BATAVIA, Ohio — The Clermont County Board of Commissioners denied a proposed annexation on Wednesday that would have shifted 175 acres from Batavia Township into the Village of Batavia, so a new housing subdivision could be built close to the county airport.
The unanimous vote by commissioners is a rare denial of an annexation attempt, in a state that favors property owner rights and encourages annexations of unincorporated areas. The last time commissioners denied an annexation was in 2018, and officials say before that it was at least a decade.
“You’ve got to blend in with the neighborhood,” said Batavia Township Trustee Jim Sauls. “You just can’t go in a neighborhood and the only thing you want is 1 percent earnings tax, you want maximization of rooftops. That’s not how Batavia Township sees development.”
Sauls and other township officials believed the village was trying to cram as many tiny houses on small lots as possible into the subdivision in order increase its earnings tax revenue.
Meanwhile, the subdivision residents would have received a 15-year abatement on property taxes leaving local schools and fire stations without new funding to support the strain on services.
“They’re going to have to cover that area but they’re not going to get any revenue to offset the costs,” said Clermont County Commissioner Bonnie Batchler. “It’s not fair to the surrounding people that are paying their taxes, so I would say we should deny it.”
Commissioners David Painter and Claire Corcoran also spoke against the annexation attempt, saying it would cause a detriment to neighbors who live within one-half mile, including the airport.
“The impact that I find it would have on fire protection, water, sewer … which also impacts Batavia Township. I feel that there is a factual determination that the general good would not be served if this was allowed to be annexed,” Corcoran said. “I believe that that would not be in the general good of the surrounding territory plus the airport.”
Three landowners, including The Crossing Church, asked for the annexation so they could join the village and sell their vacant land for the subdivision. In turn, village officials promised to create a Community Reinvestment Area for the property with tax exemptions for 321 new homes to be built directly under the airport traffic pattern.
Officials warned that it could shut the airport down.
“The proposed use of this property, 321 single-family homes on 6,000 square foot lots, will be a detriment to the daily operations at the Clermont County Airport,” County airport manager Gallagher said at a Nov. 8 public hearing.
He warned about the hazards of so many new residential lights near the airport and five stormwater retention ponds that would have attracted wildlife and endangered approaching planes.
“The FAA has stated that a residential development near an airport is an incompatible land use,” Gallagher said.
Township residents complained about the increase in traffic and how their property values could suffer. They also criticized Batavia for receiving a double tax benefit from the annexation — through the income taxes of new residents, and the PILOT (payment in lieu of taxes) paid by new residents directly to the village.
After the commissioners denied the annexation, Sauls and Batavia Township Administrator Karen Swartz expressed relief.
“We’re very excited, we’re overwhelmed. It’s been a real thorn in our side,” said Sauls, who hopes the next time the village of Batavia tries to annex township land they propose a better project. “We want to see growth, but we want to see quality growth.”
Swartz agreed, “It needs to be responsible, and they also need to take into account the fire district, and the school district and the airport regulations.”
Batavia Village Administrator Ken Geis did not respond to a request for comment.
But in a statement to WCPO on Tuesday, Geis said: “The Ohio Legislature has long determined this process is one of the best ways to promote and facilitate new development within local communities. This developer plans to create a ‘market-driven’ neighborhood within the village, that otherwise may not occur. I believe that annexation(s) are good for the property owners, the village, and the county as a whole.”
