Beavercreek council sends Amberwood buffer change to planning commission after split vote

Beavercreek — The City Council voted 3-2 on June 23 to send a proposed change to the 25-foot buffer along the Amberwood subdivision’s Hole 7 fairway to the planning commission as a major modification, opening the issue to a public hearing and mailed notice to nearby property owners.

The motion means planning commission will consider converting Amberwood’s recorded 25-foot “no disturbance” area into a less restrictive “no cut” or landscape buffer and can recommend conditions such as required tree plantings, permits or restoration work. The vote recorded Councilmember Schwartz, Councilmember Littoral and Mayor Adams as voting in favor; Councilmember Garcia and Councilmember Kern voted no.

The change was prompted after city staff discovered a property owner on Lot 14 had cleared underbrush, built a stone retaining wall and installed a patio and putting green without the permits staff says were required for the retaining structures. Randy Burkett, the city’s planning director, told council the Amberwood specific site plan uses the phrase “25-foot no disturbance area” while nearby developments use a defined “no cut” or landscape buffer that allows lawns and passive recreation so long as trees larger than 4 inches in diameter are not removed.

Burkett said staff’s proposal would standardize the buffers on both sides of Hole 7 and treat the requested change as a minor modification under the zoning code — but that staff was bringing it to council because of the public sensitivity. He told council a minor modification would be decided by planning commission and not require mailed notice; a major modification would trigger mailed notice for properties within 500 feet and public hearings at both planning commission and city council.

Several residents urged opposite outcomes at the meeting. Pete Bales, of 2391 Forest Oaks Drive, said converting the 25-foot “no disturbance” area to a “no cut zone” would “represent a significant erosion of what city council and planning commission and our residents were promised just three years ago,” and warned the change would reward a single violation and set a precedent that could allow patios, fences and manicured lawns to replace wooded buffers.

John Cherry, who identified himself as the owner of Lot 14 at 2631 Golden Leaf Drive, said the work on his lot removed invasive honeysuckle and poison ivy but did not cut large trees. Cherry asked council to apply the same buffer standard on his side of Hole 7 as already exists across the fairway and said he had not knowingly violated any requirement.

Other speakers, including HOA representatives and homeowners, expressed concern about both fairness and long-term effects. Quincy Hearns, an HOA president who lives on the opposite side of the hole, warned that approving the change would open a “Pandora’s box” of requests from other property owners wanting similar alterations.

Council members debated the technical differences and enforcement options. Councilmember Littoral and Councilmember Schwartz both expressed concern about changing rules retroactively but also the value of gathering more input. Legal staff and planning staff told council the retaining wall and other vertical structures should have required permits, and that, if permits were not obtained, enforcement would start with a zoning violation and could ultimately lead to criminal citations if the violation was not corrected.

Burkett said that if council approved a modification, planning staff could impose conditions — for example, requiring the property owner to plant five or more replacement trees (the exact number depending on existing 4-inch-or-larger trees) and to remove landscaping that encroaches on city golf course property.

After extended public comment and council discussion, Councilmember X (mover not specified in the record) moved to send the request to planning commission as a major modification; the motion was seconded and passed by roll call. The council directed staff to treat the item as a major modification so that adjacent homeowners would receive mailed notice and have the opportunity to comment at public hearings.

Next steps: planning commission will schedule a public hearing under the major modification rules, accept public comment and make a recommendation to city council. The council did not set a date for the planning commission hearing at the June 23 meeting.

Votes at a glance: In addition to referring the Amberwood buffer change to planning commission, council approved several routine items during the June 23 meeting: a motion to excuse Councilmember Dewar; Resolution 25-15 authorizing the city manager to enter an agreement with the Beavercreek Development Corporation to receive net proceeds from a surplus property sale; Resolution 25-16 authorizing the law director to enter into a modified agreed order in the case Michael De Lafino v. City of Beavercreek (case number referenced in staff materials); and two liquor-license stock/permit transfers (Marion’s Pizza at 1320 N. Fairfield Road and Mies Pastoria at 2495 Commons Boulevard) that staff recommended to be accepted without comment. All of those items were approved on voice votes or without recorded roll calls.