Council pauses Quilling lot-line adjustment after public concerns about easement, unpermitted work and mausoleum access

The Dayton City Council on Jan. 14 paused consideration of a proposed lot-line adjustment and mausoleum project on Lawndale Lane after lengthy public comment and council discussion.

Planning staff described a developer proposal to adjust property lines between two parcels so a 30-acre and a 5-acre parcel would replace the existing 20-acre and 15-acre lots. Staff said the project would require variances to reduce the minimum lot size in the A-1 district from 40 acres to 5 acres and to reduce required lot frontage along a public road from 300 feet to 60 feet. Staff also reported unpermitted work on the site, parking and vehicle-storage concerns, and the applicant’s request that the council consider options for access across an existing 60-foot roadway easement.

The council’s prevailing view was that granting variances to create multiple smaller buildable lots below the 40-acre minimum would “open a can of worms” for other property owners. “I’m not a fan of it just because it’s gonna open up a can of worms for the whole city,” Council Member Scott said during the discussion.

Planning staff and several council members urged waiting for a pending A-3 zoning district update that is intended to address smaller-lot subdivisions. The council’s direction was to avoid approving variances now that would undercut that larger zoning project.

Neighbors testified at length. Resident Johnna Duke said the project’s construction activity, unpermitted changes and lighting have been disruptive: “The construction activity, the noise, and the traffic has taken a significant toll on my family,” Duke said. Jason Duke and other neighbors described trees removed, a new pole barn with bright lights, and paving and utility work in the easement that they said occurred without permits.

Developer representatives told the council they are seeking a property-line adjustment and said the 20-acre parcel has been legally accessed via a recorded private easement. A consultant for the applicant explained the intent was to reconfigure property lines, not to add an additional buildable lot. The developer also said permits have been applied for after the permit-review request from staff.

Council members pressed two interrelated questions: whether a city right-of-way should be required or dedicated, and whether the existing easement should be upgraded to a public street the city would maintain. Most council members said they do not support converting the easement into a public roadway or approving variances that create additional buildable lots under the current A-1 rules. Several members favored keeping the existing easement configuration but requiring the applicant to address access, maintenance agreements and parking impacts.

Planning staff noted the mausoleum shown on the site plan would require a conditional-use permit and recommended either an easement or an outlot dedicated to preserve long-term access to that structure. Council members agreed that access to any mausoleum or burial feature should be legally guaranteed and that the matter should be resolved as part of any future application.

Staff also reported instances of work done without required permits, a recorded private utility/access easement (document number 10750757), and commercial vehicles parked on a residential parcel. Staff asked the council to rely on the building-permit process and code enforcement to address unpermitted construction and nonconforming uses.

No final vote or approval was taken. The council’s direction: do not support variances that would reduce the 40-acre minimum to create buildable lots, do not authorize construction of a public street at this time, require clear legal access to any mausoleum (outlot or permanent access easement), and ask staff to enforce permit and parking rules. Planning staff and the applicant will return with next steps as the A-3 zoning work advances.

What happens next: Staff will continue permit review and follow up on enforcement for unpermitted work. Council members said applications tied to the A-3 zoning discussions will be treated in that broader policy context before the council will consider site-specific variances.