you made to allow this? What kind of notification were we given regarding this? Who says you can take more land from us without compensating us? We have contacted the city manager to voice our opposition of this project and requested that this be put up for vote like the truck stop was. ODOT and MVRPC both state that a no-build option and property owner input be considered. Why are we being denied? Ask yourselves if this is the type of message you want to share with our city. Do you want everyone to know how sloppy, unorganized, reckless, and unnecessary your approvals are? I can assure you that from our point of view, it isn't good. Whether you want to believe that these small details actually mean something is up to you. But when this project has been proven to be an epic fail, we continue to show up. I think it speaks for itself. There's only one more line.

That's nine minutes.

This is a moment that will define your time on city council.

Thank you.

Hi, I'm Debbie Whitaker at 1375 Bill's Drive. I'll keep it short. Thank you very much, and I appreciate your getting me on the board. Have a nice evening.

My name is Delbert Korn. I live at 3200 Shaker Town Road. I agree with Heather. I'm very much against this. I can see no need for the way the traffic, since they cut it off Shaker Town going out onto 35, the traffic has reduced quite a bit. And I won't never have to see it in my lifetime probably, but anybody by my house, that have a 10-foot sidewalk that they're going to be responsible for to fix. If something goes wrong with it, there's no way that they're going to... I would never buy a house like that with a 10-foot sidewalk. I don't understand why it has to be 10-foot. I've lived on Chinkertown there. I moved there when I was 11 years old, so it's 78 years I lived there. And I've never seen any kind of problems with the traffic. There was a lot more traffic when it emptied out onto Shaker Town, but now then it don't. So it's cut back quite a bit. And I just wanted to acknowledge that I was against this project.

Thank you very much.

Good evening, Mayor and Council. I'm Lisa Nybert of 2970 Shaker Town Road. Priorly, I lived in Terra Falls, making Shaker Town my daily drive for the last eight years. I oppose the street-winding project. I oppose it for personal, community, and safety reasons. A significant portion of my property is a barn, which was built around 1900. It sits 13 feet from the asphalt, well from the existing road, from asphalt to front wall of my barn is 13 feet. There is no work around and no room for additional lanes or sidewalks. For my eight years, I've not experienced traffic congestion. From my experience, I know that this project would increase traffic volume, speed, and the only danger I've experienced is due to the neglect of the roads and repairs and resurfacing that should have been done in the last eight years. I don't know why it hasn't. That's not a matter for tonight, but that has been a problem. But the promise of new fresh roads with three lanes is not going to help the situation for any of us. I understand the numbers for the traffic speed have not been accurately accounted for. Just for fun, getting home in the evenings, I get off work around 4. And from 4 to 7.30, I take my one-year-old granddaughter on our golf cart right around the yard. We sit out by the barn at the edge of the road, and we wave to people. People coming home from work. So I think I'm in a pretty prime time from 4.30 to 7.30 PM. People on their way home, people getting back out, going to their sporting events and family events. My own stats I see there is that people are driving cautiously, slowly, no one's in a hurry, and it's not an overwhelming amount of volume. I did live there before back when factory dumped out, or we ran right out onto 35, and there was a lot more volume of traffic. And at that time, our kids were smaller, and we were concerned about the safety issues of so many people not living in the area, driving through the area. That change has made the reduction that those stats just gave you. You've heard many of this stuff. You'll hear more specific facts of the costs, the problems, and the overall wrongness of this project. I stand in total support of all of my neighbors' statements that they're going to be presenting you, and I thank you.

Thank you.

I'm Brian Lynette, 3160 Shaker Town. As homeowners directly affected by this road-widening project, we strongly oppose the installation of a 10-foot-wide sidewalk along our properties. Our opposition is not based on resistance to improvement or public safety. Rather, it is based on fairness, long-term financial burden, unequal treatment, and a lack of proportional benefit to the residents expected and maintain the infrastructure indefinitely. First, the proposed sidewalk width is excessive for a residential area. A 10-foot sidewalk is more comparable to the shared-use recreational path or a commercial pedestrian corridor than a standard neighborhood sidewalk. Most residential areas throughout the city function safely with smaller sidewalks, and many neighborhoods have no sidewalks of this size at all. If smaller sidewalks are considered acceptable elsewhere, then homeowners in our area should not be subjected to substantially larger and more burdensome design standards without clear justification. Second, while the city may fund the initial construction, the long term maintenance responsibility falls entirely on the homeowners, forcing residents to be financially responsible for snow and ice removal and eventually concrete replacement for the structure that they did not request. Concrete replacement for the 10-foot wide sidewalk will cost thousands of dollars over time, creating a permanent, unfunded mandate placed on the homeowner for public infrastructure. At this point, it no longer becomes public when the homeowner is obligated to maintain it, and forced compliance is unacceptable. This project effectively transfers public infrastructure costs from the city to the individual property owners. Forcing residents to absorb these additional lifelong obligations is unacceptable, especially when the design exceeds normal residential standards. Third, infrastructure decisions should be equitable across the city and based on demonstrated public necessity, not arbitrary planning preferences. Additionally, wider sidewalks can create unintended consequences for homeowners, including reduced yard space, impacts on drainage, snow removal obligations, reduced privacy, and higher long-term liability. Forced removal of mature trees and native vegetation will negatively impact local wildlife. These trees and plant life are not just for decoration. These are real quality of life concerns that deserve meaningful consideration. We respectfully ask the city to completely abandon this proposal.

Hello.

I am Laura Keller. I live at 3140 Shaker Town Road. And we all might get a little repetitive here, but if this is inevitable as a project in and of itself, because of, we do know that the City of Beaver Creek has a growing pains problem. We can tell that by being here all evening. But if this is inevitable, I want to address also this 10 foot of cement, which is not by definition even a sidewalk. What is it? About half of us are now inflicted with this after we were told it was going to be five feet, which is standard for a busier road than inside of a neighborhood. And then we were told there was a possibility that side of, we're on, there would be no sidewalk. And then suddenly it's 10 foot and we're responsible for it. A 10 foot is a significant cost and I don't see the possibility of maybe even selling a home where you have to basically replace a sidewalk that would cost replacing a driveway, which I cannot afford to replace my driveway. So from the perspective of the residents affected by this expansion, it seems less like thoughtful planning and more like unnecessary burden placed on homeowners without transparency or accountability. This will dramatically alter the character of our homes. A 10-foot-wide stretch of concrete heading through front yards is not a minor adjustment. It changes the appearance. usability, and privacy of our homes. And while the city may view this as infrastructure, homeowners are the ones who will live with the consequences, both financially, personally. Many of us are deeply concerned about depreciation of property values. Buyers do not look at homes where oversized thoroughfares dominate the front yard and eliminate curb appeal. A 10-foot concrete corridor in front of residential homes is visually intrusive and inconsistent with the surrounding area. Street appeal matters. Property value matters. For many families, their home is their largest investment. To make matters worse, homeowners will also bear responsibility for sidewalk maintenance and liability. So not only are residents losing portions of the property above what they were originally told, any future owner will inherit financial obligations of an astronomical proportion. Obviously, 10 foot is an excessive burden, and we're not even able to replace our own driveways. This is, as they say, adding insult to injury. If this oversized sidewalk is a design in anticipation of something that we don't know about, say so. It did come about that maybe additional funding was granted from ODOT simply because, well, we'll run a wheelchair down through there, two wheelchairs and a bicycle will fit, and then we'll get some ODOT funds that way, which is false news. Development should not come at the expense of the very residents who built and sustained this community. We understand that growth is unavoidable, and our urban feel is long gone, and our dear, but excess is uncalled for. Thank you for your time and consideration.

Thank you. 6-5-8, wherever they drive. I've lived there 58 years, and I've not needed a sidewalk. I don't see why we need one. And I've already had one automobile come within the foot of my house and coming through it. And this widening is just going to make it more dangerous. That's all I got to say, and thank you.

Thank you.

Bob Trout, 2187 Bassett Court. My discussion is more on the factory road bridge repair, replacement, whatever's going on. It's now, what, two months behind schedule? And They have issues. We don't know when it's going to get repaired. It is a huge inconvenience to the residents. It is a huge financial impact to the businesses up there. And we need to have a little bit more feedback as to exactly what is going on. And the other question is, those pilings couldn't get driven down deep enough? Didn't they do a soil sample or anything else prior to this thing? And I understand also a drain needed to be added into it. You folks already had one done in when they did the bike paths and everything else like that. So what is going on with so much redundant operations and things like that? But we need to know when that corridor is going to be opened back up. It's a huge impact. It's causing backups, traffic, everything else. And that's on you folks. And if you're saying that somebody else is responsible for it, you are our government representatives. And you need to find out why and get the information back to us. Thank you very much.

Thank you.

I'm Casey Bechtel. I live at 3000 Shaker Town Road. I'm going on 41 years there. I pull dimensions on from house to house across north to south of Shaker Town. They come up with 140 feet from front of house to front of house. That's the closest that I've seen where a third lane has been put in. The Grange Hall project, the houses there are close to 190 feet apart. The ones on Fairfield up by Lance Road are 150 feet apart. divide it out, add that much more asphalt plus the sidewalk. The 10-foot sidewalk's going to propose through my yard also. It's just going to push water into my basement. It's going to get crashes closer to Larry's house. And then what's it going to do when it goes to Lisa's barn? I mean, her barn's 13 feet, and they're talking about three lanes and a 10-foot sidewalk. It's like somebody's – we get no answers from it. So – This project benefits no one. It's a waste of taxpayer money. It just should be canceled immediately and the money put somewhere else. Thank you. Thank you.

I'm Florence Ayers. My daughter's going to speak for me. She's at 650 Marybride.

Yeah.

Now I can speak a little slower. All right. So, as she said, I'm her daughter. My name is Lori Villani. I'm at 710 Carlsbrook. And Carlsbrook intersects Shaker Town Road. This is my mom. She lives, as she said, on the corner of Merrick and Shaker Town. My parents and I moved to Beaver Creek in 1971, so she's been there 55 years, and we moved to Merrick Drive. She's been at that same place. My dad sadly passed away in 1989, so my mom has been living on her own and faithfully maintaining her property for 37 years. She has spent thousands of dollars maintaining her house and her lawn, including at least $2,000 on a giant pin oak tree in her front lawn, which was mature when we moved in 55 years ago. So I'm sorry, I don't know how old it is, but I did find it interesting you're appointing a tree advisory person during this meeting when you're talking about taking down over 100 trees as part of this project. Maybe that person can advise against these trees also. My mom pays $340 a month in property taxes. She's on a fixed income, and that gives her the privilege of living in Beaver Creek. And what does she get for her efforts? The city now wants to take land on two sides of her property and destroy her favorite tree. Her property value will be diminished by this street project. Her lot's going to be smaller. Her driveway's going to be shorter. and her house will be closer to the road. Well, then, of course, it'll make it more dangerous for her as she tries to get out onto Shaker Town. I grew up on this property. I graduated from Beaver Creek High School in 1977. My husband and I, because Shaker Town, excuse me, Carlsbrook is just off of Shaker Town, we travel this road every day. maybe multiple times and I can tell you from personal experience that the number of cars traversing this section of Shaker Town is not overwhelming and in fact I would think the volume of vehicles on Shaker Town has gone down in recent years since drivers can't access Shaker Town directly from 35 as they could in the past and I drove that many times on my way to high school. motorists apparently do not want to make their way on shaker town unless they need to since it's more difficult to get there you have to go and do the loopy loop there on 35 to get on factory to come our direction it seems that the property with any higher use of shaker town is actually been solved by having that 35 reconfiguration And as for the idea that this road is a secondary artery, it might get busier, my question is when? I mean, there's no need for a turn lane. We turn left on Shaker Town daily, going to our house, going to her house, and we never have an issue. I ride my bike across the street, and at times, my mower across Shaker Town to get to her property, and as I said, the traffic volume has decreased. I never have an issue. No one has a crystal ball to see into the future, not myself or any city planner or engineer. My guess is someone in this building or maybe at the MVRPC looked at a map somewhere and they said, well, Shaker Town has this three lane part and this turn lane part. We don't have it. But I've also heard that you can't get the funding for the part of Shaker Town west of North Bealefield towards the church that direction. And if that's not possible, why don't you just leave us as we are as well? Webster's Dictionary says that when you improve something, you make it better, like you increase its value. And what is being proposed to be done here is not an improvement, at least certainly not for the taxpayers, all of my neighbors who live and drive along here every day. You're imposing what you think a future need might be rather than showing us facts, such as increased traffic volumes over the past years or even accident reports from this section of Shaker Town. I don't feel the city has been responsive to the current concerns of the citizens. She said I have six minutes. You do.

You're fine.

That's okay. I'm going to keep going. I'm almost done.

I thought that was only three, so you're good.

I could have done it in three, but you were right. I do not feel the city has been responsible to the current concerns of these citizens, which I live among in this project area, faithful taxpayers who drive this route daily. This citizen and my husband and my mother are asking that this project be canceled and the money be spent elsewhere. So this 93-year-old resident here at the corner of Merrick and Shaker Town can continue to live peacefully on her property as she has for 55 years. I invite any of you to come and sit in her yard under this big pin oak tree. I'll give you a chair and you can observe the volume or the lack thereof of the vehicles on Shaker Town Road. Thank you very much.

Thank you very much.

I'm Bill Keller, 3140 Shaker Town Road. I've been a resident of Beaver Creek for 68 years, 56 years in business. I'm extremely against this 10-foot pathway proposed by Beaver Creek on Shaker Town Road. It is unnecessary and out of proportion to the actual needs of this area. The road does not have the condition that justifies a massive 10-foot pathway. Traffic is relatively low compared to any major commercial roads. We do not have a dense urban street with heavy pedestrian activity, no schools along our route, or retail destinations drawing constant foot traffic. Actually, we have nowhere to walk to. There is no demonstrated safety crisis. We have only had a few deer being hit along this road. Normally, projects of this size are driven by safety problems of pedestrian demands, with neither existing taxpayer should ask why this project being prioritized over more pressing needs like road maintenance or intersection safety elsewhere in the community. A 10-foot sidewalk pathway is excessive for this road. That width is closer to what you would see downtown district parks and high density corporation developments. It feels completely out of scale with the character of Shaker Town. The neighbors and myself moved here because we did not want an urban environment. I am very concerned with my property impact and cost. Our home's value is reduced if projects like this always come with ongoing maintenance obligations that fall on the homeowner and taxpayers. I found that out on the Dayton Xenia Road project by my store, which cost me over 8,000 repair problems that stem from that project that the city would not own up to. Good planning should reflect community needs. Not one size works for all areas. There's no evidence that a 10-foot pathway on Shaker Town Road addresses a real transportation safety or prediction issue. I would encourage you as local leaders to reconsider the scale of this proposal and focus resources where they truly need and where your residents will actually benefit. This plan needs to be canceled and focuses on necessary projects that benefit the citizens of Beaver Creek. Thank you. Thank you.

good evening harold roberts 685 carlsbrook thanks for hearing me um you talk about irony you guys are talking about a you tabled a discussion because of a buffer you guys are taking out my buffer about nine trees out of my yard gonna move the road closer to my house i think that's just that's real irony that's uh there's everybody in this room's opposed to this but i think it's good that all council's here i don't know that They've been able to speak before in front of you guys at this level. So I oppose this project. Thank you. Thank you.

My name is Linda Dunkel. I live at 3040 Shaker Town Road. Good evening, Mayor and City Council. I have been a resident of Beaver Creek since 1983 and a resident at 3040 Shaker Town Road since 1991, so for 35 years. I am here today as part of the opposition group to the Shaker Town Road project, ID number 119964. This is a 2 third mile, 0.65 miles project that the city of Beaver Creek is wasting in excess of $4 million of federal and local monies for a variety of bad choices. Number one is Heather's previous traffic count numbers reported to council just last week are 20% less than the number reported by the engineering department to get the grant. Furthermore, the current traffic count numbers are 48% of what they were in 2013 and 53% of what they were in 2018. How can the city justify this road work based on these counts? It's unacceptable. Number two, the project will lead to the removal of 108 trees and shrubbery and landscaping. D, a safety barrier from traffic. B, a noise barrier. C, a light barrier. D, a home to many various local wildlife. E, a temperature barrier. And also great aesthetic looks. And your proposal is the replacement of this with concrete and asphalt. This is unacceptable. This project is being managed by an engineering department within the city of Beaver Creek that has absolutely no concern whatsoever about the citizens that pay their salary. And they are allowed to operate independently of our elected city council members. Case in point, from the initial letter the Shaker Town Road citizens received from the engineering department proposing widening to three lanes with a center turn lane, curbs, gutters, storm sewers, and five foot sidewalks along the south side and 10 foot along the north side. That's unacceptable. they are trying to run through you, the citizens council, and us as the residents.

Because in point many- Do you have someone that can donate time for you? I'm done. You've reached your three minutes. Do you have somebody else who can donate time?

I can't hear you.

I said, do you have someone else who can donate time? Because you've reached your time.

I will.

Pamela Eklund, I live at 2982 Shaker Town Road.

Thank you. On May 15, 2016, letter sent to the Shaker Town Road residents about work crews from the city of Beaver Creek and Wolpert to enter our property for the placement of right-of-way stakes. There was no mention of specific dates or times and how they were to be given us or made us aware of any notification by the members when they would arrive at our property. This resulted in me contacting the Beaver Creek Police when an unannounced, uninvited person entered my property on Friday, May 22, at 9.45. The police promptly responded and made the person identify himself and his purpose, as well he should have done to each homeowner. Poor work by the engineering department. This is unacceptable. In closing, I am 100% against this project. And I know, as a group, we will continue to fight this until you, the Beaver Creek City Council, cancel the entire project. Thank you.

Thank you.

Good evening, Mayor.

Chief, how are you? Members of the City Council, my name is John Turner. I live at 791 Fawcett Drive. I have an access driveway that comes out on the Shaker Town Road. I'm here tonight to strongly oppose the Shaker Town Road improvement project and urge council to cancel it entirely. I believe this project comes at too high of a cost to the residents who live along Shaker Town Road. The city is prepared to take residential property from homeowners who have spent years, in many cases decades, building and caring for their properties. These are not empty lots or unused land. These are family properties, front yards, trees, driveways, the character of an established neighborhood. This project does not simply improve a road, it permanently changes a residential area and places the burden on a small group of homeowners for the benefit of a broader plan that many citizens never requested. Once property is taken, there is no reversing that decision. Government, I believe, has a responsibility to spend tax dollar money, taxpayer dollars wisely, and to protect the people who already live in this community. Canceling this project would send a message that this council values neighborhoods, respects property rights, and understands the differences between wants and true needs. I urge you tonight to stop this project, protect the residents of Shaker Town Road, redirect these funds towards projects and services that benefit the city as a whole without taking people's property. Thank you very much for your time and consideration.

Thank you.

Linda Turner, I live at 791 Fawcett Drive, and I'm giving my three minutes to Gary Dunkel. Thank you.

Good evening, Mayor and City Council. Before I get in, I just wish all this development talk, I just wish you'd just put a mask on all the Beaver Creek development going on, you know? Put a pause on it, you know? I mean, there are so many developments going on in this city now, it's crazy, you know? And I don't know how you expect the infrastructure of Beaver Creek to continue to maintain this. Obviously, you've already outgrown the school system and you can't get a new school system in. So, I mean, I just wish you could put a pause on all this development. Anyway, back to subject. My name is Gary Dunkel. I'm a taxpaying citizen of Beaver Creek since 1983 and a current resident of 3040 Shaker Town Road since 1991 or 35 years. I'm here today as a member of the opposition group to the Shaker Town Road quote improvement project ID number 119964. While I'm a member of this opposition group, I have sat silent and listened to each of the previous speakers before me, and I am moved, as I trust you guys are, by the chaos and dissatisfaction among every person in this room. It's just overwhelming. And I just don't know how you guys in your right minds can continue with such a project, given the disruption that it's causing. This is an unacceptable situation, and you, Mayor Adams, and the rest of the city council should bring the project to a halt immediately. We should all be aware of the following realities that will exist if this project is not stopped. Number one, Shaker Town Road between Carthage and Southern Bell, which is .65 miles, will change from an ultra-safe, scenic, two-thirds mile, two-lane roadway to an asphalt concrete mess that will cause many, many problems. Again, I just named a couple of them loss of 100 plus trees and shrubbery.

I wish the young lady that was the new tree person was here.

Maybe she'd come to our side. Because it's just crazy. Driving speeds will increase accidents will become a factor. Increased safety issues will take place to homeowners because they're closer to the street loss of driveways, long term residents leaving the area. We've already lost two residents so far, and I know a couple other people are considering putting their houses up for sale. The disruption of current residents' lives for the 18 months this construction is going to go on. 18 months of construction. Tearing up our yards, tearing up our driveways, tearing up the roads in front of us, and for what reason? There's no good reason to do it. This project is not wanted and it's not worthy. Number two, the project will affect 34 residences and two churches. Other than the affected that have already heard tonight, let's talk about the property devaluation brought about by this project. Taking into consideration that there are 34 residents of two churches with a total appraised value in excess of $16 million. $16 million appraised value, land value. AGAIN, 34 HOUSES, TWO CHURCHES. THE PROJECTED DEVALUATION THAT THIS PROJECT IS GOING TO CAUSE PER HOMEOWNER IS BETWEEN 10 AND 20%. AND YOU CAN LOOK UP ANY SOURCE YOU WANT. THAT'S A FACT. SO USING 15% AS AN AVERAGE, average loss, which is going to cost the city $2.4 million. Is that in a budget somewhere that we have set aside to repay the homeowners the $2.4 million this project is going to cost us in the devaluation of our property? I hope so. I'm sure every attorney in the Beaver Creek area hopes so too. So are these monies available? And I think you guys got to ask yourself that. This project, again, is going to cost each homeowner in this room at least $50,000 out of their pocket because of the evaluation of their home value because of this project. And this is absolutely unacceptable. I would lastly also like to bring to everybody's attention how this whole sidewalk evolution started. Back in our initial letter that we got from the engineering department on 2425, it was a five-foot south sidewalk and an eight-foot north sidewalk. So then in one of our meetings that we had in November of 2025, they changed that from five-foot north sidewalk to eight-foot south sidewalk. And then currently, the project is a 5-foot south sidewalk and a 10-foot north sidewalk. So I mean, maybe next month it will change again. But I don't know how anybody in their right mind can even begin to approve a 10-foot sidewalk in a residential area. That's just ludicrous. So I challenge you, Mayor Adams and council members, to come over to Shaker Town Road and try to understand in your own mind why anybody would want a 10-foot sidewalk there. There's a 5-foot sidewalk that starts at Shaker Town and Fairfield, and then all of a sudden on Carthage it's going to jump to a 10-foot sidewalk. And then it's going to go down 2 thirds of a mile, and then it's going to stop. So I don't understand the logic in that. There's nowhere to go. I mean, it stops. And you guys own the property on the other side of that, because you're going to put that interchange in there at one point. Certainly not in my lifetime, but at one point in time. So why would you put a 10 foot sidewalk in for 2 thirds of a mile? If anybody can tell me why, I'd love to hear it. So it's just I mean the whole logic in this thing. It's just crazy So in closing I want to thank you mayor Adams each of the City Council members you guys have been you guys have been excessively Patient tonight a long night for all of us And I just I just want you to understand all of our I ALL OF OUR RESIDENTS' DISSATISFACTION WITH THIS SHAKERTOWN ROAD PROJECT. IT'S POORLY DESIGNED, AND IT'S AN ABSOLUTE WASTE OF PROPERTY AND MONEY. IT BENEFITS NOBODY, AND IT HAS MULTIPLE NEGATIVE IMPACTS TO ALL. And we ask that you, city council and the mayor, put this up to a vote right now. Just vote on it and say, let's just cancel this whole project and everybody go home happy. You guys have money in your pockets to spend on other projects in this city that needs it, not the Shaker Town Road project. It doesn't need it. Traffic counts don't support it. It's a waste of money. And I would ask you all to get this canceled once and for all.

Time is up. Thank you. Thank you.

Hi. Steven Sell, 1244 Freedom Point. So I'm going to switch topics, if I could, from concerns about road widening to a concern my family and thousands of other Beaver Creek families have now after your April meeting about widening our tax bill. So my wife and I moved from Fairbourn to Beaver Creek, mainly because the city had no municipal income tax. We both work on base at Wright-Patt. We chose this community to raise our family. We have two girls, Evie and Cece, who are seven and eight years old. Hi, girls, if you're still watching, now go to bed. Our family loves it here. The bike paths, sports leagues, churches, parks, businesses, all their amenities, restaurants, and people. It truly is a great place to raise a family. But this income tax that you're forcing onto the ballot, you forced it on last month for a sixth time. You did that unanimously, all seven of you. Yeah, that would cost our household nearly $3,000 per year. Even after the property tax cut, we'd still be out close to $2,000 net every single year. The city of Beaver Creek is already losing $600,000 every single year subsidizing that money-losing golf course used almost exclusively by retirees. Other cities in Ohio have turned their failing golf courses into nature preserves and walking trails. That's a much better and more efficient use of the land for working families. We just visited my wife's sister and her family in Loveland. Loveland has excellent parks and city services on a smaller budget with lower overall taxes than what Beaver Creek does. So don't tell me this city needs more of our money. This income tax isn't really about parks and it's not really about police. It's really about two things. It's about building a new expensive city hall and it's about continuing to prop up that golf course. Both of those things are status symbols for those of you in power. If we truly need a new police headquarters or new park improvements, put those on the ballot as separate levies so voters can decide directly. Council's determined to give retirees a permanent tax break while forcing Beaver Creek working families like mine, especially base employees, to foot the bill. Mayor Adams, you talk about all the new jobs that you think are coming to Wright-Patt, right? But those new base workers, they're not going to choose to live in Beaver Creek if they have to pay a 1% income tax that our neighbors in Bellbrook and the surrounding townships do not have to pay. Voters have rejected this idea five times since 1984. When the majority of voters keep saying no, yet this council unanimously, unanimously keeps forcing it back on the ballot anyway, that's taxation without representation. And as we approach America's 250th anniversary, it is so shameful that we're still fighting the same battle here in Beaver Creek. Council likes to blame big business interests for why this keeps failing, but the truth is it keeps failing because working families like mine have had enough. A no vote on November 3rd is a yes vote for keeping Beaver Creek affordable for working families. Thank you. Thank you.

Anyone else? Seeing none, I will close the citizen comments. Open it up to council time. Councilman Bills. Your time's up.

Yeah, there you go. I was going to say, in the interest of letting everyone go home and get some dinner, I would just like to say that the Memorial Day thing, it's already been mentioned, fantastic job. It was beautiful. Everyone who participated was thoughtful, meaningful. I greatly enjoyed it. So thank you.

uh kuduz to you mayor and parks department what a wonderful wonderful ceremony very moving speaker was great and weather for weather was wonderful but it was great to be there thank you thank you councilman literal let me read these now these anniversaries okay

All right. I'm going to read the anniversaries for the city employees. Um, we have three police, Heather Jolly, 23 years, faith Lambert, 28, Doug set. Oh, no, I'm sorry. He's in parks. Doug Settner. He's got 26 years of parks. We have three public service. Zach French, two years, Mark, the deets, deets, four years, and Robbie Maxwell 11. And rounding it out is Hannah Remy for the engineering department three years. Thanks, everybody, who's serving for the city and thank you to all the citizens who came out. Friendly or unfriendly or Distraught or angry, it's all good. Need to hear what you have to say. It's what drives us, what gives us the information we need to move forward on any topic that comes before us, and I appreciate it. I do want to just bring up one point of something that went on for me that thank you mayor for the Memorial Day service excellent MC job and all the parks for their job out there everything looks fantastic the I I was at the executive meeting at the miami valley regional planning commission and one of the issues that came up and i just want to make everybody aware of it is that the the issue with ai in cities and i haven't we haven't had a discussion a formal discussion at anything like this and i was able to obtain a uh a sample workable ai policy that i'll forward to the city to maybe consider implementing into our current policies and i'm going to keep it at that thank you everybody thank you thank you councilman bales thank you mayor i echo the comments memorial day ceremony was fantastic yesterday and i appreciate you and the staff for putting it together i'd also like to thank um

Kelly for coming out for scleroderma month. That means a lot to me. One of my former work colleagues suffers from scleroderma and she's a real trooper through it all and so I'm glad that we do that every year. the last thing i'll do is just a point of clarification because after the last work session i had a couple of comments which i asked the city manager and city engineer to look into specifically with regards to some maybe misconceptions about homeowner responsibility for the maintenance of shared use paths over five feet and so i asked for some clarity and i did get a response and it is in our sidewalk policy sidewalks that are five feet and smaller are the responsibility of the homeowners to maintain property owners to maintain whereas side you shared youth pass and side pass larger than five feet are city funded so i just wanted to share that response that i got from the city manager after our last work session so that's all i have have i called on you councilman did i okay it's been a long night councilman doerr

Thank you, Mayor, and thank you to everyone who came out tonight and for sharing your views. Please pass along my thanks to Colonel Muha for this very moving speech at the Memorial Day. In the interest of time, I'll keep it brief, but I'm doing a number of public speeches speeches across the city and alongside yourself and Councilman Bales we had the opportunity to do the DC fly-in which was very instructive and we'll chat more about that and I also want to bring up just it's been seven years since the memorial day tornado in 2019 and i haven't forgotten that and the neighborhoods impacted um i'll leave it there ma'am thank you vice mayor upton

thank you mr mayor i'd also like to thank everyone that came out tonight and shared their viewpoints with us um just to keep it brief i had the opportunity to participate in the one ohio board meeting it's the committee that i'm appointed to they the committee elected a new chair julie iman from district 15. so look forward to working with her um green county commissioner sarah mays is on our commit on the committee of OneOhio for grant fund application reviews. So while I'm not on that committee with her, I'll be talking with her about the various grants and just giving her feedback on it as a board member. I'll report more as I know more.

Thank you very much. Thank you. I have five pages of stuff here, but I'm not going to read it. It'll be in the minutes. So we won't go through that. We'll just let that go. But thank you all for being here tonight. We really appreciate it. Appreciate your input. It's always good to hear from from our residents. So thank you for that. At that I'll give it to Mr. Landrum.

Yes, just real brief. We have Citizens Academy registration that is open. This is in-person classes Thursday, August 20th through October 8th, 6 to 8 p.m. It's free and open to Beaver Creek residents. Limited spots are available. We're going to hold this open unless it's not filled, but so far it's been filled every year. So hurry up by June 1st. You can register on beavercreekohio.gov slash academy. Community conversations, the next one is Thursday, June 11th, 12 to 1 p.m. at Lufino Plaza. Beaver Creek Council will be there. At least three members will be there and share ideas about city project services. Everyone is welcome. Fourth of July parade registration. This is coming up. Believe it or not, the deadline is going to be pretty soon, but we haven't announced a deadline yet for it. But as far as being in the parade, get your applications in to participate. Team groups, a whole bunch of people in different organizations always march in the parade. But visit beavercreekohio.gov slash fourth of July to get your parade registration. and summer entertainment series is ready to begin soon sunday june 21st 6 30 to 8 30 p.m at dominic lofino park join us and kick off the summer with a sunday concert with band 5 singing along to your favorites you love throwbacks you forgot new tunes you'll want on repeat this year's series is a little different than there has been in the past it will feature six free lively events packed with music dancing and community fun grab your friends explore venues across beaver creek and enjoy local entertainment all season long. And that's all I have tonight.

Thank you very much. Councilman Curran. Move to adjourn, Your Honor.

Second.

I have a motion and a second to adjourn. All those in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. We are adjourned.