April 14, 2005

Planners approve Birch III start

By Lauren Heaton

After the initial plans to develop the Birch III property were approved at the Village Planning Commission meeting on Monday, April 11, Jean McCally Tebay went to shake Doug Eastham’s hand. She wanted to thank the developer for hearing the community’s concerns and changing his plans to put a retention basin for his 40-home development on a 5.11-acre property that has been preserved and protected as part of Glen Helen for over 40 years.

McCally, who flew up from her home in Florida for Monday’s meeting, is one of the holders of a conservation easement placed on the 5.11 acres by Antioch College in 1964. She, along with many of the 32 local residents at Monday’s meeting, feels that the developer’s initial plans to place a stormwater basin on Glen land would compromise the parameters of the easement.

“For now I’m relieved and pleased they chose an alternative solution that’s acceptable,” Tebay said after the meeting. But she was also cautious, knowing the development plans are not yet final and the plat design is still wide open for unanticipated changes.

At the meeting, plan board voted 4–0 to approve Eastham’s preliminary plat application to develop phase one of the 20-acre Birch III property through Purple Sage, a limited liability corporation he owns with builder Mark Bertke. Plan board chairman John Struewing and members Dawn Johnson, Bruce Rickenbach and Steve Deal passed phase one with conditions. The board will hold a public hearing to consider the developer’s final plat application for phase one at its next meeting Monday, May 9, at 7 p.m. in the Bryan Community Center. The board will vote to approve, deny or approve the plan with conditions and pass the application on to Village Council for another public hearing.

Based on concerns the community voiced at a public hearing last month, Eastham said he revised his plat design by moving the retention basin from the 5.11 acres to a half-acre lot on the southeast side of Birch III.

Eastham also said that the legality of placing a retention basin on the 5.11 acres is still in question. But rather than wait for an answer from attorneys, he broke his plan into two phases to allow for the possibility of using the 5.11 acres if they became available. Phase one of the development includes 35 housing lots on Birch III, and phase two includes four housing lots and one for a retention basin, also on Birch III.

“We adjusted the design because we’re very concerned with the sensitivity of the 5.11 acres and we didn’t want to rush a decision or be forced into making an irrational decision,” Eastham said after the meeting. “We’ll hold onto it for a few years and then decide if we should donate it to the community or if it should stay in the homeowners’ association.”

When asked at the meeting by Birch III neighbor Wally Ream why the developer would purchase the 5.11 acres if he wasn’t planning on developing it, Eastham declined to respond.

Plan board passed the phase one plan on condition that the developer install sidewalks on both sides of the streets within the development, that a traffic volume survey be completed before the final application is completed, and that the conservation easement running along the back 20 feet of each lot be included for lots 1 and 26. Plan board also imposed conditions recommended by Village consulting engineer John Eastman to improve the general drainage infrastructure.

Plan board members Johnson and Deal expressed disappointment with the lack of creativity and the bedroom community look to the phase one plat design, which includes 35 one-third to one-acre lots for homes likely to range from $250,000 to $500,000 in cost. The plat includes no cluster or high-density housing, nor does it provide a dedicated park or green space where children could play or neighbors could gather, they said.

“As one of the few pieces of property left in the village that’s still able to be developed, I take great resistance in seeing it developed in only 40 units or less. I don’t know what to say about it. I’m not impressed,” Johnson said. “Technically it meets the merits of our code, but in terms of a master plan, I have reservations.”

“It seems like we could get more out of it. It doesn’t seem to fit in the village,” Deal said. “Density is a good thing for developers, and I’m wondering where we could have gone wrong.”

Struewing, on the other hand, voiced strong support for the design, which he felt would make a great neighborhood for raising children.

Plan board members talked about the grading of the plat, and Johnson in particular wanted assurance that the home owners association would be held responsible through a bond with the village if the final grading caused increased water runoff to neighboring properties. Eastman said that he would also be reviewing all of the developer’s grading plans to prevent overloading the drainage infrastructure.

Community members present at the meeting raised concerns similar to those voiced at last month’s public hearing that related to excess drainage from the plat onto neighboring properties, traffic overloading the connecting streets and lighting and noise issues from the new development.

Neighbor Sam Young said after the meeting that he felt relieved that the village, which needs this development for population growth and increased income taxes, was able to keep the development while maintaining the integrity of the conservation easement.