At a Village of Commercial Point council meeting, members discussed Ordinance 2025-10, a proposed rezoning of about 6.7384 acres from exceptional use to general commercial, and said they prefer a planned-commercial approach rather than straight general-commercial zoning. Council members said planned commercial would allow more review of site design, access and required traffic studies.

The matter matters because general-commercial zoning, as described at the meeting, allows a wide range of retail uses without site-level conditions; council members said that could permit a business such as a Dollar General to locate on the parcel without design review. Council members and staff raised safety and traffic questions tied to the property’s proposed access points and to state highway ownership in the area.

Council discussion noted that the ordinance has not yet had its first reading and that a public hearing remains part of the process. Council members said switching the applicant’s approach—either by asking the applicant to withdraw and refile for planned commercial or by amending the submission—would avoid committing the village to the broader general-commercial baseline before addressing access and design constraints. One council member said there is a six-month waiting period to reapply for the same zoning after a denial, although council can waive that waiting period; staff clarified that changing the zoning classification at or before first reading could be possible if the submitted materials meet the planned-commercial requirements.

On technical items, staff and council said planned-commercial review normally triggers a traffic study and referral to Ohio Department of Transportation (ODOT) for input when a state route or ODOT-controlled road is involved. Council members said the applicant’s current materials show three proposed entrances; technical reviewers frequently reduce curb cuts to two or fewer, and ODOT or village engineering review may require changes. A council member reported speaking with Police Chief Klein, who expressed concern about a road crown and reduced sight lines traveling southbound near the site; members said such visibility problems would increase the importance of a traffic study and ODOT input.

Council members discussed process options: asking the applicant to withdraw and resubmit as planned commercial, proceeding with another public hearing on planned commercial, or keeping general commercial but adding conditions tied to a major site plan. Staff explained that planned commercial typically requires a major site plan and technical-review-committee signoff, which would surface traffic, stormwater and access issues before final approval. The council suggested the mayor could communicate the current council appetite to the applicant to reduce unnecessary expense if the applicant prefers an easier pathway.

The meeting also touched briefly on related land-use matters on the agenda, including a conditional-use resolution for an automobile car wash in a general-commercial district and several final-plat ordinances for phases of the Foxfire subdivision; council did not take a final vote on the rezoning at the meeting.

Next steps identified at the meeting include staff coordinating with the applicant about whether to change the submission to planned commercial, scheduling any necessary additional public hearing(s), and completing technical review (including traffic study requirements and ODOT consultation) before further readings of the ordinance.