Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Neighbors raise access, tree and runoff concerns at public hearing for TQ Farms concept plan
Summary
At a Planning Commission public hearing, the concept plan for a ~35-acre property called TQ Farms drew questions about road access, lot-size variances and tree clearing. Nearby residents asked for clearer maps and mitigation of driveway impacts; staff recommended limited-use easement and returning with clarified plans.
A concept plan for a roughly 35-acre project known as TQ Farms drew a packed public hearing and extensive questions from the Dayton Planning Commission and nearby residents.
Staff described the proposal as two parcels (about 15 acres and 20 acres) that the applicant would reorganize by splitting 5 acres from the smaller lot and combining the remaining acreage to create a single 30-acre parcel. Staff highlighted four critical issues: a potential variance to reduce the A‑1 minimum lot size from 40 acres to as small as 5 acres; a lot‑frontage variance from 300 feet to 60 feet; whether a 60‑foot roadway easement should be built to city street standards or managed through a limited‑use agreement; and the possible inclusion of a private mausoleum that would require further review.
Joe Radek, the applicant’s consultant, told the commission the intent is family use rather than new, commercial development: “He wants to split off that 5 acres, give that to his daughter, keep the rest and build his estate,” Radek said, adding that the Quillings could pay for road improvements if the city required it.
Neighbors pushed back. Jason Duke, whose driveway would be affected, said the proposed road “would impact my house, my use . . . pretty significantly,” and told the commission he feels pressured by a purchase offer he received. Jenny Vargas said trees along her property line were removed in past years and that clearing has exposed houses that were previously screened: “I don’t wanna stare at a cemetery,” she said, voicing concern about visibility after the applicant cleared trees.
Commissioners asked the applicant to provide updated survey materials that reflect recent on‑the‑ground changes and asked staff to clarify legal questions about the easement. Staff’s current preference is a limited‑use agreement so the city would not be responsible for maintenance; staff noted that if the easement were dedicated and built to city standards the right‑of‑way would be a public street and maintained by the city. Commissioners also cautioned against routine use of variances to allow lot splits and said an A‑3 zoning district discussion (on the same agenda) could alter the need for lot‑size variances.
The commission closed the concept‑plan public hearing after public comment and advised the applicant to return with clearer plans, an updated legend on maps and more detail about proposed improvements and the mausoleum concept. No formal action was taken on the concept plan at this meeting.
