City Council - Regular Meeting

guys welcome we are going to get started first of all I'd like to mention that everybody we are glad to have you here tonight is August 27th this is the Xenia City Council regular meeting we are going to have an invocation led by Pastor Todd Martin from Liberty Life Church pastor thanks for being here followed by the Pledge of Allegiance by Councilwoman Cerise if you could rise please let's bow our heads

Father, we are grateful for your presence and we're grateful for your grace and your mercy for us. I pray over this city council meeting tonight. Each issue, each thing that is on the agenda, I pray that we will do all things, Lord, to your glory. And we pray that you will protect us, protect this city. And, Lord, I pray that you will put your arms of love and compassion around each one. And we thank you, Lord. In Jesus' name we pray. Amen.

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America.

Thank you Pastor Martin. Thank you. This time we're going to call our meeting to order and ask for a roll call.

Vice President Crawford?

Here.

Councilwoman Cerise? Present. Councilman Miscavige? Here. Councilwoman Huffman? Here. Councilman Rubio?

Here.

Mayor Reynolds?

Here.

President Smith?

Here. On the agenda next is the approval of minutes. This is from the August 13th regular meeting. I'll take a entertain a motion to accept the minutes. So moved. Okay, moved by the Vice President, seconded by the Mayor. Any additions or corrections need noted? All right, seeing none, we'll get a roll call to accept.

Vice President Crawford.

Aye.

Councilwoman Cerise. Abstain. Councilman Miscavige. Aye. Councilwoman Huffman. Aye. Councilman Rubio.

Aye.

Mayor Reynolds.

Aye.

President Smith.

Abstain. Motion carries. Thank you very much. We have no special presentation scheduled for tonight's regular meeting. That moves us into audience comments. This is the portion of the meeting where you're welcome to come forward. We do ask that you give us your name and address for the record. We are going to limit comments two to three minutes tonight. I do have a brief statement by the law director tonight.

Just wanted to remind if anybody's here tonight about the Timber Ridge that's on for introduction tonight. Any comments you make during audience comments cannot legally be considered by counsel because they're made during audience comments. What we would ask is that you come back to the next meeting and make those comments during the official public hearing.

Thank you very much. Thank you. All right. Anyone care to come forward tonight and address City Council?

Good evening. My name is Howard Horseman, 2428 Ridge Road, Xenia, Ohio. I'm here to speak on the ordinance that Ms. Fisher mentioned. I understand it's an introduction and that you can't take, there'll be no action taken on it tonight. But I do want to make sure you're aware of some things because you evaluate the proposal. I did send out an email. I'm hoping you all got either saw it or got copies of it. This is an issue that hits home. It's close to home for me, so to speak, so I'm making some noise about it tonight. Rest assured, I will be back at the next meeting when this is up for action, probably with a lot of other members of the Timber Ridge Posse. I just want to make you aware last year that an ordinance came up, Arbor Homes proposed ordinance 2025-33 that generated a lot of pushback from members in the community. Ultimately, it was voted down city council, I think, four to two or something like that. Arbor Homes has come back with a new proposal, which they presented at the 12 August P&Z meeting. Um, their new proposal took into account a lot of the concerns that residents raised about the proposal last year. I, I looked at it and I thought it was a good faith effort by Arbor homes. To take into account a lot of our concerns and I want to commend them. I think it's a, it's a good proposal. It's a reasonable compromise between what they want to do. And concerns that residents had with that proposal. So, I was pleased to see that come up and I spoke up for in the meeting. Imagine my surprise then when city staff. Proposed an alternative to their proposal that basically resurrects last year's proposal. And I'm here once again to speak in opposition to it. It's a in the phrase that in the words of that noted American philosopher Yogi Berra, it's like deja vu all over again. Nobody in the neighborhood supports this city's modified proposal just as nobody supported it last year. And I won't go into the details. I just want to make sure that that is understood. The major... the key difference between the proposals is the status of ridge road the city wants to extend ridge road into the new development which has very different design criteria from the existing neighborhood it would change the characteristics of the existing neighborhood i'm not anti-development you're over three minutes if you could just kind of summarize i'm a pro smart development and i think The existing neighborhood has a lot of value to Xenia. As something of a character myself, I appreciate the special character, the neighborhood, and I think it should be preserved. So I'm asking if city council can find a way to evaluate the contractor's new proposal in lieu of the city proposal. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Harsman. Who else would like to go forward at this time?

Mark Smith also spoke in the last meeting of number of resident of timber rich. And I think most residents of timber region and share that same sentiment. Although we might have a wish list of 10 or 12 different things, separating the 2 subdivisions is. Among our main 1, so we were happy to see that our homes plan suffice that. I will say, looking through the meeting minutes, that plan would have been the staff did satisfy with conditions. So, we could have worked off of that, which met those needs. And then, but we kind of got thrown a curveball with this only the staff approved plan. So, we have our homes saying, we don't care if there's a call to sack. We don't care if there's a 3 room. the residents saying we 100% need some separation. But, Although there could be some compromise by the city, we saw no compromise and actually the, you know, the original plan that was already presented mostly intact push push through. So, the reason there was 2 reasons that they said it didn't meet conditions. The 1st, 1 was that our current ordinances say that any subdivision. If reasonable, I think I have to look at the wording. Needs to extend when we talk about reasonable, we're talking about putting a high density development. Up against the neighborhood that has no sidewalks, no street lights. And it's highly walked and it is extremely dark even. You know, with the neighborhoods driving, because it is our neighborhood quite quite slow. It can still be, like, said unsafe at times. So, with that said, we feel like, why wasn't there a compromise? There's 3 stakeholders. The residents are willing to give in our brands is willing to give in. But we didn't see that from the city and. There are some reasonable solutions. So the one ordinance was there should always be a through road. The other ordinance is there needs to be two egress if there's more than 30 homes or a street is longer than 600 feet. We have less than 30 homes, but our 1 street. Is 900 feet so it does extend a little bit long. So, staff even said, unless it would get a zoning or variance that was kind of the sticking point. So. Are we really going to disappoint our residents over 300 feet? There's also other solutions. We could put a bollard between the two neighborhoods to separate them to where EMS could have emergency options. So with all of that said, we've got three stakeholders, we've got two that are willing to work, and we've got a city that's holding really tight to some questionable you know, standards. Plus, in talking to the city engineer and talking, you know, and this is my interpretation of zoning, there's not been a professional opinion done by an engineer or traffic study on whether it is safe to connect. That's okay. If you could summarize it. But we need, I mean, nobody professionally with their credentials to say it's safe to connect to our street has given us that. And just to push this forward without that to me is not very fair to the residents, but I appreciate it. Thank you. Thank you.

Anyone else care to come forward at this time? We're under for those that just joined us. We're under audience comments. All right, see no one else come forward. We're going to close audience comments and move on to old business. Our first item tonight in old business is a public hearing for ordinance 2026-30. This is providing for the election on amendments to sections 4.01 G and 2, section 4.05 A, section 5.01 B, section 9.04 C and 3. Article 11, Article 12, and Section 1301 of the Xenia City Charter. At this time, I will turn this back over to staff.

Thank you. Council, at your last meeting, adopted Ordinance 202629. We did that as an emergency. It read exactly the same as the ordinance you have before you tonight. And the purpose of the ordinance is to place certain charter amendments on the ballot in November for our voters to decide whether or not they want to make those recommended changes to the charter. We had to adopt 2629 as an emergency because our deadline to get these to the Board of Election is September 4th. However, under current charter, emergency ordinances automatically stand repealed as of the 61st day of their passage. So in addition to doing it as an emergency, we had to do an introduction and then your public hearing and vote tonight on this so that we have an ordinance that remains effective up until the time of the election. But this is exactly the same as 2629, which you passed at the last meeting.

All right, thank you. Any questions for Ms. Fisher, our law director tonight on this item? All right, this time I'm going to open the public hearing. This is for ordinance 2026-30 and ask anyone that would care to speak either in favor or against this amendments to the city charter to come forward at this time.

Horseman 2428 Ridge Road. I was a member of the Charter Review Commission that generated these items. I wanted to speak up in favor of them. I wanted to emphasize that this was Citizen Participation Committee wasn't handed down to us from on high by city council i want i just wanted to make sure that the public knows that it's in the record that you know we conscientiously looked at these issues and felt that this was necessary and the right thing to do for the city at this time thank you thank you mr mr thank you very much anyone else care to speak either for or against um ordinance 2026-30

Good evening.

Mr. President, Mr. Mayor, ladies and gentlemen, Zine City Council. My name is Thomas Scribbins. By the grace of God, I still reside at 725 Lexington Avenue here in the City of Hospitality. I rise in support of Ordinance 2022. 26-30 as it as it appears I'd like to commend the council for taking a bold step forward For posterity and you're not looking out for yourself in this particular endeavor we know that one one part of this would Would Mandate that one council person would have to serve three years in order to get put the city the Charter Review Commission had recommended. We have the chairperson here, Ms. Nancy McPeak, another member, Mr. Howard Horseman, and myself. There were a couple of others. And we strongly recommend that the city give the residents a chance to choose the rules that they would like to live by. And as Howard said, it's not handed down on high. We govern ourselves. And we thank you for the opportunity to govern ourselves. Thank you, Mr. President.

All right.

Thank you.

Mr. Scribbins.

Thank you.

Anyone else care to come forward? We're conducting a public hearing for ordinance 2026-30. I see no one else come forward. I'm going to close the public hearing on this item and invite any comments or questions from council. All right, see none at this time. This was introduced by the mayor at our last meeting. Mr. Mayor, would you care to move for passage? Yep. I move to introduce ordinance 202630. Thank you. Thank you. Move for passage by the mayor, seconded by the vice president. And we'll get a roll call, please.

Vice President Crawford?

Yes.

Councilwoman Cerise? Yes. Councilman Miscavige?

Yes.

Councilwoman Huffman? Aye. Councilman Rubio?

Aye.

Mayor Reynolds?

Aye. President Smith? Aye. Motion carries. Thank you. Next on the agenda is new business. Our first item in new business is an introduction for ordinance 2026-31. This is approving a major change to the PUD concept plan for timber Ridge plan unit development with modifications recommended by Xenia planning and zoning commission. At this time, we'll turn the floor over to Mr. Merriman.

Thank you, sir. So I have some prepared comments and then we'll try to maybe respond to some of the issues this evening. Uh, so first some context in October of 2025 developer Arbor homes submitted an application to the city requesting a major PUD change to the Timber Ridge plan due to development, a subdivision located adjacent to US 68 at the city's northernmost point. For historic context, we note that the original PUD was approved in 1988 for a 63-family home site. The first section was platted in 1989 with 24 lots along Ridge Road and Ridgewood Drive. Up to this point, 19 homes have been built. The outstanding 34.48 acres of the site have remained undeveloped for the past three, four decades. With the application submitted by Arbor Homes last year, the developer sought to build 88 homes on the undeveloped land. But again, that was denied by city council at that time. In June of this year, Arbor Homes submitted a new request for a major PUD change proposing 82 homes on the undeveloped land. The new plan includes development standards, particularly architectural standards that exceed those required under the conventional suburban neighborhood district zoning. Some other key changes from the 2025 plan submittal for the undeveloped land include two entrance ingress egress off of 68 instead of one, no connection to Ridge Road where the 2025 plan did extend Ridge to connect the two sections, 82 lots instead of 88, reconfigured open space with a larger buffer zone between the existing and proposed homes, This includes a 50-foot no-clear zone that preserves a wooded area next to some of those existing homes and a higher minimum home size of 1,800 square feet for lots on Ridge Road. In general, staff supports the revised density, the open space layout, the development standards. However, we noted with the Planning and Zoning Commission that the proposed concept plan only allows for one entrance, and the lack of the connection to Ridge Road does not conform with existing city policy in our land development code. So I want to be clear here that in general, as I've communicated to a number of council members that I've talked to, the modified plan as proposed is one that could be acceptable. But for staff to endorse what was submitted to planning and zoning, we would be violating our own code. And that's a professional compromise that we found we couldn't make. So as I've communicated to members of council, um, we included in your agenda packet, both plans, because they're both either plan council could end up adopting. And so I think there is some hardy discussion that can be had But again the with all of the revisions they're there It's still not fighting conformity for so for us to endorse something that doesn't conform with today's standards would be would be problematic The planning and zoning reviewed the request and held their necessary necessary public hearing on August 12th as the agenda report indicates approving the plan as noted. The plan now comes back to council for introduction this evening. Again, provided a lot of additional materials to council and I know I've talked to several of you individually. I'd be happy to answer any questions or if you have questions you want to ponder on in advance of your second reading in public hearing next time, we'd be happy to address those issues. Very good.

Thank you. Questions for Mr. Merriman as your opportunity.

Yeah. Obviously, I voted against the original concept plan that we pretty much got back with very little modification to it. I would still be a no on that today. The developer submitted a PUD concept plan where it has the two exits instead of going through Ridge Drive. I'd be in favor of that. I mean, I know you say it's against our codes, but we write the code as council, so I think we should have a discussion about repealing that so that we can live within our code. and then approve a plan that the developers, I think our council, and I think the residents on Ridge Road would all approve of. A good compromise.

That's just my opinion. If I could just respond, I think it's definitely prudent from time to time to evaluate the standards. It's important to have those standards. We establish a standard objective policy so that any developer in any location has a metric to look at. They know what's expected of the community. And it is appropriate from time to time to evaluate that. The big concern, I think, with this particular issue, and I know it's a concern for the residents, but it's the connection to Ridge Road. And in particular, if you don't have a second point of ingress-egress. It's problematic from both a utility standpoint, but also a traffic and safety standpoint. Again, as I've indicated to a couple of council members today, if council wants to elect to go with the revised plan that's submitted, we can live with that and we'll adjust to what council's will is. But again, I caution you to be very careful in looking at setting precedents where you're approving something that's not in conformity with our code because the code is in conformity with things like fire code standards. So to have a development code that does not conform with fire code standards could be problematic. Part of the concern with the connection with Ridge Road, for example, is that under the revised plan, you're still going to have utility connections that would run from one neighborhood to the other because that provides for looping of the system. Those utilities under the revised plan would fall under easements on private property. And I can just tell you, having done this job for quite a few years, it's what you, as council members, hear me say, sins of the fathers. where we have these types of issues that down the road, you'll have to replace that water line, which means you're digging someone's backyard up and encroaching on their private property to replace that. Can we do it? Absolutely. And we do that today with a lot of decisions that were made in the past where we allowed these things. But it is not the ideal way that we would do it today and not in conformity with what our code would say today. Very good. Thank you.

I have a question, if I may. So Brent, The Ridge Road residents have stated their position. My concern is we've gone around on this, and we have not treated any other developer uniquely as we have in this particular development the same way. My concern is what we've done in terms of putting this out for a ready, willing, and able developer. And the other concern I have is, is there insurance exposure for those residents at Ridge Road for not having that To your point, true fire safety emergency response, is there exposure?

The second question first, I'm not an insurance expert so I can't definitively say, but the fire code exists based on state and national standards. And those code requirements exist based on time-honored practice know just just practical elements from a safety perspective so I would imagine that you know there could be in some instances I can't say that there's necessarily an insurance implication here what I can tell you is at the far end of the existing situation if we had a a structure fire a fully involved structure fire it would be very difficult to get the necessary fire apparatus into that neighborhood to fight that fire and I don't mean that to you know to suggest the situation is not safe today i don't mean that to to try to elevate it to something more than it is but it is not the ideal situation that we would expect it yeah for for for any you know for any dead end street there's just no means for our equipment to get that far down the street to be able to connect um to the uh fire hydrants and then nowhere for it to turn around because there's no cul-de-sac so are you saying for the last 30 years it's been a problem it was a mistake that was made 30 years ago that should not have been I'll just be very honest. I don't like throwing my predecessors or yours under the bus, but the bottom line is it was not appropriate then and it's not appropriate today and it continues to be a problem.

They've lived there for 30 years, these residents. They know what they have. We've told them the issues that we might face. They seem to be okay with that. I think going with the developer-submitted proposal, in my opinion, is the best. And I'm pro-development. Don't get me wrong, I will vote to annex any piece of township land that's available for us to develop. I oppose impact fees because I'm pro-development. But in this case, I also take the concerns of the residents of Ridge Road very seriously. And they came out. Nearly every family came out to us and told us this is what they did not want.

Yeah, if I could just respond to the other comment from Vice President Crawford. I, too, want to acknowledge the flexibility and creativity that Arbor Homes has demonstrated. I think they've been very creative. I think generous in the concessions that they've made. And I know that's the will of counsel. We've talked a lot. You are, as a group, pro-development, and you want to be able to work with developers and find compromises. So I applaud the concessions that they've made, and there's some creative solutions. And again, I'm on the record. I want to reiterate, if council elects to go with a modified plan, that's your decision, and we'll adjust to that. My caution is that you are setting a precedent that you're treating a neighborhood different and not in conformity with today's standards. There is an existing PUD today that was approved 30, 40 years ago. If the owner of the property wanted to come out and construct that today, they are within rights to do that. They could construct the road in 63 homes based on what's their lawful right today. The only reason this is coming before council is because they're looking at changing the density based on the market conditions and a host of other things. So, you know, it is a point to note that probably contrary to the wishes of a lot of the residents, the owner of the property, if they so wish to develop under the existing PUD by rights, could do that today. And again, that's one of those conditions that when you buy a home, you should always understand what you're buying, where you're buying, and what's around you. So if you bought that home at that time, you may have been under the understanding that the rest of that development would build out and it didn't. Subsequently, over the decades, folks look at it and they assume that the neighboring property is a wooded property and perhaps would stay that way. And probably didn't even know some of them that there's an existing PUD that's on the books and there's a law today because we have no sunset on our PUDs when this was approved. So it stands in perpetuity as the approved plan. So it's one of those buyer beware things. And again, I don't look at this as being adversarial. I'm not taking a position away from the residents. I'm not taking a position for the developer. Our role as staff is to say, counsel, here are the standards that have been duly adopted and enacted, and this is what we hold everyone accountable to. If you want to make a modification to that, that is your prerogative, and we will implement whatever your will is, but we're here to provide the facts and alternatives and creative thinking and answer any questions you have.

Thank you. If I can interject. So for those of you that are just kind of joining the conversation, so back in December, this was a vote. It was a very crowded room. And in that vote, it was voted down. We have three new members of council today. Right, right. And Vice President, you weren't at that meeting. And I do remember the developer, Arbor Homes, was questioning why it was voted down. What did we do wrong? What could we come back for? Because if I understand right, they really had three options and it was to modify their plan, abandon their plan and go to another city or seek legal action against the city, which they did not do. However, they have submitted a new plan. I'm not trying to sway anyone in any other direction. I do feel that they're sensitive to the needs of the people in Timber Ridge. Most developers would not give you that courtesy. It would be, this is it. So I do appreciate that. And no one on council is trying to punish Timber Ridge with adding additional traffic through your development. It's for your safety, for egress, entrance for first responders. However, we understand. And there are two plans. So I think that's what needs to be discussed.

And I just maybe draw on your point. Um, and it's part of the reason that I've tried to do extra outreach to the council on this matter. Uh, three of you weren't here for this decision last year and you're brand new. It's the first time you've been through this. Uh, it's a consequential decision. You have a lot of interested parties that have spoken out. Um, so, so I think you should take the time to think about this. Uh, myself, the planner, the development director, all we'll sit down with you. We'll talk through the dynamics, any questions that you have, because you should make an informed decision. And again, in the interest of having some new folks, I think it's really important that you take the time and study it and understand the whole issue and your options.

And I would expect a letting testimony at the next, at the public hearing.

So my question to the law director tonight, this is just an introduction, introducing the PUD concept, but it could still be modified up into the next regular meeting?

Yes, and that's typically how you would do it. Counsel would introduce an ordinance, and then if you want to amend it, you would do that. You do want to hold your public hearing first so that you're getting that input from both sides. Then at that point, if council decides it wants to amend the ordinance, we can certainly help you through that process.

Again, that's the purpose, part of the reason that we wanted to include both of these plans. Contrary to what was suggested earlier, it's not that we're only giving council one option. It's the option that we recommend to P and Z and they forwarded that, but we wanted you to be aware that you can go a different route and we've given you those materials. If you so elect at your next meeting, you can amend that.

Can I ask one more question? Um, so the plan that the city is proposing is, um, looks like it will be under the five minutes response time for, first responders. Do we know what it would be if it is not this plan? Do we know what that response time would be?

It's probably going to be similar. The big issue between the two plans, it's the ingress and get-arrest points along 68 and safety concerns with that. And then In terms of the connectivity of the roadway, I gave the example earlier of if you had a fully involved house fire on existing Ridge Road. Ideally, when you've got a through street there, you can get equipment that accesses from both directions so you can get more equipment and slightly faster. The other example on the ingress, egress, and you may not have seen the email I sent today, but an example is down power lines after a storm, an accident. a downed tree, a watering break. If that occurs at your only point of ingress-egress, then the entire six to seven dozen homes or the residents are cut off. So that's part of the reason that you have two points of ingress-egress is to allow the traffic flow, the safety traffic flow. And then we also do that so that we can have adequate looping of our utilities because we're running utilities under those. So if you do have that water main break, and this is why we would connect, regardless of either plan, we would require, and this gets to EPA standards as well, that we still connect the water line between the two because you want those looped. In other words, there's not one point of water entering both of those neighborhoods, and if it gets cut off, everyone's without a water. You have two points. So if you're shut off one way, it can still flow the other way. Okay.

Thank you.

That's a lot more than you wanted.

That's great. I appreciate it.

So Brent, that's an excellent statement you just made. I was just curious, couldn't there be a created easement just for the water line itself?

And that's what's in the revised plan. And essentially, and it's what I referenced earlier, um, under that revised plan, instead of having a dedicated right of way, which would connect a bridge, to the new neighborhood and run your water lines under that, you would instead have an easement and a utility easement over private property. So there's probably four property owners through there and it would extend from the existing terminus of the water line on Ridge Underground under private property the new homeowners property over to the new neighborhood. So you're maintaining that flow But again that the issue there is that it's always more problematic when you have to make a repair To dig up private property than it is to do it in your public right away.

I understand so then The city will have to purchase A portion of the easement for Ridge Road in order to make that an easement a true easement

We would not have to purchase it, but as part of the development process, the developer would have to ensure that that easement existed. We would require that in order to allow them to move forward. Okay. Thank you.

Just a question on the pond and fountain. What requires some developments to have a fountain and some to not? Is that a question?

I don't know that it's a requirement. It provides aeration, which cuts down on algae growth and smells and things like that.

Okay.

Very good.

All right, so any other questions with that being said, we can go ahead and... Mr. President, I would like to go ahead and introduce Ordinance 2026-31.

All right, thank you.

Thank you, Faith. Our next item is also an introduction. This is for Ordinance 2026-32. This is amending the official zoning map of the City of Xenia to rezone 121.558 acres a property located south of U.S. 42 East and east of 997 North Columbus Street from an A1 agricultural district to a suburban neighborhood district. And we'll turn the floor over to Mr. Merriman.

Now that we got the easy item out of the way, we'll get to the harder one, so that's a joke. On July 9th, City Council approved a resolution accepting the annexation of 121.558 acres that are located on the south side of U.S. 42 East and situated east of 997 North Columbus Street. The Land Development Code automatically assigns A1 agricultural district zoning to parcels annexed into the city. Any other designation subsequent to that requires rezoning. The developer of this site, Rockford Homes Incorporated, has proposed rezoning the property to a suburban neighborhood district development. This would allow for the trail site run development to commence, which is a 520-home single-family subdivision. Trailside Run will also extend onto a 62.077 acre parcel at 1634 Old US 35 that is already zoned suburban neighborhood. The suburban neighborhood district permits single and two family residential development at up to four units per acre. Approval of the rezoning is not approval of the development itself as the developer will have to file for subdivision approval if the rezoning is granted. Planning and Zoning Commission at its August 12th meeting reviewed the application. of the required public hearing and voted to recommend for approval the rezoning as requested. This evening, you are presented with the ordinance that would facilitate that rezoning, and we are respectfully recommending introduction of that ordinance this evening.

All right, thank you, Mr. Mayor. Any questions for the city manager? Mr. President? Yes.

I move to introduce Ordinance 202632. All right, introduced by the mayor.

Our next item is resolution 2026.48. This is adopting a, this is adopting a statement of the municipal services to be provided to 55.5843 plus or minus acres parcel south above Ravelburg road, which is proposed by the Manorino family partnership LTD for annexation from Beaver Creek Township, Spring Valley Township, and Xenia Township into the City of Xenia. Mr. City Manager.

Thank you, sir. Lots of development items this evening. Also on August 10th, the property owner, Manorino Family Partnership Limited, filed an expedited Type 2 annexation petition with the Greene County Board of Commissioners to annex land into the City of Xenia. The petition seeks to annex approximately 55.5 acres of land On the south side of Upper Bellbrook Road, west of the reserve of Xenia subdivision section 5, with the intent of developing this as a residential subdivision. The property consists of three parcels, one of which is in Silver Creek Township, and two of which are primarily located in Beaver Creek Township. However, we note that one of those parcels includes a 0.03 acre portion that is located in Xenia Township. Why? I have no idea. That's one of the Sins of the Fathers that I spoke of. It's the tiny little corner tip that's still in Xenia Township. The rest of it is in Beaver Creek Township. Under Ohio Vice Code Section 709.023C, council must adopt a statement of services within 20 days after the annexation petition is filed with the county. The statement must identify the services that the city would intend to provide to the territory upon annexation and the approximate date that those services would begin should the county approve annexation and council ultimately accept it. Adoption of the resolution does not obligate the council to ultimately accepting annexation if the Board of County Commissioners approves it. For this matter, city staff recommends providing the territory with the same services available to other incorporated residential areas in our community, subject to the conditions of requiring the developer to fund all utility-related main extensions, any necessary lift stations, or other appurtenances that would be required for adequate service to the site. Because the property across Upper Bellbrook Road will remain in Xenia Township, the territory excludes the Upper Bellbrook Road right-of-way. We recommend approval of the resolution presenting this item this evening, and this would, if approved, then establish the city's intent for services for the site.

Thank you, Mr. Merriman. Questions for our city manager? All right. If there are no questions, I'll seek a motion to adopt Resolution 2026-48. So moved. Moved by the Mayor. I'll second. Seconded by the Vice President. Roll call.

Vice President Crawford.

Yes.

Councilwoman Cerise. Aye. Councilman Miscavige.

Aye.

Councilwoman Huffman. Aye. Councilman Rubio.

Aye. Mayor Reynolds. Aye.

President Smith. Aye. Motion carries.

Thanks. Next on the agenda is Resolution 2026-49, adopting a statement regarding zoning buffers for 55.5 843 plus or minus acre, partial south of Upper Bellmark Road, which is proposed by the Manorino Family Limited Partnership for annexation from Beaver Creek Township, Spring Valley Township, and Xenia Township into the city of Xenia.

Thank you, sir. This item concerns the exact same subject property and developer noted in the preceding item under consideration for annexation. As in the prior item, ORC Section 709.023C, also requires within 20 days after an annexation petition is filed with the county, adoption of a statement addressing potentially incompatible land uses and required zoning buffers. The statement must provide that if the territory is annexed and city zoning permits uses incompatible with those that are allowed in adjoining properties in the township, that the city would require the property owner to install a buffer zone between the annexed territory and the adjacent land. Here again, adoption of this measure does not in and of itself obligate the council to accept the annexation, nor does it acknowledge any incompatible uses or alter staff's conclusion that the proposed development is likely to create a conflict. So we don't see any, but it's necessary pursuant to ORC to adopt this statement to that effect. So this evening we are recommending resolution 2026-049 a resolution to adopt that incompatibility statement concerning the subject annexation.

Thank you Mr. Mayor. Any questions for our City Manager? Any questions? This time I'll seek a motion to adopt Resolution 2026-49. So moved. Okay, moved by the Mayor, seconded by Councilwoman Cerise. If there's no further discussion, we'll get a roll call, please. Vice President Crawford.

Aye.

Councilman Cerise. Aye. Councilman Miscavige. Aye. Councilwoman Huffman. Aye. Councilman Rubio.

Aye.

Mayor Reynolds.

Aye.

President Smith.

Aye. Motion carried. Thank you. Next on the agenda is appointed official reports. We're going to move to Finance Director, Mr. Duke.

Thank you, Mr. President. I have nothing to share with you this evening, but I'd be happy to answer any questions you may have.

All right. Thank you. Any questions for Mr. Duke on finances, taxes, any numbers? No? All right. Thank you, Mr. Duke. We appreciate that. Madam Law Director, what do you have for us tonight?

I have nothing to report this evening. I would, however, ask that council exercise and have an executive session this evening under Charter 1303C1. There are some general legal issues that we need to discuss.

All right. Thank you very much. Any other questions for Madam Law Director? Not right now? All right. Thank you. We'll move on to Mr. Merriman.

You know I got a couple things. First, I want to acknowledge the efforts of our staff and update council. We did successfully Wednesday night, last night, repair the water main break, the larger break we had here on Main Street. So we had a crew in overnight. They were actually able to accomplish the completion of that a couple hours sooner than they thought. So I think most of our businesses here were unimpacted by that. So I want to thank our crew for coming in. We'll be talking, that's my second point, at your special session on September 1st about our capital needs, concerns that we have with our utilities. And I've got some video actually of that main break we're going to show you to give you sort of some real-life perspective of some of the challenges that we face And so it was, I'm going to say well-timed. A main break is never well-timed. But it was a really good example of the layers of problems that we face with our utilities. So again, I want to remind council we do have that special session on September 1st. We have a legislative review committee meeting that day starting at 3.30. And then I think we're scheduled to start the special session at 5 that evening. So probably an hour and a half to two hours that night. And I apologize, we ask a lot of your time, but Having that meeting is very valuable and important to us because that direction that you will provide us will give us the input that we need to help finish our capital plan that we'll be recommending back to council later this year. So with that, I have nothing further. We have to answer any questions.

Questions for city manager? All right, not at this time. Thank you very much. Thank you. All right. We're going to go into council comments and reports. We'll start with... Councilman Muscovitch, what do you have for us?

Thank you. I was able to attend the Regional Planning and Coordinating Commission of Greene County held here in Xenia. It was good to meet other officials around the county and we approved a zoning change for Miami Township. I was able to join Ethan for two movie nights. It was an awesome community and we gave out a lot of popcorn and snow cones and snacks. Thank you to One Bistro for that. and I was able to work with Faith and the Good People at New Life Christian Assembly to help with their back-to-school bash. I served a lot of walking tacos and enjoyed the company there, and that's all I have.

All right. Thank you, Councilman Miscavige. Councilwoman Cerise, what do you have for us?

I'll just make it brief since we need to go into executive, but I just want to say, hey, school's back in session, so... It's been really busy, and just think about those kiddos standing out there waiting on the buses and be safe. So, thank you.

All right, thank you. Councilwoman, have fun. What do you have for us this morning?

I don't have anything tonight.

All right, thank you. All right. Councilman Rubio, do you have anything for us tonight?

Yes. Football is back. Friday Night Lights. We had a great game away this Friday, or this past Friday, in Beaver Creek. our American elaboration on that. I believe this week we're home. So just excited for that and, you know, and see our neighbors and friends out.

Very good. Thank you so much. All right. Mayor Reynolds.

So real quick things. I want to thank JD for helping out for Movies in the Park. We had 98 families at the last one. snow cones, popcorn, a snack each week from One Bistro. It's always something different. It's a great time. This Saturday, we all will be serving at One Bistro from 8 a.m. to 11.30. 7.30 is when we arrive. 8 a.m. is for the public. When you guys all arrive, we'll be serving there for Everybody Eats Week. I met with President Newkirk of Uberforce for the upcoming Sneaker Ball Gala. Xenia football is at home tomorrow. Unfortunately, we did lose last weekend to our rival, Beaver Creek, by one point. It was sad to see. I made a bet with Mayor Adams about what would happen if our team won or their team won. Unfortunately, we lost, so I have to show some of the best things Zingy has to offer, which I will do at his annual first Thursday next week. I'll hand over his package, and he'll hand me over a Beaver Creek polo to wear at the next meeting for the loss bet. So I'm going to try to find the smallest logo possible. XREC is canceled for next month just to do a lack of agenda items.

That is all I have. So when you meet Mayor Adams in Beaver Creek to get your consolation prize, are you going to hand him a cup from Bucky's?

Oh.

You know what?

That's a good idea.

I'll put it in the bag. All right. Vice President, what do you have for us tonight?

Yeah. BZA met this week, August 24th. We had two agenda items, basically. One was a variance request on a driveway to widen to 39 feet to the front yard, exceeding the maximum code of 30 feet. We went with the, I mean, the board just went with basically after hearing the case with Brian's recommendation, his analysis, does a really good job on his analysis work, makes our jobs a lot easier and our opinions and our decisions from that position. And that was granted. And then there was a second one that would allow construction of an accessory storage building on a side yard instead of a rear yard, which was basically against the code. That was on Main Street. And this was also approved after the analysis work. Excuse me. And this had more to do with the Chick-fil-A development there on Main Street that's coming. So congratulations to everybody and all that were a part of that. So thank you. That's all I have.

All right. Thank you. Any questions for vice president? All right. I'd like to thank Brian. Thank you for the job that you're doing. Um, we, um, want to mention, um, a chair of planning and zoning this year. Um, on August 12th we had a meeting and there was four items. First was training, so actually the members of Plain and Zoning met at 545. They did not get out of there that night until after 930. That was probably one of the longest Plain and Zoning meetings that we had. It was a good meeting. There was a lot of items on there, Timber Ridge, the development near US 42, and then the Chick-fil-A. So thank you very much for everybody that attended that meeting and gave us input. I'd also like to apologize for my absence at the last meeting. I'd like to thank Vice President Crawford for stepping in. Due to work obligations, occasionally I'll have to miss a meeting. So I really do appreciate your stepping up and doing that for us. And also thank Mayor Reynolds. This guy is very busy. You're extremely busy, extremely positive on social media. I really appreciate what you bring to the city, your dedication. trust me unfortunately folks in the audience we are going into an executive session this is regarding confidential business information related to economic development and assistance as well as general legal advice personnel matters. So we've got several topics. I can't say how long we'll be in there but I'm estimating 30 minutes to longer, maybe an hour, and then we're going to come back for a work session. So at this time I'll accept a motion to move into executive. So moved. Moved by the Mayor and seconded by the Vice President. Can we get a roll call?

Vice President Crawford?

Aye.

Councilman Cerise? Aye. Councilman Miscavige? Aye. Councilman Huffman? Aye. Councilman Rubio? Aye. Mayor Reynolds? Aye. President Smith? Aye. Motion carries.

Thank you.