A majority of Xenia City Council rejected a proposed major change to the Timber Ridge planned unit development on Monday, Dec. 22, after residents raised concerns about drainage, tree loss and lot density.

The item (ordinance 2025‑33) — describing modifications to a 52.36‑acre PUD and proposing approximately 88–90 homes split across two phases — was untabled for discussion and then put to a final vote. Legal counsel told the council there was no legal or constitutional violation identified and that the decision “is going to have to be… based on the facts and the evidence presented to you whether or not you feel this proposal meets those standards.” That framed the vote as a factual, not a legal, determination.

During more than an hour of public comment, nearby homeowners said existing drainage features on and adjacent to the site are poorly maintained and flood properties. Alyssa Marville, who said her property backs up to US‑68, told council the “dry pond next to us… already floods really bad because that dry pond’s never been maintained” and asked how the new plan would address current yard flooding. The developer, Brian Heading, said engineered stormwater plans will be prepared by a licensed engineer and submitted for review.

Council and staff discussed phasing and access: staff and the developer said the new entrance from US‑68 and required retention facilities would be constructed in Phase 1, and that traffic and access studies — and any resulting improvements — will be developer‑funded and required before building commences. Staff also noted the fire code requires a second entrance for subdivisions with more than 30 lots.

Despite those assurances, several council members signaled concern about neighborhood impacts, tree removal and overall density. After roll-call voting the final motion to approve failed and the council did not adopt ordinance 2025‑33.

The council record shows the motion did not receive the necessary majority and was declared failed. The council’s legal advisor noted that a denial operates as a final, appealable order and that court review would substitute its judgment for the council’s if appealed.

With the motion failed, the ordinance will not move forward in the form presented. Council members and staff said the city will continue to review development applications and that future submittals will include required engineering plans and studies before final plot approvals.