Zoning Commission - Regular Meeting

2025 meeting of the Union Township Zoning Commission is hereby 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 for all. Mr. McCormack, could you please call a roll? Yes. Mr. Wayne, here. Mr. Tooff? Yes. Mr. Campbell? Here. Mr. Lewis? Yes. Everyone present. We have the last minute. All right. Do we have a motion to approve the minutes from our April 23rd, 2025 meeting? So moved. I'll second. All right. Second. Uh, Mr. McCormack, please call roll. Mr. Wing? Yes. Mr. T? Yes. Mr. Campbell? Yes. Mr. Lewis? Yes. Eyes have it. Uh, Mr. Campbell, could you uh uh make a statement regarding the proceedings tonight? Yes, Mr. Chairman. Thank you. Um, prior to the hearing of the case this evening, uh, we 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. After the applicant's presentation, we 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 located at the back of the room. All speakers must uh 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 question uh 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 and appreciate that individuals are passionate regarding their positions and preferences. However, this meeting cannot proper 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 where possible. 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 individuals in opposition. After discussion, the chairman will call uh for a motion from the commission. This motion requires a second after which the motion itself is open to discussion amongst the commission. 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 Union Township Board of Trustees in accordance with the wording of the motion. Our options are to recommend approval of the requested zoning change. approval of the requested zoning change with 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's zoning request or to deny the zoning request is with the board of trustees. Uh, this case, and by this case, we've yet to open it, but I'm making reference to case number 2-25-Z um will be addressed at the next uh meeting of the trustees, Mr. McCormack, the date for when the trustees will hear the case. Yes. So, I would I can announce it, but at the same time, it depends on whether or not there's anything that actually gets forwarded as a recommendation. So the the zoning

commission is simply forwarding a recommendation to the trustees. The trustees ultimately take action to approve deny um the recommendation and um ultimately since it's a legislative executive decision, it's a matter of law at that point if the if a map amendment gets made. Um, right now that would be the second Tuesday in July if there everything moves forward and that's July 8th at 6 pm in this room. Thank you, Mr. Mr. Chair. Thank you, Mr. Campbell. Mr. McCormack, can you provide a synopsis on case 2-25-Z? I'm skipping over old new business. We don't have any, so I'm going right into the case. Thank you. Uh for case 225Z, applicant is Brickstone Homes. Site location is addressed at 4885 Beachwood Road. Owner is Janet Fix. Parcel number is identified here. I won't read the whole thing. 52.826 acres. Existing zoning is R1 and ER. I'm going to go through the staff report the same time I go through the slides. So here's a vicinity map of the site. Uh you can see the scale there. 1500 ft to full bar. Uh give you an idea of what's there. It's right on the Cali line between Claremont County and Hamilton County located between Wesley Drive and Brandy Drive on Beachwood. This is the existing zoning of the site. You can see where the estate residential is in the back portion of the property and you can see where R1 is um in kind of that yellowish color. Um that zoning has been that way since really the inception of zoning in the township um

which is which was around 1959. We don't have a 1959 aerial, but we do have a 1972 aerial. So you can kind of see, you know, how things look. um for that time period. We have I'll pause here on the oblique. Right now, Beachwood is considered a major two collector two-lane roadway with no turning lanes in the proposed project. Traffic volume of approximately 6,260 average annual daily trips. Um almost 50% going east, almost 50% going west. um 373 versus 3,187. Those are probably a little bit higher given when the counts were done. Um I already went over the zoning. The zoning of the adjacent property, most of it's R1. To the north is estate residential. In Hamilton County, it's AA residential district. And if you go very far outside of that, it changes quite a bit. in Anderson Township. In terms of the um topography of the site, these these are 10- foot contours, I believe, because if we tried to put all the two-footers on there, they're a lot harder to see. I think they show up a little more on the the overlay here in a moment. Yeah, little bit. But you can kind of see these are 10footers. Um, and pause there. With respect to the comprehensive plan from 2013, the subject property is not located within a designated focused area corridor and as such there are no specific recommendations regarding land use patterns or policy guidelines for this particular area. The plan does however indicate how a provision of inclusive housing strategies that considers the mixes of housing types and

designs. Um that residential dis densities should respect existing single family large lot development patterns already established in the township typically achieved through densities referenced between two and a half to four units per acre. Uh the properties outside located outside the designated focus areas have been reserved for various types of residential use. The proposed gross density of Whispering Ridge is 1.7 units per acre. I'll come back to that in a moment because gross density is different than net density and I know that those are different numbers that people are probably going to want to talk about. I referenced other sections of the comprehensive plan or actually not just the comprehensive plan, the zoning resolution. And so articles 6 sections 650 to 659 of the zoning resolution um are the sections most applicable for the R4 designation. R4 is not necessarily inherently mean that there's more density for a project. The R4 is reserved for a a residential plan unit development rather than just a simple plan unit development. Um, typical plan unit developments in the township will also have commercial and industrial components or institutional components. And this is not one of those scenarios where that's um, proposed. So, this is the existing site with the topography at 10 ft. This is the proposed overlay plan. This is the zoomed in plan. You see a little bit better. It's still a little hard to read. Maybe a little easier to see on the screen. There's 90 lots proposed on the 52 83 rounded up acres. Um I'll leave it on this one here for a moment. Some things related to the plan development to consider. There is a process specific to amending the um R4

PD plans. Um if there if there are uh significant amendments does come back u for review. uh through a zoning process, public hearing process um which was probably more significant than just a normal repling process that one would go through for the county uh for the subdivision itself. So, as I mentioned earlier tonight, and maybe I maybe didn't mention as clear as I should have tonight, what we're really looking for is is a recommendation regarding whether the use the densities proposed are appropriate or not. Because essentially the reason for the request is that the applicant is asking for an R4 plan development to allow for depending on how you're going to look at it. At minimum five lots more than what would be allowed by right up to maybe 10 to 15 lots depending on how things are shaped by the road rideway and so forth. and also the minimum lot sizes that are proposed are less than what's allowed within the R1 particularly um and I'll come back to that but basically in this phase we're looking at the use and the density and whether or not uh for example there are any attributable impacts to health safety general welfare um we look at adherence to the community plans plans including the comprehensive plan. We look at impact to infrastructure and services. Um that is done kind of on a broad base because what will happen if the project would move forward whether it's at the current density or less if it proceeds as by right it will go to the county and the county ultimately has control of the subdivision review process and that's where you know your engineering work gets done your surveying work gets done you know your

your geotechnical analysis gets done your traffic analysis will get done I mean that typically we advise the applicants to talk to the county folks before they come commend for the reszone for these things so that they know what they're dealing with. But at the same time, your detailed work is is what happens after the initial zoning occurs if if that's what has to if it if it's even necessary to happen. Um so again, the properties R1 and ER er was originally S1 special use established in a township. That's why I put that other earlier slide in there. Uh there wasn't much there in even 1972. Um I don't think it would have been much different in 1959 considering what was there in 72. Um property appears to have been agricultural crop and woodland areas low density use residential uses in that time frame. In terms of the proposed plan uh we have a mixed density residential plan development for and um reference the applicable sections of article six. We have 90 proposed buildable lots on that 50 2.826 acre site. There are five lot types and sizes. There would be nine 1acre lots proposed. Five 90 ft x 140 lots which are 27 acre lots. 32 70t x 130t lots which are 21 acre lots. 28 60t x 130t lots.18 acre lots. and 1650 by 130 foot um 0.15 acre lots. Um the larger lots proposed are along generally along the perimeter of the property uh which are also typically including natural open space areas. Vegetative buffers are designed to be 50 ft or more except for a couple small areas in the one in the northeastern portion of the property and another in the northwestern portion of the

property. In both cases, we're there isn't anything apparently um developed within well about 600 feet or more. Although some of the minimum lot sizes are smaller than the adjacent subdivision lots, these would be concentrated within the central portion of the property. So, the smallest smaller lots are in in this area. Your bigger lots are on the north northwest. Um your next biggest lots are here where these flag lots are. And then your your ones that are around a quarter acre to maybe a little little more, a little less are these lots around the the ring. The ones in the center are your ones that are under 210 of an acre. Proposed density, gross density is 1.7 units per acre. Um which in talking with our cons of administrator who was in my position for about 15 16 years he said that's generally how they would refer to the density for projects is by gross density. You can come to a net density which would be a different number. It it will be a lower it will be a a higher number but it will not it will still be at or below the threshold of what's in the comprehensive plan in terms of what we were looking at earlier. So in in that regard, it's not going to change substantially in that four two and a half to four acres units per acre, I'm sorry. Uh for comparative purposes, we we did look as a staff at some of the other development in the area. Um Beachwood Farms, Beachwood acres, those and Pepper Ridge are generally in between 1.2 to 1.45 units per acre. Um, if developed by right in accordance with the existing zoning, the Whispering Ridge development would have approximately 85 single family lots and that's using the gross density. If you start taking out the ride of ways, you

might be looking at 80 um or close to it. Um so essentially there's in this request some flexibility being requested on the number of units and also the lot size minimum lot sizes comparatively to the R1. Um as a result of the flexibility that's being requested the applicant is offering more open space area or what they've termed natural open space areas um than what is required. got 34% um provided versus what is required with the 20% um than what would typically exist in a conventional subdivision. The proposed housing is all single family detached housing predominantly one-story structures with subterranean basements in a garage. um somewhere between 1500 square feet and 1,800 square foot minimums. And um with those I'll and I'll show this here in a moment with some other pictures. The just for people's the board's knowledge, the 50 to 60 foot lots, they're anticipating the homes that they would be looking at would be5 to $600,000 homes. For 70 to 90 foot lots, we're looking at 575 to $750,000 homes. And the bigger lots, one acre and up were 900,000 and up. Order, please. That's one outburst. If we have more outbursts, I'll clear the room. Thank you. Please proceed. Mr. McCormack, proposed minimum setbacks for all the lots. Uh front and front front and rear yard setbacks both be 25 ft. Side setbacks would be at least 5 feet. Proposed larger lots would allow for

greater front and rear setbacks if desired. Um come back to that here during the recommendation section. Uh proposed street leading in the development tentatively called Fallon Way consists of a 50- foot wide road and utility rideway that would have a six-foot sidewalk on one side that connects to Beachwood Road. Although no steps to adjoining property, emergency access areas are shown in current plans, this is an item could likely be accommodated by the applicant and this is a recommendation by staff if the project would move forward. Um the interior streets would be designed at 50oot road rights of way with 10ft utility easements on both sides and 5ft sidewalks. Um a walking path was also proposed adjacent to and surrounding the largest storm water basin in the southwestern area of the property. No landscaping plan has been provided. However, the applicant has included large quote natural open space vegetative buffers buffers as me mentioned earlier. Um, and I gave you the width in there earlier. Minimum 50 ft. Some of those are I think well over 100 ft um adjacent to existing development. in some cases much more typically where you've got hillsides. In accordance with the code tonight between articles article 6 section 680 to 687 and article 4, the zoning commission's role again is to make a recommendation to approve approve modifications or to not deny the request u for zone change and forward that to the township trustees. So again, here's here's our proposed layout. The proposed street sections are in here, both for the street leading in and also the interior streets. Um, this slide shows the proposed signage. There's two locations, one out by Beachwood Road there, tenatively shown, and then one's where you get into the interior of the development where that curve would be. And I can kind of show you where that's

at from the staff pictures of the site. These are the um proposed images that we've received of what some of the homes might look like. The a you had type A, type B, type C. Example, type A. These are examples of type B. These are examples of type C. Um, I have some other pictures I'll show here at the very end of of some other homes that are possible for the bigger lots that they sent us some information a little later on about. So, these are the site pictures that we're taking. This is looking northeast from the existing proposed Beachwood Road access where the driveway is. Oops. And this is if you kind of walk back a little bit and look same direction northeast from the proposed Beachwood Road access. This is looking southwest of the road which would be your existing intersection proposed intersection. This is it. If you walk back in a little bit, you can see there at the neighboring property southwest. This is looking across from existing and proposed access there at Beachwood. See what's there. This is looking northwest from the entrance Le Beachwood. If you travel back, see northwest. This is what you'd be looking at if you were on the driveway looking to your northeast. This is, I believe, the Ner property. This is looking southwest, more or less to your left when you come in as you're traveling back. If you go further back, this is again looking on the southwest part of the driveway towards the back of the existing homes. This is looking northwest.

I think this is the one of the bins in the driveway. This is looking back east to southeast from left to right. This is looking southwest, southeast to southwest. This is where the bend is, the more significant bend is. This tree line here is what they're proposing to um keep as the natural open space vegetative buffer area. This is looking southwest from the existing driveway access. This is looking north to northeast from the existing driveway access from left to right. And this is looking back towards the way you come in from towards the east. This is looking northwest from the existing driveway. This is looking from north to northeast from existing driveway near the house. And this is looking behind the house southwest. In terms of the staff comments, uh the applicant would need to of course address concerns of other departments and agencies. These are including but not limited to the county um engineers office regarding access point road design county soil and water conservation county um water and sewer district building department including um comments related to storm water management that's when that gets when and where that gets reviewed is through the subdivision review process the fire department particularly more for like the emergency access situations and um other departments having jurisdiction applicant will need to provide a lighting phototric plan For the proposed site, all lighting would need to be noted as inward or downward directed and shielded, dark sky compliant and be of sufficient intensity to eliminate without projecting onto residential property. And we look for something typically less than one foot candle to property line. Particularly residential to residential, we're

probably looking at about a half foot candle or less, which is low lowle lighting residential, not somebody's spotlight they put on their garage and which would be illegal just for the fact that it shines outward at this point. Um details and specs of the proposed lighting would need to be provided. I think they are proposing post lamps at each um property, but the applicant can address that particular item. The final signage plan would ultimately need to be submitted even though we have an idea what the signage would look like. That could change a bit and the locations could change a bit. Um that's an item that could be handled administratively. um would need the applicant would need to provide statements on updated final plans to affirm that no structures would be allowed or permitted within the 50- foot minimum quote natural open area space areas along the B boundary of the site particularly those shared with the Beachwood acres and Beachwood farms properties to just ensure that those aren't getting those areas aren't getting cut down structures aren't getting put in there um things like that. Staff recommends the applicant would then acknowledge um forested areas, hillsides, stream quarters are not intended to be disturbed. Perhap um that they not make that acknowledgement, perhaps even delineating those as conservation or preservation areas. Um or just in some fashion noting that basically those areas can't be cut or stripped so there's not an issue with the hillside um water quality, those kind of things. Um staff would recommend that the applicant provide one or more steps to adjo a joining property for emergency access or future access areas. Um again in coordination with the fire department or county engineer. As of June 17th of 2025, we had some other administrative items that would need to be addressed as set forth in article 6 section 656 of the zoning resolution. These items were included but were not necessarily limited to adjacent parcel information

particularly existing land uses within 200 ft. inclusion of typical cross-section of landscape buffer yards, location design involved lighting, existing topographic features to be clear, conspicuously enablement intervals on the site, etc. Ultimately, we would have to have a revised development plan. I mean, if the if the project would get reszoned, we all the way through both the township uh zoning commission and the trustees, we would still have to receive a development plan that we could approve. Typically, there's going to be a lag at that point when the zoning process is complete or if the zoning process is not necessary, the applicant will then go to the county plan commission and as a result go to all those other agencies and and get approval for the various things they're looking at. You know, um for example, storm water, that's a big particular item of concern. Um that's where the volume velocity of the project is getting looked at so that the impact of a of a project is not such that it's going to increase the volume velocity of the water that's leaving it uh to the adjacent properties. Um they look at um the different departments are looking at all those other things in more detail that I mentioned earlier. Is geotechnical included in that geotechnical survey? Yes, should be included as part of that. Um, one other thing that I did forget to mention as I was going over the traffic information earlier on in the report, I did get a um there was a lot of there were a lot of comments received and some of those comments that we did receive were for um safety and traffic information and although we do not township does not maintain Beachwood Road, um it's a countymaintained road. So again, they're in control of that road and what happens to it. I did get the the accident information, traffic crashes. So for the last 5 years in terms of what's been reported and what the police have been involved with, there have been a total of 50 crashes,

42 that were non-injury, eight that were injury. Um the one place that was the worst by far was the intersection of Beachwood and Somersside. It was almost a quarter of what happened there in terms of the reported crashes, which doesn't really surprise me. Probably doesn't surprise anybody that drives through there. Um, so I did have that information from the police department and um, we had 46 letters that were mailed out. We had 14 comments that were received. We forwarded all those to the board members. Um, with that, I think I'm ready for any questions that you might have for me as a staff. I think we'll move on to the applicant. Thank you, Mr. Informant. Thank you. Would the applicant please step forward and present their case? Please identify yourself. Thank you. Uh Pat Munger. I'm representing Brookstone Homes. Um got Andy Jones um also with Brookstone Homes and our um civil site engineer Nick Salor with Choice One. All right. Thank you. I just uh I I want to uh don't obviously don't want to repeat the whole uh staff report. It's not necessary, but Um, just want to um cut to the chase. I know we got a lot of people here. Looks like I think they ran out of slips for people to talk, so they had to make more. So, I'm assuming there's going to be a lot of people with comments. So, um, we we have no issues with the, uh, staff, the seven recommendations. Um and just would point out that again the um you know the Horizon 2030 comprehensive land use plan identifies this area as um densities that we that were comply with and we're were within those ranges that that have been um talked about and approved within that

plan. Um the overall concept we tried to not not tried we we feel like we um created uh the natural buffer around the development. We clustered the smaller lots in the in towards the center of the development um trying to maintain the um uh have the larger lots around the perimeter uh as as Mark pointed out. So, um, obviously one of the the issues at hand tonight we're talking about obviously is the the the lot size and the lot width um change that we're proposing. And we think when you when you look at the balance of the community, um, we think we we we've created a diverse um, community for the folks here in Uni Township. um our open space is is exceeds just like our density is is under the uh thresholds that that are talked about. Um so again we we agree with the conditions um and um we think we feel like we have a a diverse um multiple different size lots and product types. Um I don't know Andy if you have anything to add. Um, other than that, we'll um I've got a few I've got some questions and with your uh history with the county, I think you'll be able to answer those. There's been a lot of discussion about uh and information provided to us about the geotechnical issues, sink holes, soil types, and especially the steep slope areas. Uh what uh what's your what knowledge do you have on the sink holes? Um I I I know that the area is mapped uh the na the Ohio Department of Natural Resources has um this well they have a map a carsted feature map of the whole state of Ohio and uh we we've looked at

that. Nick can speak to that directly but I believe all of the the developed areas fall outside. There are some um areas within this piece of property that are u identified as as either possible sink holes or actual sink holes. Um so but all of those areas that are marked on the on the and mapped currently on the ODNR's website fall outside of the buildable area. So again, much like I think comment number one or or condition number one, there's there's a plethora of of county and state agencies that will have to go through to get the the final blessing um to to to move forward with this. This this zoning, as you know, is just the very very first um case. We we don't have all of the answers in terms of all the final reports. We're not going to create those final reports until the the the appropriate time, but we did um speak with the um some of the county agencies some of those threshold talk about access that would be the engineers office talk about traffic impacts again the engineers office water sewer and the like. So there was some contact and some dialogue with the county agencies on the front end like Mark suggested that that we do on the from the development. So from as a development side, there's no one more interested in knowing um all of the details about the development uh good, bad or indifferent um because it's going to be a significant investment, a lot of time, a lot of uh effort. So we want to know as much uh about the the development in terms of what we're going to have to deal with from a construction standpoint, from a development standpoint as as anybody. So we'll um not only are we required to reach out and get approvals from all the state and

federal agencies. Um it's something that it's part of our it's part of the natural progression of these types of projects. All right. You mentioned the uh sinkholes felt outside uh or were not inside the buildable buildable area. Are you considering uh all of these I'm seeing the topographic map and I'm seeing a significant portion of this parcel as steep slopes greater than 25%. Are you considering those as non-buildable? So again, we'll follow the county uh the county building department requires a a geotechnical report on um this any any um slope steep slope areas. I don't recall off the top of my head what exactly quantifies a steep slope, but certainly if you're talking about 25%. That in my mind would would would kick in that requirement and that that is a recount a requirement of the county building department um for for any any lots that are built on steep slopes. But in that case, a significant portion of this plat is not buildable then in that case. So, I'm seeing at least 20% of this one. And you've designated all as open space. But that's what that's where this this R4 differs a bit from traditional R4s. You've designated the unusable portion of the un unbuildable portion of the plot as open space, but there's no common recreational open space. Typically, we would see in R4 that the core where there's at least a street called Paisley Court and 21 houses in there on each side of it would be completely open and grassed and and a shared open space for everyone. But you've classified all of the steep slope areas are open space, but it's not usable by the residents. Is that correct? I'm not sure that all that is entirely I think Nick would probably be best to address that. All right. Yeah, I've got a couple more. Let's see. Um, are there

any planned Beachwood Road improvements? No. No. All right. None required. Do you know uh do you have an estimate of how many trips a day you're looking at on Fallon Way entry and exit? Um, I don't, but Nick Nick might have. You want me after? I'm sorry. You want me to come up now or wait now? Could you repeat the question? I'm Nick Salor with Choice One Engineering. The estimated number of trips on Fallon Way with the 90 homes. So, we reached out to the county engineers office and the county's access management regulations require a traffic impact study if a development is expected to generate more than 100 peak hour trips. And for 90 homes, 76 of which are targeted towards empty neester, that generates, according to all the manuals, 46 peak hour trips in the AM and 54 in the PM. So that's well below the county's threshold for even requiring a traffic study. But overall, we're looking at hundreds of trips a day. Yes. Yes. Go What have there been any what what plans do you have to mitigate the impact of those of that driveway becoming a a major thoroughfare to the houses along Orland Road? Is it Orland Road? Yes, I believe so. Orland Road. So, there's 10 houses bordering Orland Road that would be dramatically impacted by that level of traffic. What What method of what what procedures have you put in place for mitigating that impact? So, there's no connection to Orland Road. So, I'm I guess I'm confused. The road runs directly behind the backyards of those 10 houses on Orland. You're saying the the entry road, right? The entry road runs where the current driveway is. It is. Exactly. It's directly behind 10 houses that uh would be dramatically impacted by that that

that level of traffic. Sure. I see what you're saying now. I apologize. I wasn't following. I thought you were talking about the other side of Orland Road. Um on the the west side of the driveway now is a Duke Powerpole easement. So you know in some situations you say we could plant a vegetative buffer there. Um with the with the easement there they don't let you plant trees in there. So this current plan does not show any kind of buffering in that area. All right. Not that it can't but this current plan does not show that. Okay. And on the uh the open space is there a reason why there is no recreational open space? uh included in this R4 plan which is typically an R4 plan requirement. So I can explain the thought behind the open space. So all right with the adjacent subdivision to the south it was desired to keep a as wide as possible vegetated natural buffer. So the big trees you see there now that will never be developed on that will stay vegetated and that's 75 foot deep. In the in the pinch point areas, it's at least 50. And then there's the recreational area around the retention pond, the walking area, a walking path around the storm water management. And then the stuff kind of beyond that where it gets steep is again called natural open space. You want to preserve the vegetation to hold the hillside to keep the nice trees. Well, when you say preserve, I mean, what are we preserving against? If it's non-buildable, there's it it it's nonbuildable. it would there would be no cause for it to be removed. As a matter of fact, I believe doesn't the county or the state have regulations on eliminating uh timber and trees on steep sloped areas, especially if they're going to impact a stream that's below or down downhill from the impact. I can't speak to that with 100% certainty. All right. But the intent would be to not to leave it natural. I

see. Correct. And then on the like the backs of the large 1acre lots, the deep ones again where it gets steep in the very back of them. We could have shown a you know less deep lots with again the green space to leave that as trees natural. You're talking about or you can show a conservation easement there era. Yeah. Like way in the way in the back and that's really steep slopes too. I mean that's that's unbuildable as well. So you can you can show the lot going all the way back or you can cut it in half and leave that as open space that the HOA would ultimately control. Either way is there's nothing wrong with either way. I I I I agree. You can't do anything with it. Period. I understand. All right. Uh let's see. Does anyone else have any uh questions for the applicant? Not right now. Mr. Chairman, you spoke to most of my issues, so thank you for doing my pleasure. Uh, great. Let him do it. Thank you very much. Sure. Um, I know there'll be a lot of people with concerns. If you would like us to come back up at the end of we we may reply back on you periodically even during the Sure. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. And your I'm sorry your name again? Nick. Nick. Nick Cellhorst. Choice one engineering. Could you spell the last name? S E L H O R S T. Oh, thank you. Yep. All right. Is there anyone else here to speak in favor of this development? And I don't have to ask if there's anyone here to speak against it. So, Mr. Campbell, please start the list and uh we'll call them as we've received them. Ladies and gentlemen, I apologize if I mispronounce the names. I'm reading these off in the order in which they were were received. Um, so if you wouldn't mind when I call your name, if you'd come to the podium and speak into the microphone and announce your name

and and your address for the record. Uh, but again, I apologize if I uh mispronounce. Uh, Joe Norton, is that correct? And Mr. Mr. Norton, before you begin speaking, before your time starts, I would want to mention we have a lot of people here tonight and a lot of ground to cover. Uh we're going to have three minute limitations on each person speaking and there'll be a a 30 second warning possibly and let you know that it's coming in. Here we go. We'll figure out this contraption as we go. And uh just want you to be aware of that. So thank you. I won't take more than three minutes at time. I won't even hit it then. I want I'm sorry. One other thing before the timer excuse me before the timer starts. It's it's to your advantage not to repeat things that have already been emphasized and and there are a lot of concerns with this development. I'm aware of that. We are all aware of that. Uh repeating things over and over again does not do anybody any any good. So please stay to the point you have specific points. We want to hear them. Uh and and please do them with proper decorum and and and we'll keep this orderly and and move it along as quickly as possible. Thank you. Okay. Thank you. My name is Joe Norton. I live at 4948 Maggnull. Uh, we've been there for 28 years. My background is development. I work for the 17th largest housing developer in the country. I'm the director of construction and development there. Typically, when we put a development together, we come to the public first. We don't want to waste zoning board's time because we want to make sure we have public buy in before we waste all the time putting everything together. We also come with a plan A, plan B, and a plan C. I don't see any plan A, plan B, or plan C. Right. So, so with that, I I have argued for zoning changes, variances for and against for the past 28 years, and I really appreciate your time and explaining what's going on. It's very important that everybody understand what's going on because the

documentation is so vast and so in-depth, not everybody always understands it. There's a lot of intelligent people here have probably read it and do understand it. But in the end, I came from Toledo to Cincinnati in this area particular because of the current zoning. And I like many people, I looked at zoning, right? Many people simply buy it for the aesthetics of the neighborhood or the open spaces that they have or the amenities that are in the neighborhood, right? But at the time when I purchased it was single family. We live on larger estates. This is zoned that same way. And there should be no reason to change that for any future development. I think any developer should be able to develop land that is in fitting with the current zoning. Not asking for a change. Variances are different, right? changes to maybe the width of a street, the amount of parking, uh, no garage, some garages, right? Simple changes, not an entire zoning change, right? As soon as you start to do that, you have taken away the vision that every property owner owner here has had in what they thought they were purchasing. You change it all. And for that reason, you should not approve this requested zoning change. Property owner can sell the property any way they want. A developer can develop as long as they comply with current zoning requirements. That's all I got to say. Thank you. All right. Order, please. I would like to make a point uh of of a notation here. What's being requested is a change from the current zoning, residential single family zoning to another form of

residential single family zoning called R4. R1, R2, ER are all individual types of uh single family zoning with different lot sizes. What R4 brings to the table is it allows what we're seeing a dramatic in in desire for in the township is clustering. still keeping single family homes but clustering them in in groups and then having a common shared open space. The common shared open space seems to be missing from this plan. Uh so I'm not advocating for this plan or against it but we are not changing from R2 to R1 or you know smaller lots. It's still it's still based on the the overall aesthetics of our the the the limitations of density in R1 and ER combined and the clustering effect. So that's what R4 is. It's it's single family and it allows for some variation to to address a market that is out there wanting this type of housing. Not possibly you, not not me, but there's a big demand for that type of housing. and the and the 2030 plan it approves this and recommends this to be considered for anytime someone looks to make a development. They're asked to in include a consideration for an R4. So it's part of the process. Again, I'm not advocating for it. I'm just saying that we are still sticking with single family residential development with R4. Thank you. Next person, Mr. Cample. Rita Hesley. Thank you, man. She yields. So, thank you, Angela Meyers. Hi, my name is Angela Myers. I just moved into the area a year and a half ago specifically for the aesthetic, the property sizes, the size of the road,

the limited traffic, and the feel of the nature all around us. And I am vehemently opposed to this development because you're going to take all of that away and is the reason why most of us have bought our homes in that area. Thank you. Thank you. [Applause] Brian Bab. Hi, I'm Brian Bab. Uh my wife and I, we live in Apollo Fields. We've been there since 2004. And so we're familiar with the area and uh uh the traffic, you know, on uh Beachmont. are very concerned that this development will contribute to uh traffic congestion and pose safety concerns. I've otherwise won't take up more of your time, but I've prepared a letter and I'll just provide that to you. But comments, thank you. Thank you. put that with a sign and shine Combmes. [Applause] Hi, my name is Christine Combmes. I live at 4770 Beachwood Farms Drive. Um, I'm a middle of the rotor. You've answered most of my questions um from what this gentleman initially um talked about along with Brookstone. And I'm asking one that the Beachwood Farms um people also remember when we initially purchased our properties, Christine McBride owned the property and she it was farmland. So when she sold

it, it was brewhaha over land um over sewage over Beachwood Roads, which has been a problem for 40 I've lived here 45 years. Beachwood Road is a problem. And you indicated, I believe, sir, that that is not zoning. We would have to go to the county for that. Correct. For sure. For sore, uh development of Beachwood Road or anything like that. that would not be involved in this. Yeah, the road is the county's road. They dictate what gets accessed, what improvements get made. The water and sewer is dictated by the county. A lot of the things that the specifics that people are have addressed us with in their comments have been things that are going to get addressed by the county. Some of which will be through the subdivision review process as it moves forward. Okay. for I've lived out here for 45 years and even when Polo Fields was going to be developed, people had a brewhaha about that as well and I do know Jan fix. So I will that is I will say that I hope zoning of some kind can be worked out with her. However, I do have issues with Brookstone. If I was going to be sold one of these lots and it was on a sinkhole and thinking I'm going to pay $900 and some thousand that's not going to work. Can Brookstone come back to the zoning committee and indicate well we'll do 70 houses or 50 houses and change any of the lot sizes um to the zoning at any given time. they can come back and I mean anybody can can submit an application for a zone change and if one is re is denied and and the trustees do deny it uh then they could modify the plan and come back and submit it again but and it has to go through the same

process. Okay, that that was a question I had because I think they may want to reconsider that because 90 homes is not really a doable I think at $900 and some thousand um on for progress I think people like T and fix if you said sir that this was rural in 1959 it was farmland her husband was a vet so he went everywhere and everything I know there's a farm across the street. I think it's wonderful to have that. However, there is progress and we need development and Beachwood Road is always going to be a problem. Thank you. And I wish Brookstone well. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Campbell. Not next. Um, Eric Warful. Evening, gentlemen. Uh, I I happen to be Joe's neighbor. I'm not neglect. And I I too moved there for the same reasons for um love it. Please sir, please speak into the microphone so we can hear you. It's 8/10 of an acre. I love the place. There's a certain community and feel and the people who live there tend to stay there a long time. I understand that developers trying to make a dollar and um I'm in business development also, not in real estate and I'll make proposals that will put me in the most favorable position possible and negotiate from that point. I also understand the cluster concept and you're trying to achieve something here, but I think there's incumbent upon you a responsibility to get the most value, have the least impact on the surrounding community. I don't think this plan has the least impact on the surrounding community. A cluster design is not uniformly beneficial. When I hear answers like those that were given today, he had a good question

about the surrounding green space. My interpretation of that answer was these are the most number of homes I can build on that lot. I've squeezed them in there. That's the point at which I'm going to start negotiating from. Okay? I've set myself up in a good position. I'm concerned about the character of this firm if they're going to come off that and really do the right thing. Gentlemen, I beseech you, make the most use of this property. This is not the most use of the property. We can do better. We cannot impact the surrounding community. He could still get a return. This isn't the right plan. It just isn't. Thank you. [Applause] Greg Gammon. Hello gentlemen. My name is Greg Gammon. I live at 456 Forest in Lane in the Beachwood Farms community. This is really the first time I've ever looked at this paper and had a chance to go over it. And the idea of 1.7 units per acre looking at the surrounding what they call green space. It's not developable. So you can't count that in your in your calculation as per acre. Yeah, but 30 40% of it is not even developable. So calling it green space is more of an excuse than it is an actual claim. Um I want to know why the larger houses are on the perimeter. I also want to know what that red what those red houses are. Why is it red? Go ahead and respond just one time if you like. Yes. I don't know if it printed well in the legend, but those are 90 foot lots like that hatch legend. So, you can see the colored boxes kind of in the middle.

Yes. Like when it plotted there was supposed to be a red box, which there is on my sheet that Matt that says 90 foot and that's those five lots. So, it's a color code based based on the size. That's it. There you go. Thank you. Sure. Thank you. I appreciate that. Um the um it looks like the biggest culde-sac I've ever seen. You guys talked about where the emergency access is going to be and you're going to have to cut through some yards or somebody else's property if there is an accident on that entrance way and people can't get in and out. Someone's having a heart attack. You can't get a an emergency vehicle back there. I I don't see it unless you want to cut across the other farm through pepper pepper the whole thing or come into Beachwood Farms by it around the back. I just I don't see the practicality of it. I I you know and the whole idea of 1.7 units per acre not counting 40% of it which is undeveloped is just absurd. So I just wanted to make those things clear at least those are the things that I was thinking about. And it also says for property under substantial act substantial active construction the planning and zoning director may within director sole discretion grant reasonable extensions of the R4. Now that's after you everybody says that we're going to go ahead and allow it to be R4. So does that mean they can go in and put apartment buildings stack condos? No. The the major amendment process still requires that the uh foundation of the of the original approval stay in place. So it has to stay on R4. you can't do anything other than single family R4. So, if another lot further back would be bought and added to it, uh they could do a major amendment and and and it would have to still go to the trustees uh to to expand it. Uh wouldn't come to us unless there was a zone change requirement. Uh and if no zone change was required, then it would uh just go to the trustees as a major amendment. Okay. Well, that's all I ask. It has to be in our report. Thank

you. All right. Thank you. Thank you. [Applause] Jessica Gibson. Good evening. Um, I live at 4889 Orland Road. It is the parcel that is located right next to the proposed rideway. So that road is going to be right in our backyard. Um this afternoon I submitted a detailed letter to uh Mr. McCormack that should be included in your documents where I explain Yes, I have it. Yeah. So instead of rehashing the letter, um I just want to reiterate the fact that I am opposed to this development. I think it goes against the zoning code. I don't think the application follows the proper requirements of the zoning resolution. My partner and I purchased our home about two years ago because we wanted a house that was located somewhere off the beaten path, quiet, and having a road that will be significantly trafficked right in our backyard will be extremely disruptive and lower our quality of life. And for those reasons, among the reasons in my letter, we oppose this and we ask that you recommend against the zone amendment. Thank you. Thank you. Uh, Nathan Hudsmith. Hello, my name is Nathan Hudswith. I also live at 4889 Orland Road, uh, with Jessica who just spoke. Um, uh, as she said, we moved to this, uh,

area about a year and a half, two years ago because specifically, uh, of the aesthetics, we love having the quiet, peaceful backyard. Um, you know, with the old growth trees, you know, the trees in our backyard are, you know, 80 feet tall, give or take. Um, you know, which you don't get without, uh, long-term development. and seeing uh you know this area cleared for such a dense population is um yeah it makes me sad. Um I did I know that you spoke about the gross density versus the net density. Um I do want to talk about that again very quickly. uh they specifically called out in the proposal that the local or the um uh the nearby developments typically have 2.5 to four uh units per acre and that they're going to do just 1.7 units per acre in italics. You know, they're very much highlighting this, but then as you've talked about, uh they're including unbuildable space in that. Um if you look at the actual lots, there are 38 units between 2 and 0.25. 25 an additional 20 between 0.15 and two uh2 acres and then a further 16 are less than 0.15 acres per lot. So of the 90 lots they have here 74 of them are less than a quarter acre which is a far cry from the 6 uh acres per unit uh or the 1.7 you know reversed anyway. Um, so I feel like between that and the fact that they haven't reached out to do any sort of, you know, feel for how residents are, um, or, you know, any damage mitigation, I feel like that they're not going to operate in good faith. Um, so I do hope that this proposal is turned down. Um, it would negatively affect us significantly. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.

I apologize for this one. Jim Cohouse Coz. Thank you, sir. Good evening. I'm Jim Coas. I live at 4897 Orland Road. I'm one of the properties that back up to the proposed new road going through there. My concern is is a year and a half ago, I came to this zoning board and I asked to build a garage. wanted an attached garage to my house, make a third bay. I was told 15 foot from the property line, no exceptions. Two-hour firewalls, no exceptions. So, I spent my 16,000 extra dollars for a driveway and put my garage in my backyard, 5 foot from the property line. This new proposed road that goes through there will be within 5 to 10 foot of my garage, within 5 to 10 foot of my swing set that my six-year-old swings on. There are five swing sets throughout there. three pools and we're going to be faced with a road on both sides of our property, two lane. I am greedy against this plan. All right. Thank you, [Applause] Steve Wenkey. Um, I'm going to echo some of the comments of my neighbors, but uh, first off, it's going to change the the nature and identity of this area really drastically. I guess my primary concern when I listen, and I appreciate the chairman's uh, some of the chairman's questions. So, I I'm calculating number one, and I know this is something that could be dealt with with the county, but the idea that it would only be a certain number of trips for the cars, I I thought was very very low as an assumption. If we just say that there's 180 people that go in there, that would

be 360 cars typic 360 trips two let's say two cars per let's go back 180 uh facilities there 180 houses 360 cars to that if we say three or four times a day that could be a thousand trips a day added on it can be close it could be it's typic the typical estimate is 10 10 trips per per unit and that would be 900 100 trips a day. Correct. And I that's what I was thinking is more like a thousand trips a day. But that doesn't even uh accommodate whatever there' be as far as deliveries. No, that's that's including that's in in consideration of deliveries and the n nature and size of those units. Uh some of those units are expected to be single people or just a couple. Uh but the overall estimate and it's again it's an estimate you it's just based on the data we have available from the county and it's it's about 900. And and and what I would just echo that is it's going to change the character and nature of that neighborhood. Um also with that and I I made a note of the the buildable. We're I'm at 462 Winfirm and you know we already had a problem with somebody coming on our property. The the assessors or the surveyors just came on unannounced. We got a Ring doorbell. Guy shows up at the door. it, you know, obviously is uh disconcerting when somebody doesn't give you the courtesy of a notice to let you know that they're coming on their pro our property. So, we had no idea, but that doesn't account for all these people that are going to be coming over and building. And I guess really what it comes down to to me is there there's a way to do this. I think Mr. Norton had said it. There could be at least a courtesy to the neighborhood to say this is going to happen. some kind of reach out to the neighborhood so that everybody could understand at least what it is. But when somebody comes up and tells you that what we want to do is put as many people on this spot as possible, as make as much money off of

this development as we possibly can, and go say, "Well, we could do 85, but now we just want to get 90." that that idea in it in in and of itself tells me that they're really trying to go for the maximum profit and not preserve the nature of the neighborhood. Secondarily, what you said about the R4s where you say a common space, we're going to we're going to do this well, we're just preserving the non-buildable. Our our backyard, there's no way anybody could build anything back there and there's all this water runoff and everything else. The land's going to be moving. The the wildlife's going to be moving. Everything's going to change back there by this. But the idea that you just take and put as many people as you can on that spot really raises grave concern. I think probably for everybody here. It's one thing if you said, "Hey, look, you know, we could build 85. We're just going to go with 60 or we're going to do this and we're going to accommodate. We're going to make a big space and a big neighborhood here." That that's not what's proposed right now. And when I hear things like that assumption that there's only going to be a hundred and I think to myself it's going to be 900. I think that's a problem. And I think that this zoning board may commission may be just limited and what it 30 second warning. I got a 30 minutes. Oh shoot. I didn't have pausing. I'll wrap it up with the idea that basically uh you don't play music here but um in any event what I would say is wrap it up. Okay. What I'd say is just that that could have been done completely differently and just to give a courtesy to neighbors and say you're coming on their property. That would have been great. Okay. I don't think anybody here is asking for much. That's all. Thank you. Thank you, Brian Willis. Hello guys. So um so Brian Willis, 4831 Orland Road. I

prepared my remarks because otherwise I will ramble. So this is for your good. I'll be a minute and a half. So uh to you know the Union Township Horizon 2030 document lists a goal to continue the pattern of highquality residential growth consistent with the character of the township. but later says paraphrasing paraphrasing for revity comprehensive land use planning. Shall continue to recommend single family large lot residential development for new single family development with the generalized goal of achieving gross densities in the realm of 2 and a half to four units per acre has been mentioned. I personally believe it is both disingenuous and a violation. I'm going to I'm going to stop you there and please stop the timer. If you continue to read that statement and and this is what we we need to do. So you stopped at the 2.5 to four. It goes, "However, targeted areas may be right for alternative housing stock and higher densities. New single family residential developments outside of the designated focus areas should include provisions for open space and recreational opportunities and should emphasize cluster style development that results in the preservation of valuable natural features. So again, I'm not saying that that this plan meets that requirement. I'm just saying that the 2030 plan calls for investigation into that possibility. And that's why we're here. Okay. And it's not clear what to me what the designated areas were. When it mentioned the designated area, it said targeted targeted area. Thank you. Targeted area. You're right. It's not clear what's targeted, but that's what we determine and we determine whether this is a viable targeted area or not a viable targeted area. Okay. All right. Thank you. Thank you. Well, I believe it is both a violation of the spirit and intent of that uh as well as disingenuous uh to throw in select large lots in order to bring down the average as well as as has been discussed counting undevelopable area as if you're preserving some green space and you know in order to also bring down your average number of units per acre. Uh whereas surrounding housing has minimum lot sizes around a half an

acre. So just two houses an acre. We're looking at the smaller lot sizes in there. you could fit three of those of those lots in one lot in Beachwood Farms for just one of the halfacre lots. Uh further, I I really believe it's highly unlikely the developer will succeed in selling off those larger lots that they're currently designating to bring down that average and they'll have to come back later on and ask for an adjustment in order to put smaller lot sizes in there. That's just my speculation, but I believe that's highly likely. So, I hope you will agree this is unacceptable and it should be recommended against. I thank you for your time. Nolan Simmons. Hi there. Uh my name is Nolan Simmons. I live at 4877 Orland Road. Um a lot of my neighbors are have been a lot more eloquent and well researched than I am. So I'll keep it very brief. Um but I think that this development does not go with the spirit of the neighborhoods around it. Um even even the design of the homes. I mean, I'm not an architect, but what are they? Craftsman or something like that? They don't look like our neighbor or it doesn't look like the homes in Beachwood Farms. You know, it it does not go with the spirit and the uh the style of the neighborhood. And also, I think that this very obviously shows that there isn't public buy in here. We have people from what, three, four different neighborhoods who came out. I I don't imagine you guys get a large draw for your zoning board meetings all the time. These people came out, you know, took the time of their day to come out and express their opposition to this project and I would like to, you know, make my opposition clear as well. Thank you for your time. Thank you. Hannah Mackey. Hi, my name is Hannah Mackey. Um, my son goes to Somerside Elementary School. Well, he did until I switched him to a private school because the Somerside in

the West Claremont school district is becoming increasingly overwhelmed. Um, you know, you're you're going to put 90 lots in a space. You're saying that 76 homes are going to be, you know, these empty nesters and stuff like that, but what about the people that do have the children? How is the bus going to get down there? Has there been an impact study on the West Claremont uh school district or anything like that? All of these uh apartment complexes that are coming in here and building and all of these children were not able to actually handle that. Have you seen any of the schools and stuff like that? they are they are struggling to help these kids and now we have to try to go to private school because we know that that is where our our kids are going to flourish. You know 70% of of the families that attend Somersside are poverty level. You know um these these people that are they're experiencing that they're not going to be able to afford these $500,000 homes. It's just you you're going to create a massive problem with the school district. You're going to create a massive problem with traffic. You're going to everything. How, like I said, how is the bus going to access this? You know, um I'm more worried about the children of our community. You're saying that there's a green space, but your kid is going to go outside and be in your neighbor's front yard. Um so where where is that? You know, in our community, we we can go out in the b in the backyard. My son and I play baseball. We play basketball. We play everything. You know, you're you're not adhering to the community that's around you. And it and and it is about these children that are in these communities as well. You're going to say 76 homes are are four empty nesters. Okay. Well, what if they're not? What's going to happen to the school district? Right? There's no guarantee. There's not

at all whatsoever. And you're just going to overwhelm them more. and the poor teachers that have to deal with this. It's it's absolutely it's saddening. And having my son switch this year is going to be the best thing. And it's so sad for West Claremont because I went to Somerside. It was a wonderful school. Not anymore. Not because they put all of these gigantic developments where they're shoving everybody, cramming everybody in. It's crazy. It's crazy. So, just coming from a mother of the community and stuff like that, it's it's becoming overwhelming. It really is. And it's so sad that I have to take my son out of a public school that, you know, that our taxes are paying for because he's not he's not able to get the the education that, you know, he needs to get. It's sad. So, that's what I have to say. All right. Thank you, Nick Mackey. Hello gentlemen. My name is Nick Mackey. I live at 447 Winfirm Forest Lane. Uh I built my house probably close to 30 years ago on there. Third house on the street and stuff. So some of the comments that were made by the developer uh regarding like the green space and everything on there. So they're kind of targeting this thing. What I'm hearing is a senior living facility to a point. Empty nesters. I'm an old guy. I got gray hair and everything like that on there, but uh I mean with those green spaces that you they're saying with these elevation problems, are the people actually going to be able to use those green space situations on there? Um like I say, the other thing too is Union Township actually overdeveloped. I mean, with all the apartments that they've stuck back there at the high school and also right out here uh by TQL and

everything. I mean, as far as was the demand actually there to build these apartments and build, you know, these different senior facilities that are have popped up in Claremont or in Union Township. That's one question I would have as far as they appear to be filling up. Are they are they they they are filling up and and we are running out of land too. So it it's it's there's not much left to develop right on there. But the apartments and the uh and the clustered homes, they they go quickly. Well, this kind of reminds me of that one uh commercial on TV. I can't remember who it was for a real estate company or something like that where the little girl swinging on the swing and she's she's hitting the fence on both sides of of uh the her yard and stuff. And I think it was for a real estate company like Credit Realers.com or something like that. I mean that's what this reminds me of to the point where you can almost you know tell your neighbor you can get on your neighbors conversations you know if you really wanted to on there. Um, so for the area that it is, it's it it is very dense on there. That's about what I have to say. All right. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. [Applause] Nicole Cl. Hi, good evening. Uh, my name is Nicole Cla and I'm from 4861 Orland Road. Um, a year ago I moved here from Vermont and you can probably imagine from Hallmark movies and whatnot, maybe you've skied there. Vermont's a very green, rural, beautiful place. So, when I toured with my realtor, I could have picked any place in greater Cincinnati. I had the

pick of even northern Kentucky. We didn't know this area at all. And we went all over the place. We were shown places in Anderson Township where you could stick your hand out your window to borrow a cup of sugar from your neighbor. And we didn't choose that option. We were lucky enough that we didn't have to choose that option because we got to see this beautiful home on 4861 Orland Road that backed up against forest and was very spacious with having deer, bunnies, sometimes foxes, and coyotes, I'll admit. But wildlife right there and we could see the sunset and really enjoy the beauty. I understand that we may not get to keep that forever. But just like someone had mentioned earlier, it feels like you're breaking a covenant with me with the people who've been here for 30 years with people who've been farming for maybe generations. Um, we came here, we stay here, we live here, because of the way that it feels, because of how it looks, because of our neighbors. And I really think that needs to be taken into consideration. I understand land is running out. That doesn't mean we have to cram a bunch of homes onto it. Let's keep the character that brought me and I know other people to Union Township who had never even heard of it before and the people that have been living here for years to stay. My father taught me that your reputation was everything and character was what you did when nobody was looking. I'm not getting a great sense from the developer that they do care about the character of Union Township. It makes me wonder about the reputation. I'm just putting that out there because I agree with my neighbors that it would have been nice to have been contacted. It

would have been nice to have had input. Again, I understand that this may never be the wildlife in the preserved area that I had hoped that it would be, but we can do better than this. We're a wonderful community. Let's not tarnish our reputation. Let's keep having people come into Union Township because of how beautiful and amazing the area is, the traditions we have with the farming and our neighbors. We've got an opportunity here. And I think somebody said it before, we could be setting a terrible precedent if we don't pay attention to how we put this land to use. This is important for us and for generations to come. I hope you'll keep this in mind. Thank you so much. [Music] [Applause] Leanne Klet. Good evening everybody. I'm Lean Klet. I also live at 4861 Orland Road and that was my beautiful mother. Um, I'm only 16 years old, believe it or not, but I can comprehend that this is a little ridiculous. Since I only moved here a year ago, I did tour many developmental houses that jam-packed everyone together. And from my house, I've moved across multiple states, lived in multiple houses. The house I have now is, I can say, my favorite one so far. Um, I have a beautiful pool, a bunch of privacy. I love to hang out with my friends. So having um a bunch of development and not only just the development there, but the process of construction and the um how disturbing that would just be to the piece of our community, the other kids. There's so many kids in our community. Um that would be just really awful to have like growing up. Um and I can speak on West Claremont school district since I go to West Claremont High School. There is no buses that come to my school. I have to

drive 20 minutes every day to go to school. So having to come all the way in and my friends even say that I live in the middle of nowhere. They don't know really. So having it tucked back that far, having a bus come in every single morning at 6:00 in the morning disrupts our whole community. And since there's no guarantee for West Claremont school districts to have a bus, you know, kids and parents are going to be filing out every morning along with the busyiness of our roads that we currently have. I'm on that road all the time, every day now that I have my license. But, um, it's it's incredibly busy and there has been like a crash recently, took the power out. Imagine having to go go along with that. That whole neighborhood of power outage. What are we going to do with that? Duke Energy is going to have to get up really quickly. I mean, it's it's hard to have your power out when you're trying to watch Netflix and stuff. But anyway, anyway, um I'm here talking for the kids of the community and how there would be a bunch of disruption and not only us growing up and trying to live our lives and a beautiful backyard to play in, but um I love my house for my privacy. I live right back up to where one of those really cramped houses would be and that just would not be very good for me but the rest of the community. And I know it would be good for big business, but money does not always buy happiness. There's going to be a lot of problems along the way. Thank you, [Music] [Applause] Matthew Greenberg. Hello, Matthew Greenberg at I'm at living at 4040 Mount Carmel Road with Helen Foley. Uh we are uh can we have the country map? We show the country map. We are neighbors to the west directly to the west in Hamilton County

joining property and also uh in Claremont County to the northwest. Uh we and our neighbors share a hillside woodlands. It's forested with many trees, mature trees. We're adjacent to these larger hillside lots that have been referred to 18 through 11, moving from the north to the northwest. Uh, this northwest neighborhood is comprised of a valuable natural feature. It's a forest of mature trees. The Horizon 230 comprehensive plan states that single family residential developments should emphasize cluster style developments that result in the preservation of valuable natural resources. These words mean something. Preservation of the natural resources. The the R4 zoning code uh requires uh that developments are sensitive to the physical characteristics of the property. And I want to focus on the hillside where the contour lines are closer together. Those are steeper slopes and I want and also the R4 development needs to preserve its physical assets and I want to focus on the mature trees. Regarding the hillside, we're concerned with both potential slippage and landslides during construction and development as well as storm water runoff and erosion. Uh from what we've had to look at as a public, we don't see a soils map. We don't see what the existing topography is at twoft intervals. uh we don't we don't see reference to what are what areas are environmentally sensitive or geologically hazardous. Uh the storm water lines uh are the storm water lines are not shown. We don't know where they are and uh we don't know where the building locations will be. While the staff uh uh while this uh commission staff has indicated that the larger lots uh could provide for larger rear yard setbacks and that might move the

construction of the residences closer to the road and up the hillside. Uh there's no requirement or even mention of all this in the applicants documents regarding the trees. Uh the the staff acknowledges there is no landscaping plan that's been provided and uh although the staff suggests that the intention of the natural open spaces in this plan is to maintain the mature trees, there's nothing in the actual documentation supporting the suggestion and certainly nothing that requires it as the staff acknowledges. In fact, all three of the storm water detention areas uh that are presented here are currently wooded areas and will require the removal of a significant number of trees. That's not preserving the trees. Lots 11 through 19 are all located in heavily wooded hillside areas. Sir, your time is up. And thank you. Thank you. [Applause] Thank you, Ellen Foley. Thank you. Hi there. My name's Ellen Foley. I live uh with my partner Matt Greenberg, who you just heard speak. I just want to make sure that you're clear as to where our Claremont County property is on that that triangle up there. So, 4040 Mount Carmel Road. I'm the uh I'm the land owner. Um and as it stands, I oppose this development. Um like Matt said, our property uh along with our neighbors share a hillside woodlands forested with many mature trees. These neighbors are the Carries, the Jones, the Nyers, and the Fixes. And we are adjacent to those larger lots. Um, this

is part of my community and I am down the hill. I grew up on this property. My parents bought the property in 1963. I moved back with Matt in 2013. And I know these properties intimately. All of these properties, the Nyers, the Sedakas, the Fixes, the Carries, and the Joneses. I know where the huge Karst is on the Jones's property. It's not far from the fix property line. Um, so as an adjacent land owner situated where we are in relationship to this pro proposed de development, my two concerns as Matt did mention are the preservation of the woods and a guarantee that there's no additional runoff due to this proposed development. Um, there are many untouched woods. Um, we have one old growth chinkapin oak with that measures five feet in diameter. Um, we have huge established trees of oak, beach, hickory, maple, sycamore with understories of buckeyes, paw paws, and spice bush. Not to uh mention all the uh fauna that is on and flora that is on our property. I ask that any development plan provides for these trees and woods to be preserved. We spend a great deal of time walking in our woods. We spend a lot of it is a very important part of our property. Um and our property line is very close to the back of those lots. Our trail is very close to the back of the lot. So even though our house is not close to the back of the lots, we spend time back there. This is this is our backyard. Um, one way you could do this, one could do this is to create a

covenant that requires any developer as well as the homeowners to preserve the trees. There's no guarantee that the homeowners won't remove the trees even if the developers do not. Creating a covenant would guarantee the preservation of these woods. Additionally, I ask for the same 50 foot building sent setback. Ma'am, your time is up. Okay. Thank you very much, [Applause] Andrew Hogan. Good evening, members of the commission. Uh my name is Andrew Hogan. I'm an attorney with the law firm of Conan and Patton and I'm been working with uh Ellen and Matt um and uh considering their their situation. Um I'm going to focus a little bit more on the zoning code itself. Um as as you know the R4 zone is basically a residential PUD which means there aren't a whole lot of restrictions in the code itself as to what can be done. The only thing that governs what's going to happen on that property is the approved development plan itself. And the plan right now, as I understand it, is a combined uh um uh final plan and and initial plan. So, it has to comply with all the requirements of section 656. There are in excess of 20 specific requirements of information that are supposed to be on this plan. We're reviewing this as a concept plan, okay? Because that's not what we were told that it was. But even as a concept plan, there are still things that are not on it, including there is no um uh the the the uh contours are not uh as they're supposed to be. The um there is

no um soil map. Um and you know, these things are there for a reason. to provide information to the people who are going to be looking at this including you. And you know the the staff it's himself has recognized that there are gaps in the information and it says specifically in the zoning code that these plans must contain all the information and that they shall contain this information. And then it goes on to say, quote, "Failure of the plan to demonstrate all the required criteria shall shall result in the rejection of the plan by the zoning commission and the township trustees. Gentlemen, the plans are incomplete. I don't know how you can at this point vote on them and and to approve recommendation one way or another to uh the township trustees. you don't have complete plans, they should it should be rejected and they should resubmit with all the information that's required. Thank you. Thank you, Anna Kerry. Good evening. I'm Anna Kerry. I live at 4150 Mount Carmel Road. I am on the downhill end of this water problem. The very steep hill, the stream into which this this uh storm water runoff would need to go is is goes right through my property and the next property next door. Uh I very strongly

oppose the approval of this uh zoning change. Thank you. M [Applause] Nathan Odor Good evening. Good evening. My name is Nathan Odair. I am uh at 4978 CVY Trace in Quail Hollow. Uh I am the president of the estate owners association of Quail Hollow. It's not something that I generally like to talk about uh because it comes with very little uh prestige. Um mostly uh mostly I bring it up because uh you know I when I found out about this um it dawned on me that the number of meetings that I sit at with our association uh we talk a lot about Beachwood and I realize that Beachwood is not Yur's the township's responsibility it is the the county's responsibility. That being said, when I moved here in 2017, I was looking forward to wide open spaces and for not taking a really long time to get to work. Uh even though I lived in the city at the time, and moving out here meant that I could have a little extra space uh for my family, my growing family. Um and little did I know that when I would go to get on Beachwood in the winter time, I might slide off of it because the county doesn't seem to care about the road. and the township builds a fire department down the road. I thought maybe that would help and that didn't help. Um, now what they're looking at is adding 90 additional houses at the other end of the street uh that I I travel on a

regular basis. And I uh I'm curious about the um I guess I'm I'm curious about why the development uh the developers think that they don't have a responsibility to do anything to the street even though they're going to impact it quite a bit. Um, and I think that draws me to the conclusion that the number of houses here, which are not affordable in any way, stretch or form, I'm not sure what empty nesters are going to be able to afford $500 to a million dollars in houses. Uh, but hey, more power to them if they can. What I would like to see is if this goes forward that there is some firm plan to do something with the road in addition to this monstrosity that uh I only saw when I lived in Hawaii because I was with the US Coast Guard for a number of years. And this is the stuff that they build on a giant or tiny island with over a million people, not in a gigantic county that has plenty of space. So I yield the rest of my time. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you, Donald Chelsea. Oh, Chesley. Apologize. Hi, I'm Don Chesley. I live at 4859 Orland Road. And so I'm a numbers guy. They did a great job. I will commend them on their mathematics to achieve the density by jamming in if somebody wants to count for me how many they put in the dead center there. That's just awesome. Great use of mathematics. So, thank you very much for that as a math guy. Um, looking at the 0.15 to 0.2 that's about

six per acre, one sixth of an acre many. So, yes, very well done. Also, special thanks for mentioning the ODNR because I was able to look up at the Ohio Department of Natural Resources and thanks to the township for its Wi-Fi because I was able to find the sink holes that are listed which run mostly on the northwest property and it certainly looks like that will impact homes along the northwest side which they may or may not have yet addressed. Most of the other conditions or concerns have been way more eloquently stated by the folks before me. I've been here for 29 years. I love the place. If they were going to put in just a few big homes or that would be great. And also as I just like to re reiterate as you look at the topographical map with the lines being so close together indicating a downhill grade where will the water run and what will they have to do to amend their their uh proposal traffic lack of uh lack of protection for the in incoming road with those neighbors. And one thing that the one of the board members mentioned is it's the bo the uh board's me uh board's responsibility to uh maintain the general welfare of the count of the community. I think this uh diminishes that. Thank you. Have a good night. Thank you. [Applause] Bradford Grant. Before starting my time, may I bring my commission? Yes, please.

Thank you. My name is Bradford Grant. I live at 4945. here on behalf of myself and my entire family who has built their home there in the 1970s. Lived here for about 38 years off and on. I have expertise in natural and historical interpretation as well as conservation social sciences in resource area uh planning. So I'm going to speak only on my expertise. Uh first and foremost, you've talked more multiply about the uh geological concerns. If you look at the first image that I've presented to you, there is a red line that represents the ridge line. As you can see, over about 70 years of development, no development has passed past passed that ridge line. The blue square there passes that ridge line. That represents lots 9, 10, and 11. And it goes even beyond that. That area at the back of that blue line is the edge of 11 where I would expect a house to be built. That graded area exceeds 20% and likely exceeds 25%. I live adjacent to that ridge line. I go in and out of that creek regularly. It easily passes 25% grade into the creek line. I'll move past that and I'll move to the historical relevance of the location. I have been in that house before. I know Doc when I was a kid, I've been in around that property. That property likely has archaeological re relevance. If you move to the second picture in the images that I presented, you'll see that the you can see the Native American uh earthworks that are some are still there in remnants, some are not throughout the area that leads all the way up to Milford and down the um confluence between the east or um the East Fork or sorry, what is it? Little Miami River. My apologies, the Little Miami River. You can see the red circle marks the property. If that marking of lots 9 10 11 allows for that property to go out

beyond that point where the slope would meet that would suggest given that this is an orivvician period limestone and clay substrate that that would likely be impacted by human impact to make it level which would potentially mean that there is an impact to um or or early woodland species potential for mound builders. Um, I know at least one other person in the room has spoken to the lot potentially having archaeological relevance and it's I would suggest before any zoning changes happen that an archaeological survey was done on the site due to its impact to early woodland species for the hope well uh Ohio hope well. Moving on to the last page. I also have expertise in identification of of species. I have personally identified barnowl sounds in the spot and I've listed on the top that the confirmed observations and is a threatened species and should be mo noted with the ODNR before any zoning has happened. Next is the lark sparrow which I've seen on the property that I live in at 4945. It is endangered. It's likely more migratory so I'm not sure how the council in Union Township particularly regulates that. The narrowleaf tooth wart I have seen this springtime. However, it is a springtime fmeral. So I was unable to bring you a picture today because spring fummeralss have ended approximately about four weeks ago when they died out. Thank you [Music] Nick Penska. [Applause] Is Nick not here? All right, next one. Mr. Campbell. Jessica Stacy. Good evening, gentlemen. My name is

Jessica Stacy. I reside at 4868 Beachwood Road, approximately 400 ft from the proposed interest of this development. And I was one of the folks who submitted a substantial amount of geotechnical concerns for this development. I have a degree in mining engineering with an emphasis in geology and 12 years experience in moving earth on the large scale. That is my career. I am incredibly concerned about the safety of the people who could potentially be buying properties in this development as they sit. The gentleman from the developer did say that many of the sinkles are nearby. They're not technically on the property. Here's the great thing about geology. It doesn't really care about your property lines. One of the sink holes on the western side of this development line, directly on the Hamilton County line, is 18 ft deep. It is classified per 2020 survey as extremely active. Things expand, especially when you screw with water and limestone with shale sub layers. That's just a fact. So, while we can perhaps we can engineer our way around a problem with a road, perhaps we can build more schools, maybe we can address some utility concerns or traffic safety concerns. You can't change the bedrock. You can't change what is directly below these foundations. Are you telling me that people who can afford half a million to 1.2 million homes are going to willingly buy on documented sinkholes with adjacent sinkhole activity? It just makes no sense. If this were to move forward, the county and the DNR would require bore samples at least 70 foot deep. That is a fabulous piece of information and something that everyone here needs to understand. So, those are my concerns from a professional perspective. My concerns from a person living directly adjacent to this and as a new resident of Union Township. Much like many of the other folks who spoke,

I moved here about two years ago. Could have lived anywhere in Cincinnati. We chose to live in Union Township because of the people, the space, the community, and the affordability. We were priced out of countless homes. We had to fight like hell to live where we live. And we love our home. We love our neighbors. We love the safety that that community brings to us. But the one unsafe piece is the road. And it makes me incredibly nervous. In my time there, I've seen multiple wrecks. I've had the power poles in front of my house taken out. They were actually in front of the NY home. I've had an impaired driver ride through my front yard at high speed, overcorrect, hit a tree, snap it off in half. We've backfilled ruts. I pick up beer bottles and little shot bottles, disposable vapes, huge amounts of trash every week. During the summer, we'll fill a Walmart bag with beer cans every week. There's a lot to this community that I can understand. We need homes. I'm not anti-development. I build mines for a living. I'm prodevelopment, but I'm pro responsible development. And everything that I've heard this evening from this developer and the lack of detail in these documents is the opposite of responsible. Should this be approved, I'm going to be incredibly disappointed. Ma'am, your time's up. Thank you. [Applause] I apologize. Uh, Mio Perez It's actually Meg Perez. Thank you. Thank you. I figured it was wrong. I just didn't know how wrong it was. My handwriting is horrible. Um, so my name is Meg Perez. I am a licensed realtor in Ohio in Kentucky. I live at 462 Winern Forest Lane. If you look not at this image, there's another image. if you

would be so kind as to throw it up to show the homes. We live at the very corner we touch this development. Our backyard, we own an acre and a third. We have a private driveway. We purchased here to get me out of the urban suburban stuff I deal with every day. So, we moved out there for quiet enjoyment. Our neighborhood is wonderful. We've lived there since 2020. We are the home where the surveyor just showed up, didn't wait for permission, moved into my backyard, and accessed that property from my land. Okay. We denied access every time after that for that reason. Um, I have a major concern about geotech. I do quite a bit with developers and builders and urban sites where in otr, if you know where that is in Cincinnati, we're building on land. The city requires a geotech and I know sir, you're going to require that. So, I heard that, but the fact that this developer has come here without doing that first is irresponsible in my professional opinion. This is also very concerning to me considering most of our acreage is on a hill. So, we have a specific backyard that's fenced in. And if you mess with that land over there, the weight of those homes, if they're anywhere on a slope, are going to affect the slope of my home. It's a fact. And we've heard from geologists. We've heard from some great people that can back that up. Um, it also devalues

our property greatly because right now we enjoy quiet evenings. We enjoy wildlife. It's beautiful back there. This alone will devalue not just ours but the whole neighborhood. And the fact that they are claiming that they can build 1.2 2 1.5 mil right next to a 500k home. I don't know a buyer in my rolodex that would pay that to be across the street from that circus in the middle. And and I'm all for I'm all for affordable housing. I fight for it every day in Cincinnati. But devaluing my home to put money in their pocket is not okay. And you all I so appreciate your public service. I truly do. You all have a responsibility. Thank you. Emily Supper. Good evening. Thank you. Uh, my name is Emily Supinger. I'm an attorney at the law firm of Strauss Troy and I represent John and Sarah Nyer who reside right next door to this proposed development on the right side of the one lane driveway which is proposed to be a 55- ft rideway with this development that extends the entire length. And I wanted to address some of the more legal issues much like Mr. Hogan who spoke before me and the first being what is it that we're here for? Because I reached out specifically on Monday with the question to zoning staff is this concept plan or

is it a formal plan? And I was told it was combined concept and formal plan. So and that's what it appears to be from the staff report as well which also makes reference on page seven to this being the formal plan. So let's move on work on the assumption as the formal plan. As Andy indicated there are 20 plus items that were required to be in this application and at least half of them are missing and the language of the zoning resolution is very clear. If that let if those items are not in the application, the zoning commission, I'm sorry, if the the failure to plan to demonstrate all the required criteria shall result in rejection of the plan by the zoning commission and the trustees, the information is not there. The application is incomplete. It should be rejected tonight. But moving on substantively, and there's three points I want to make substantively on this. The first is that this proposed plan is a drastic deviation from what is currently allowed on this property. And the idea that 85 homes could be built on this property under straight zoning is simply incorrect. Um, even 80 homes is incorrect. Not only are you taking into you are you adding roads, but you have to have minimum square footage and minimum road frontage. So the reality is is you probably could get 50 homes on this site um taking out the unusable land and putting in the proper road frontage that each side uh site would require. So it is almost doubling the density on this site that would be there under the existing zoning. Additionally, the panhandle shape of the subdivision creates a variety of problems. The most important being that the lack of

emergency access. One way in and one way out is not an appropriate subdivision. It's not good zoning. Generally speaking, um there's a comment in the staff report that it could be figured out later. I don't know looking at this map how you're getting additional access. I don't think any of these folks in this room are going to give you access through their yards. Ma'am, your time is up. Okay. Thank you very much. John Lips. Hello. I'm John Lips. I live at 4891 Orland Road. My property is right there on the bend of Orland Road. So, I'm affected by the drive. Most of everybody who spoke before me have all the concerns that I have, the entrance way, the drive, the uh small uh lots with all the houses close together. One of the big Well, there's two big concerns that I have. One is the retention ponds and part of the zoning uh should provide the safety and health of people. I believe the way they have those retention ponds. We're going to have an insect issue. They're going to probably say, "Well, they've got two two lakes back there now, but those lakes are stocked with fish and other animals that we don't have the insect problem." I'm afraid we're going to have mosquitoes. We're going to have stagnant water in both of those retention uh retention ponds. As for the big lots at the top on the northern side, I believe, and I've seen developers do

that, they're going to start selling all the uh inside close together houses, which most some people called the circus. As soon as as soon as those are sold or close to being sold, they're going to come back and say those lots aren't selling. We want to do an administrative change and next thing you know, we're going to have in those big lots the same uh cluster of houses that we see in the middle. There's no way to stop it. Once this goes to R4 for everything, we're going to have that problem. And I know they've done it in the past. They've done changes with administrative. Once the administr once it goes R4, it doesn't have to come back to the zoning. Alls it has to do is present it to the trustees for their approval. So, I'm against that. Um, basically, I worked for Dr. Fix for many years cutting his grass. I've seen the sink holes. I've seen the uh uh Indian relics that this gentleman talked about. I think a lot of that needs to be uh preserved or at least checked out to see uh uh if there's any thing that's going to uh be a detriment to Claremont County history. Thank you. Thank you. [Applause] Seven 8 9 Um, Andrew Schmidt. Andrew Schmidt, 4858 Orland Road. And a question for clarification um, regarding I believe it's the second to last bullet point on the staff recommendations for the stub, the future

stub. If you could read that, please. Somebody have the staff report, handy up here. The staff recommends that the applicant provide one or more stubs to adjoining property for emergency access and or for the future access areas in coordination with the township fire department and and county engineer staff recommendations. Okay. And then I would like you to point out in between the red flag homes and the yellow flagged homes, there's a green space. You point that out on the map, please. where the gas line runs. Correct. Correct. Yes. So, is that the proposed or the will will that be the proposed stub or access road into Orland for emergency access? And that's yet to be determined. So, it could be. I have no idea. But the county and the uh and the fire department both require the emergency access. Without emergency access, the project would not go forward. Can the uh can the builder talk to that? You have Is there any other is there any other spot that could be used as the stub for the access road? Go ahead and answer the question, please. Thank you. The the gap he's referring to is where there's a gas easement. So on this plan, that's not intended as an emergency access area. Uh the entry road is going to be all rightway because standard rideway is 50 feet, it's like 55 ft wide. So instead of having this random little 5ft open space, just made it all right. So, you know, instead of and we can show pavement if we need to, but basically that whole entry road could have a stub anywhere because it's all rightway you would be connected to if that property

were to ever sell or develop. So if you look at that entry road, it's all right. Any of that could be connected to with a road if that makes sense. It doesn't you you're talking about the current Fallon Way. Yeah. So you would have a stub off of Fallon Way. You could. Yes. Yeah. So you show it on the map. I'm not sure. So the typically an alternative access road for emergency access is not on the main not off the main entrance drive. It's it's it's off of another road should there be and it's something blocking the main entrance drive. Then there has to be another access point. Right. We would show it wherever the fire department would require one essentially. But you would have to what I'm What I'm saying though is if you wanted to adjoin like stub into an adjoining property. Yeah. That eastern property line is where the stub could be. Okay. Could you point that out on the map for everyone, please? No, we we can't. I don't know if I can reach. Appreciate it. Please proceed with your comments. So, I'm unclear. So the gas easement, can you build a road on or over or adjacent to the gas? Please address us going forward. Can you build a road in that green space where the gas easement line is? Not without permission from the property owner. Okay. It would have to go through a property to do that, right? Okay. Thank you. Thank you. John Nyer.

Good evening. I want to add one thing that I haven't heard previously uh per your request, which is gratitude. Thank you to all of you for your uh I did hear it uh briefly, but uh thank you for your service. This is I'm sure you have better things to do on an evening or more enjoyable things to do an evening than this. And I want to particularly call out Mr. McCormack. I reached out with a question and I got a speedy, comprehensive, helpful response. And that is not always the case. Uh and I very much appreciate that. So I I appreciate that. I live at 4895 Beachwood, which is a 32 acres to the uh east. Thank you. Um uh with Sarah, my wife of 28 years. We moved there four years ago. uh drawn to the environment and surrounding. Um and I like being married and I can assure uh the developer that they will not be getting a stub to the east. Uh so uh that dog ain't going to hunt. Um but the other thing I want to jump on is um is the lack of amenities. Uh just because I think it's a a substantive manifest flaw in the plan. Uh and I I can't speak to the developers motivations. I have no prior knowledge or association, but the absence of that just seems plainly on the face of it inconsistent with the requirements uh for this type of zoning that's being requested. So, that by itself, I I think there's a lot of reasons why this should go down, but that seems black and white clear to me. If if that's not in the zoning code, then I misread it. So, I appreciate your time. I appreciate everybody turning out tonight, and thank you for uh the chance to speak. Thank you. Lois Sedaka. I'm Lois Sedaka, 4894 Beachwood Road. I've lived there for 40 years and my family has lived there for several generations. So, we know this land pretty well. Um,

we at first were very concerned about the the road. It is still the very narrow country road that it has been 60, 70, 100 years, no widening. There are deep ditches. There was some data presented at the beginning of how many reported wrecks there are, but those of us that live there know that there are many more wrecks that go unreported. They call the tow truck, they get them pulled out, and as long as there's not injury or, you know, police needing to be involved. So, we're adding to that burden. It already has so much pressure since the exit to 275 was opened down at at River's Edge. So, that's that's the first concern. That's a um daily daily concern. In addition, the storm water floods many backyards along our way. Where is this new pressure going to go? Sinkholes. There are a few other people besides myself in the room that have not just looked at a topo map, but we know the land. We know where the sinkholes are personally. I know they can show up overnight or they can go from a 12 inch sinkhole to a three or foot 4 foot wide sinkhole overnight. It's a very dynamic situation at all times. Um I am not an uh archaeologist. I am not a geologist or a a person of expertise, but it is hearsay. The Indian relics that have been found on the land for generations speak for themselves. Um, an expert

needs to come in and and attest to all this. This all has to be checked out. um environmental impact, wildlife, not just pollution from more homes, noise pollution, traffic, the traffic, noise pollution has escalated greatly in the last couple years. It's going to continue there. Overall, I think, you know, I'm none of these impact these experts, but I am a teacher and I think everybody that lives in this community lives there because this is our personal values and we want to continue this value with the next generation. We teach our children these values of appreciating the land. This is completely contradictory to this to this community and that is what I ask you all to take into consideration. Ma'am, Luke Sedaka. Luke Sedaka reside at 4908 Beachwood Road. Uh I grew up on the surrounding farm properties and brought my own young family back there. We did a major renovation project on a house that's less than 100 ft from Beachwood. Most my concerns have been addressed, but I really hate to think that I'm sacrificing my quality of life, my family's quality of life, and our safety. I would really like to deny the zoning change and the current plan. Thank you very much. Dennis Jones.

My name is Dennis Jones. I live at 4896 Beachwood Road. Been there for 37 and a half years. Um, I'd like to say the traffic issue, like Lois has just spoke of is more concerning than what the numbers come up to. I'm out there usually once a month, every other month, uh, directing traffic from accidents in my front yard, my neighbor's front yard, helping the police out because they're busy with, um, the accident. Um, I've replaced probably 23 mailboxes in the 37 years I've lived there. I'm now to the point where I have no there's no burm left on our ditch line to put another post in for a mailbox. There's a gas line running right there and I'm hitting the sand for the gas line. It's all eroded and gone. I'm going to have to put a post and a extension on the other side of the road ditch to get my mailbox out next time it gets knocked out. And I'm afraid somebody's going to get speared with that post, but that's the only way I got to get mail. I've also I worked for Claremont County Water and Sewer District for 30 years. I have concerns about the uh sewer. Uh I assume they were going to be putting a lift station in if any of those homes have basements. The sewer out there, I believe, is somewhere around 8 to 9 foot deep. So, with the fall from that subdivision to get out to the sewer line, it's going to have to have a lift station to pump it out there. Those lift stations cause with the way people put their stuff down their disposal, their sinks, the antibacterial soap, it kills all the bugs that that works with the sewer and it creates hydrogen sulfide. those lift stations where they pump out and they dump into the main when the water cascades it releases a hydrogen sulfide

which is a rotten egg smell and soon that whole area if the list station's pumping out on the beachwood road will be uh will be stinking. Um that um sewer line down through there is put in in the mid70s. A concrete sewer line life expectancy is 50 years. So you're right at 50 years with that concrete line. Hydrogen sulfide turns that concrete into dust. You can reach in and grab a hunk of concrete and crumble it in your hand. So the infrastructure on that sewer line is something to be concerned about. Also, the water man down through there is 50 years old and it's constantly breaking up and down that road. You're out of water constantly. Anytime anybody does something, hits a a fire hydrant, uh they give you meters to put on there to fill swimming pools. It happened up around Somerside, broke a broke a water man. I mean, they're constantly breaking up and down through there. So, you've got infrastructure issues concerning the water and sewer that needs to be addressed. Sir, your time's up. Thank you. Mark Sedaka. John beat me to thanking you. You've asked great questions and you have a very open mind. My name is Mark Sedaka. I live at 4894. This was my uncle's farm, a third of my grandfather's. I've farmed these fields with my uncle, hunted them every day of my life. He would be very disappointed to see this happen. And I'm not surprised to see it from Brookstone. I just can't believe we're even here with so little information.

I see six or seven houses on sink holes. And these aren't little sink holes. These are 50 60 feet in diameter that we've lost dogs in going after fox and things. And they go deep over the hill. So everybody has made trans fantastic points and I can't address a lot of it but uh so I'm passionate about seeing it developed correctly safely. Right. Beachwood is at capacity. I remember up until the seven my 17th year you didn't have to look to get out on Beachwood. You just drove from the street or anything on Beachwood. There was so little traffic every day. Now it takes five minutes to get out. There's a solid stream of traffic, you know, the Polo Field coming and and Pepper Ridge and all the other ones. And then they did River's Edge and they promised us Beachwood would never cross the tracks into River's Edge. A year and a half later, Beachwood's crossing the tracks into River's Edge. This is not going to help the situation on Beachwood. Beachwood without any upgrade like Dennis said the sewer and the water and then we're getting a Waw Wa in Mount Carmel that is going to really impact Beachwood as well. So all those things considered I don't even think we should be here. This project is not ready for review. I have 60 acres of this farm still and I'm going to put it into an agriculture easement so I don't have to disappoint or stand in front of my neighbors and hear this Debbie Forsight.

Hi, my name is Debbie Foresight and I live at 645 Brandy Way. I'm not even on that map. Um, we lived at that address for 43 years. So, we have witnessed a lot of development and change over the years. Um, it's inevitable. I'm sorry. So, you're saying you're not in any proximity. You don't reside in proximity to this development. Not right there, but I'm greatly affected by it because I live right off of Beachwood. Okay. So, we have to get on to Beachwood all the time. And that has gotten so busy. And the more traffic it is, people that actually reside or are responsible and drive the speed limit, people come up behind you and they have passed us on curves just because they don't want to take the time to to wait. My husband served on the committee that was for the 32 corridor development and the whole purpose of that was to make it easier for people to be attracted to Claremont County and to offer more places to work and attract more people to the area. They in that whole prospectus there was a desire to put cluster homes and have walkable communities. This is not one of them. Where are you going to walk to here? Where are the kids going to play? There is no place for them to play except in the streets. And so there's no park there. It's just not a good place for this development. Someplace else in Claremont County, more by the mall or something, but out here in this rural area, that is not the

right place to have this type of cluster development on those postage little lots. It doesn't make any difference where in the development they are. They're there. They could be in the front. They could be in the back, but it's just too densely populated in there. And again, responsible development is welcome, but that is not responsible development. Thank you. [Music] [Applause] B Michaels All right. Thank you, gentlemen. And uh once again, thank you to the community here and your voices speaking out. I mean, thank you all. You're all being heard. Just want you all to know that. And so, and thank you gentlemen for your time this evening, for listening to us, for understanding what's going on, asking your questions. I just have to say it's really appreciated. I can see that you guys are taking the measures that are necessary to do so. So, thank you. Um, I live at 221B Baker Street. I have moved into an effective area and have lived here for less than a year, but a resident of Union Township now for about 10 years. Um, once again, I do want to thank you all again for your time today. First off, I just want to reiterate that this is an egregiously unprepared plan and be witness in the answers that have been given this evening as well as the information that has been provided and the community is greatly concerned. It is clear that they did not take stress steps to address the concerns of the community. First off, even address whether or not the community accepts this. There's little research in the preservation of the landscape wildlife that is required by the code. And there's also lack of legal research as to what is allowed to be built on this particular property.

Particularly, there's a lack of a plan A, a plan B, and a plan C. So when we live in an area I lived in now both of them where school districts and levies are not approved you know this is going to add additional stress on these already suffering teachers that are working hard to raise our kids and being a father of myself a young one I'm greatly concerned by this because we don't know if these are going to be voting citizens that value education and also living in an effective area where traffic studies you know I'm concerned about that particularly with Beachwood, Somersside, all the surrounding areas and how that could affect not just my life but the lives of the people here, people's families, children. I mean, we're gravely concerned about that. I've lost power now in my new home more times I've lost power in the last 5 years in Union Township like when my prior place and I work with under unprepared government on a regular basis. I do not see you guys being unprepared government. But what I do see is an egregiously unprepared plan. And as officials, I you know, I just strongly advocate you all to enforce the code statutes that you have stor you that you stand here to stand by and that you stand by your oath for us and the community and for the people here that are speaking out and even for Brookside because I mean, yeah, development is probably going to go in at some point, but let's just make sure it's to code to standards that an area that actually values everybody and not just the greed of a company. I mean, I do wish Brookfield the best. I really do. I mean, right now, I'm against this Potterville. And lastly, if you give a moose a mouse a cookie or moose a muffin, they'll want more. But if you give greed an inch, it will take a life. So, please don't put this on your conscience as you rule and take this into consideration, whatever comes about this evening. Once again, I stand with the community. Thank you, gentlemen, for your time. You guys have a nice seat.

[Applause] Aaron Hansma. No, we're not accepting applications any longer. Hi, good evening. My name is Aaron Hansma. I live at 466 Winfern Forest Lane. So, you can see my pool at the corner of the red boxes right there. Um, I wasn't going to speak, but my 14-year-old twins often trespass on that property and they wanted their voices heard. Please know that, um, first and foremost, my opinion is not that the land should not be be developed at all. Had the Fix family not sold part of their property, I would not be in the beautiful home and property that I do. Development will and should happen within a community, but done so responsibly and with transparency. My biggest concerns are, as most people have said, Beachwood Road. Driving on that road is a safety hazard as it is. Increasing traffic even more without first planning and changing the road should be considered a known risk that the township leaders take responsibility for any future incidents. It is so narrow that cars ride tight to the right yellow line and often cross, especially on the curbs. It is a daily occurrence to need to swerve tighter to the limited edge in order to avoid uncouping traffic. I avoid this road at night or when it is wet because drivers simply aren't aware of the dangers and often cross the yellow line. This is even more common with the large trucks like those coming from the on the area quaries and landscape companies. Buses have a difficult time maneuvering that road. I was behind a garbage truck the other day and it was on the yellow line for a good amount of time. Not because the driver wasn't paying attention, but because it had no choice due to the dar narrow road. Beachwood Road already easily backs up if one car cannot pull off onto into its respective neighborhoods due to

no dedicated turn lanes. Even Polo Fields has modified turn lanes and one of those entrances still creates a safety risk because of the lack of visibility around a curb and hill. We do need not we do not need another development of this size with this much added strain. The size of the proposed development entryway is tight to say the very least. Comparable to that of the back entry to Beachwood Farms via Wesley. Already at that entry, cars have to wait on Beachwood Road and allow cars to pull off Wesley because it is too tight to turn. Buses and other large vehicles simply cannot maneuver in that area and cause backups. Yet another neighborhood with that issue is unnecessary. Drainage. Here's where I throw my kids under the bus. They often hike on the property in question. They love going to the creek and digging up clay, making forts on various islands. At one point, they told me about a house in a pond. So, I ventured out with them and basically realized they were in the fixed front yard looking in the windows. One day, one thing that struck me at the time was how much of a swamp it is back there in the very places that the developer plans to put the circus. The reason they are planning multiple retaining basins is because they know this. There's a high likelihood of water problems with the day the clay soil we have here. Retaining basins will not be enough. Beachwood Farms time is up. Thank you. [Applause] Peggy Simmons. Um, hello. I'm Peggy Simmons and I live at 4877 Orland Road. Um, I'm not a speaker, so I'm a little nervous. But my first question, um, when I heard all about this after I saw a car pull up or a truck and they put a big X on the road

right in front of our house and talking with neighbors realized that we are going to have a devel development back behind um our houses back there on the farm. So, my first question was, um, well, are there plans to make another entrance or exit road from this neighborhood? Because the map clearly shows just one. Um, and that got me thinking about the X put in front of our house and whether or not, um, people have already talked to neighbors in our neighborhood and have developed some sort of plan to make a future road. Um, so I guess my question is if this does go, uh, are there plans to make another road from, um, their neighborhood into our existing neighborhood? There's there's nothing been presented to us at this time for that. Okay. And um with that said, uh since we got no prior written notice or anything from the developer that this was going on and clearly it was word of mouth, um is there any plans in the future to be connecting any of the neighborhoods like that with roads? There are no plans at this time. Okay. Also on the plan, there's the walking trail that they have back there around the detention pond. Uh right storm water management. It says a walking path, a neighborhood walking path. Um what is the two there two dotted lines coming through? That's a gas line underground. It it Okay. Um so there's no plans to be connecting the sidewalk or anything like that into the other neighborhoods. Not currently. Not currently. Okay. Um uh is there another uh time where residents can ask questions?

We my family and I came up with 14 different questions. This will go to the trustees. Uh and at the time you can questions can be asked now or questions can be asked when it goes to the trustees for review of our recommendation. Okay. Um and then tonight's meeting um will there be a decision made tonight? We will make a we will make a recommendation to the trustees tonight. Tonight. Okay. And that will be sent publicly to if it becomes record public record. It'll be on record. Okay. All right. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. [Applause] I'm sorry. That's the last Go ahead. I think we're done. You sure? Okay. Yeah. You what? What? You have the paper? There's one. [Applause] Sharon Ner. Thank you. Uh I'm Sarah Nyer. I'm at 4895 Beachwood Road, the property along the the edge there. Um, and my um purpose here this evening is actually just to thank everyone behind us and to let you um zoning commissioners in on how very many people um have rallied around this issue and how gratifying it has been um to hear all of those opinions. Um within the last week um 700 people have joined our Facebook page um about dense development in Union Township. Some of those posts have 3,000 views. One of them has 10,000 views. Um and the comments are all in favor of not

allowing this particular plan and zoning. Um we had at least 30 people um at our house last week. um all who had wonderful ideas about um what could happen in that space. Uh that does make sense. Um and we everyone here myself um just want you to know that the community engagement is there and it would be a real shame to not listen to that community engagement. And I realize that's not the the issue of the zoning commission. I realize that that's not why we are here. Um, but these folks deserve to be heard and thank you for letting Thank you. Thank you. All right. At this time, we're going to be moving into private session. We may ask uh any member of the audience a question or we may not. Uh you're required to stay quiet. You can you can leave quietly if you so choose. Uh but we will be discussing the case amongst ourselves. Yes, please. Um could I address? Yes, please step forward. Thank you. Um, obviously we've heard a lot of comments and concerns and u based on the comments and the concerns we've heard um talking with the the the group over here um we're we're requesting that this uh matter be tabled so we can or continued whatever the official word would be so we could go back in and and and look at and and try to um address

the concerns that that the the group has expressed. Some of them were um expected and and you know others were were um um maybe not as as um expected. Mr. McCormack, can the case be withdrawn at this stage? I' I'd prefer to move forward with it. make a recommendation to the trustees. I mean with withdrawn is one thing that's not what the applicant rep just applicants requesting what I just heard a table and and I have to authorize the table and I'm Yeah, you'd have to either way you've got a motion you'd have a motion to um I mean they can withdraw but then they're resubmitting if they do that. You can have a motion to continue your table the issue and bring it back if you were going to do that. you might want to put a stipulation on there so that you're not hearing the entirety of all the same evidence again. Unless it's a new plan. If their intention is to submit a revised plan that's not a totally new plan, then I you know that's that's a different scenario than a new plan which is the same as a recent middle. Um it's I mean you can it's up to your discretion. I'm inclined to move forward with making a recommendation and if the applicant then so chooses to withdraw the case after the applica after the the recommendation has been made then they can please everybody stay quiet that you don't do yourself a service by interrupting the conversation. So if we make a a motion to approve or or disagree and and we agree on that whatever we we decide on then the applicant then make a decision at that point whether to withdraw or and then resubmit or withdraw entirely. Is that correct? Yes. I mean the applicant can also move

forward with the recommendation and try to make amendments to the plan which is another option for them. I mean so it's it's really a matter of how you your decision to make out how to best proceed. Yeah, I'm not prepared to table it at this point. You can withdraw if if you're going to withdraw the your application. Uh and that's a last minute withdrawal. That's that means we've gone through all this for nothing. Are you withdrawing? Um can I have a moment to Sure. consult. and and to the audience uh you you you all made good points uh you were all very organized but I I will advise you when you go in front of the trustees do not repeat the same thing over and over again you do not do justice to your your credibility you don't you you damage your credibility So when you hear somebody has made clearly a point that you want to make as well, I know you've prepared and it's hard not to come up and say what you want to say, but you can damage your credibility by repeating the same thing over and over and over again. And there wasn't a lot of that, but there was some of it. So I'm just make re a recommendation and and providing advice when you go before the trustees not to consume a tremendous amount of time repeating the same thing. Mr. Chairman. Yes. If I might address the those gathered here uh just to bring a bit of levity after this case is decided, we do have several tech zoning text amendment changes to go through. You're welcome to sit through it. And people are welcome to stay for that exciting part. Uh there is possibility for public comment. I think someone once wandered in on those text amendments accidentally. Uh but you're more than

welcome to stay for them. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you. And and for the most part those are to improve antiquated processes and texts and correct outline procedures in a better manner so that we don't have yes such a broadbased discussion or you could watch it on YouTube later if you if you'd like. Yes, Mr. Mer. Yes. Sorry. Uh I guess after our preference obviously would would be to u give us an opportunity to go back you know table it which which you spoke to that um your your desire not to go that direction. So having um that option I guess our other option is or our option that we're choosing is to officially withdraw the application. So we could Is that how that you can make a motion? You can make a motion on that and vote on that. All right. I don't know that you have to, but I think it would probably be probably makes sense. All right. I will uh pull I'll I'll uh make a motion uh to accept the applicant's uh request to withdraw this uh proposed uh R4 development. Second. I defer to Mr. W. Uh Mr. McCormick, please call roll. Mr. Wing, yes. Mr. Tooff, yes. Mr. Campbell, yes. Mr. Lewis, yes. Motion passes. There will not be anything submitted to trustees at July. If we have another submitt, everyone will get notified in the same manner that they were notified in the first time. Um, all the people within 200 feet of the affected area property would get notified. We'll post up signs. We'll put it on the internet. We'll put it in the newspaper. We've been using Cincinnati's newspaper because the Claremont Sun um was not

publishing our notices properly and after the third time, even though we were getting them done ahead of time, it was a problem. So, we are now using Cincinnati Inquirer um unfortunately. So, that's we if we received another application, that's what we'll do. All right. So, does everybody understand that or any questions? What does that mean? the uh okay the applicant the applicant has withdraw withdrawn their application for the zone change. What that means is they will go back. They may decide to go a different direction. They may decide to go the same direction with modifications but their process starts over and everything that has happened to this point will repeat. The same thing will happen again. Back to the old back to the old drawing board. We'd have no idea on time frame. Back to the drawing board. It's it's it's on them to reapply in that time frame and give us ample time to notify everybody. Yes. Are we allowed to make a motion to continue as currently stands? I'm sorry. He he he can I make a motion to continue the proceedings as they currently stand? No, you cannot. Okay. Thank you. When you're over here, you can't. Some counties allow. I know. I All right. Uh we are going to move on to our text amendments. If everyone would please exit quietly. We have presentations. You want to take a short Can we take a short break? Let's uh let's take a 10 minutes. Great job, guys. Thank you.

back in order. If everyone would still going to leave, please be quietly leave. Thank you. Thank you. Please close the door. All right, Mr. McCormack, please provide us a synopsis of what we're looking at with text amendments. Okay. Um, so what you saw and voted on in April for article 13 regarding overlay district plan expiration and modifications regarding also the accessory table being added for as figure 2 to article 6 section 602 and also in figure one adding the minimum floor areas associated with the residential lots. Yes. Um and also the signage height and off- premise signage uh draft text from article 9 section 9007. All those were reviewed by legal counsel for the township and the trustees and they basically said, "Hey, our legal counsel recommended we make some changes and so those are coming back to you." And in doing so, when I talked to the township administrator, he suggested that we consolidate those. Instead of one, two, three, 25T, we just call them all 125T, which is fine. I I think I had seen that they had at some point somewhere along the line split them up differently and that's how we did started off doing them. I have no problem doing either way. Um, right now they're all consolidated under 125T for

the overlay district plan language. Um, so when this was sent to the legal council, we were taking a scalpel and strategically trying to fix things until we go back maybe and do like a bigger fix later. When the attorney looked at it, you know, she basically thought, well, we should write this whole area and make it very similar to the PD and outline, you know, what's, you know, what we do for for modification and all the things that she wrote were was good. I I was just trying to be more precise about what we changed. So when we got to do a bigger change, it would be if we wanted to go very different, it was going to be a it could be totally different. Um so really what you're seeing is is just especially with article 13, um more explanation for the process. It doesn't change the substance of what we talked about at all um and what was voted upon previously. It just talks about prior to the expiration what the process would be. Um we have a section regarding completion of overlay plan construction work and requirements. Um when it needs to be started and finished um procedure to an amendment an overlay plan for minor amendments for major amendments. That's probably where the most significant amount of text was added. I don't know if you if you want would like for me to go over that or not, but it's very very similar to what's in there for the plan um development uh or I'm sorry, the overlay the plan development changes that we made a few years ago. Yeah, I read through it. I didn't see anything that concerned me. Did anybody else have any issues? No. No. Straightforward. So, the and then the tables and and figures for article six, no changes made there. Okay. Um, other than the ones that you asked for us to make when we ported it

to the trustees in the first place, I I don't think there were any substantive changes made to article 9, section 907. She had a couple questions that we we answered and when I talked to her on the phone, explained what we were doing, told her again, we're look taking a approach. We know we need to really redo a lot of article 9 at some point. We're just trying to take care of like the worst at this point. Um, and I I I I apologize. I I did find something in here that I wanted to bring up and uh ask and I'm good either way, but on the uh spreadsheet for the uh accessory structures, the uh the table, yes, the if if the person has exactly 25,000 square foot property, they have a choice of two different directions to go the because it's 25,000 ft to 1 acre or the one below it 10,000 to25 5,000 rather than $2499 or however you want to do it. If you want to leave it this way and is anybody going to have exactly a 25,000 ft property? Probably not. So it it's probably not, you know, in in the wording back in se in in section 711, we did greater than or equal to, less than or equal to. We use that that terminology here. You you'd have to, you know, use the greater than equal to symbol and and so forth. It's up to you if if you want to leave it like this. I'm comfortable with it. I just wanted to make sure everybody was aware of it. Yeah, we can we can um adjust that. That's very easy to fix. We see exactly what it says there. One really? Well, yeah. The top one could be 25,0001 and the bottom one 25 and the next one below it 25,000. That's true. Other than that, um, if the board is good with those, we could have a motion on those. We have

a vote on those. I'll make I'll make a motion on that and we'll cover all uh all three modifications. So, regarding case 1-25-T, zoning resolution text amendments, the zoning commission finds that the proposed text amendments to the Union Township zoning resolution is consistent with the intent of the zoning resolution and the comprehensive land use plan 2030. The text amendments being considered address overlay plan expirations and apply to article 13 section 1311 of our zoning resolution accessory structures uh and apply to article 6602 of our zoning resolution and also signage height which applies uh to article 9 section 907 of our zoning resolution. This commission recommends the text amendments be adopted. Make a second or is that your motion? That's my motion. Do is anybody want to make a modification to that motion? No, Mr. Chair. And then Bradley second it. So, Mr. McCormack, would you please call roll? Yes. Mr. Williams? Yes. Mr. Tooff? Yes. Mr. Campbell? Yes. Mr. Lewis? Yes. Motion passes. We are left with article what we are we presented previously, I think, as part of article five or seven. Now we're Yeah. Could you explain what's what's going on there? Um, so we had it in there as five or seven, I don't remember. And when I talked to our administrator about it, because we also talked about having his own article, he he thought the best thing to do would be to have his own article. Okay. Which historically speaking in my history, in my job, like my professional job, like that's how we've done it. But in some of the Ohio resolutions I've looked at, they don't have as many articles. Like where I used to work, we had 27 articles. And like for example, site plan review was an article. transportation regulations was an article. Lighting was not its own article. However, we don't have the

depth that that we had in my last job as a county where we were doing like 300 some square miles of enforcement of different things. Um so, article 14 um would be the article we would suggest for that. Um, some of this, yes, all those texts would be new, but I think the most substantial changes, the I think the general purpose and intent was was already in there. So, what happens to section to article I mean article 5, sections 540 to 548 what we had before? Do they go away? No, we incorporated them in the article 14. So, let me pull that up because I don't recall all the changes off hand. I almost printed them off side by side and today got busier than I thought. I had a closing unexpectedly happened and I got a hour notice and then we had a audit, state auditing thing that got dropped on us. We were trying to get people sign up last minute. It was a day of perfect storm. Yeah. of unexpected activity. So, I lost a couple hours that I thought I was going to have today. Um, let's see here. Was that 325T previously? I believe it was. Yep. There you go. So it was 540. So general purpose and lighting that section looking at it quickly looks exactly the same. 1,400 is 540. And I think everybody was okay with the that particular one. Yeah. Um lighting excluded from regulations. No permit required. That one's the same. I think we were okay with that one. Yep.

Prohibited lighting. That one's the same. 542 to 1402 general requirements. I believe there are some differences here. Um I read through everything. I didn't did anybody else read through it? I didn't see any. General requirements is different. Um we originally had 10 items and now we're at six. But that part of that's because of the way the or information is organized. Um, yeah, number two's pretty much the same, but number one is definitely different. I believe number one might be in there worded differently because of comments that was at the LA were at the last meeting. They're kind of the same. Number one originally was what you see on the screen and now number one is no event shall a lighting be placed or directed so permit beams and illumination originating from the source to be directed beam upon a public thoroughfare highway sidewalk or adjacent premises so to cause glare reflection that may constitute a traffic hazard or nuisance. It's really the same thing actually what it is we eliminated that first sentence. I'm sorry. Yeah, I liked everything that I read. I thought it was well done. Yeah, just watch the same three is [Applause] different. I probably moved property owners responsible to maintain lighting, which is a good one. I think that's a good one. I we um removed the lighting. 546 is the wrong reference, I think. Um I need to figure out what that is.

Hold on a second. Oh yeah, I didn't touch that. That is um [Applause] maintenance. Where's maintenance at 1407? So number three, that would change to 1407. uh wall mounted projected lighting. So, anything that's wrong here is Blake's fault, right? Yep. Cuz he worked on this more than I did. I I I gave him a lot of leeway to do this. But we Cory and I were giving him the what do you call the guardrails what to work look at and work at with um yeah I mean if you're good with the rest of those se those items in 1404. Is this modeled after the Lelin example like what was the other one? Oh, didn't we use another one that was recommended to us last month or something, too? I don't remember which one it was off hand. I had it written in my notes. I don't remember. So, we kind of pieced together a few things that we like from different places. Like the table is very similar to what I use at Dearborn. I like the table. Yep. The more tables we can put in the better. Yeah. Except when you ask I think I'm well established on the record. It's like just don't ask us to table a right an application. Yeah. Well, we especially after we've not tabled motives. It's almost done. Not

motioned to table anything since I've been on the commission. I know that I know we've had other boards table things like we had a cell tower table two or three times and that I could talk about that off the record. I not really like the way that whole situation went down but there are instances where it's certainly appropriate but in in cases that are brought to us typically typically everyone is very much on board with the timetable right trying to keep it going. Well, when you table it, you do it for a purpose. And in the one case, we tabled it two, three times to for certain information. And after like the third time they came in, they still didn't have the information. And then they made a decision on it anyways. And I thought it was I just for the sheer fact that they tabled it and all those people were impacted. It was bad. Yeah. Let's let's uh let's move this along and then we can close the uh out and then we can talk about requirements for lighting and residential districts. That was 544. that has expanded and I think that's partly because of our comments at the last meeting. 1406 is the requirements for lighting commercial uh industrial districts and that is a little different because your table changed from just not just foot panels but also loomings and also your numbered items. There's I think one more item. Do we do you know if the foot can panel lumens are comparable? Did you do a They're very okay. All right. I didn't know that off the top of my head. Maintenance nonconformities. Maintenance is the same. I think nonconformities little different. I think we dropped Okay. It's a little different. it it

went from being two parts to one variances handled by BZA. So that's the same. At the end of the day, the nice thing about this is is you're going to forward this to the you don't make a recommendation. If you kind of like this, I'm going to send it to the trustees. We're going to have the legal people look at it and they don't like it, it's going to come back to you anyways, just like it is like the first set did tonight. So, if you like it enough that you think, hey, we think this is worth passing on, have legal looking at it, um, we can do that. If if you have something you have a question or you want change, we still have time to fix it. No, I'm good with moving it on. Yes. Just we're all in agreement. 540. I'll pass that on, right? That one change. That one change. Yep. Yeah. To the 140. Yep. I'll change that and then um I'll let our administrator know and we'll send it to the legal people to look at and then if that way if they want to tinker with it a lot they we've got it done without wasting a lot of time this time. Okay. I don't have I don't need a motion for that. Right. All right. I'm going to uh I don't Anybody else have any other questions or business? I'm going to call this meeting concluded at 9:57 p.m. Thank you everyone. All right. Everyone, please turn off your speakers. Turn off your mics.