Medina County approves sanitary-code revisions after developers raise confusion about developer—s agreement

Medina County commissioners voted to approve revisions to the county sanitary code of regulations and two companion sanitary items after staff said the changes mainly redact unused provisions and members of the public asked for clearer guidance about developer—s agreements.

The action matters because the changes affect what documentation and financial guarantees the county may require for new developments and because at least one developer told commissioners she and other builders received inconsistent information at a preconstruction meeting.

Jeremy Cinco, Medina County sanitary engineer, told the board he had three resolutions for consideration: "authorizing revisions to the Medina County Sanitary Code of Regulations," authorization to obtain an easement for the Granger Road water main improvement project, and "authorizing change order number 2 for the Medina County Sanitary Rehabilitation Project 02/2025." Cinco moved to approve the three resolutions; the board approved all three on a unanimous roll call vote (Sweatick: yes; Hambley: yes; Harrison: yes).

A county speaker explained the revisions remove or redact sections that have not been used, including references to a developer's agreement and to financial securities required for improvements. As the speaker put it during discussion, the redactions concern "certain sections that don't apply and have not been utilized within the code of regulations" and the county will coordinate changes with future documents to avoid conflicts.

Developer Amanda Chapman, who identified herself as representing Sharon Falls Development, addressed the commissioners during public comment and described confusion at a preconstruction meeting. Chapman said developers "had no idea what regulations we should even be working under" and that, during the preconstruction meeting, staff and the county prosecutor appeared uncertain which regulations applied. "When we said we don't believe that's correct, we were threatened with the fact that, 'well, do you want to delay this further?'", she said, adding that plans submitted followed the regulations builders had previously relied on.

Chapman told the board she found unexpected paperwork at the preconstruction meeting that included requirements she had not seen before — including language about a developer's agreement and a disputed financial guarantee percentage — and asked the county for better transparency and communication. She requested an email mailing list for notices, hearings and resolutions so developers and residents would be notified directly rather than having to search public-notice websites.

County staff and a commissioner acknowledged the need to coordinate the revised sanitary regulations with other county documents and to avoid conflicting rules. The board said the redactions were intended to eliminate unused or duplicative provisions and that staff will continue to refine language and incorporate any necessary cross-references with future development agreements.

The board approved the three sanitary resolutions by roll call; no amendments were recorded. Staff said additional edits may be needed in the future to ensure the newly revised code aligns with other documents and to preserve a single point of clarity for applicants.

Developers asked the county to provide clearer, consolidated guidance moving forward and to add interested builders or applicants to a direct email list for public notices.