Oak Hill commission deadlocks on how to respond to Garden Street litigation after heated public comments

City of Oak Hill commissioners spent the bulk of their meeting debating whether to oppose a motion to intervene in ongoing litigation over the Garden Street development or to pursue settlement talks that could lead to a redesign.

City attorney Michael Kelly opened the discussion by outlining the legal background and recommending that the city oppose Commissioner Catagano's motion to allow a third‑party intervention. Kelly said the city had entered a consent judgment with two residents in a Sunshine Act case that voided the zoning ordinance as it related to those plaintiffs, but that a separate declaratory action filed by Garden Street seeks to establish the developer's rights to build under the RPUD approval. Kelly told commissioners settlement negotiations could secure a redesign that addresses adjacent low‑density homes and would preserve the city's chance to defend the case if talks fail.

"If the city wants to pursue a mutually agreeable resolution, the city will need to file an objection to the motion to intervene," Kelly said, arguing settlement would be the quickest path to address neighbors' concerns while reducing trial risk.

Residents who spoke from the podium gave sharply different accounts. Tanner Andrews, who identified himself as an attorney and resident, accused the city of contemplating a "backroom deal" and urged commissioners to resist any effort that would undercut neighbors' input. "I would urge all of you to fervently and enthusiastically reject it," Andrews said.

Other residents pressed the commission to require the developer to return the land to R‑1 zoning or at least to negotiate openly with neighbors. A speaker who gave financial figures said Garden Street pays about $9,789.31 annually for a 33‑acre tract assessed at $502,000 and argued that the developer's largest financial gain would come from a switch to R‑1 rather than RPUD. In contrast, proponents of negotiation said sitting down with the developer could save the city money; the commission was told the litigation has already cost taxpayers roughly $58,576 in legal, planning and engineering fees since 2022, with an additional $9,999 since the current commission took office.

Commissioners and the attorney repeatedly explained that the consent judgment affected only the plaintiff residents and that the declaratory action is aimed at determining Garden Street's vested development rights. The attorney said mediation is likely to occur before a trial date set in June but framed opposing the motion to intervene as a procedural step that would leave settlement negotiations possible.

A motion to accept the city attorney's advice (to oppose the intervention and pursue settlement) was made and seconded and then opened for discussion. After extended public comment and internal disagreement, the commissioner who seconded the motion withdrew the second; the chair declared the motion "dead," and no final vote on the motion occurred at the meeting.

What happens next: the attorney said he may file a formal response in the court proceeding and that mediation remains a likely path before the case's June docket. Several residents pressed the commission to hold a public workshop so neighbors could be part of any ongoing discussions and the commission indicated it would continue considering options prior to trial.