Shady Grove zoning clears the first tee

FINDLAY — Multifamily, high-density zoning for the Shady Grove annexation has the go-ahead from both Findlay's Planning and Zoning Committee and the City Planning Commission, but it's not without hazards for council. In a statement issued Wednesday, Mayor Christina Muryn released new details about the proposed development. The mayor's update described the project as a 40-acre, high-amenity "lifestyle" apartment development by Vision Companies of Columbus, with multiple pools, ponds, courts and other recreational features, and green space planned between the creek and the Brookstone subdivision. The statement outlines a six-year, two-phase buildout totaling 480 units — 222 units in Phase 1 and 258 in Phase 2 — with construction costs of about $44.5 million and $50 million, respectively. Rent projections average $1,400 to $2,000. She said the developer intends to request a post-1994 Community Reinvestment Area agreement offering 75% tax abatement for 15 years, which would also require city council approval. Muryn said zoning the property now is necessary before council considers any future site plan or tax-abatement request, calling the step "critical" to ensure the land does not enter the city without an established classification. She said higher-density development uses land and infrastructure more efficiently, citing research that market-rate construction can also ease pressure on lower-cost housing. However, council may be divided on the zoning issue. Council's Planning and Zoning Committee, which includes half the voting members of council, split on its vote to recommend the high-density zoning. At the meeting held April 9, the Planning and Zoning Committee voted 3-2 to recommend the zoning, with council members Heather Kensinger and Brad Wagner, both R-at-large, and Kevin Cullen, I-5, voting in favor. Nichole Coleman, R-1, and Dan DeLong, R-7, were opposed. Kensinger chairs the committee. Committee members showed clear hesitation in even calling for a vote, saying they could not address residents' questions about traffic, drainage, or building layout without a site plan. Site plans are not submitted until after zoning is assigned, because developers need the zoning classification before they can design the layout, density, drainage and access points. Even members who voted in favor of the zoning framed their support as a procedural step, noting that the full council will ultimately debate the zoning and annexation, and cast the final vote. However, it remains unclear whether the zoning will come to council in the form of legislation or if council's acceptance of the committee report will be its final approval. That decision could come Tuesday. On Tuesday, council is also expected to hear the third and final reading and will vote on a resolution stating the services to be provided by the city to the property upon annexation. Council will meet at 6 p.m. at the Findlay Municipal Building, 318 Dorney Plaza. All council meetings are open to the public and are livestreamed on the city's YouTube channel: Findlay Ohio. Hancock Regional Planning Commission Director Matt Cordonnier led the committee discussion on April 9, guiding members through the zoning request, explaining how M-2 functions, and answering questions. Cordonnier supports the M-2 designation. He said it provides a transition between commercial uses on U.S. 224 and nearby homes, a typical use in the city, and carries stricter lot-coverage limits than other options. If approved, the golf course, which has been a fixture on the city's east side for more than 50 years, could then become home to the development. Marion Township residents continue to raise concerns about density, traffic, drainage, and whether the project is compatible with the surrounding neighborhood, citing safety, noise and the strain on Township Road 237. Cordonnier said council is not bound by the developer's request for M-2 zoning and could opt for a different residential zoning classification that would reduce the density at the site. Should council choose alternative zoning, the city would issue new public notices on both options, and the matter could then be debated at council, where residents could weigh in before a final vote, which Cordonnier likened to a "battle royale." Attorney Phil Rooney is representing the landowner. During the April 9 committee meeting, he argued that the property owner has the right to develop the site and is relying on the project as part of his retirement. Rooney said residents were reacting to rumors because no site plan has been submitted yet. At one point, he said that if residents want the property to remain a golf course, "Mr. (Scott) Malloy would be glad to sell it to you for the same price." Rooney, an attorney with Rooney & Ranzau, Ltd., Findlay, also serves as chair of the city's Board of Zoning Appeals. The City Planning Commission consists of five voting members: Service-Safety Director Rob Martin; Dan Clinger; Kyle Inbody; Kerry Trombly; and the mayor, who chairs the commission. Muryn was absent from the meeting, and Martin led the discussion in her place. The commission meeting was also held on April 9, and its vote to recommend the zoning was unanimous. Cordonnier, who serves as support staff for the commission, said the parcel is not in the city's 100-year floodplain and noted that the city's land-use plan had previously designated the area for office or commercial use. The golf course now operates as a conditional use under Marion Township's agricultural zoning. Commission members emphasized that the vote was limited to zoning. They said concerns about drainage, traffic flow, building layout, lighting, landscaping and emergency access would be addressed later, when a formal site plan is submitted.