Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Development topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
North Ridgeville committee hears developer plan for Chestnut Ridge Road, senior housing and non‑school TIF
Summary
Developers presented an age‑restricted (55+) active‑adult neighborhood tied to a proposed north–south connector and a non‑school TIF that would fund public infrastructure; council raised questions about wetlands, who pays sewer connection fees, HOA estimates and the potential impact of state property‑tax changes on local TIF revenues.
Developers told the North Ridgeville City Council Committee of the Whole on March 5 that a proposed Chestnut Ridge Road development would pair an age‑restricted, owner‑occupied housing community with a new north–south road connection and public infrastructure improvements funded in part by a proposed non‑school tax‑increment financing district.
"So, this is an opportunity for the city for some connectivity," Mayor Corcoran said as the committee opened the meeting, describing the proposed connector between Waterbury Boulevard and the roundabout at Alternate 83 as a way to link neighborhoods to Route 10 and to shorten emergency response routes.
Chris Joseph, the developers' land acquisitions manager, summarized the residential concept as an active‑adult community limited to owner‑occupied units for people 55 and older and said the project would extend sanitary sewer to the property line to serve nearby parcels with aging septic systems. "It is age‑restricted at 55 and over," Joseph said, and the team estimated single‑family homes "to be around $400,000 to start and the paired villas in the mid‑300s." He added that homeowners would be responsible for sewer connection fees and that the sewer would be run only to the property line.
Developers also proposed relocating the existing community garden, which they said is currently "a little over 2 acres," and improving it with permanent water and storage. As part of a proposed land swap, they said the city now holds roughly 19 acres that were designated for a future road and that the project would return about 26 acres to the city at completion—a net gain of roughly "a little more than 6 acres," according to the presentation.
The team said the parcel would move from a commercial/industrial incentive district to a residential tax‑increment financing (TIF) district, and repeatedly described the district as a non‑school TIF that would not divert funds from school levies. The developers said any excess TIF increment would be used only for public infrastructure (roads, sewer and public open space), not private construction.
Council members asked detailed procedural and planning questions. Councilmember Evans asked whether wetlands are present on the city land and was told there are "sporadic wetlands" throughout the area, a factor the developers said influenced the proposed alignment for the connector. Evans also asked who pays the sewer connection fee; developers said homeowners would bear that cost.
Other council members asked about senior‑center programming, HOA costs and traffic. A council member asked whether a growing senior population could affect school referendums; administration officials said uncertainty in pending state property‑tax proposals made that question legally and politically unresolved. On HOA costs, developers estimated monthly dues in the range of $200–$250 depending on clubhouse and programming decisions and said routine exterior maintenance would be included in the HOA package.
Council members and residents discussed the project's possible effect on emergency response times. Supporters said the diagonal connector could shorten travel distances for fire and medical units on the west side of the city; officials said planning and engineering would need to quantify exact time savings.
Public comment included questions about pedestrian and bicycle facilities—developers said those would be included—trail layout and green‑space amenities; no votes or formal approvals were taken at the meeting. The developers described the immediate next steps as negotiating the land swap, creating the TIF incentive district, and later submitting the project for planning‑commission review and a development‑plan application under the city's R‑1 zoning rules and the 'senior citizen planned residential development' conditional‑use pathway in Chapter 1250.
The Committee of the Whole closed public comment and adjourned without action; the proposal will return later for the legislative steps the developers identified if the city and developer reach agreement on the land swap and TIF structure.
