Springboro council approves contentious Easton Farm settlement

City rejected Easton development plan after resident opposition; developers sued, leading to settlement vote.

Over residents’ objections the Springboro City Council unanimously approved a court-ordered settlement agreement for the development of the 103-acre Easton Farm.

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. Had council rejected the settlement, the lawsuit would continue. A trial date has been set by the court for March 20, 2023.

ExploreSpringboro, Easton Farm developer reach settlement agreement on zoning issue

The settlement agreement grants Planned Unit Development/Mixed Use Zone status, and a general preliminary development plan, to the owners and developers of the Easton Farm project at 605 N. Main St. However, the developer will be required to submit new development plans to the city Planning Commission.

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 against the city in Warren County Common Pleas Court, alleging an unconstitutional taking of the property and a request for considerable financial damages in excess of more than $7 million. The city then filed a motion to dismiss and the judge summarily rejected all the city’s arguments for dismissal, according to city officials.

Eventually, the city entered into a mediation process through the court, and after considerable back and forth, a rezoning plan with no financial damages assessed against the city was proposed.

The proposed settlement agreement has been posted on the city’s website at www.ci.springboro.oh.us.

The property at 605 N. Main St. 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.

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.

About the Author