Residents press planning commission to block Sundance Greens maintenance building; commission recommends approval with 50-foot setback

The Dayton Planning Commission on Aug. 6 heard hours of public testimony opposing a proposed relocation of the Sundance Greens golf-course maintenance facility to a site directly adjacent to Braeburn Trails, with neighbors citing traffic, noise, lighting and chemical-storage concerns.

"We the undersigned residents of Braeburn Trails respectfully oppose the proposed relocation of the Sundance Golf Course maintenance facility adjacent to our residential community," said Gary Feldhagee, presenting a petition signed by 144 neighbors and reading its language into the record. Feldhagee urged the commission to apply Section 1,002.05 of the city's zoning and subdivision code and recommend denial if the project would be "detrimental to the health, safety, and general welfare" of nearby residents.

Multiple residents described the proximity as a problem. "A maintenance facility located only 75 feet from our property line would fundamentally change that environment for us," said Kathy Johnson, who said she can hear a golf ball strike inside her home and fears early-morning operations and security lighting. Eric Suppold, who said he was given plan renderings by city staff before buying his home, told the commission he could not find explicit approvals for a maintenance building in the 2018 resolution and asked the commission to treat the current request as an amendment requiring explicit findings.

Local attorney and neighbor Bruce Dartner urged the commission to apply PUD standards strictly, arguing that the code requires separate findings that the PUD "harmonize with any existing or proposed development in the areas surrounding the project site" and that relief from the ordinance must be supported by public benefits. "I can't see how the corridor got 6 feet wider because the property lines that make the corridor haven't changed," Dartner said, pressing for clear technical findings on setbacks and swept-path analyses for trucks.

Applicant representatives called neighbors' concerns understandable but said the 2018 general development plan anticipated a golf-centric PUD that included maintenance facilities. "In 2018, this project was approved as a golf course centric planned unit development. That included necessary, and normal maintenance buildings," said applicant counsel Jake (surname not given). Owner Tom Bean told the commission he had been told previously he could obtain a building permit and that the operation would be designed to limit visible impacts and deliveries in the neighborhood.

Commissioners wrestled with the legal record and plan documents. Staff said the 2018 approvals showed a building in the general location but did not always label it explicitly as "maintenance building" and that some technical details (exact setbacks, elevations, and driveway specifics) were not documented in the older plans. Commissioners asked for more explicit siting details, lighting plans, and stormwater/safety clarifications.

Faced with competing accounts of what 2018 approvals did and did not authorize, the commission voted to recommend approval of the zoning map amendment and the preliminary plat/PUD amendment — but with emphatic direction to City Council. The motion, as amended on the floor, asked the council to seek a larger buffer and asked the applicant to pursue moving the building farther from the residences; the commission accepted an amendment adding a 50-foot building setback as guidance to council.

The commission's recommendation goes to City Council; any final approvals on site plan details, lighting, and building permits will be handled through future site-plan review and council action. The public hearing record includes petitions, email correspondence residents said they relied on when buying homes, and multiple legal arguments about whether the 2018 approvals adequately specified the maintenance building's location.