Council approves zoning map amendment for 35.5‑acre Fairfield parcel after heated public hearing

Drew Miller, land entitlement and zoning manager for Arbor Homes, told Lancaster City Council on Nov. 17 that his company has begun preliminary engineering and a Traffic Impact Study for a proposed subdivision behind Rainbow Drive and Thornville Road, and that the study is expected to recommend a deceleration lane and a left‑turn lane on Thomville Road.

At a public hearing on a zoning map amendment for a 35.506‑acre Fairfield County parcel (parcel #0534162500), opponents said the RMD designation and developer plans would sharply increase density and traffic in a long‑established neighborhood. "This is an invasion," said resident Bob Lust, who criticized proposed small lots and a straight‑street layout he said would encourage speeding. Long‑time resident Linda McCormick warned that the T‑intersection at Rainbow Drive and State Route 188 is already prone to accidents and said adding an estimated 170–200 homes would worsen safety near two nearby schools. Pam Harris, speaking for elderly neighbors, said the prospect of more cars and reduced privacy left her parents fearful.

Miller defended the concept as a tool to create more attainable pricing for first‑time buyers, saying higher density and smaller lots help offset development costs. He told the council Arbor Homes is committed to screening, landscaping or privacy fencing and would coordinate traffic‑related mitigation. "I am a man of my word," Miller said when asked whether the company had failed to deliver promised screening in past projects.

Councilmembers pressed technical questions. Mr. Luchtenberg noted that a 40‑foot frontage with 5‑foot side setbacks would yield about a 30‑foot house width and could create compliance issues for permitted garage widths; Law Director Stephanie Hall said that the council's vote concerns base zoning only and that any development plans and variances would return to the Planning Commission for review. Hall also confirmed the parcel currently carries a Planned Unit Development (PUD) overlay but lacked an underlying base zoning; the ordinance before council would establish RMD as that base zoning.

Opponents raised additional concerns about cumulative traffic from other nearby proposed developments and questioned whether the developer's concept complied with RMD code minimum lot size and frontage. Hall noted a less dense option — Residential Low Density (RLD) — requires a 70‑foot frontage, and said that because the developer's conceptual plan proposes 40‑foot frontages, developers would need to seek area variances or special exceptions at the Planning Commission stage if they pursue the current designs.

Council then moved to the third reading on Ordinance Temporary 59‑25, the zoning map amendment. The motion to pass was announced in the provided record as "carried G4" and the clerk recorded the motion as carried; the precise roll‑call tally is not legible in the transcript supplied for this report.

Next steps: establishing RMD as the base zoning does not approve a final plat or construction. If the ordinance remains enacted, the developer must submit detailed plans to the Planning Commission, where lot widths, setbacks, traffic mitigation and any requested variances will be considered before any permits are issued.