Next BZA hearing on the matter set for 5 p.m. Feb. 17
Residents living near a roughly 141-acre tract at the southwest corner of County Road 11 and Township Road 216, annexed into the city last September, raised several concerns during a recent Bellefontaine City Board of Zoning Appeals hearing about a proposed residential development.
The board heard nearly two hours of testimony at the Feb. 3 hearing on a request for zoning variances tied to a proposed single-family residential development at the site. No action was taken at the hearing and a continuance hearing was set for 5 p.m. Tuesday, Feb. 17 in city council chambers.
BZA Chairman Jason Robson presided over the hearing, joined by Joe Daniels and new board member Doug Elton; Brian Osterfeld and Mike Vetorino were absent.
The request was submitted by Bart Barok of Sox Real Estate, 5979 Dublin Road, Delaware, who is representing the development team.
🎙️ Listen: Complete BZA hearing audio available at examiner.org.
Variances requested
Barok is requesting multiple variances to R-1 zoning standards, including:
• A minimum lot width of 60 feet
• A minimum lot size of 7,800 square feet
• A minimum front yard setback of 20 feet
• A minimum rear yard setback of 30 feet
• Minimum side yard setbacks of five feet on each side, with a combined side yard width of 10 feet
He is also requesting an exception to exclude single-family lots from side-yard modification provisions contained in Chapter 1155.05(a) of the City of Bellefontaine Codified Ordinances, which would allow a consistent five-foot side-yard setback without additional adjustments based on building size or configuration.
Project overview and rationale
During his presentation, Barok emphasized that the development would consist entirely of single-family homes and would not include apartments, condominiums, or manufactured housing. He said the request reflects changing housing preferences, particularly among millennial and Generation Z buyers, who he said are increasingly seeking smaller lots and lower-maintenance homes rather than large acreage properties.
Barok noted that the original application referenced 6,000-square-foot lots but said that proposal has since changed. The current request is for 7,800-square-foot lots measuring 60 feet wide by 130 feet deep. He said the reduction from the standard R-1 minimum lot size is intended to allow land to be shifted toward common green space rather than extending individual lots to surrounding property lines.
Barok said approximately 20 feet would be removed from the rear of each lot and aggregated into perimeter open space, creating what he described as a “ring” of green space around much of the development. He said that approach would result in roughly 28 acres of common open space, including detention ponds, tree plantings, and multi-purpose trails.
The developer said he used a similar green space approach on his first project, Jerome Village in Union County.
He said the buffers are intended to address concerns raised by neighboring property owners about lot lines abutting existing homes and farms, particularly issues related to fencing, property disputes, and visual separation.
Density and number of homes
Barok repeatedly stated that the requested variances would not increase the number of homes built on the property, saying the controlling factor for density is the 60-foot lot width, which is not being changed.
While several residents and board members questioned whether the reduced lot size could allow additional homes, Barok said road layouts, rights-of-way, stormwater infrastructure, common space, and buffers would prevent an increase in total lots.
Barok did not provide a specific total number of lots at the meeting. However, when addressing claims circulating on social media that 700–800 homes would be built, he said that, for the reasons outlined above that will take up considerable space, the total would be “less than half that,” suggesting a range of approximately 350–400 homes.
The developer acknowledged that a preliminary plat showing lot counts and road alignments has not yet been completed, but said that, pending approval of the requested variances, that work could be completed in about 45 days. He noted that a full engineering review of the site would take three to four months.
Trails, connectivity and amenities
Barok said the development would include a system of multi-purpose trails running through common areas and along portions of the perimeter. He said sidewalks are required under city code, but trails would provide safer, off-road connections for pedestrians and cyclists by reducing driveway crossings and street intersections.
He said the trail system is intended to connect with the nearby park and eventually provide access toward the Simmons Trail corridor along the former railroad line, noting those connections were discussed during the annexation process.
Traffic and access
Barok said vehicular access to the subdivision is expected to include one entrance from County Road 11 and two from Township Road 216, with the potential for future roadway stubs depending on adjacent land use.
He said a full traffic study has not yet been completed because the final layout is not determined, but traffic controls, pedestrian crossings, and speed reductions would be implemented as required. He said the posted speed limit on Township Road 216 would likely be reduced to 35 miles per hour as part of future improvements.
Several residents raised concerns about congestion, turning movements, and safety at the intersection of County Road 11 and Township Road 216, as well as along Troy Road. Barok said traffic issues in the area pre-date the project and would be addressed through the normal subdivision and engineering review process.
Emergency access and utilities
In response to questions about fire and emergency access, Barok said the fire chief has already reviewed the area and tested equipment access under existing conditions. He said the city already provides fire protection in the area under township agreements and that no changes to bridge clearances or roadways are required for emergency vehicles.
Barok also said the city has sufficient water and sewer treatment capacity to serve the development and that no tax abatements are being requested. He said abatements for similar projects have been reduced or eliminated in recent years.
Stormwater management
Barok said stormwater runoff would be controlled through engineered detention ponds designed to release water more slowly than existing agricultural drainage patterns. He said undeveloped farmland currently relies on gravity and natural flow, while the proposed system would regulate discharge rates even during major storm events.
He said detention ponds would be owned and maintained by a homeowners association, not the city, and would be subject to ongoing inspection and maintenance requirements.
Detention ponds temporarily hold rainwater during storms and then slowly drain, and are often dry most of the time. Retention ponds hold water year-round, acting more like small ponds or lakes while managing runoff. Although the terms are often mixed up, they serve different roles in new developments.
More than 20 people attended the meeting, with several residents from Township Road 216, County Road 11, and others who live near the annexed land speaking during the public comment period. Speakers raised concerns about traffic safety, emergency access between homes with five-foot side yards, stormwater impacts, property values, and the long-term precedent set by approving multiple variances without a finalized site plan.
Some residents urged the board to delay any decision until a preliminary layout is available or to impose binding conditions limiting the total number of homes that could be built. Others questioned whether the request meets the zoning code’s standards for granting variances, including whether an exceptional practical difficulty exists and whether the changes would be detrimental to surrounding properties.
Board response and next steps
BZA Chairman Jason Robson said the board does not have authority to dictate the number of homes a developer may build so long as a project complies with R-1 zoning guidelines, noting that the board’s role is limited to reviewing the requested variances. Board members also emphasized that the BZA has no authority over annexation or zoning classifications, which were previously approved by the planning commission and city council.
City staff noted that the board has the authority to impose conditions on any approval and that those conditions would carry forward into future planning commission and subdivision review proceedings.
Although three members were present — enough to take official action — BZA Chairman Robson declined to rule on the variance requests, saying the proposal represents a significant decision for the community and that he wanted the full board involved.
A continuation of the Feb. 3 hearing will be held at 5 p.m. Tuesday, Feb. 17, in council chambers.
Also in attendance was Jeremy LeVan, a local real estate investor and owner of LeVan’s Excavating of West Liberty. LeVan, along with Barok, remained after the meeting and spoke with residents and attendees about the project.
