Mentor council approves rezone to put 55-plus planned community on November ballot after heated buffer and drainage debate

President Filipiak called a public hearing and later a council vote on Aug. 19 on Ordinance 25‑OD‑069, a proposed rezoning of about 14.5 acres south of Adkins Road to a Planned Residential Development overlay that would allow 45 single‑family homes and a clubhouse and send the question to the November ballot.

The planning staff summary noted the site’s proposed mix of standard and cluster single‑family units, a 3.8‑acre open‑space area (about 26% of the site), and landscape buffers including a 50‑foot rear buffer on the west and a 25‑foot buffer along the east property line next to Painesville Baptist Church. “The planning commission recommended approval of the proposed rezoning and preliminary site plan … by a vote of 5 to 1,” planning staff said.

Developer representatives described the project as an Epcon 55‑plus community targeted to downsizing homeowners and stressed local experience. “The community that we're building is called the Epcon community. It's a 55 age community, geared for people who are downsizing their houses,” said Jeff Small of Twentieth Century Construction. He said the HOA would maintain landscaping and snow removal and that units are designed for aging in place with no steps and universal showers.

Nearby residents raised concerns during the hearing about loss of mature trees, drainage and wetlands. “The buffer zone acts as a screen for us currently … it hides the car headlights … holds soil from washing into the gully,” said Mike Maggio, whose property abuts the site. He said the developer’s current plan shows a storm sewer running 20 feet into the 50‑foot buffer, which he says would remove 30–40% of the trees and likely kill more by root disturbance.

Frank LeMay, another nearby resident, told council he had historical research indicating the site had been deemed wetlands in 1962 and asked whether a wetlands mitigation plan had been completed. He also warned the proposed detention/retention basin could attract Canada geese and increase runoff toward existing backyards.

The developer and their engineers responded that some elements could be adjusted during final engineering. “We have delineation. Everything will be adequate with the Corps,” said Chuck Zooks of Polaris Engineering when asked about wetlands permitting, adding that wetlands permitting comes at the final design stage. An engineer representing the applicant said the storm sewer had been added to address drainage that was flowing onto neighboring properties and that the storm line could be removed if the city engineer’s review determined it was unnecessary.

Council members pressed for clarity about buffers, tree preservation and drainage. City manager Ken Vodgak and planning staff said the rezoning vote being considered was a preliminary land‑use decision; final engineering and permitting (including a storm‑water design and any wetland permits) would come later and be subject to engineering review and conditions. Vodgak said the city’s requirement is that a development “have no impact” on adjacent properties and that engineering review will address whether the proposed storm works are necessary or can be modified.

After discussion, council voted to advance the ordinance to the November ballot. The motion to approve Ordinance 25‑OD‑069 passed on a roll call vote with council members recorded as voting Yes: Mrs. Dowling; Mr. Kirschner; Mr. Krieger; Mr. Marne; Mr. Blake; and Mr. Donovan.

The developer acknowledged neighbors’ requests to move the pond and clubhouse to reduce impacts and said they would explore layout changes before final design. Planning staff noted the planning commission had included specific conditions in its recommendation and that any final permits would be conditioned on engineering and on mitigation measures identified during the final‑site review.

The ordinance will appear on the November ballot because the PRD overlay is subject to a mandatory referendum under the city charter; if voters approve it, the developer will return to the city for final engineering review and permits.

Proponents and opponents urged further work before final design: neighbors asked for on‑site visits, preservation of mature trees where possible and clearer designation of who is responsible for the stream/gully that receives runoff. Developers told council they have experience managing ponds and wildlife mitigation (including commercial goose control hired by HOAs) and said they are willing to discuss clubhouse siting and additional buffering as part of final engineering.

Given the outstanding engineering questions and neighbors’ concerns, council and staff emphasized that the rezoning vote sends only the zoning change to voters; detailed grading, drainage plans, and permit approvals remain subject to later technical review and conditions.