Council holds public hearing on proposed planned residential district for 85.611-acre annexed tract

Brookville City Council on a motion opened a public hearing on Ordinance 2025-07, a proposal to establish a planned residential district for an 85.611-acre parcel annexed to the city on Upper Lewisburg–Salem Road.

The ordinance would make single-family dwellings the only permitted use, allow parks or recreational facilities as the only special use, and impose specific development standards: a minimum lot area of one-half acre, a minimum lot frontage of 120 feet, front and rear setbacks of 40 feet, side setbacks of 20 feet, a maximum building height of 35 feet, a minimum finished floor area of 2,000 square feet (excluding enclosed patios, garages and basements), and a requirement that at least 50% of building exteriors be brick, masonry or stone (vinyl siding would not be permitted). The ordinance would also require at least 25% of the land be reserved as common open space, with eligible open-space parcels at least 50 by 100 feet, and a 50-foot perimeter setback to be retained as natural woods or landscaped buffer. The ordinance is listed as Ordinance 2025-07.

The council and staff emphasized that the action before the body was to assign zoning after annexation, not to approve any specific development. City Manager Jack said, “We are mandated by the state of Ohio to assign a zoning district.” He and staff said no developer or homebuilder had submitted a specific plan for that property at the time of the hearing.

Residents who testified at the hearing expressed a mix of support for a higher-end development and concern about lot sizes, traffic and school capacity. One resident who identified himself as a banker and longtime local investor cautioned that half-acre lots would produce lot costs and home prices substantially above the city median, saying in substance that lot-development costs and typical construction rates would push final home prices into the mid- to high‑$300,000s and above. Another resident, speaking for a local neighborhood group, urged minimum lot sizes of three‑quarter acre or one acre to preserve a rural character and attract what he described as “upscale” homes.

Other public commenters raised traffic and safety concerns for children living near the proposed development and asked who would maintain required open space and stormwater facilities. The council replied that common open spaces and stormwater detention areas would be maintained by a homeowners association (HOA) established by the developer; as Law Director Rod Steffen explained, HOA covenants and maintenance obligations are part of typical subdivision approvals and would be required in recorded documents.

Council members and staff also addressed school-capacity questions. Councilors said the city has met with the school district and that the superintendent has provided enrollment data; the city’s consultant is working with the schools to quantify capacity and projected student impacts as part of the city’s land-use planning work. City Manager Jack said the planning commission had made its recommendation after public input and the referendum last year that directed residential rather than commercial zoning for the site.

No rezoning vote was taken at the meeting. The ordinance remains subject to planning‑commission review and future council readings as required by Chapter 11.51 of the city code; any developer proposing a specific plan would submit a site development plan subject to those review steps.

Residents and councilors were advised that the standards in the ordinance set minimums and that a developer could propose larger lots or a mix of lot sizes as part of a formal development plan to be reviewed later by the planning commission and city council.

Councilors closed the public hearing without taking final action on the ordinance and will receive further planning‑stage materials and public input before any final vote.