Warren County hearing on Restoration Ranch rezoning draws strong neighbor opposition; commissioners continue case

Warren County commissioners heard three hours of public testimony on a request to rezone nine acres on Shawan Road for Restoration Ranch, a residential program for court‑ordered youth, with opponents citing public‑safety, emergency‑access and school‑funding concerns and the applicant’s counsel defending screening and supervision procedures.

Residents described the parcel as a steep, confined hillside surrounded by homes and a nearby mobile‑home park and said wooded pockets and a nearby lake create ‘‘attractive nuisances’’ where runaways could hide. Connie Hilly, who lives adjacent to the site, said the applicant’s images omitted nearby residences and warned elderly neighbors would ‘‘not perceive’’ the same level of safety. Several speakers raised past incidents they linked to Restoration Ranch placements, including thefts and runaways.

The sheriff, speaking as a neutral party, told commissioners he had provided calls‑for‑service data and noted that incident counts can be understated because crimes connected to runaways may be recorded at the victim’s address rather than the facility’s. He said the county had responded to 51 calls at a separate site in 2025 and fewer so far in 2026, but said staff changes and reporting differences complicated year‑to‑year comparisons; he said the department is planning for a possible increase in calls if placements continue.

Chris Cook, a trustee from Union Township, told the board township trustees are unanimously opposed to the rezoning and argued testimony favoring the move has largely come from people with financial ties to the project. Janelle Grath of Kings Local School District said the district would bear significant costs if students were outplaced for behavioral needs, citing district estimates for high‑cost placements.

Candy Spence, who described herself as a former staff member, accused Restoration Ranch leadership of prioritizing revenue growth and said she had recorded internal conversations; the applicant’s counsel said those operational disputes are not germane to the narrow zoning standards the board must apply and emphasized the organization’s screening, supervision and therapeutic supports.

County planning staff and the county planning commission previously recommended approval with conditions, counsel said; opponents countered that the zoning code requires the board to consider compatibility with nearby uses and whether available sites already zoned for the use exist. Commissioners debated both points and asked for clearer data on police calls and the flow of school funding for court‑placed students.

The board did not vote. Commissioners agreed to keep the public hearing open and continue the matter to a future public meeting (the hearing will be continued and reconvened on Tuesday, June 23, with evening testimony planned) so staff can collect requested data and the board can answer specific questions before making a final decision.