Zoning Commission - Regular Meeting

Thank you Yeah. Yeah.

This July 29th, 2026 meeting of the Union Township Zoning Commission is now called to order. Please rise for the Pledge of Allegiance.

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

Thank you. Mr. Flaude, will you call roll, please?

Yes, sir. Mr. Campbell? Yes. Mr. Lewis? Yes. Mr. Toth? Mr. Wing? Yes. Mr. Beckman? Yes. And Mr. Onerlaw?

Yes.

We have quorum.

Thank you, Mr. Flaude. First action on tonight's agenda is action on the minutes. Do I... Chair solicits a motion to approve the June 24th, 2026 meeting minutes.

I'll make that motion.

Well, someone actually has to say the word second.

Second.

I've regularly made and seconded a motion. The motion by Mr. Wing, the second by Mr. Lewis. If you'd call the question, Mr. Flouty.

Mr. Campbell. Yes. Mr. Wing? Yes. Mr. Beckman? Yes. Mr. Honorlaw? Yes. And Mr. Lewis?

Yes. Motion carries. Minutes are approved. Circulated. My agenda indicates that we have no returning old business to come before the commission. That is correct. Therefore, I will move to new business. But before I do that, Mr. Lewis, if you'd read an opening statement, please.

I'm going to read a statement that outlines the proceedings tonight, how these proceedings go for anybody that has never been in a meeting. This will help understand how the flow is. Prior to hearing the cases this evening, I want to provide a brief overview about the process. When a case is called, we will hear from the applicant or their representative first. The Commission reserves the right to question the applicant at any time. After the applicant's presentation, we will open the floor to anyone else who wishes to speak in support of the proposal. Then we will open the floor to those wishing to speak against the proposal. Those wishing to speak must fill out and provide us with a speaker registration form. All speakers must speak at the podium and into the microphone for recording purposes. Each speaker must identify themselves for the record. The Commission reserves the right to ask questions of persons speaking against the proposal. The expectation is for speakers and observers to maintain the professional decorum of this meeting at all times. We understand that individuals are often passionate regarding their positions and preferences. However, this meeting cannot properly function if it becomes unruly. We ask that all speakers be conscious of the time and that speakers be concise and avoid making repetitive statements. Once those in opposition to the proposal have spoken, the case will be closed for public comment. Discussion at that time is limited to the Commission, although the Commission may ask questions of zoning staff, the applicant, or those in opposition. After discussion... We will call for a motion from the Commission. This motion requires a second. After that, the motion itself is open to discussion. A vote will be called and action taken on the motion. When a motion receives a majority vote, the Commission issues its recommendation to the Board of Trustees in accordance with the wording The motion our options are to recommend approval of the requested change Approval of the requested change with some modifications or denial of the requested change The purpose of the motion is to make a recommendation to the Board of Trustees regarding the case The authority to grant an applicant zoning request or to deny an applicant zoning request rests with the Board of Trustees This this case will be heard at the next meeting of the trustees, which is scheduled for mr. Flaherty. I

August 11th.

August 11th.

At 6 p.m. It starts at 6 p.m.

In this room.

Yep.

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Lewis. We have one case before us tonight, which is case number 4-26-Z, applicant Maddox Development Co. Applicant is requesting that two parcels located at 4643 Shepherd Road, totaling approximately 4.77 acres, be rezoned from R2 single-family detached residential to R4 single-family variable residential to allow for a proposed concept plan subdivision. Ms. Flaude, can you provide a case summary, please?

Yes. Thank you, Mr. Campbell. The location of the subject property lies south of the intersection at Shepherd Road and Shepherd Woods Court. The proposed subdivision to be called Bishop's Grove Subdivision would be located adjacent to Willowbrook and Shepherd Woods Subdivisions. There are two parcels in question tonight, one ending in 004, the other ending in 011. Some current land uses in the general vicinity consist of residential uses with the exception to institutional uses such as the church across the street and then the Crocker Auto parts to the west. With the relation to the 2030 Horizon Plan, It indicates that the proposed development is not located within a designated corridor. However, the use itself is instrumental and supportive to the underlying single-family residential character of the township. Moreover, the R4 district allows for more creative designs, yielding the greatest green space and retaining vegetation compared to the traditional zoning. Furthermore, adjacently in characteristics, mirror the proposed development at proportional smaller scale at higher density. Single family residential development goals stated within the plan documents call for a targeted density up to four units per acre. This proposal has a gross density of 3.77 units an acre. Some background information, the subject property is located within the R2 single family residential district and it has been used for both agricultural and or residential uses since the institution of zoning in 1959. The principal structure was built in 1937 and has several nonconformities. In addition, these properties have been in violation of multiple zoning regulations twice in the recent past, with these issues being addressed and resolved by the zoning inspector. Some staff review and analysis. The proposal yields that the proposed map amendment and conceptual development plan are consistent with both the R4 regulations and adopted single land use code recommendations of the 2030 Horizon Plan. The total proposal would be for 18 building lots with an average lot width of 50 feet at the setback lot line with the average depth of 100 feet and approximately 3.77 units an acre. Compared to the traditional R2 zoning, if that were to occur, they would be permitted 20 homes. And with the R4, they're requesting 18 altogether. In addition, they have some open space and amenities with four additional lots to total 1.39 acres or 29.2% of the site. Located within that, there's proposal for privacy requirements. landscaping mounds of 36 inches with pine trees to be planted on top a greater presence of decorative screening and landscaping should be provided on the shepherd road right-of-way to eliminate the ingress egress in the glare coming from the additional headlights the existing tree canopy should be labeled as preserved or applicable and a sidewalk connection should be considered along bishops grove lane to shepherd's road to stay consistent with the 2030 horizon plan goals Some lot configuration and orientation. The staff commented that a minimum front setback would be beneficial for enforcement purposes of 25 feet and an established rear yard setback. Additionally, a signage package should be submitted for the proposed monument style sign in accordance with Article 6, Section 656.2 of the zoning resolution. The action tonight is in accordance with section 400 through 413 and 650 through 659 of the zoning resolution. The zoning commission is to enter a motion to approve as submitted approval with modifications or denial of this zoning map amendment. IN RELATION TO ZONING CASE 4-26-Z. SOME RECOMMENDED MODIFICATIONS SHOULD THE BOARD GRANT IN FAVOR OF THIS ZONING MAP AMENDMENT. ONE, THE APPLICANT SHALL COMPLY WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF ALL FEDERAL, STATE AND LOCAL REGULATORY AGENCIES HAVING JURISDICTION OVER THEIR PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT. A sidewalk connection shall be installed along Bishop's Grove Lane to Shepherd Road to be consistent with the Verizon 2030 land use plan. The proposed 36-foot high landscape mound shall be installed along the rear lines of lots number 12 and 13. With greater screening, landscaping shall be provided along the Shepherd Road right-of-ways in close proximity to the subdivision's main access ingress egress. with the final landscaping plan being subject to administrative review and approval. Number four, to ensure consistent setback regulations, the minimum front yard setbacks and rear yard setbacks shall be established to make use of cohesive zoning enforcement. Five, a complete signage package shall be submitted for the monument-style signage, which will be placed out front of the neighborhood, subject to administrative review and approval. Number six, a lining plan shall be submitted in accordance with Article 14 of the zoning resolution. And lastly, the final drawings and plans must be submitted in accordance with Article 6, Section 656 of the zoning resolution. And that concludes the report.

Thank you, Mr. Fleming. I'll now call on the applicant or their representative to speak. Mr. Gibbs?

Yes, that's me. Okay. I'll apologize if our engineer is out of the country. The guy who drew this up, his name is Carl Hartman. So I will be speaking on his behalf and answering any of your questions that you have. I'm Tyler Gibbs. I'm with Maddox Development. We're located at 4026 Buckston Road, Batavia, Ohio, 45103. I am also, not only do I own Maddox Development, but I'm also local to this area. I no longer live in Union Township, but I grew up in Union Township, went to Glenski High School, and go to church at First Baptist Church of Glenski, which is close to this development. And I have several friends that live down Shepherd Road and Shepherd Woods Court. So when this property came up as an opportunity to buy, we did some studies on it and what we felt was best there. Our initial thought was actually to do patio homes, more of a multifamily style. I came to several trustee meetings to kind of get the feel for where the township is with that kind of style. We've got the feel that a single family product would be a better fit for this. So I had Carl Hartman draw this up. Like Craig said, we're below the density for R4. We technically allowed 20 lots. We kept it at 18 with plenty of green space to respect all the neighbors all the way around with plenty of tree buffer that we don't plan on touching. As you can see along the backside and all sides, there's one retention pond and one detention pond. We have a gazebo area central to the two streets. I'm sorry, there's three. And then a monument sign out front. And so I think that Carl came up with a really good plan for what's currently, you know, with the shape of the lot with some what he would call curvilinear streets where there's not any straight streets. It all kind of curves into there and which will have a really appealing look to it. I think that's all that I have right now unless you guys have questions for me.

Members of the Commission, any questions?

I've got a couple questions. I'm showing, looks like there's three water management ponds. Is that correct? That's impressive. That's a lot. And it looks like if this were developed as an R2, this has a significantly less impervious surface than a traditional cookie cutter R2 subdivision. space. There's a lot of green space. What is it, Mr. Flaude, over 20%?

Yeah, it was close to 30. I think it was 29.2. 29. That's impressive.

I just wanted to clarify that those three ponds, that's significant water management. All right, thank you. Anyone? Yes. Yes, if I may. Mr. Flaude.

Looking over the plans, is there any possibility that this project would be viable without parcel 13 and the proposed detention bases?

Remind me, I don't have it in front of me. Is that that? I figured it would be that right there you're asking about. It's a possibility. It comes down. So we, we are, we do have a verbal intent letter of intent from a, one of the builders around here. Um, and so it just, it comes down to what they're going to pay per lot. If they remove one and pay a little more per, you know, per lobby, we would, we would be open to that. Um, They seem interested in having 18 lots.

Right, I look at that and I see that 13 is awful small. It says 14. 13 is a panhandle lot. Panhandle lots and tight spaces. 14 could be made bigger, moved up a little bit, and maybe even 12 could be moved up a little bit. Okay, that was my question.

Thank you, Mr. Reckman. Anyone else? Okay. All right, thank you. I have a feeling we may call on you additionally as we go on. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Gibbs. Is there anyone else present who would like to speak in favor of this development? Yes, sir.

So as a matter of, pardon me, a matter of introduction, my name is David Lamb. I am the son of one of the six siblings that inherited the property, the only surviving sibling. So we are, I, I can't say I represent all of the potential sellers, but, um, speaking on behalf of those wanting to sell the property, uh, want to recognize, we know that property is in poor condition. Um, The house itself sadly is, you know, not in good shape. So the family has been working through probate for a number of years, actively trying to correct this situation for the best of the community and make this a presentable property. We know we are aware of the condition of the property. So looking to promote that. The tonight's the first night I've seen the drawings of the proposed houses. So my initial reaction was those look consistent with what's up and down shepherd road today, fairly consistent with what's in the neighboring neighborhoods. So not, you know, it doesn't look like it's anything that's going to stand out or stick out as a sore thumb. Um, Like I said, there's already subdivisions in the area on Shepherd Road, so you've already got significant housing communities. This isn't adding a great number to it. I guess I want to caution the committee against the objections. I had hoped to speak in response to the objections, but going first, worried that objections may be based on speculation and personal preference and not necessarily on fact, so... Just want to kind of caution against that. And just want to make point of, I know there was a petition submitted tonight with signatures. Just want to call the fact that the petitioner is one of the competing bidders on the property, and that may be a mechanism for trying to keep the sale open. So I just want that noted as a consideration with that all. Okay.

Thank you, Mr. Olin. Is there anyone else wishing to speak in favor of this petition? proposal hearing none uh... for those wishing to speak tonight there are these uh... zoning commission testimony sheets in the back of the room uh... i've got a number that were submitted before the meeting started someone call these in the order in which i received them but if you decide after we've hit the end of these that you would like to speak if you just stand up and walked in hand me the sheet and then walk back to the podium we can go about it that way So the first one I received, not from the developer, Richard Crocker.

Hello.

Hi.

My name is Richard Crocker. I live at 4630 Shepherd Road. The reason for me speaking, it's too many houses for such a small piece of land. By the time they put in their blacktop and their detention ponds, we're working on 3.7. How do you put 18 houses in 3.7 on eighth-acre lots? It's just too many houses for us. Is there traffic? Yeah, you're talking 60, 70 cars more on Shepherd Road. Shepherd Road is a one-way street, a one-lane street, passable. They don't have no stripes or lines. It's tight. I mean, I drive up and down the road all the time on the big trucks. I've got to stop and let people get through it. So it's tight. There's going to be, I don't know, 70-plus people living there. Is it going to impact us? Yes, it's going to impact. My daughter lives right next to the project. It's just too many houses. Now, I ask a question. On the R2, what acreage can they build on? Half acre?

Quarter acre, 20 homes. That's where there's some confusion here. This is being proposed at a lower density than could be developed if they just came in, clear cut it, made it R2. This is a lower density, plus a lot of green space is being maintained. So this is a lower density than what it's currently zoned for.

So R2, you can put them on quarter acre.

Quarter acre, correct. 20,000.

Well, they're wanting to put them on eighth acre.

Because what happens in an R4 is to get all the green space, the market out there, people want to have less yard footprint to maintain. They want a homeowners association to maintain common space. And so they make a little bit smaller homes, and they put them on a smaller lot. And then what would normally be part of the R2 lot now goes to community green space surrounding the entire development. ponds, designated green areas, gazebos. So you're dealing with smaller lots in order to have that extra green space.

I mean that's less green space.

I'm sorry?

That's less green space.

No, you have more green space with the R4 than you would with an R2. R2, there would be none of this green space.

So this border on the back of the property near Willowbrook,

That would just be the backyard of the house instead of that board.

That's for the telephone pole for Duke to get to their power lines for Willowbrook. That's what that's for.

That's still an easement, though, and your yard goes into that. I've got a huge power line running right through it.

I understand the yard goes into it, but it has to be like that. Willowbrook has that problem now for Duke to get in there.

Right.

That still doesn't change the fact, though, that you're going. They could right now, without coming to the board, could do 20 homes in there.

20 homes on R2.

Correct.

And they're wanting to do 18.

Correct. Yes.

Well, how come I had to have a half acre to build my house? And my son just built, he had to have half an acre.

If you're an R2, you didn't have to have a half acre. R1 is half acre. R2 is quarter acre.

I just can't see this many houses on a dead-end street. I'm just confused on how you could even put 20, even let alone let 18, on a dead-end road. I mean, Jesus, it's even a blind spot if you ever travel Shepherd Road.

Developers can do it. They do it all the time. We just are trying to discourage it.

So what you're saying is no matter what, if he wants to build the 20 houses, we can't stop it.

Correct.

So the 18 is the minimum.

That's an alternative.

Well, why do we have to change the zoning then? Why do we have to change the zoning from R2 to R4?

Because with R4, they don't have to abide by the cookie-cutter layout of the R2. They can be more creative. They can create retention for three water management ponds. They can create common open space that's managed by the HOA. They can't do that in a traditional subdivision.

So they're worried about water runoff.

Everybody's always worried about water runoff. They're managing it. That's the number one thing we hear. The R2, you don't get that kind of management. With the R4, you get very comprehensive water management.

I think we wasted our time. How's that? We wasted our time. You said he could put in 20 houses, and he's only asking for 18. We wasted our time. I got 125 signatures from the people up and down Sherbrooke Road and Willowbrook and everywhere. went to 30 hours to do this.

Well, I don't know how you derived or didn't have the information. Did you come up here?

I thought it had to be half acre lots or even a quarter acre lot.

Quarter acre lot. And if you divide this out, you can get 20 quarter acre lots. With everything being cleared, all the green space goes away, the ponds go away.

So with the blacktop and the detention ponds, you can get quarter acre lots.

Correct.

How many houses is that?

20.

Well, how come you've got 18 houses on eighth-acre lots? Somebody ain't doing the math right.

I don't follow you. With the green space, if you add the green space back in, which is not... You can't build underneath the Duke line.

You could have yard underneath the Duke line. You could have yard under the Duke line. Okay, well, you got that. That would be part of that. That would be part of the half-acre lot.

So I am still confused on how you're getting 20 houses on quarter-acre lots when you've got 18 houses on eighth-acre lots. I'd like somebody to draw that out a little differently for me and show me that.

It's the green space. The 18 lots, all the space that would have been for the 20 lots is now in green space that's managed by a homeowner's association.

This is driveway, garage, and a little bit of grass.

Yep.

Driveway, garage, a little bit of grass. eighth acre lots. The first one on the left, as you turn in, that's a quarter acre.

The whole perimeter is surrounded with green space. The whole perimeter is green space. There are lots dedicated, big triangular lots dedicated to green space. The ponds are all on green space. The gazebo area in the very center is all green space.

20 by 30? 20 feet by 30 feet gazebo?

45 feet by 31 feet by 40 feet. Where are you getting 20 by 30?

I missed it by 20 feet. Even the back of those houses are going to face Shepherd Road. Why do we have to look at that? The back fence of those two houses to the far, I think that's a lot. What is that lot?

It seems to me that you're making arguments because you're upset that you went after something that you were mistaken about.

No, I'm not mad about that. I went up and down the street and talked to everybody else on the street. I got 125 signatures submitted to you for that, for the reason of everybody else.

It sounds like you gave them wrong information. This is not a higher density than an R2 would be developed in.

Well, I'm still confused on your quarter acre dream of more houses. when you've got it on eighth acre lots and less houses.

Yeah, we're going around in circles here. We've had this.

My time has been wasted. And it has nothing to do with me making an offer on the place. I went to everybody on the street and talked to them. They all agree 18 houses is too much for a dead end street and traffic, people, everything. Delivery trucks, garbage trucks, everything. It's a dead-end road. It ain't like they got, when they come out of there, they got one way in and one way out. And Shepherd Road ain't friendly as far as traffic that's peeled down. It's difficult to get in and out. So there is a traffic thing. It's all of it. There's too many houses for 3.7. There's too many. I don't know where this came from, an eighth-acre lot to build houses on. I don't know where I've been. That's all I've got to say.

Thank you. Justin Burch.

Good evening. Good evening. My whole speech has pretty much been blown up here. In defense of Mr. Crocker, my wife and I had called and spoke to a young man, now at this point I wish I would have gotten his name, but we called Union Township and was speaking to him about The proposal between R2 to R4, it was the person that once we called, he answered the phone. That's all I can tell you. He informed my wife and I that R2 could only go up to 15 homes. And again, Mr. Crocker's offense, that was information that he didn't tell me. That is information that my wife and I went out and then collected from Union Township. So with that being said, a lot of my speech here has been completely ruined because there was some misinformation being flown around. But what our concern has, we live at 997 Shepherd Woods Court. And currently, there is that three-foot berm, the 36-inch berm that's going to go around. We will be affected by that. Currently, there's a bunch of trees. There's a lot of vegetation. And we have a lot of privacy there. We love looking at it. We love seeing the wildlife, all the things that's going on. Our main concern is, will this have an HOA? And if it doesn't, who is going to maintain this berm for years to come? On the opposite side of the street on Shepherd Woods Court, there is a berm that goes about halfway down is where it begins, and it continues on down into the cul-de-sac. It's just bare. There's nothing there. That is up for the property owners to take care of. but the developer at the time, I'm not sure what they had to agree to. So our main concern is, I heard pine trees that are gonna go in there. Will they provide enough privacy? And who's going to maintain that landscaping? So that is, that's really about all the concern that I have then.

Thank you. Yes, so part of staff's recommendations that if we were to move forward and approve the zoning change would include a 36-inch high landscape mound installed along the rear property lines, lots number 12 through 13. And let's see, we had, I believe they're already calling for Pine trees. Mr. Flaude, do you have that in front of you in the staff report?

Yeah, so if you look at the site plan, I know it's hard to see, it's all white, but the landscaping berm, if you follow my mouse, it goes down through here, over through here, and then it kicks back up over here, and it goes down and around this way. Um, and the applicant has intended that they would be, there's going to be an HOA and that's who would maintain the landscaping, do the mowing, maintain the pine trees. And then at the end of the day, Most new properties like this have to form an HOA due to these detention-retention ponds. You pay into that to maintain. If there was cactails growing them, you've got to clean them out. So the homeowners pay into that to take care of all the common ground. Yeah, open space, as some people call it.

And Mr. Flanagan, just to confirm with you and staff, analyze this property between R2 and R4 and the number for viable units under R2 zoning as it exists is 20.

The minimum square footage within the R2 district is 10,000 square feet. the minimum for an R1 is 20,000 square feet. Now, without having the zoning map in front of me, I'm assuming that the properties across the street are most likely R1, so they're more of that larger zoning classification. But if you would take the acreage, I think we said it was 4.77, and divide it by the 10,000 square foot, that leaves you at a maximum of 20. 20 homes that could go in sitting at r2 just the straight math it would be the total acreage divided by the permitted 10 000 gives you the 20 lots within the r2 district understood it's kind of how that math works yeah thank you for the explanation mr flattie we appreciate that

um and these and if i remember from staff report in your presentation it's these parcels have been zoned r2 since 1959 correct yes and i will say too um you know with with some of the confusion of how you can get smaller lots

with the same amount of acreage. You also have to remember when you do the smaller lots, you're taking up less road space in utilities. So that's one of the main reasons why the developer would go forward with choosing to do a zone change would be for the sheer fact of infrastructure costs continue to climb. So they have to build less road. It's less roads for us to maintain. And then additionally, um really this product is what is has been pretty standard as as you guys know as to what people have been purchasing and building as of lately thank you mr flanagan may i make one other point um it was just brought to my attention uh that

West Claremont School District, they've changed the busing routes for Shepherdwood Court. Now it's going to be going up to, is that Blackberry? Timberlake. So now with the proposed new 18 houses, again, as Mr. Crocker stated, you're probably looking at an additional 36 cars on the street with children walking up there to catch the bus. Is there anything that has been discussed or looked at to install some sidewalks or mitigate some of that sort of thing?

Part of the recommendation is they do have to sidewalk this development, and it'll go to the edges of their property. Now, as far as continuing on through the Holmes Pass, it's not already there. Right now, that's a homeowner issue. The township cannot force you to put sidewalks in at this time. But this will be sidewalked.

Sure. It's consistent with the Horizon 2030 plan. Essentially, any new development, we are requiring the developer to put in sidewalks so that as sidewalks continue to get added or if there's grant funding or something, we can continue to connect parts of the township. But we're essentially, for this zoning, we're making developers do it in the hopes that there will be greater extensions of sidewalks.

Understood. Awesome. Thank you.

Thank you. Cindy Crocker Clark. Thank you, ma'am. Jeffrey Bond.

Good evening, gentlemen.

Good evening.

My wife and I bought our house approximately 12 years ago. We have around a half an acre at 4634 Shepherd. The vast majority of the houses around us and on down Shepherd Road have approximately the same size yards. Your proposal, while legal, wouldn't necessarily fit in our neighborhood. It wouldn't be as attractive.

You're not going to see it unless you go in there.

That's not. May I finish?

Sure, go ahead.

The additional traffic, as was brought up before, is another concern. Now, not only school children, we have bicyclers, we have people walking dogs, we have children on scooters, playing in yards. You're talking about a potential of 60 more vehicles. and you may balk at that number, but you have two or three teenage children that have cars, plus you too have a car, that's five in one house. We have a street that's 35 miles an hour, which probably should be 25 to begin with. It's a dead-end road. It's narrow. It can be concerning pulling out of a driveway. my wife and I back in just to make sure because some of these people at 35 drive 50. I would be in support of considerably fewer houses, nine, eight with lots larger that would still allow green space area depending on what the developer wanted to do. You wouldn't necessarily have to have a double road. You could have a single road to a cul-de-sac, a single road to a curve to a cul-de-sac, and still have the retention ponds and still have the green space. Not only that, but our neighborhood is reasonably quiet. You go out at night, you can hear the katydids, you can hear the frogs, you can hear the crickets. There's not an extreme amount of density and light So you can actually see stars. One of the main reasons my wife and I bought the house we bought was because of the location. It's not dense packed. Let's face it, guys, we live in Glen Esty. We don't live in Norwood. They built the houses in Norwood the way they did because it was to support the manufacturing and gave the workers a place to live. But we don't have that. We don't need that here. Now, I understand the developer wants to develop as much as they can, and I understand the investment. However, it is my opinion that to do what they planned would detract from the neighborhoods that we live in. That's the best I can say. Thank you for your time.

Thank you. Todd Grogan. Hello, sir.

Hi. I got a couple questions. First for Mr. Flack.

Mr. Flowdy.

For one, you said $10,000. 10,000 square feet was a quarter acre.

I didn't say that. I said the minimum requirement for an R2 is 10,000 square feet.

I made the quarter acre reference. It's not exact.

It's 10,890 square feet. Yeah. Right.

So the R2 is less than a quarter acre.

Second of all, I don't know who said it, but you said 4.77 acres? uh... that's staff reports the size combined parcels to okay well according to the auditors report three point six nine and one acre so that the four point six nine so you got that out of scale that's not correct four point seven is correct i'm checking with the auditor and then Going through the zoning commission laws, it says the zoning cannot be changed since 1999. That was in your regulation at the library today.

Ohio Revised Code allows for planned developments in both R4 and PD as business and residential. That's an Ohio law now. So what you read is maybe out of date, possibly.

Well, it was in the library today. So that leaves me one question. If we can build on acre lots, Right? That means I can put 16 houses on my property.

On my two acres.

Why not?

You have to still maintain the density of the original zoning. So the original zoning is in this large 4.7 acre area is R2. So you have to try to maintain that same overall density. You can make a bunch of green space and you can make several.

No, I own two acres. So that's 16 houses.

Okay, so you'd have to have a subdivision permit. You'd have to go to the county and do a subdivide on it.

Okay, so I can put 16 houses on my property.

You'd have to go through the rezoning process. Rezoning process.

According to this, you can't rezone since 1999.

Sir, I don't know where that information is coming from. Rezoning happens all the time. I'll get a copy of it. I'll print it out tomorrow. That's fine. You can submit it to staff. But rezoning, if we couldn't rezone from 1999, there would never be rezoning. And again, if we don't rezone, if we don't grant this request, it is still zoned R2. They can still build on it. They could build more units than what they're requesting to build on. So if we really can't rezone, then the developer can still build on this parcel, these parcels.

Okay, so I'm getting my phone.

Would anyone else like to speak? Mr. Bergen was the last, ma'am.

Thank you.

And hello, my name is Tonya butts Hamilton. I live at 4733 shepherd road, Batavia, Ohio. And, um, you guys answered a lot of my questions, just listening to what you said. Um, I was under the misconception that we were going from half acre lots to simply allowing eighth acres. And some of them were even less than eight acre in his proposed building plan. What the actual change was going to be was from R2 to R4. But you had to maintain the same density. So that meant the same population of people going in there. My concern was there are all the other green spaces going on back Shepherd Road, many of which flank the Cincinnati Nature Center. The neighbor behind me has 12 acres that may be coming up for sale not too distant future. So of course I'm concerned when I heard that if I'm gonna get this humongous development going in behind me, and of course I'm not gonna want that, plus I was concerned with how that would affect the Cincinnati Nature Center. I got a story about, he was the Claremont County treasurer, but he had a client who had an acre that sloped off, and he had represented them to the Nature Center, and they said that anything that prevented future development also helped to prevent groundwater contamination for them. And that didn't come from me that came from Bob. And so I had concerns about that. So I reached out to the nature center to let them know about this meeting tonight as well. And my question is, if you rule on this, changing it from an R2 to an R4, does that then set a precedence for all the other developments potentially going in? Or is it only that one parcel? It's just that one parcel.

They've submitted a plan.

So that basically answered my question. So when it comes up that that one becomes available for sale, it will also have to be presented to you, and the whole cycle goes again. Okay, my only other thing that I was somewhat angry about for tonight was I didn't receive a letter of notification, and I live on Shepherd Road. Our family's owned the property there for over 80 years, and, I mean, why not? It could potentially, because if you do this and you allow this change, does that make it easier for other developers when they request in the future that they could get it changed. That doesn't influence that decision in any way?

That's a case-by-case basis. It should be each parcel by parcel.

Okay, well, that was my concern. You can see why I would be worrisome about that.

If you didn't get a letter, you may be beyond. Are you not adjacent to this development? You may be – there's a linear amount of distance that they have to be in order to be notified.

Okay, then I was back further, back shepherd than what it required. Because I said, you know, either it was an oversight or a – Yeah, I did see.

We've got a list of all.

I saw the list and I didn't know why my name wasn't on it or why I didn't receive notification.

You're probably outside.

And I, you know, because I kind of researched Maddox, which is also He's currently petitioning for another zoning change on Beachmont Avenue because the $500,000 he just spent for an office over there on Buck Buxton with his 50 employees is not large enough. So he's moving on to, you know, so he's got a history of petitioning for zoning with his developments. So that was, you know, and so I was just wondering, you know, if I didn't get notified, was it, you know. Somebody being sneaky, did something get lost in the mail, or was it an oversight, or was it neglect on somebody's part? But it sounds to me like I was too far back the road, so therefore I don't. Seems like that should be changed. I mean, I live on the same road.

You're at the meeting, so notice didn't go around.

If they hadn't brought the petition around for me to sign, I wouldn't have known about it. If I had been on vacation that week, it would have went on without me having any, and I think I had the right to be notified, but that's basically all I got to say about it, okay? All right, thanks.

Thank you. Would anyone else like to speak? Yes, sir.

Can I have your sheet, please? I didn't fill out a sheet.

Okay. Yes, please. I'll let you speak, but you have to bring it back up.

So how many houses are you guys going to allow on that little street? Is that the goal, to fill up every square acre, every little bit of acre? or is there supposed to be a little bit of room left over to make it a livable, nice place? There is a difference. I mean, you can fill everything up.

Let me try to address this. We can't tell you what's going to happen tomorrow or the next day. We've all come down to one particular situation. But realistically, my parents moved here in 1959 at the Somerset School. And the cornfields I used to play in are no longer there. My guess would be the most developed land will be sometime in the future. Most of it, nobody can stop it as long as it's within the zoning. Sometimes a thinner density or a more dense area can be developed better. And that's what most of these members up here are trying to tell you. R4 sometimes is better than R2. It keeps some green space. I saw a lot of open space in that property that Jim was talking about. Someday that space is going to be developed. Now what happens is the roadways right now that are very narrow, The political jurisdiction that has authority over that roadway will have to make a decision to widen it at some point. And that's why you've got 32. We didn't have 32 50 years ago because people didn't know you were going to have the population in Union Township you now have. So roads come after development. Let's just wait for it.

So you're going to be widely retaking my front yard, basically.

That's right. I was involved in the widening of Montgomery Road in Hamilton County between Montgomery and Warren County, way back under my prior job. And that was only two lanes up until 2005. And now it's four and almost five lanes. And it's still crowded because people are moving in outside. You're going to have development. Anytime you're in a big city area, it's going to be developed.

This is big city?

We can't put, well, Cincinnati is.

This is tired shit. This is not big city. Montgomery Road is a huge area over that way.

You're going to have to get the side effects of it. Most of it you can't stop. We can make it done well.

So put all those houses on that little bit of land is doing well? Those are half the size of Willowbrook's land there. It's half the size of those sizes over there.

They're not that much smaller than New York.

Quarter to an eighth. That's half.

Pardon?

A quarter of an acre to an eighth of an acre is half.

I don't think some of those properties on the backside are 70 feet by 130, if I remember.

Are they a quarter acre or not?

No, that's not. That's a quarter acre. This is not quite a quarter acre. So an acre is not much different than a quarter of an acre?

If you add in the green space, you're up to a quarter acre. If you take all the green space that's been set aside and divide it up and add it to all those eighth acres, they become a quarter acre. They become 10,000 square feet. That's what people aren't seeing. There's all this green space that's been preserved. But if you chop it all up and add it to the eighth acre, well, that becomes now a 10,000 square foot lot.

People have actual yards at that point. Now they won't have actual yards.

They don't want yards.

That I can't really comment on.

How do you know that? All the realtors report it. Everything we see, what people are buying, we're constantly getting updates on what the market is. And people don't want to maintain yards anymore. These developments go in, they get gobbled up right away. You don't own the property.

You don't own the property.

I made that movement. I was the one that did that. Would you let me finish now, please? That was done illegally. There is a federal decree on that property that said they cannot put multifamily in. That's what I fought. They can put 575 single-family homes over there right now. That's what the federal courts allowed. That's how far we took it, was federal court.

That's not fair.

It's not fair, but it's why I'm on this board, to try to protect what I can. So our job is not to use our opinions. Our job is to look at the law, look at the resolutions, look at all the stuff that is laid out in front of us, and make sure that everything is copacetic. The people who can use their opinion and their bias are your trustees. But we have to push it through based on what's legal. So there's a big difference there. What I did over on Miller Place, which was at the Rocky Road thing was, we spent almost two and a half years fighting that over $200,000 for something that was ruled illegal.

How many acres was that?

271. 271 acres from the suburbs.

That was going to be a subdivision, correct? If we're going to talk back and forth, we're going to need... Yeah, okay, so how do we consider this a subdivision?

18 houses on 3.7. Okay, we're straying off of this, and I understand that tempers are firing and people are heated, so if we can try to calm down.

I think I'll say it when you can hear me, but you can't hear me.

You have the first podium. And you had your opportunity to speak. So I'm calling on whoever would like to speak next. Ma'am.

Thank you.

My name is Linda Wilson, and I own the house at 4640 Shepherd Road. which is directly across from the planned development. And what I really have is a question. Is the entrance, it doesn't show the houses on the street, so I can't tell if the entrance is going to be right across from my house, like is every car that comes out of that development going to go through my, or the lights going to go through the windows?

So, Mr. Flaundy, do you have a better...

Let me see if I can do that.

46, 40, 46, 40. It's right across the road. Right. Right. I don't know if it's not in there, but see where the entrance is. It's right there. Yes. Yes.

So there's an island in the middle of this. If you see where the cursor is, there's a small, it would be a landscaping island. So cars will be turning in left or right down through here, and then they'll split and they'll go left or right, right down through here.

So do you have the plots? Like, can you tell, is that directly across from my house?

This one's Crocker.

No, no, 4729 is where I, that's where I live, but I own 4640, which is right across the way. Yeah, the long way there's Crocker.

So, ma'am, I have a color image here that isn't in this line, so it looks like this is the site, and 4640 is right there.

This might be helpful, too.

Yeah, I looked at this. I went down and looked at it. That's why I wrote it down.

So you're one of these houses here?

Oh, yeah.

That's me right here. OK. So here's the entrance.

So there's the entrance. OK. Oh, that was better.

Yeah. I didn't see this earlier. It's not the one I got. OK. And they're going to have trees here to help the glare and all that? Right. OK. All right. That was my question. All right. OK.

Thank you. Would anyone else like to speak? Yes, sir.

Thank you.

Hi, my name is Roger Bonnell. I live at 4727 Shepherd Road. I just had a question as well. Part of our for zoning and You're more of an expert than I am, so I'm asking you the question. It has to maintain the general density of what currently exists in the neighboring areas, correct?

The density that we look at is what the current land is zoned at, and we try to keep it within that realm of that.

So it's not the neighbors around what the general density is?

We look at surrounding area, and we look back at the 2030 land use plan. The land use plan calls for two to four units per acre. And that's with a mix of R1 and R2. And this one is tagging in. And there is some surrounding R2. So there's a mix of R2 and R1 in this area. But this parcel is R2. It can be developed as R2 at 20 units.

I understand that. I'm just saying, but if it is zoned as R4, if the change goes through, isn't it supposed to maintain the... general density of what already exists. So 18 houses would be a lot more than what generally exists in the neighborhood today, correct? Because I don't know anyone that only has an eighth of an acre on Shepherd Road. Do you see what I'm saying? Because that's the density I'm talking about.

If you take all the green space and chop it up and put it back with each of those eighth acres, now they're 10,000 square feet. They're same as R2. But because there's dedicated green space all over the area, they're not eighth acres.

I understand what you're saying. I'm not arguing that at all. I'm not arguing anything.

But you keep bringing up eighth acres.

Well, that's the first time I spoke.

I mean, everybody does.

But what I'm saying is... an eighth of an acre and it's 10,000 square feet, roughly, where I'm not going to go into decimal points, but there's no, but a quarter of an acre, I'm sorry, is there's no one in that area that has that small of a plot of land in that area. Almost everyone is close to a half acre in that area.

There are other, there are other, really?

I mean, I drive up and down it all the time.

There's other R2s there.

I'm sure, but the general density as it exists today, the way that Sheppard Road is set up and even Sheppard Woods is set up, it's more than that small plots of land. So even if it were to be rezoned, it wouldn't really match what currently exists.

Bottom line, what's brought to us, we compare. What is better for the community? An R4 that's being presented to us or the developer saying, hey, we don't need anything from you. We're going to clear cut it. We're going to make it a cookie cutter R2. And it's going to be 20 units in here. And we have no say.

Because R2 doesn't have to coincide with Right.

It doesn't have to coincide with anything else.

I understand what you're saying.

And so we're looking, what's the best solution for the community as a whole? Is this with a lot of green space, with walking trails, with more fluid and a little bit more relaxed environment, or the traditional subdivision chopped up and house after house after house? So we're trying to make the best choice for the community. And a lot of times, R4 is the better choice than the cookie cutter R2 or R1 subdivision.

I'm not arguing that at all. Like I said, I just thought that R4 had to conform with what else was already existing. And that meant that 18 would be too dense, even if you did rezone it, that 18 houses would be too dense compared to what currently exists in the area. That was my question.

And we can look at that. And if we say, no, we don't like this, they'll say, fine, we're going to go make it an R2.

I may be able to help in that the comprehensive land use plan has focus area corridors that have special rules related to them. We're not in one of those. So in that case, For residential purposes, the guideline is up to four units per acre. So this development, this proposal, is at 3.77 units per acre. Mr. Roddy, that's correct, yes. So that's where it comes in under the density that it could go up to theoretically four units per acre in that we're not in a focus area corridor for residential. I think that might help.

But also, and I'm not an expert, so I'm not passing this on, but if it stayed as what it is and they put 20 houses up there, they're going to have a harder time selling those. You know that and we know that.

If they'd sell them very quickly.

I don't believe so, but you may be right.

All I've got to do is look at the real estate.

Again, that calls for speculation on either side.

Right, right, okay. But I don't think, I just think that 18 houses is too much in that area, and that was the point I was trying to get across. Yes, sir. Considering the way the neighborhood is set up already.

Can I make a statement, too? I think what some people are getting hung up on is the fact that the parcels are smaller than the parcels on other streets. So the houses are maybe a little closer together than everybody else's. But all in all, the average space surrounding them will give them just as much space as what you've got. It's not their personal yard, though. It belongs to a common yard. And consequently, we find, and I'm not saying we do on this one, but we have in the past, we look at this, this is a nicer idea than trying to put 20 houses up there. Maybe you can only get 19. Maybe you can only get 18 when you throw in the roads with the . But what you're going to get is properties that have no trees on them, because these people are going to leave the trees on them. There's no guarantee of buffers. This is going to have a buffer for you. And all in all, the average usage of the space is about the same. and they'll be a little closer together.

But it does add density, and it does add... It doesn't match the flavor of the neighborhood as it exists today.

Well, the neighborhood behind it moved their houses closer, but kept the same acreage. SMALLER HOUSES PRODUCE LESS OCTOPUS, SO IT MAY BE LESS PEOPLE.

THAT'S A GOOD POINT. I DIDN'T THINK ABOUT IT THAT WAY, BUT I UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU'RE SAYING. I JUST, LIKE I SAID, AND I KNOW I'VE ALREADY SAID IT MULTIPLE TIMES, IT JUST SEEMS LIKE IT'S A LOT FOR THAT SMALL AREA COMPARED TO WHAT CURRENTLY EXISTS.

WHAT OUR DECISION TO, AND YOU CAN HEAR IT IN THE VOICES OF SOME OF OUR COMMISSIONERS HERE, THAT THE SOMETIMES NICER IS BETTER THAN GOOD And when we try to look at that, that is a lot of rewards.

Sure. I'm all for nice. I just like it spread out nice. Thank you.

Thank you. Would anyone else like to speak? Yes. No. Would anyone else like to speak who's not spoken already? OK. You, sir, and then you, and then you, ma'am.

Yeah, my name's Jeff Bechtel. My wife and I live at 989 Shepherd Woodsport, which pretty much backs up to lot 13. I think the biggest thing for us when we saw the plans is both of us come from Steel Town, Pittsburgh, where you can pass a cup of coffee to your neighbor out the window. So when you look at the plans, if you look at the properties on Willowbrook, for every two properties, there's three that are being proposed. So when you look at the square footage total, and I'm not going to be the dead horse here because we've already pretty much covered the density. But I think that's where everybody's having an issue. At least I'm not going to speak for everybody. At least that's where I have an issue. Because that's where we see the density. Everything's close together. We can drive down the street, even the money. There's a little more separation, a little more privacy. I just wanted to be heard on that. Like I said, I'm not going to beat a dead horse in regards to density. But the one thing I do want to talk about is lot 13 and 14, because that's like literally right in my backyard. Plus, it doesn't only affect me. It affects the neighbors right here, too. We just were hoping, at least I was hoping. What's that? 989 Shepherd Woods Court, right there by lot 13. 989? Yes.

Okay.

I don't want to speak for my other neighbors, but I know it would be nice to have a little more separation or privacy there, other than some kind of three-foot wall with a pine tree. Just something. I know there's a proposed retention pond there. Obviously, we have five kids. I've got guardianship, possibly, with a sixth. I've noticed those are mosquito magnets. I just was hoping that Maybe my voice can be heard, especially the developer. Maybe he can find something else to do with 13 and 14, maybe remove it or just something. But like I said, I just want to be heard. So thank you very much.

Appreciate it. Thank you. Sir.

I'm Daniel Nichols. I live at 4627. The plan looks a little bit better than what I was expecting. I like the green spaces and everything. My concern is the drainage. Pretty much my backyard is where everything collects and then turns into a creek across the street. Pardon me? 4627. Shepherd's Road. And I'm just curious about what the overflow for the detention basins is. Also, the green space that's behind 4627, will that always be green space? Will it be mandatory that it will stay that way? Okay, excellent. Other concern is electric lines, sewer lines, all of that. Will we have to endure any heavy construction for gas lines to add on for the new houses? I know the lift station or the pump station is down the street a little ways. Will there be much in the way of having to upsize anything?

this planning you speak to yet there was no anticipation for you know them to run the gas and sewer down shepherd you know what's existing there with the you know density kind of equaling out the the loads there for it so your heavy construction is going to be when they put in the streets and build the holes yeah yeah in the green space how r4 works is the plan approved is THE PLAN THEY HAVE TO BUILD. SO, IF THIS GETS APPROVED, IT HAS TO BE BUILT LIKE THIS. THEY CAN'T CHANGE IT TO CONNECTED PATIO HOMES. THEY CAN'T CHANGE IT TO, YOU KNOW, YOU SEE THOSE THREE CONNECTED TWO STORY ONES. THEY HAVE TO BUILD THE SINGLE FAMILY HOMES ON THE SPECIFIED LOTS WITH THE

green space that's provided per the plan so that green space could never become a pool or anything like that correct it could not okay and what about the the drainage uh what is the the runoff from the detention basins and you have a deep uh detention plan right behind you yeah it's it's a swamp back there all the time yeah all right i guess that answers it thank you thank you ma'am

So I don't like to speak in public, and I wasn't maybe going to say anything, but my name is Debbie Bond. I've been Mr. Bond. And we live at 4634 Shepherd, and I'm actually across the street from Daniel and Cindy. And one of the things I wanted to ask is, we keep talking about green space.

What is that exactly?

Pine trees or grass? What is that exactly? Because right now it's a beautiful patch of maples and probably some oaks in there too. And one of the favorite things I like to do is sit out on the front porch or just look out the window and see that beautiful scenery. And also we have animals that come through, deer and had a fox and all kinds of things like that. So I'm concerned a little bit about the wildlife that we have. We've been living there for about 10 years. The house was built in 49, so I'm not sure what zone that is, but it probably wasn't zoned at the time. The other thing I'm really concerned about, because we are on that little curve that comes where the church is, because we're like three doors down from the church, okay? And so when I try to get out of the driveway, it's really tough because it's a real, it's hard to see. It really is. I have to sort of count, look this way, look this way, count one, two, three, and I'm concerned about the traffic. I don't know, have you all ever driven down Shepherd Road before? I'm sure you probably have.

I was down there in the back.

So you know how the traffic can be.

Yeah, it's like most of the township. It really is.

I don't know. It's the only place I've lived in the township. I've lived in the east side of town, but only... Yeah. For the last 10 years. Yeah. Yeah. And there's no lights. There's no street lights, really. It's all dark, which is nice. I mean, I like that. And I'm concerned. I don't care about the zoning particularly. It sounds like it's about the same one way or the other as far as 10 or 20 houses. I mean, I mean, 18 or 20 houses, but it's, it's the traffic that I'm concerned about. Not just for me getting out, but as my husband mentioned, there's all kinds of kids. We have people that run, you know, We have ladies that walk. We have people that walk their dogs. I've seen kids on skateboards and bicycles, and I'm just, it's concerning. People go way too fast. I wish, I don't even know if putting the speed limit down would help these people that tend to go fast, but because it's such a narrow street, often, and I used to drive a Miata, so that's really tiny, right? So I really couldn't see to get out, but at least I was tiny, but now I have this bigger car, and I'm kind of worried that I'm going to hit somebody because they come so fast and I'm going and there's not much room in between. So that's really all I wanted to say is that it's not so much about it building, but like others have said, it's a neighborhood. We love, I mean, I have a half acre. We've got trees everywhere. We have that creek that's running through our property and we love the wildlife and we love the quiet. And I'm afraid this is going to kind of spoil the road, the whole neighborhood of everyone. That's why there's so many people here, because they just don't want to see it happen. That's all I have to say.

Thank you. Would anyone else like to speak? Yes, sir. So him first.

My name's William Johns. I live at nine nine five Shepherd woods court. Um, I just wanted to make one point that I didn't really hear made yet. Um, you know, I would have a hard time supporting one net new house just with in West Claremont school district with the levy issues. Um, it's impossible to get a levy pass for some reason in West Claremont. So until, you know, there's a viable public school budget plan, that can be sustained. You know, every time I see a new apartment building, you know, popping up all over the place. And I know that, I guess my fear is West Claremont School District has already peaked and it's just going to keep going downhill the more homes that we have. That's all.

Thank you. Thank you. Sir, I believe I saw you.

Good evening, gentlemen. I'm Mark Watkins, 4626 Shepherd Road. I believe this is actually a bad idea. Shepherd Road has been a country road, the longest dead end road in the world with the most traffic on it you've ever seen. It's constant nonstop traffic. Add 18 more houses that are all crammed together, you keep talking about green space and there's this and there's that. Once you put all these cars in the 18 houses, when winter comes, where are you guys going to push the snow? Where's all that water going? Exactly. Not only that, for years when I grew up here, that whole field that Willowbrook's in was Albar Acres. It was a corn field. It was a soybean field. It was nothing. It was tar and pitch, and it was 25 mile an hour. Now, the state moved the speed limit on Teeltown down to 40. And at the same time, they raised it on Shepherd to 35 from 25. Hell, the buses don't even do 25. And we all know it. So we're going to add 36 more cars? It's just, when is enough enough? No matter what the law says, when is enough enough? What is it that the people can't have a say in things other than because the law says so?

The law says that we can't stop someone from developing their property. You have property. You want to be able to do what you'd want to do on your property. Everybody wants to be able to do what they want to do on their property. So we are presented with options. They're going to develop their property, and they're either going to develop it as the current zoning exists, and they don't have to get permission from us for anything, or they come to us and say, we want to do something creative, and we want your support, and we work with them and try for something creative and less impact on the community. But either way, we can't stop it from happening. We can just try to make it be the best thing that we can make it be and try to control it. But we can't stop it. We don't have the authority to do that.

Well, it is what it is.

It's Ohio law, unfortunately.

I guess sometimes you just got to ask yourself, when is enough enough? I mean, hell, you guys approved the mobile home on Shepherd Road that ain't been approved on Shepherd Road since it was built. And then you had to come back and make him take it off.

That wasn't this commission, and that doesn't spare any connection to this proposal. Would anyone else like to speak?

I just have a question, if I may.

If it's a brief question, yes, please. If you could stand at the podium, please, for the record.

I wasn't sure about the R123 whatever. What if we rezoned it R1? What does that change? I suspect my house is zoned R1. It was built in 49. I have half acre more or less. I'm not real sure what it is. But what if we change that zoning for that property to R1? How does that affect the density that everybody seems to be concerned with?

So if your house was built in the 1940s, that predates zoning in the township, which came in in 1959. So without zoning, people were free to develop their properties in the manner in which they saw fit, provided it wasn't contrary to other law. So chances are, regardless of what your property was zoned, they built what they wished, and it's now been grandfathered in once the zoning existed. But if you'd like to talk about that process and what rezoning looks like and what you're eligible for, I'd encourage you to come speak with staff.

Well, I don't want to be rezoned. I just don't know the difference between R1, R2 and R4. Now I know the difference between R2 and R4.

I can take this one. So R1's the largest. Well, we have ER, which is estate zoning. So that's the largest. There's very few. Most of it's agricultural land that's zoned ER. R1 is the next largest in size that has a minimum of 20,000 square feet. for a lot size. And then R2 has 10,000. So I think there's so little ER. I think it starts at two acres. So it goes ER at, let's say two acres. Don't quote me on that. But R1 minimum 20,000, R2 minimum 10,000.

So if they rezoned at R1, then the eight or nine houses, the density would go, would be about right.

Yes, but just depending on what they were developing it for, you know.

They could do that, but we can't make them do that.

No, I know that. I know that. That's up to the trustees and whatever, whatever. But it's a consideration.

If the developer and property owner wished to do that, they could submit.

Well, they already wished to do what they submitted, so.

But we can't force them. We can't force them to sell to other people. We can't force... The trustees can't force that to happen. Again, it goes to property owner rights.

All right. Thank you, gentlemen.

Thank you. Would anyone else like to speak? Ma'am, if it's a brief question. We try not to have repeat speakers.

Tonya butts Hamilton again. But anyway, um, if, if you were to keep this R2, um, I'm pretty sure the sales contingent upon whether you guys changed the zoning for him. And I wonder if he will not be interested in it. If you keep it R2, if you keep it R2, there is the potential that that property could then sell and then it would not get developed. So it's just, do we have somebody to step in and buy it? I know that's not your controlling factor, but I'm just wondering, is there any way I can stop Tyler Gibbs from buying this by keeping it as an R2?

Offering more money than what? Yeah.

Offer. I mean, are they, are they, yeah. Unless they are, yeah. Obliged to have to follow through with that sale. But that would be the only way I could see all these people wanting this not to happen is if somebody stepped in, offered them the equivalent money or whatever, And they sold it to them as opposed to him. But if you didn't award him the R2, that might be that it would deter him from wanting to proceed with that specific development. Because he's wanting to make actually smaller houses. He's got a Facebook page. He says how he's making lower cost housing to accommodate people, which lower cost housing, I just put an $84,000 room addition on my house. It's going to ultimately help pull my property value down. So that means that all of us need to get in touch with the family members and maybe potentially make them an offer on the said property. That might be the only thing that could change this.

That's your problem. It's a creative solution. It's outside of our purview.

Well, it's worth talking about if we're all, yeah.

We can't stop people from contracting to purchase property. So people are more than welcome to try. Would anyone else like to speak? Yeah, Mr. Gibbs, if you would like to.

I won't get into our contract terms or anything. It's between me and the buyers. But there are some concerns tonight about retention and stuff like that. This is a fairly flat lot, and that's why we have three retention ponds that get the water moving in two different directions. knowing that we would have a hard time getting it to drain from one side to the other. And so that's why we have a plan in place for water retention out of respect for everybody around us. There's also pretty hefty regulations that are in place now for water retention and that were not in place in 1959. I did do a, just while I was sitting there, measure of, up on Willowbrook, how many houses are in the same amount of acreage, and it's roughly 17 or 18 houses directly, I guess that would be south. And so again, and when selecting this lot, I live in the country, I live in Bethel. I don't have neighbors. And I, so we don't do a whole, Maddox Development is not a large developer, and Maddox Development's not building these houses. That is not the plan. We're just the land development partner in this. Another builder will be building the houses. And so our product, she is correct, we do build an affordable house that's a three bedroom, two bath slab house. That is, they sell for around $255,000. We do that more in Georgetown, Bethel, Williamsburg, but that is not the product we're putting on this. You guys saw the product that we submitted That came from the builder. So most of the concerns tonight, I feel like we have accomplished in answering with our site plan. But if you guys have any other questions or concerns, I'm happy to answer.

Mr. Wang. Just one question. So these that we were shown that the builder, do you have an estimate on average price?

It's going to be similar to Buxton Oaks, which is down there by Arch Rental, which I believe is in Union Township, or Split in Union Township. Similar lot sizes as that. Those houses are going up right now, so you kind of see a visual. I would imagine it's in the three and fours. So we sell the lots to the builder.

Anyone else?

Do you know what's approximately square footage of the house would be in the building?

Between 1,400 and 2,000. They are obviously skinnier houses. They have a pretty decent product for that now.

Anyone else? Thank you. Last call for anyone wishing to speak. Hearing none, I'm now closing the public comment portion of this Commission meeting. Members of the public are more than welcome to stay to watch the deliberations. For anyone deciding not to watch our deliberations, just as a reminder, this matter is not decided by this Commission regardless of the recommendation to the Union Township Trustees that this Commission makes. This matter, this case, will be heard at the August 11th, 2026 Union Township Trustee meeting. So for those wishing to have this matter addressed and to have another public forum in which to voice what you like about the project, what you don't like about the project, what you think could be changed or should be changed, you want to come to the August 11th, 2026 Township Trustees meeting. It will be held in this room. They meet earlier than we do, so it's at 6 p.m. So make sure that you come out.

Yes, sir.

So to answer a question from the room, is this a meeting where you would come to voice concerns about the project? Yes. And the trustees have a broader degree of latitude when determining zoning change cases than this commission does. This commission basically is advisory and We have followed the Horizon 2030 land use plan. We followed the zoning resolutions. Township trustees have broader authority.

And I'll say it's not uncommon for us to receive letters to stating the concerns. We put them in the case file. That's pretty standard.

I understand that there wasn't in the subdivision,

Stay towards the end of the meeting. I can talk to you a little bit more. Okay.

So... Can you repeat the date of the meeting? I just think I misheard you.

Yes, sir. It's August the 11th. It's 6 p.m. in this room. Yes. So we will confine discussion amongst staff and the commissioners at this point. Who would like to go first? Okay.

Mr. Beckman. asking them to eliminate that parcel. I'm not real keen on a panhandle lot that's very small.

And that will allow them to maybe open up some wells, and the detention area in that area. Isn't that lot larger than most of the other lots?

It may be because of the driveway up to it. I don't really have the 65 by 64 . Is that square footage? Everybody on page. Yeah, I'm on page.

Yeah, I'm looking at the map.

Can't do that much math in my head that quickly.

So there's green space directly adjacent to that.

Right. It's going to be a detention area.

That's a detention pond.

Yeah. Right. I don't have a concern with that lot.

Yes. The panhandle and the size of the lot, I think that that's not advantageous to the overall development.

There was some kind of a shift that was recommended by the staff, a 10-foot shift. How does that impact this?

Yeah, they were...

So... Who says we're in a paperless world? Right, yeah.

So, well, one of it was to buffer.

additional buffering with the mound. And then yes, lastly, it was shifting the lots around slightly to accommodate a more cohesive layout through. So it's completely up to the board, but it wasn't a straight recommendation to eliminate any lots.

No, I understand. It was just a shift.

Three to 13

Yeah, is the recommendation shall be relocated slash shifted ten feet to the south to reduce the irregularity of lot 13 And it would also give additional Buffering to you know to the thought is This this is a little bit closer than some of the surrounding back behind here and it would give You know just a little bit more space there for for the adjacent neighbors

Mr. Beckman, does that recommendation impact your analysis of that lot?

Yes. I just think it's a little small. And that leaves them a lot of room to move things around a little bit in that corner.

Okay. Any other thoughts regarding this plan? Who would like to go next?

I really like the plan. I think it's a great plan. It's coming in under a density. There are already less units than they could normally have, and that's what the current AT&T recommended. Three detention, run two detention ponds, one retention pond. Mr. Foddy, the definition difference between detention and retention. Detention is temporary. Retention always has water in it. Correct.

Just for everybody to understand that. You know, technically a dry basin, and then the other one holds, the retention holds the water.

Yeah. I think the plan is creative. I like the plan. I like all of the staff recommendations. I'm on board with the recommendations and this plan. I just think it's a great alternative to what we would have otherwise.

Mr. Wang.

I guess my question is why I see we've got the sewer running through that open space. And again, I know these borders don't show up. So the neighbor that has 13 is probably going to cut grass all the way down to 14 if the H.O.A. doesn't do it. Right. So it's going to look like a big lot with that, even with that panhandle property line. So, you know, I think I don't see as big a problem with the panhandle because I think with that extra green space right next to it, it's going to just look like, you know, an irregular lot, which it is.

My lot's irregular. It's very similar.

So, no, I'm good with this. Mr. Arnois.

Mr. Flaude. Yes. What can you tell me about Shepherd Road itself? Is there anything, has there been any conversation about it?

Go ahead. For, you know, the traffic, I'm assuming traffic, traffic-wise, yes. So, Shepherd Road with... Obviously, it still has to go through the county stage yet. Now, whether this amount of home will trigger a traffic study, I don't know that. I would assume it wouldn't. Just due to the volume, it really doesn't trigger A TRAFFIC STUDY PER THEIR STANDARDS. I COULD BE WRONG. I DON'T WANT TO SPEAK FOR THE COUNTY.

WELL, FROM WHAT WE'VE HEARD RECENTLY, THE COUNTY HAS BEEN MORE INTERESTED IN RUNNING TRAFFIC STUDIES.

RIGHT, RIGHT. YES, TRUE. AND THEN, TWO, AT THE SAME TIME, I KNOW SPEED WAS MENTIONED, THAT WOULD ALL BE DICTATED BY THE COUNTY ENGINEER.

YEAH, AND THAT'S TO CONFIRM THAT SHEPHERD IS A COUNTY-MAINTAINED ROAD OR IT IS THE TOWNSHIP.

I think Shepherd's Township.

That was my assumption.

Teal Town is definitely county. Teal Town is county. I'm pretty sure Shepherd's Township.

Regardless, whether it's county or township, the roads still have to meet the standards of the county engineer. If it triggers a traffic study, that would be based on on the engineer's calculations of, you know, the amount of homes, trips per, you know, with the amount of garages and then, you know, as it sits too with the density really not increasing too much. That's something we can find out definitely for later, too.

As someone who grew up on a one-lane road where traffic increased and people regularly sped significantly above the speed limit, I'm sympathetic to the neighboring property owners. I know traffic really can't bar us from a zoning change request, but I did want to ask the questions just to make sure that there was a record of that. Yeah. So far as an R4 goes, in my opinion, this is a solid R4 plan. It achieves less density than they otherwise would be able to under an R2, which they would be free to develop, regardless of whether it would be this developer or another developer, regardless of any of that. I think with the maintaining of a certain degree of the the current vegetation that's there along with the landscape plan, along with what are for mandates in terms of green space managed by an HOA, I think it's a good plan.

I know we heard a lot of hypotheticals tonight also, which is always hard to comment on due to the fact that each one's going to be significantly different perceived in someone's mind versus being on paper. You know, the R4 does... go correctly with our 2030 horizon plan and versus someone could come in with less density, also someone could come in with more density. I know it was stated multiple times. It's up to the purchaser of the property for what you guys receive. So just kind of wanted to reiterate that through there.

Thank you. So any further comments? The chair would solicit a motion on this. Unless the chair would make the motion.

If you'd rather me make it, I'll make it. But I'll leave it up to you.

Well, I'll prepare a motion. Just give me a little bit of time.

Okay.

This is in case number 4-26-Z, Applicant Maddox Development Co. The Zoning Commission finds that the submitted R4 plan application and zone change request is consistent with the Horizon 2030 land use plan but does not meet all of the plan development application requirements of an R4 concept plan. Therefore, this Commission recommends the submitted plan be approved contingent upon adherence to the noted modifications as specified in this motion. All required supplemental information and plan modifications must be completed and submitted to the Planning Director no later than one week prior to the Trustee's hearing of this case. The following findings of fact. Per the Horizon 2030 Land Use Plan, the proposed development is not located within a designated corridor. The proposed development is consistent with adjacent land use characteristics. Single-family residential development calls for targeted single-family densities up to four units per acre, and this proposal achieves a gross density of 3.77 units per acre. This proposal calls for 29.2% of the total acreage to be open space maintained by a homeowner's association, which is consistent with requirements of an R4 plan. This concludes my motion.

I'll second that motion.

I have a regularly made and seconded motion. Any discussion on the text of the motion?

No.

So I have a regularly made and seconded motion. Motion by Mr. Campbell, the second by Mr. Lewis. Mr. Flaude, if you'd call the question.

Mr. Wayne? Yes. Mr. Beckman? Yes. Mr. Honorlaw? Yes. Mr. Lewis? Yes. And Mr. Campbell? Yes. Motion carried.

Okay, just as a final reminder, the trustees will hear this case on August 11th at 6 p.m. in this room. Is there any further business to come before the commission?

I have no new business.

Don't sound so excited, Mr. Flynn.

Is there anything in the popper for next month? I believe we'll have another zone change next month also.

Busy year.

Yeah.

Okay, well, as there is no further business to come before the commission, this commission is adjourned at 8.41 p.m.