Athens planning commission deadlocks on request for legal review of two outside‑city developments

The Athens City Planning Commission on Sept. 17 considered whether two proposed developments outside the city — described in meeting materials as the Lofts and the Cornerstone development — should be treated as subdivisions subject to the city’s review under Ohio law. The commission considered two letters from SoWash Law Office arguing the projects are subdivisions; planning staff and others said they do not view the projects that way.

Why it matters: If the projects qualify as subdivisions under the Ohio Revised Code and the city’s Title 21 subdivision rules, developers would face a longer review process including a planning commission public hearing and multiple city‑council readings. That could change timelines and require additional design and infrastructure conditions.

Planning staff member David Riggs told the commission that the city first reviewed the developments as notifications because staff did not see a “clear subdivision of land.” Riggs said, “For projects that are outside of the city, we could only look at subdivisions. We don't look at other types of commercial developments or residential developments that are not subdivisions.” He recommended the commission ask the city law director for a formal legal opinion on whether the developments meet the statutory or code definitions of a subdivision.

Attorney Rusty Rittenhouse, representing the landowner, urged the commission not to reopen the matter for the projects currently under construction. Rittenhouse said his client “acted in reliance of the prior decision” when buying the property and noted the owner closed in July or August. He warned that a new review would add time and cost and said, “People ask attorneys for advice every day, and, you know, that typically doesn't cause anything to stop.”

Several Plains residents spoke in favor of a legal review or for stronger local oversight of large developments. John Branner, who identified himself as a neighbor and the father of Jesse Branner, said neighbors support affordable housing but want development “to be fit into the community both for the future residents and for the surrounding residents.” Resident Todd Acheson criticized the Plains zoning and said developers had placed multi‑story buildings near the Athens City Schools bus garage, calling that “an inappropriate placement of people.” Acheson added that the funding process used by the projects’ lender or funding agency did not require local public input: “The developers seek out sewer and water in places that have minimal control or land use plans. Those are the sweet spot.”

Public commenters also raised archaeological concerns. Speakers said the Plains is listed as an area of significant archaeological resources and that environmental reviews submitted for the projects did not address archaeology in line with State Historic Preservation Office standards. One resident said the sites are recorded in the Ohio Archaeological Inventory and that archaeology contingencies have been tacked onto final funding requirements.

The commission debated what a legal opinion should cover. One commissioner proposed asking the law director for a broader, precedential opinion that would apply to similar future projects in the city’s three‑mile review jurisdiction; other commissioners cautioned that subdivision status depends on specific statutory criteria under the Ohio Revised Code and the city’s Title 21 and that narrow, fact‑based questions may be more actionable.

Formal action: Commissioner motioned to ask the city law director’s office to review, as expeditiously as possible, whether the two proposals fall within city and state subdivision regulations. The motion was seconded. After discussion the commission voted; the motion resulted in a tie and therefore did not pass. The commission chair explained a tie vote meant the request for review was not approved at that meeting.

Commissioners and staff clarified that requesting a legal opinion would not automatically halt construction: as Riggs told the commission, asking for legal advice is not the same as issuing a stop‑work order. Speakers also noted that if the law director had a conflict the city might hire outside counsel, which could extend the timetable.

Next steps and community concerns: Several residents urged the commission to pursue some form of oversight — whether by the city, the county/regional planning agency, or a clarified process for Plains projects — to ensure infrastructure, land‑use separation, and archaeological protections are addressed. Developers and their attorney urged expedited handling where projects are already in construction and said repeated review at this stage would cause delay and additional cost.

The commission did not adopt new policy or send work to the law director at the Sept. 17 meeting because the motion to do so failed on a tie. Commissioners said the topic could be brought back at a future meeting.

Closing: With no other business the commission adjourned.