A preliminary plan to extend Hunter’s Path with roughly 97 single-family houses and new streets drew a packed public hearing and focused questions Tuesday from Clayton residents about drainage, standing water, removal of trees and emergency access.

City planner Ellen (last name not specified in transcript) told the council the applicant — DDC Management, represented at the meeting by John Bills — submitted a preliminary subdivision plan for 37.098 acres near Westbrook Road and Union Road. Ellen said the plan proposes 97 single-family lots, about 11.06 acres (29.4 percent) of open space, two access points, sidewalks and a multi-use path on Westbrook Road, water and sewer tie-ins and two stormwater basins. She told council the Planning Commission unanimously recommended approval with conditions, including that final plans must address comments from Clayton staff and replace dead trees on the northwest and east property lines.

Why it matters: neighboring homeowners said they bought or built with expectations about drainage, tree lines and privacy and worry the development will make existing wet, low-lying areas worse or remove the buffer of trees that now separates yards. Several residents urged the council to require detention basins rather than retention basins and asked the developer and staff to show precisely how stormwater will be routed and handled before final approval.

John Bills, president of BDC Management (the applicant’s representative), told council he expected the project to be “a continuation” of existing development in the area and said engineering and final designs that will be required with the final development plan stage will address detailed stormwater, grading, utilities, building architecture and landscaping. He said the developer plans to work with city staff on stormwater design and that the final plans must meet state regulations and the city engineer’s review.

Residents pressed specifics. Derek Muncy, who identified himself as a member of the Planning Commission, urged clearer zoning rules so similar disputes do not recur and encouraged council to update Plan Clayton and the zoning code to give planners clearer guidance. Other residents who live adjacent to the parcel described persistent water pooling, debris and standing water in the field and a mapped “blue-line” stream through the property. Joe Seider, William Sider and Joe Snyder each described seasonal standing water and asked whether the developer would clear debris and where water now flowing onto the site would be routed. Several speakers asked the council and developer to commit to detention basins (designed to empty) rather than retention basins (which hold water long-term) to limit geese and standing water near backyards.

Fire and emergency-access concerns: multiple speakers and a council member asked about a long cul-de-sac and whether the design would impede fire access. The city’s fire representative (identified only as “chief” in the transcript) said the proposal meets the Ohio Fire Code as the city has adopted it and that the code’s thresholds for when a second access is required are based on number of residences; the chief said cities can adopt stricter local administrative rules but Clayton has not adopted those stricter administrative provisions. He said the department has experience operating in one-way-in developments and would use procedures such as hose stretches to reach structures where necessary.

Trees and grading: developers said geotechnical work identified wet areas that will require mitigation, including stripping unsuitable soils and rebuilding building pads. Bills said lots affected by wet soils would be mitigated with engineered fills and geotechnical oversight. The developer also said crews would remove dead or hazardous trees on its property where needed for grading and drainage, but noted they will not remove trees on private neighbor lots; Planning Commission recommended a final plan condition to remove dead trees and replace them along the northwest and east property lines.

Staff oversight and next steps: Ellen and Amanda (city staff) said final development-plan submissions must include a traffic study, detailed stormwater and grading plans and architecture, and each final plan requires additional public hearings before Planning Commission and City Council. Amanda reminded council that city engineering review and state stormwater rules must be satisfied for final approvals.

Council action: the Planning Commission had recommended approval of the preliminary plan with conditions. Council moved to consider an ordinance adopting, rejecting or modifying that recommendation; motion to approve the ordinance was made by Councilman Gorman and seconded by Councilwoman Kelly. Recorded votes on the ordinance in the council roll call in the transcript were: Farmer — yes; Henning — no; Gorman — yes; Merkel — yes; Kelly — yes; Bachman — abstain. Stevens’ recorded vote is not specified in the available transcript excerpt. The number of recorded affirmative votes meets the simple majority threshold. The ordinance’s passage in final form is recorded in the meeting proceedings that followed the roll call.

What remains unresolved: residents continued to press for clearer, site-specific stormwater modeling, answers on retention versus detention basins, confirmation about whether specific trees on the developer’s property would be replaced with similar screening, and whether the long cul-de-sac design should be changed locally through a code amendment rather than on a case-by-case basis.

The council heard the public record and moved on to other agenda items; staff reiterated that final engineering and traffic studies will be required at the final-plan stage and that any necessary modifications to stormwater or access must be addressed before building permits could be issued.

Ending: Residents who spoke said they intend to follow the process and participate in final-plan hearings; the developer said it would continue to work with staff and engineers on final designs required by the city before any construction.