A vote may also be held on a resolution to modify current Clayton council rules regarding motions to reconsider.
The Warner Village plans were initially rejected in January by a 4-3 vote, before Councilwoman Tina Kelly, who originally voted in opposition of the project, unexpectedly made a motion to reconsider on Feb. 6. Council subsequently approved the plans, also by a 4-3 council vote, with Kelly switching her vote.
This reconsideration process has precipitated confusion amongst residents, and has underscored a growing turmoil amongst some members of council, city administration, and the public.
Initial reconsideration
The Feb. 6 reconsideration vote overturning council’s initial rejection of the proposed rezoning and development project, came as a surprise to many Clayton residents, as the meeting agenda made no mention of the potential for a revote or further discussion on the plan.
City Manager Amanda Zimmerlin said a reconsideration was requested by the project’s developer soon after the January rejection.
Council was informed on Feb. 4, via email from city law director Martina Dillon, that council conduct guidelines allowed for the option to hold a reconsideration vote during the Feb. 6 meeting, should a council member make a motion to do so.
Zimmerlin said council was free to share publicly that a reconsideration could potentially take place during the Feb. 6 meeting, an assertion that Councilman Kenny Henning pushed back against, contending he believed the Feb. 4 email from Dillon was confidential under “attorney-client privilege.”
A Dayton Daily News request for a copy of the email sent to council members was denied by Dillon, who cited sections of the Ohio Revised Code that allow for the denial, specifically as “trial preparation records” and “records the release of which is prohibited by state or federal law.”
Residents react to reconsideration
The Feb. 20 council meeting was a packed house, with residents speaking on the housing issue, some of whom shared concerns about how council has handled the process.
Dana York, resident and member of the Keep It Rural Clayton group, said he was confused about the rules for reconsideration of legislation, specifically regarding the notification of residents.
York highlighted that the city’s zoning ordinance requires the notification of nearby residents prior to an initial council vote on a zoning change. But, according to law director Dillon, meeting conduct guidelines do not require this notification process ahead of a vote to reconsider.
Resident Misty McDow suggested council was acting in good faith when reconsidering the housing project plans.
“People can change their minds; I think everyone in this room has changed their mind,” McDow said to attendees during the Feb. 20 meeting, before addressing council. “... I trust you to do the right thing for my community.”
Turmoil amongst council, public
Councilman Henning gave a lengthy statement Feb. 20, in part alleging the reconsideration vote was coordinated ahead of time by city manager Zimmerlin without the knowledge of all council members or the community, and with a goal of secrecy.
“... (This) was orchestrated behind closed doors and spearheaded by the city manager,” Henning said, adding he was never notified of the developer requesting a reconsideration.
Henning further asserted Zimmerlin, who declined to comment for this story, “demonstrated a disregard for (the authority of council) and the desires of the community.”
Henning’s statement also included castigatory claims of “coordinated political attacks” involving members of council, city staff, and the public.
He specifically called out former Clayton council member Dennis Lieberman, who Henning said personally attacked him in a private, widely distributed email. He alleged Lieberman was trying to “influence and mislead” community members in support of the Warner Village project, in part by insinuating councilwoman Kelly received “much-needed concessions” in exchange for her reconsideration vote.
“I would love to know what these concessions are because maybe I would have considered voting for it, too,” Henning said.
Multiple council members interjected as Henning spoke, including Mayor Mike Stevens, who stated some of the comments referencing Lieberman’s personal and professional background were “unnecessary.”
Kelly on Tuesday denied any allegations of concessions, further condemning Henning’s comments.
“I am very disappointed with his recent behavior and comments,” Kelly said. “I am a lifelong resident of Clayton and always hold the best interest of residents and the city as my first priority.”
About the Author
