[{"_1":2,"_88":-5,"_89":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,76],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},"mediaId",6268007,"mediaKeyId","3060042-61db6cacbb59ddc5981c42267a12b7e3","parentId",3060042,"title","Clayton council votes on Warner Village referendum and approves routine ordinances; residents press concerns over developer practices","audioSeconds",2862,"startMs",3528000,"endMs",6390000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=3060042-61db6cacbb59ddc5981c42267a12b7e3&start=3528&end=6390","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3060042-61db6cacbb59ddc5981c42267a12b7e3/thumbnail_3528000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6268007/Ohio/Clayton-council-votes-on-Warner-Village-referendum-and-approves-routine-ordinances-residents-press-concerns-over-developer-practices","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6268007-0e4a8040f0bc9addca541f9c11a4967e/orig.mp4?Expires=1770412844&Signature=iMvJVMvfMcGh4TrtuzyI9pBbDxtXIxj3ct31ovW6PGJkODOTn51AUwb8aGYyCfyow-0tHDyS4mOjDexOhvOtud24v7OzQOTwOlX5SthR0VMX9MrPjJeEuggn7ZVXFbFXqUUDB2Yr~vIZqAiCip8zmEbT7VaPO01P7TqduWnsflNALzOhTSX0a35YcqGy5FysbHzKhmot56R4CVb5agc~nu~QUkPJVaVurlLfgi22X4eq9wSENzAj1V9p-OaPJfYqglqivjPvliz8DLfpzNId7-HIoHxabB6k72iFXMz3rXsYpxPdy5xEP13ztcp7bfvVoCDbfOOur4UMTYHBAuYk4w__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","City Council of Clayton, OH ","date","2025-04-19T10:16:04.193Z","article","Clayton City Council on Tuesday took two separate but related actions tied to an earlier Planning Commission and council approval for a separate, larger development (SDG Warner Village) and also approved several routine municipal measures.

Warner Village referendum and council action

A citizen petition committee submitted signatures seeking a referendum on Ordinance O-01-25-02, the council ordinance that had adopted the Planning Commission’s recommendation approving a rezoning and preliminary development plan for SDG Warner Village (about 83.1044 acres near Sweet Potato Ridge Road and Main Street). Council members debated whether to repeal the March 6 ordinance or to proceed with sending the referendum to the county Board of Elections.

- An ordinance on the council agenda (O-004-25-05) would repeal the earlier March 6 ordinance that approved the Warner Village rezoning and preliminary plan. Council held a roll-call vote on the repeal motion; recorded votes in the meeting transcript were mixed. The transcript records these votes for the repeal motion: Merkel — yes; Kelly — yes; Farmer — no; Henning — no; Gorman — no; Bachman — no; Stevens — yes. Under the city charter the repeal would require five affirmative votes if it differed from the Planning Commission recommendation; the recorded roll call did not show five affirmative votes and therefore the council did not enact the repeal at that moment.

- After the vote on repeal, council considered Resolution R-04-25-39 to direct the Montgomery County Board of Elections to place the prior ordinance on the November 4, 2025 general election ballot. Petitioners’ representatives told council they had provided more than the required number of valid signatures (914 validated, city staff said) to trigger a referendum under the charter. Council voted to add and approve the resolution directing the Board of Elections. The roll call recorded in the transcript for Resolution R-04-25-39 shows majority affirmative votes (Farm er, Henning, Gorman, Merkel, Kelly, Bachman, Stevens — recorded yes votes in the excerpt); the resolution was adopted and the city clerk/ law director were instructed to coordinate with the Board of Elections per the charter.

Petitioners and public comment

Patrick Ernst, representing the petitioners’ committee, told council staff had validated 914 signatures — well above the 595 required — and asked that voters be allowed to decide the rezoning in November. Several residents and petitioners told council they preferred the question on the ballot, invoking the charter’s referendum process; one petitioner read an 18th-century Thomas Jefferson quote on citizen voting during the public comment portion.

Other routine council business and votes at a glance

Council also considered and approved several routine matters with little discussion:
- Resolution R-04-25-37: Approved the Montgomery County Solid Waste Management District solid waste plan (motion moved by Henning, second by Kelly; unanimous recorded vote in transcript).
- Resolution R-04-25-38: Approved a two-year wage agreement (2025–2026) with the Ohio Patrolmen’s Benevolent Association for sergeants in the Clayton Police Department (3% for 2025, 3% for 2026 with market rate adjustment); motion carried unanimously in the transcript.
- Ordinance O-004-25-04: Expressed the city’s intent to negotiate jointly with other cities on a street-lighting price schedule (motion carried unanimously in the transcript).

What it means and next steps

Because petitioners submitted validated referendum signatures, the city followed charter procedures: after council added the resolution directing the Board of Elections, the Board is expected to be notified and will place the question before voters at the November general election unless the ordinance is repealed by council before the petition deadlines and the law director and petitioners file a withdrawal per the charter. Petitioners said they prefer the electoral decision rather than final administrative or council-driven action.

Ending: Council moved through other business after the votes. Citizens in attendance emphasized they will continue to monitor the Warner Village rezoning and the Hunter’s Path preliminary plan; staff said required engineering reviews and public hearings on final development plans will continue to be scheduled in accordance with the city process.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","City Of Clayton, Ohio Council Meeting April 17,2025","oneSentenceSummary","Council debated a repeal of a March ordinance that rezoned land for the Warner Village development, considered a citizen petition that validated more than the required signatures for a referendum, and approved a resolution directing the county Board of Elections to place the question on November’s ballot; council also approved routine solid-waste, wage and street-lighting agenda items.","taxTitle","Clayton City Council, Clayton, Montgomery County, Ohio","taxId",71947,"location","Ohio","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":77,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":78,"_41":79,"_43":80,"_45":81,"_47":82,"_49":83,"_51":84,"_53":85,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":86,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":87,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6268012,"Clayton council hears residents’ drainage, trees and emergency-access concerns for Hunter’s Path extension",3843,717000,4560000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3060042-61db6cacbb59ddc5981c42267a12b7e3&start=717&end=4560","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3060042-61db6cacbb59ddc5981c42267a12b7e3/thumbnail_717000.jpg","/articles/6268012/Ohio/Clayton-council-hears-residents-drainage-trees-and-emergency-access-concerns-for-Hunters-Path-extension","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6268012-d9932776be865cc519b32e4cde9e390f/orig.mp4?Expires=1770412844&Signature=XlRnjKAy0DWgZrNxftC12yq0bdogiqPMr4GTZbC2lRIhXQl7oq2t2948rBso6uyR7uSluW4jjq9JNJAOUkV3rqiIV0PoB~msn3ujYLQoj9uOym5vK5m5uk8czyQ6YmJgCAy~9-Jk~YK73m2mYHh0VlU1i5TfLvHzhjnRvt2kRPH~og9wArHdraefKI442mM8gtdepBdsgQkudJArbpUU~tY~V1u6g3RHCGK~xjgmqkly9xxkOE0oBfKYBpocU-Zdkhghx92cEMx3guq1ymINqAb8tUXKEprMpHMr42pgv6zOxiIbfObV2uEoPBEyJyptOQKNBSxFpYSYNmWKge1nPQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","A preliminary plan to extend Hunter’s Path with roughly 97 single-family houses and new streets drew a packed public hearing and focused questions Tuesday from Clayton residents about drainage, standing water, removal of trees and emergency access.

City planner Ellen (last name not specified in transcript) told the council the applicant — DDC Management, represented at the meeting by John Bills — submitted a preliminary subdivision plan for 37.098 acres near Westbrook Road and Union Road. Ellen said the plan proposes 97 single-family lots, about 11.06 acres (29.4 percent) of open space, two access points, sidewalks and a multi-use path on Westbrook Road, water and sewer tie-ins and two stormwater basins. She told council the Planning Commission unanimously recommended approval with conditions, including that final plans must address comments from Clayton staff and replace dead trees on the northwest and east property lines.

Why it matters: neighboring homeowners said they bought or built with expectations about drainage, tree lines and privacy and worry the development will make existing wet, low-lying areas worse or remove the buffer of trees that now separates yards. Several residents urged the council to require detention basins rather than retention basins and asked the developer and staff to show precisely how stormwater will be routed and handled before final approval.

John Bills, president of BDC Management (the applicant’s representative), told council he expected the project to be “a continuation” of existing development in the area and said engineering and final designs that will be required with the final development plan stage will address detailed stormwater, grading, utilities, building architecture and landscaping. He said the developer plans to work with city staff on stormwater design and that the final plans must meet state regulations and the city engineer’s review.

Residents pressed specifics. Derek Muncy, who identified himself as a member of the Planning Commission, urged clearer zoning rules so similar disputes do not recur and encouraged council to update Plan Clayton and the zoning code to give planners clearer guidance. Other residents who live adjacent to the parcel described persistent water pooling, debris and standing water in the field and a mapped “blue-line” stream through the property. Joe Seider, William Sider and Joe Snyder each described seasonal standing water and asked whether the developer would clear debris and where water now flowing onto the site would be routed. Several speakers asked the council and developer to commit to detention basins (designed to empty) rather than retention basins (which hold water long-term) to limit geese and standing water near backyards.

Fire and emergency-access concerns: multiple speakers and a council member asked about a long cul-de-sac and whether the design would impede fire access. The city’s fire representative (identified only as “chief” in the transcript) said the proposal meets the Ohio Fire Code as the city has adopted it and that the code’s thresholds for when a second access is required are based on number of residences; the chief said cities can adopt stricter local administrative rules but Clayton has not adopted those stricter administrative provisions. He said the department has experience operating in one-way-in developments and would use procedures such as hose stretches to reach structures where necessary.

Trees and grading: developers said geotechnical work identified wet areas that will require mitigation, including stripping unsuitable soils and rebuilding building pads. Bills said lots affected by wet soils would be mitigated with engineered fills and geotechnical oversight. The developer also said crews would remove dead or hazardous trees on its property where needed for grading and drainage, but noted they will not remove trees on private neighbor lots; Planning Commission recommended a final plan condition to remove dead trees and replace them along the northwest and east property lines.

Staff oversight and next steps: Ellen and Amanda (city staff) said final development-plan submissions must include a traffic study, detailed stormwater and grading plans and architecture, and each final plan requires additional public hearings before Planning Commission and City Council. Amanda reminded council that city engineering review and state stormwater rules must be satisfied for final approvals.

Council action: the Planning Commission had recommended approval of the preliminary plan with conditions. Council moved to consider an ordinance adopting, rejecting or modifying that recommendation; motion to approve the ordinance was made by Councilman Gorman and seconded by Councilwoman Kelly. Recorded votes on the ordinance in the council roll call in the transcript were: Farmer — yes; Henning — no; Gorman — yes; Merkel — yes; Kelly — yes; Bachman — abstain. Stevens’ recorded vote is not specified in the available transcript excerpt. The number of recorded affirmative votes meets the simple majority threshold. The ordinance’s passage in final form is recorded in the meeting proceedings that followed the roll call.

What remains unresolved: residents continued to press for clearer, site-specific stormwater modeling, answers on retention versus detention basins, confirmation about whether specific trees on the developer’s property would be replaced with similar screening, and whether the long cul-de-sac design should be changed locally through a code amendment rather than on a case-by-case basis.

The council heard the public record and moved on to other agenda items; staff reiterated that final engineering and traffic studies will be required at the final-plan stage and that any necessary modifications to stormwater or access must be addressed before building permits could be issued.

Ending: Residents who spoke said they intend to follow the process and participate in final-plan hearings; the developer said it would continue to work with staff and engineers on final designs required by the city before any construction.","A preliminary plan to add about 97 single-family lots on 37.098 acres near Westbrook Road and Union Road prompted a lengthy public hearing in Clayton, with neighbors pressing the developer and city staff for detailed answers on drainage, standing water, tree removal and emergency access.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Clayton council votes on Warner Village referendum and approves routine ordinances; residents press concerns over developer practices

Clayton council hears residents’ drainage, trees and emergency-access concerns for Hunter’s Path extension