Prestige Builder Group presented a revised concept for Canterbury Meadows, a proposed 32‑lot open‑space conservation subdivision on roughly 94 acres near Ravenna Street and Stow Road. Staff described the submission as a compatibility review — the first of three formal steps for subdivisions under the Land Development Code — and reminded the commission that compatibility review is advisory and not a final action.

Applicant representatives said the plan had been revised since the earlier application: lots were reduced from 34 to 32; average lot sizes were decreased; proposed open space increased from roughly 50% to about 62% of the net site area; perimeter setbacks were increased (western perimeter from 100 ft to about 135 ft, east perimeter to about 112 ft); and stormwater management was redesigned with two primary retention basins and conveyance systems intended to reduce runoff toward neighboring parcels. The applicant said Army Corps of Engineers correspondence reduced the acreage of potentially impacted wetlands from about 5.07 acres on the site to roughly 0.49 acres of isolated wetlands proposed for fill; the applicant also reported soil borings and draft drainage calculations provided to staff.

Neighbors and environmental observers strongly urged the commission to find the plan incompatible with surrounding rural residential character. Speakers cited the property’s farmed fields, delineated wetlands, sightings of bald eagles and a barn owl, and congestion at the nearby Stow Road–Ravenna Street intersection. Resident Skyler Sutton argued the new plan “has no remarkable or substantial differences” from the prior proposal and urged the commission to view the filing as materially identical to the prior, denied application.

Commissioners and staff pressed the applicant on a broad set of technical and policy questions: whether the wetlands boundary and proposed fills comply with local wetland setback rules and the Hudson Environmental Resource Atlas; the accuracy and currency of traffic and subsurface reports; cut‑and‑fill quantities; stormwater overflow routing and whether any overland emergency flow would cross Ravenna Street at grade; and whether the applicant had evaluated wildlife, including nesting bald eagles. Applicant engineer Jerry Wise said the submission focused on intercepting runoff that had historically drained southwest off the site and that the proposed basins and swales would reduce post‑development flows to adjacent properties, while the applicant said wetlands in agricultural fields had limited ecological value and that Ohio EPA preferred a fee‑in‑lieu mitigation option for isolated wetlands.

After public comment and applicant rebuttal, the commission provided detailed direction but took no formal action. Several commissioners said they considered the revised plan insufficiently different from the previously reviewed submission and warned that, at the preliminary plan stage, the commission could find the application barred under administrative res judicata unless the applicant demonstrates material changes addressing the basis of the earlier denial. Commissioners issued specific, repeatable guidance for revisions that the applicant should address before a preliminary application: split the north and south parcels into separate submissions if consolidation is not possible; materially reduce lot sizes and show a deliberate clustering strategy that concentrates built lots and preserves contiguous open space; eliminate any proposed disturbance to delineated wetlands and provide on‑site or off‑site mitigation documentation; provide a wildlife study (including potential raptor nesting); produce updated traffic, subsurface, cut‑and‑fill and drainage calculations; and show how the proposal better matches the Thousand‑foot compatibility standard in the Land Development Code.

Planning staff said the comments from the commission must be reflected in the preliminary plan materials. The applicant said it would continue technical work with engineers and regulatory agencies and expected to return with a revised submittal. No vote or formal recommendation was taken at the compatibility stage.