Matthew and Julie Jones' 84-acre property is located within Miami Township, just outside the southwestern corner of Yellow Springs. (Map via Greene County GIS)
Miami Township Trustees say ‘no’ to 84-acre annexation
- Published: September 10, 2025
Before a room full of East Enon Road residents on Wednesday, Sept. 3, the Miami Township Trustees unanimously voted not to approve an agreement with the Village of Yellow Springs to annex 84 acres of land on East Enon Road into Village limits.
Though the vote did not necessarily mean the land in question will not be annexed in the future, the decision was met with applause from those present in the room who oppose the rural land being brought inside Village limits and possibly developed.
In May, Village Council authorized a resolution allowing Village Manager Johnnie Burns to enter into a development agreement with property owners Matthew and Julie Jones, whose 84-acre property is located within Miami Township, just outside the southwestern corner of Yellow Springs. The development agreement was the first step toward a possible annexation of the land through one of two possible expedited processes allowed by Ohio law when all owners of a property — in this case, the Joneses — agree to annexation.
The Township Trustees’ vote concerned a Type I expedited annexation agreement for the 84 acres, for which approval is required from both the Township and the Village.
Before voting, the trustees considered the agreement before them; for his part, Trustee Chair Chris Mucher said he believed that annexing the land — which abuts the village and is within its urban service boundary — would stand in accordance with the Township’s land use plan.
However, he said, there appears to be only a single, 60-foot-wide path into and out of the 84-acre plot, which he said he believed would be a deterrent to any potential development on the land.
“I know you can’t have a development of more than 30 home sites without two ingress/egresses to the site,” he said. “I don’t know where that second access or egress would come into play … because I haven’t seen a development plan.”
Trustee Marilan Moir also said she believed annexing the land would not violate the spirit of the Township’s land use plan, but voiced concern that, if the Township agreed to a Type I annexation, it would likely go ahead with very little further public discussion.
On the other hand, she said, if the Township did not approve the agreement, the Village and owners of the 84 acres would likely pursue a Type II expedited annexation, which would require that all landowners adjacent to and across the road from the 84 acres be notified of the annexation petition. Type II would also allow both the Village and Township to either approve or object to annexation.
An objection from either body would bring the matter before the Greene County Commission, who would evaluate the annexation petition from the landowners against a number of statutory requirements, including the land’s size and contiguity with Village limits, and that the Village agree to provide some services and maintenance. If those requirements are met, the Greene County Commission must grant the annexation, and the decision can’t be appealed.
To that end, Moir said she ultimately supported slowing down the annexation process and leaving room for more discussion.
“Why not have a more rigorous process, for what it’s worth?” Moir said.
Trustee Don Hollister’s major concern was potential stormwater drainage into nearby Jacoby Creek if development proceeds on the land once annexed; he said he’s “skeptical about access to sanitary sewer” at the site.
“I can’t picture there being enough drop-off to have a gravity-fed sanitary sewer, and I’d be surprised if a developer wanted to pay for a lift station,” Hollister said.
Several Miami Township residents who live on East Enon Road echoed Hollister’s concerns; James Kingsolver said he worries that, if the 84 acres are developed, pesticides or other chemicals could find their way into the nearby Jacoby Creek wetlands.
“We need to think long and hard about pollution; it’s 270 feet from the Jones property to the wetlands,” he said.
Resident Kami Berkey, who also lives on East Enon Road, said many of those who live near the 84-acre property believe that a future development is likely the driving force behind the proposed annexation, though no such development plan has been publicly issued.
“It’s my opinion that they want to annex it so that they can sell it to a big developer and make a lot of money for their grandkids,” Berkey said. “I don’t blame them, but it affects all of us, and the Jacoby Creek, and I think it’s a horrible idea.”
Following public comment from those in the room, Hollister moved that the group vote not to approve the Type I annexation agreement — a motion that was followed by unanimous agreement.
Mucher reiterated, however, that if the Village and landowners pursue a Type II annexation, though the trustees could contest it on statutory grounds, it’s ultimately the Village’s agreeing to an annexation that will hold the most weight, provided that statutory requirements are met.
“I hope I’m not beating a dead horse, but the place for the pressure is on the voting members of Village Council,” he said. “They have to agree to go forward with the annexation.”
Disagreement on travel reimbursement
Though the Trustees were in consensus at the top of the meeting, that unity of thought dissipated by meeting’s end, when discussion turned to the topic of reimbursing travel expenses.
The matter was brought forth by Moir, who presented a draft resolution to update the Township’s policy for travel reimbursement for consideration and a vote at the Trustees’ next meeting on Monday, Sept. 15.
It was spurred by a prior disagreement between Mucher and Moir, which they said had initially played out via email, about whether Mucher’s travel expenses of about $80, incurred while serving on the Ohio Cemetery Dispute Resolution Commission, should be reimbursed by the Township or the State.
Mucher said he believed his work on the nine-member commission, which helps mediate and resolve complaints about cemeteries, benefits the Township through his experience, if not directly, since he would recuse himself if a resident of the Township came before the commission. He added that, after his appointment to the commission by Gov. Mike DeWine in 2023, he asked the then-legal counsel of Ohio Department of Commerce’s Real Estate and Cemetery Division whether the State or the Township should reimburse travel expenses, and was told either was appropriate.
“The work of that board gives me a tremendous amount of knowledge about how to deal with conflict resolution on a local level,” Mucher said.
He added that he felt the policy change was “half an insult, half just hard to believe that somebody feels they have the authority to be judge, jury and executioner for another Township employee,” and that moving forward, he would submit no more reimbursement requests to the Township, and instead pay out-of-pocket for any travel expenses.
Moir countered by saying that, because Mucher was appointed by the Governor, and not his fellow trustees, to serve on the Ohio Cemetery Dispute Resolution Commission, the State should reimburse Mucher for expenses incurred in traveling to the commission’s quarterly meetings, and not the Township.
She cited an opinion from the Ohio Attorney General (OAG 1930-2170), which states that public officials must exercise discretion to show that expenses are “necessary for the benefit of the political subdivision” from which reimbursements are to be issued.
“If you go to a conference and get Board approval to do something that enriches us, I think you should have reimbursement,” Moir said. “I was not calling into question your integrity … [or] your many years of service. … I’m saying that the work of that [committee] is specific to the State of Ohio.”
Moir added that she believed the disagreement between herself and Mucher had been “blown out of proportion”; she noted that her initial email to Mucher questioning the reimbursements had prompted him to respond that he would issue “formal, public complaints” about Moir if she did not contact both the Governor and Attorney General David Yost in reference to proper procedure.
“You took it very personally, and I didn’t mean it personally,” Moir said. “I just meant, why are we paying for a service that Chris is doing for the State when the State is happy to reimburse it?”
Mucher reiterated that he had received guidance from legal counsel for the State that either the State or the Township could be billed, and he had chosen the latter, but would not request any future reimbursements.
“We’re going around and around here,” he said.
Hollister pointed out that a review and vote on updated policy regarding travel reimbursements in general was slated for the next meeting of the trustees, and suggested the board focus on making a decision on whether or not to approve the specific reimbursement they were discussing.
“But it’s almost a moot point if Chris is saying he’s not going to accept reimbursement any further,” Hollister added.
Moir moved not to approve the reimbursement, but the motion died on the table for lack of a second.
The Yellow Springs News encourages respectful discussion of this article.
You must login to post a comment.
Don't have a login? Register for a free YSNews.com account.
No comments yet for this article.