Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Huber Heights council removes green-space restriction on Lot 199 after HOA request (MJC26-10)
Summary
After a public hearing, Huber Heights Council voted 8–0 to remove an open-space/no-structure restriction on Lot 199 (case MJC26-10) at 3020 Bur Oak Drive. Planning staff told council the lot is a liability to the HOA and nearby Cottonwood Park will provide nearby recreational space.
The Huber Heights City Council voted unanimously Thursday to remove a green-space and no-structure restriction on Lot 199 of The Oaks of Huber Heights Section 9 (case MJC26-10), clearing the way for the property owner to pursue development plans subject to later Planning Commission review.
Planning staff member Aaron Sorrell told the council the vacant 0.3‑acre lot is adjacent to planned residential and that staff supports removing the restriction for three reasons: Cottonwood Park is roughly 300 feet away and is receiving an estimated $600,000 in upgrades, the homeowners association regards the lot as a financial liability, and the planned residential zoning does not require open space. "Planning staff does support this major change to remove the green space restriction from Lot 199," Sorrell said during the presentation.
Greg Hoskins, the applicant and an HOA board member, said the HOA had expected the builder to install landscaping, sidewalks and amenities but faced rising HOA assessments as the developer did not complete promised improvements. "We went from a $129 (annual) HOA to $749," Hoskins said, explaining the HOA’s willingness to accept ownership of the lot to reduce costs. Councilmember Scott asked whether the HOA had written confirmation the HOA fee would be lowered if Hoskins acquired the lot; Hoskins said it was "in the writing" and that the HOA expects a reduction tied to mowing and insurance savings.
After the public hearing closed, the council waived a second reading and adopted the ordinance to remove the restriction. The motion to adopt carried 8–0. The removal of the restriction does not itself authorize construction: any building proposal would require a separate detailed development plan and Planning Commission review before permits could be issued.
