Springboro, Easton Farm developer reach settlement agreement on zoning issue
Oct. 15—SPRINGBORO -After nearly a year of litigation and mediation, Springboro and the property owner and developers of a proposed $265 million housing, retail and commercial development along Ohio 741 reached a settlement agreement to avoid a trial.
In a letter sent to nearby property owners, City Manager Chris Pozzuto said the Easton Farm property owner and developers have agreed dismiss the current lawsuit against the city in exchange for rezoning the 103 acres located at 605 N. Main St. to a Planned Unit Development/Mixed Use zone. However, the property owners and developers also agreed to submit new plans to the Planning Commission for consideration.
Springboro City Council in September 2021 unanimously rejected a development proposal and rezoning for the Easton Farm.
In November 2021, the owners of the property and the development team controlled by the Borror Group and Dillin Development, Inc., filed suit in Warren County Common Pleas Court against the city alleging an unconstitutional taking of the property and a request for considerable financial damages. The city then filed a motion to dismiss and the judge summarily rejected all the city's arguments for dismissal.
Eventually, the city entered into a mediation process through the court whereby after considerable back and forth, a rezoning plan with no financial damages assessed against the city was proposed, Pozzuto said.
City Council will be considering a court ordered settlement agreement to end the lawsuit at its meeting on Thursday. If accepted, this court settlement would rezone the property to PUD-MU.
Final development of the property would still require the developers to follow standard practice for developments with final approval by the Planning Commission during open public meetings.
If council rejects the settlement, the lawsuit will continue, reaching a trial date that has been set by the court for March 20, 2023.
Pozzuto said while not customary practice, city council will be allowing public comments before any consideration of the settlement agreement at Thursday's meeting.
The proposed settlement agreement has been posted on the city's website www.ci.springboro.oh.us.
Cheryl Dillin, a spokeswoman for the developers, declined to comment on Friday.
The original complaint pointed out Springboro's Land Use Plan specifically requires commercial zoning along the Ohio 741 corridor, yet current R1 zoning only allows for single family "estate" homes — making the council's vote a clear contradiction of both the city's own Land Use Plan and zoning directives.
"The current R-1 zoning violates constitutional protections, as it is irrational, arbitrary, unreasonable and has no substantial relation to public health, safety, morals or general welfare," reads the complaint. The complaint also alleges that "City Council's rejection of the unanimous recommendations of both City Staff and Planning Commission is not a rational application of zoning principles."
The lawsuit is seeking a declaration from the court that the existing R-1 residential restrictions are unconstitutional; a temporary and permanent injunction to keep the city from enforcing the current zoning classification; damages "for each and every day the property remains subject to its unconstitutional zoning; and as an alternative, if the current zoning remains, require the city to compensate the owners and developers for the losses that have and continue incur as a result of the city's decision to be determined by a jury; court costs and attorney fees and other relief determined by the court.
The property at 605 N. Main St., Springboro, was the focus of a contentious rezoning process that was opposed by residents. Some residents in neighboring subdivisions and elsewhere in the city objected to the the number of homes proposed.
David Beckman, of Springboro Residents United, a citizens group who opposed the project declined to comment until he has read the settlement agreement.
This is not the first time plans for a development on the property have been presented to the city. In 2008 and 2017, plans to develop the same land were brought forward by other developers, but either were rejected by the city or dropped.
