Clayton City Council on Tuesday took two separate but related actions tied to an earlier Planning Commission and council approval for a separate, larger development (SDG Warner Village) and also approved several routine municipal measures.

Warner Village referendum and council action

A citizen petition committee submitted signatures seeking a referendum on Ordinance O-01-25-02, the council ordinance that had adopted the Planning Commission’s recommendation approving a rezoning and preliminary development plan for SDG Warner Village (about 83.1044 acres near Sweet Potato Ridge Road and Main Street). Council members debated whether to repeal the March 6 ordinance or to proceed with sending the referendum to the county Board of Elections.

- An ordinance on the council agenda (O-004-25-05) would repeal the earlier March 6 ordinance that approved the Warner Village rezoning and preliminary plan. Council held a roll-call vote on the repeal motion; recorded votes in the meeting transcript were mixed. The transcript records these votes for the repeal motion: Merkel — yes; Kelly — yes; Farmer — no; Henning — no; Gorman — no; Bachman — no; Stevens — yes. Under the city charter the repeal would require five affirmative votes if it differed from the Planning Commission recommendation; the recorded roll call did not show five affirmative votes and therefore the council did not enact the repeal at that moment.

- After the vote on repeal, council considered Resolution R-04-25-39 to direct the Montgomery County Board of Elections to place the prior ordinance on the November 4, 2025 general election ballot. Petitioners’ representatives told council they had provided more than the required number of valid signatures (914 validated, city staff said) to trigger a referendum under the charter. Council voted to add and approve the resolution directing the Board of Elections. The roll call recorded in the transcript for Resolution R-04-25-39 shows majority affirmative votes (Farm er, Henning, Gorman, Merkel, Kelly, Bachman, Stevens — recorded yes votes in the excerpt); the resolution was adopted and the city clerk/ law director were instructed to coordinate with the Board of Elections per the charter.

Petitioners and public comment

Patrick Ernst, representing the petitioners’ committee, told council staff had validated 914 signatures — well above the 595 required — and asked that voters be allowed to decide the rezoning in November. Several residents and petitioners told council they preferred the question on the ballot, invoking the charter’s referendum process; one petitioner read an 18th-century Thomas Jefferson quote on citizen voting during the public comment portion.

Other routine council business and votes at a glance

Council also considered and approved several routine matters with little discussion:
- Resolution R-04-25-37: Approved the Montgomery County Solid Waste Management District solid waste plan (motion moved by Henning, second by Kelly; unanimous recorded vote in transcript).
- Resolution R-04-25-38: Approved a two-year wage agreement (2025–2026) with the Ohio Patrolmen’s Benevolent Association for sergeants in the Clayton Police Department (3% for 2025, 3% for 2026 with market rate adjustment); motion carried unanimously in the transcript.
- Ordinance O-004-25-04: Expressed the city’s intent to negotiate jointly with other cities on a street-lighting price schedule (motion carried unanimously in the transcript).

What it means and next steps

Because petitioners submitted validated referendum signatures, the city followed charter procedures: after council added the resolution directing the Board of Elections, the Board is expected to be notified and will place the question before voters at the November general election unless the ordinance is repealed by council before the petition deadlines and the law director and petitioners file a withdrawal per the charter. Petitioners said they prefer the electoral decision rather than final administrative or council-driven action.

Ending: Council moved through other business after the votes. Citizens in attendance emphasized they will continue to monitor the Warner Village rezoning and the Hunter’s Path preliminary plan; staff said required engineering reviews and public hearings on final development plans will continue to be scheduled in accordance with the city process.