The land in question is a narrow finger of Clayton that juts east toward Ohio 48, on the border with Union to the north, and Englewood to the south.
The zoning request and preliminary plans had previously been rejected in January, also by a 4-3 council vote.
Developers will now be required to submit a final, detailed development plan for consideration by both planning commission and city council.
The Feb. 6 vote was a surprise to many Clayton residents, as few attended the Feb. 6 council meeting, in stark contrast to the previous meeting, at which numerous community members spoke out against the project. That led some to complain about a lack of transparency between the community and its leaders.
Initial rejection
On Jan. 16, Clayton Mayor Mike Stevens and councilmen Brendan Bachman and Greg Merkle voted in favor of the huge development proposal — which had been previously recommended for approval by the city’s planning commission.
Council members Ryan Farmer, James Gorman, Kenny Henning and Tina Kelly voted that day to reject the motion.
During a public hearing held just prior to the January vote, numerous residents showed up to voice their concerns about the project, highlighting worries about traffic, grading and stormwater drainage, potential effects on first responders and the Northmont school district, and the project’s inclusion of about 100 rental homes.
Clayton Fire Chief Brian Garver and Police Chief Matt Hamlin have since assured council that their respective departments are equipped to handle such an influx of residents.
Request for reconsideration
According to City Manager Amanda Zimmerlin, the project’s developer contacted city staff after the January rejection to request council reconsider its decision. Zimmerlin did not respond Monday to questions about when this contact took place.
Council was informed on Feb. 4, via email from Law Director Martina Dillon, that council would have the option to hold a reconsideration vote during the Feb. 6 meeting, two days later, should a council member make a motion to do so.
Such a vote can only be held during the meeting that immediately follows an original vote to approve or deny an ordinance or resolution, according to meeting conduct guidelines.
A Dayton Daily News request for a copy of the email sent to council members is pending with the city.
Councilwoman Kelly moved to reconsider the project decision during the Feb. 6 meeting’s “new business” segment. This motion had not been outlined on the meeting agenda in advance.
The zoning request and preliminary plans were subsequently approved in a 4-3 vote, with Kelly this time voting in support of the development.
Kelly declined to comment Monday on the reason for her change of heart.
Residents left ‘in the dark’
Kristy Cox and her husband were two of only three residents in attendance for the Feb. 6 reconsideration vote.
“I was shocked ... it appeared to me as though this was not just an (impromptu vote), but was a planned action,” Cox said. “It was a disappointment.”
Cox said the issue raises concerns of secrecy and impedes trust in city leadership.
“They knew it was going to come up, yet they didn’t feel compelled to notify residents,” she said. “It didn’t need to be put on the agenda as an actual ordinance; they could have just made a notation indicating they may be revisiting the rezoning and development plan, but they chose not to do that.”
Councilman Henning expressed frustration that residents had been kept “in the dark” about the potential for a new vote to be held, calling it “disrespectful” to the community.
“I think this is shameful since we hadn’t advertised this at all to the residents,” Henning said. “I think residents are going to be extremely disappointed and this shows that sometimes we have no transparency at all.”
City leaders stand by process
Dillon, the city’s law director, said during the Feb. 6 meeting that city staff and council were acting in accordance with Robert’s Rules of Order, a set of guidelines for the conduct of official meetings, which she said does not require public notification prior to a motion to reconsider legislation.
Zimmerlin further contended council members were free to share with the public that the developers were seeking the reconsideration.
“If you wanted to talk to the public about a motion to reconsider, you could have done that on your own volition,” Zimmerlin said.
Henning pushed back, asserting that in her Feb. 4 email informing council members of the reconsideration option, Dillon had indicated the communication was “attorney-client privileged,” leading him to assume council members were prohibited from disclosing any of the information to the public ahead of the meeting.
Zimmerlin referred questions seeking clarification of the email’s confidentiality to Dillon, who did not respond late Monday.
About the Author