October 21—Despite objections from residents, the Springboro City Council unanimously approved a court-ordered settlement agreement Thursday night for the development of the 103-acre Easton Farm.
After nearly a year of litigation and mediation, springboro and the owner and promoters of a project $265 million housing, retail and commercial development along Ohio 741 reached a settlement agreement to avoid a trial that had been set for March 2023.
The settlement agreement with Easton Farm Partners LLC and others were approved with an emergency clause that came into effect on the way and allows no referendum vote. The complete agreement has been posted on the City’s website at www.ci.springboro.oh.us.
city manager Chris Pozzuto says the settlement agreement grants Planned Unit Development/Mixed Use Area status, and a general preliminary development plan, to the owners and promoters of the Easton Farm project to 605 Main Street N.about a mile north of Ohio 73 on the west side of Ohio 741.
However, the developer will be required to submit new development plans to the city Urban planning commission. And council will hear from residents and businesses adjacent to the proposed development as the Urban planning commission process is being implemented, Pozzuto said.
Pozzuto said that if the city had pursued the lawsuit and lost, “the plaintiffs could have received all the elements of the original plan they submitted – including 330 multi-family dwellings, parking, a direct street deer trail33-foot-wide lots – nearly 700 residential units in total.”
Legal council Gerald McDonald said Thursday that the court would not have considered community sentiment, petitions, objections from neighbors or anything of that nature. McDonald said the court denied the city’s motions for a dismissal, adding that the city would not have been covered by insurance because its policy excludes land use issues.
city manager Chris Pozzuto said on Friday: “After reviewing the factors of the lawsuit over a period of a year, the rejection of all of the city’s arguments for the dismissal of the case by the judge (Donald) odaand the possibility of a high seven-figure payout to plaintiffs in damages, city attorneys recommended settling the lawsuit.
“The proposed rezoning and development met all city requirements in the zoning code, was consistent with the 2009 master plan recommendations, and was compatible with the land uses surrounding the property,” Pozzuto added. “The only argument the city could have had to defend itself was that the decision was not arbitrary. Based on this set of facts, it was clear that the city had an uphill battle to win the case.”
The Board, which does not normally allow public comment when reviewing settlement agreements, allowed nearly a dozen people to speak because it was the only bill in the Thursday’s agenda.
David Beckmanresident of deer trailsaid the development is contrary to the general welfare of the city and that the developers will benefit from tax incentives.
“Lawyers are risk averse just because it’s hard to do. I’m at a loss for words,” Beckman said. “You have to remember that you work for the city and if you agree to this you will split the community. The council showed great character last year with their decision. You should let a jury decide this.”
Pozzuto said that if the case had gone to trial and the city had lost, the damages awarded to the city were estimated at $7 million.
“It would have been paid for directly by taxpayers because the city was denied any insurance coverage. The city appealed twice and was denied,” Pozzuto said. “The board felt they couldn’t risk those kinds of taxpayer dollars. It was first and foremost in their minds.”
To put the potential damage into perspective, $7 million accounts for about 50% of the city’s annual net income tax revenue, Pozzuto said. “Services such as street resurfacing, leaf collection, park maintenance, etc., should be reduced immediately or taxes should be increased to compensate for this damage.”
Resident Donald Cummingswho lives on deer trailsaid he wanted to be more informed.
“We’re not against the development, but what’s submitted has gone backwards,” Cummings said. “I came here to raise a family. I don’t agree with the settlement agreement.”
another resident Maria Derchemnoted that 2,000 residents have signed a petition over the past year to oppose the development.
“The elections are approaching, but springboro won’t forget,” she said.
The property at 605 Main Street N. was the subject of a controversial rezoning process opposed by residents. Some residents of nearby housing estates and elsewhere in the city objected to the number of units proposed. Development projects of the same land had been proposed by other developers in 2008 and 2017, but were either rejected by the city or abandoned.
back in September 2021, Springboro City Council unanimously rejected a development and rezoning proposal for the Easton Farm.
In November 2021the owners of the property and the development team controlled by the Borror Group and Dillin Development Inc.sued the city in Warren County Court of Common Pleas, alleging unconstitutional taking of ownership. After mediation, a rezoning plan with no financial damages assessed against the city was proposed.
___
(c)2022 Journal-News (Hamilton, Ohio)
Visit Journal-News (Hamilton, Ohio) at www.journal-news.com
Distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC.
