Middletown council hears strong resident opposition, declines support for Todd Holmes 86-acre plan

MIDDLETOWN, Ohio — Dozens of residents opposed a proposed map amendment and preliminary development plan from developer Todd Holmes to build about 217 single‑family homes and a commercial outparcel on an 86.086‑acre site, telling City Council on Aug. 5 the proposal conflicts with the area’s existing low‑density character and strains roads and schools.

The plan, which would rezone the parcel from R‑1 (low‑density residential) to a Planned Development District, drew sustained criticism at a public hearing and from the city’s Planning Commission, which voted 6‑0 to recommend denial. Claire Fetters, the city planner, told council the application requests multiple waivers to lot size, setback and materials standards and that staff and Planning Commission found the proposal inconsistent with the city’s development rules and the neighborhood context.

“In my opinion, none of these conditions are met,” resident Judy Gilliland told council, reading from the staff report and urging denial. Several speakers cited traffic on Miller Road, possible school overcrowding at Miller Ridge Elementary, stormwater and safety around proposed retention ponds, and the loss of mature tree buffers as reasons to reject the plan. John Depps called the request “spot zoning” that would lower surrounding property values.

The developer, Todd Hall, estimated base pricing for the proposed homes at about $350,000 for the smallest lots and said he would consider a 50‑foot buffer for adjacent homeowners and would accept a traffic‑impact study as a condition. “If the traffic impact study doesn’t work out for the community, I’ll walk away,” Hall said.

Council members said they heard residents’ concerns. Council member Lolli said he would “stand in solidarity” with neighbors and opposed the plan; other members echoed concerns about density, materials and infrastructure. In a nonbinding straw vote taken at the end of the meeting, council signaled it would not approve the application as submitted.

The Planning Commission’s formal recommendation of denial and the council’s initial opposition leave the developer the option to revise the proposal and return with changes or to withdraw the application.

Residents who spoke included homeowners from Miller Road, Hickory Hollow, Antrim Court, Riverview and nearby subdivisions. They urged the city to require larger lots, stronger architectural standards, dedicated park space, clearer stormwater responsibility and that any commercial uses be limited or relocated away from adjacent yards.

Council closed the public comment period after the applicant’s final remarks and moved to deliberations; several council members said the plan fails to meet the city’s review criteria in its current form. The council did not take a final, binding vote on rezoning during the Aug. 5 meeting.

The council will consider any resubmitted or revised application through the standard public hearing and legislative process if the developer chooses to proceed.