Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Neighbors object to 360 Restoration headquarters in Turtle Creek Township; commissioners continue site‑plan hearing to June 30
Summary
Applicant 360 Restoration seeks a 6,000 sq ft commercial building on a 6.76‑acre PUD overlay in Turtle Creek Township. Township trustees asked for a 4‑ft berm with trees; nearby residents warned about blind curves, school buses and commercial vehicles. The board continued the administrative hearing to June 30 to allow written positions and neighbor engagement.
An administrative hearing on June 16 for 360 Restoration’s PUD Stage 2 site plan was continued to June 30 after township representatives requested more substantial buffering and multiple nearby residents testified in opposition citing traffic and safety concerns.
Staff presentation: Planning staff described the proposal for a 6,000‑square‑foot commercial building on the eastern portion of a 6.76‑acre PUD overlay, with one commercial lot and one residential lot. The site plan calls for 15 parking spaces, a primary and reserve septic field for the commercial building, a detention pond for stormwater, and a required 50‑ft Buffer Type D between the commercial parcel and adjacent residential zoning. Turtle Creek Township recommended a 4‑ft berm (mound) planted with evergreens in the road buffer to screen the development.
Applicant response: Pat Hudapool, owner of 360 Restoration, said the company operates small trucks and trailers (no semis) and that the business would be largely by appointment; he expressed concern that a 4‑ft berm with trees could create drainage and maintenance issues and said he preferred preserving existing mature trees where possible.
Neighbors’ concerns: Multiple residents who live on the long, curved dead‑end access road — some citing limited sight distance, children and school buses — said commercial traffic and daily service vehicles would present safety risks. At least two speakers said they had not received notice of the earlier rezoning action approving the PUD overlay and submitted written opposition to the site plan.
Board action: Because of the conflicting testimony and the township’s requested buffering detail (and because at least one adjacent neighbor who the township said opposed the berm was not present to confirm their preference), the board voted to continue the administrative hearing to June 30, 2026, at 9:30 a.m. Staff were asked to collect clearer written positions from the adjacent property owner and the township and to bring any updated engineering or buffering plans for review.
Next steps: The continuance gives the applicant, township and neighbors an opportunity to resolve buffer design (berm vs. preserved trees), address drainage and access questions, and present revised site plans or written testimony for the board to consider at the continued hearing. If the board approves the plan after the continuance, staff will require the conditions listed in the planner’s report before issuing any permits.
