The Lebanon Planning Commission on Tuesday voted to give a positive recommendation to City Council for a proposed 150‑acre residential development along Maple Hill Road, but only after attaching three amendments to the project's specific plan that commissioners said address design and connectivity concerns.

The commission's vote followed more than two hours of public comment from residents, realtors and builders who alternately criticized the project for its density, traffic and potential drainage impacts and praised it for bringing local jobs, tax revenue and high‑end housing stock. "I don't want more apartments in this city," said an unidentified resident at the start of public comment. "If this project doesn't get approved, will a national developer take the same care in five years? I think not," urged Bobby Eastland, owner of Eastland Construction.

The developer, Summit Development, and its representatives told the commission they plan to include deed restrictions requiring homes of at least 2,300 square feet under roof, to meet Lebanon's design standards, and to fund road and sewer improvements tied to the project. "We're gonna take two lift stations offline... and put a $2.5 million pump station in on our dime," said Christian Makari of Summit Development, who also said the company would fund the roundabout and right‑of‑way improvements estimated at $5–$7 million.

Opponents emphasized traffic, aging infrastructure and environmental concerns. "There's no shoulders. That road is narrow, and I'm not seeing anything that y'all gonna prove, improve Maple Hill Road," said a neighboring resident, and several speakers raised flooding and creek overflow risks. Wayne Oakley, who identified himself as a design professional, asked the commission to delete "List 3" material options (concrete block and metal siding) from rear elevation choices and questioned student‑generation projections and bus stop placement.

Planning staff presented three recommended amendments to the specific plan addressing pedestrian connectivity, additional external roadway connections and refining the blanket 25 mph design‑speed language so that traffic engineers could set design speeds by location. Staff noted that while they were recommending denial overall, the record should include the proposed amendments and that the Planning Commission and City Council can amend the specific plan if they choose.

Commissioner Chad moved for the positive recommendation with the three staff‑discussed amendments; the motion was seconded and amended on the floor to eliminate "List 3" building materials and to require four‑sided brick or stone on key portions of the site. The amendment passed on a voice vote, and the motion as amended passed as well; the commission recorded one abstention (the council liaison) and one no vote.

The recommendation forwarded to City Council covers annexation, the plan of service and specific plan zoning. If City Council accepts the commission's recommendation, the specific plan will return with the amendments adopted by the Planning Commission, and the developer's commitments on minimum home size and infrastructure improvements will be part of the approved plan.

Votes at a glance: the Planning Commission passed a motion recommending approval of the Maple Hill Road annexation and specific plan with three amendments (motion passed; one commissioner abstained and one voted no); the commission also voted to recommend approval of a zoning code amendment clarifying vested‑rights procedures and approved the 2026 Planning Commission calendar.

The project will next go to City Council for final action; staff and the applicant were urged to provide the amended specific plan language, drainage plans and finalized pedestrian/roadway connection details before that hearing.