The Clayton City Council voted to approve an ordinance adopting the planning commission's recommendation to rezone 83.1044 acres near the intersection of Sweet Potato Ridge Road and Main Street from Residential Single Unit District (RSD) to Planned Development District (PDD), clearing a key regulatory step for the proposed Warner Village development.

Residents and the project's representatives spent much of the public comment period debating likely effects on schools, traffic, farmland and whether the city should use a tax increment financing (TIF) tool for the project. Sam Cox, a Clayton resident, told council that at a recent Northmont City Schools meeting “the average number of students per classroom is currently 28,” and warned that “with the possibility of 500 or more students from Warner Village, this would put a huge strain on the school system’s already stretched budget and quality of education.”

Developer remarks emphasized consistency with the city’s planning documents. Mark Schnanke, identified in meeting materials as representing the applicant, said the project “pretty much followed exactly what was asked for in this overlay and the zoning and this comprehensive plan” and described the proposal as a “walkable, open space, community” that would connect to nearby parks. Schnanke said construction would likely require a traffic signal at the Sweet Potato Ridge/Main Street intersection and that the developer was prepared to address that cost.

Other residents raised separate concerns: Derek Muncy questioned how a TIF would affect school tax receipts; Doug Bias, who spoke at length about TIFs, described the financing mechanism as “a public financing method that is used as a subsidy for redevelopment” and argued the tool is intended for blighted areas and can divert public revenues if used in already-attractive markets. Joe Sider described prior problems on his block tied to rental properties and said, “to have a hundred new rental units, I would not want to live in that neighborhood.” Several speakers urged preserving farmland north of State Route 40 and referenced the city’s Plan Clayton comprehensive plan and a 1998 “Keep It Rural” pledge as reasons to reconsider the scale or location of the project.

Council debate focused largely on land-use policy and process. After the planning commission’s recommendation was read into the record, the ordinance authorizing the rezoning and preliminary development plan was moved and seconded; the ordinance description in the record names the applicant as SDG Warner Village LLC and identifies parcel ID M60030100001. The council’s roll-call vote on that ordinance resulted in a 4–3 approval.

Council members and staff also clarified that any TIF would require a separate council ordinance and legislative process: “The TIF is not automatic,” a staff member told the chamber, adding that it “would come to council for a vote” and that terms vary by agreement.

Votes at a glance
- Ordinance 00125-02 (rezoning and preliminary development plan for Warner Village, SDG Warner Village LLC; 83.1044 acres, parcel M60030100001): adopted by council, vote recorded in meeting as 4–3. Mover: Councilmember Merkel. Seconder: Councilmember Kelly. Outcome: approved.
- Resolution R O 3 25 22 (authorize contract with J and M Services of Miami Valley LLC for 2025 concrete curb, gutter and catch-basin work, not to exceed $260,000): approved. Motion moved by Councilmember Gorman and seconded by Councilmember Henning; Councilmember Bachman recorded an abstention.
- Resolution R O 2 25 17 (appointment to local board of tax review — Mark Garlikoff): approved by unanimous roll call following executive session.
- Resolution R O 3 25 21 (appointment to Board of Zoning Appeals — Mike Greer): approved by unanimous roll call following executive session.
- Resolution R O 2 25 20 (proposal to amend council rule 4.7 concerning motions to reconsider): council debated a motion to reject the proposed amendment; a roll-call vote was held and the council returned a majority result on that motion during the meeting (see meeting minutes for the official certified vote record).

Why it matters
Rezoning to a PDD is a substantive land-use decision: it changes the permitted uses and approval pathway for a large parcel that city planning documents and the applicant say was designated for mixed residential development. The decision moves the project closer to building permits and will shape traffic planning, school district enrollment projections and future use of municipal financial tools such as a TIF.

Details and next steps
The approved ordinance directs that the preliminary development plan, subject to specified conditions noted in the planning commission’s recommendation, move forward under PDD procedures. Any TIF request, if proposed by the developer, would require a separate ordinance and additional legislative votes; staff told council that TIF terms vary and that the city typically seeks shorter terms when possible, with one speaker noting a typical ten-year project horizon. Residents indicating they opposed the rezoning said they are organizing a referendum committee and will seek guidance from the city on signature requirements under Charter Section 10.02.

Council also approved a public-works contract for curb, gutter and related concrete work to J and M Services of Miami Valley LLC in an amount not to exceed $260,000. Staff said the contract covers multiple local streets, including portions of Clinton and Haber, plus work in the Summersweet plat. Councilmembers approved two board appointments after an executive session considering personnel matters under Ohio Revised Code 121.22(G)(1).

The developer must still satisfy conditions listed in the preliminary plan and secure any separate approvals (site plan, permits, financing measures such as a TIF if requested). Residents and the school district will continue to monitor enrollment projections, and several speakers indicated an intent to pursue a referendum or other civic actions if the project proceeds to final approvals.

Closing note
The meeting record shows continued local division over the balance between growth and farmland preservation in Clayton. The Warner Village rezoning decision ends one formal review step; future legislative or administrative actions tied to site plan approvals, financing requests or permits will be next opportunities for the council and residents to revisit project details.