June 16, 2005

By Robert Mihalek

Purple Sage, the company planning to develop Birch III, will donate to the Glen Helen Association a disputed five-acre parcel of land considered part of the Glen, one of the developers, Mark Bertke, said on Tuesday.

“We are going to donate the 5.1 acres to the Glen Helen Association for the future protection and use of the land as it was originally intended,” said Bertke, who, along with Doug Eastham, is developing Birch III.

The five-acre property was included in Purple Sage’s purchase of Birch III, a 21-acre property, from Antioch University in April. The inclusion of the smaller parcel in the sale was controversial since some Yellow Springers, including a citizens group, Friends of Glen Helen/Hyde, said that the parcel was part of the Glen.

Friends of Glen Helen/Hyde, which formed in response to the sale of the five acres, had submitted to Council petitions containing about 250 signatures asking that Council postpone its decision on Glenwood Springs until the status of the easement and the future use of the five acres is determined.

Located on the south end of Yellow Springs and bordering Stewart Drive, Birch Street and Glen View Road, Birch III is the site of Purple Sage’s proposed development, Glenwood Springs. The five-acre parcel borders Birch III to the south and is located off Hyde Road, but, unlike Birch III, is in Miami Township.

While Purple Sage initially planned to build a detention basin on the five-acre property, the developers have changed course, and now plan to build the basin within Birch III.

Tony Arnett, who serves as both the president of the Glen Helen Association Board of Trustees and the president of Village Council, said Purple Sage’s decision achieves “the outcome for that five acres that everybody wanted.”

He described as “tremendous” the decision by Bertke and Eastham. “They bought the property and now they are going to donate it,” Arnett said.

Sam Young, the chairman of Friends of Glen Helen/Hyde, said that if Purple Sage’s announcement “proves true” then his group will withdraw its petition from Council and support the development. Friends of Glen Helen/Hyde had also asked Purple Sage to donate the parcel to the GHA.

“I think this shows what you can achieve when everybody takes a cooperative approach,” Arnett said.

Bertke said that Purple Sage and the GHA must now work out the details of the donation. He said they would “talk shortly and get that worked out.”

The Friends of Glen Helen/Hyde had argued that the land is part of the Glen. Antioch purchased the land in 1964 using funds donated by the Vernay Foundation. That same year, a conservation easement was placed on the property.

Don Tecklenburg, the vice chancellor of Antioch University, told the News last month that the Antioch Board of Trustees agreed to sell the five-acre parcel last year, based on a recommendation from Bob Whyte, the executive director of the Glen. Tecklenburg has said the land is not contiguous with Glen Helen and that, given Antioch’s limited resources, it “makes no sense to continue managing it as part of the Glen.”

Arnett said that he had been having a series of conversations about the five-acre parcel with Bertke and Eastham. Arnett said that last month the GHA Board of Trustees decided that if Purple Sage “wished to donate the property to a local group, the association would be interested in being that group.”

The GHA board members, Arnett said, have wanted to “provide for the long-term preservation of the property, whether that’s through a new, modern easement or some other mechanism.”

He said that “for the foreseeable future” the GHA would likely hold onto the property,” and that ultimately the association would like that land to be treated as part of the Glen, even if Antioch does not regain ownership.

Bertke said Purple Sage made its decision based on the Vernay Foundation’s intent for the five-acre parcel as well as the public’s perspective on how the land should be used.

Meanwhile, the first phase of the Glenwood Springs subdivision, which would consist of 35 homes and a detention basin, must still be approved by Council.

Though Village administrators initially thought that information would be ready in time for Council to hold a first reading on the subdivision’s development plans on June 6, the matter was not on Council’s agenda last week. Instead, Council will hold a first reading on the proposed plans at its next meeting, on June 20. Because Council must wait 30 days between the first and second readings, the second vote on the project will not be held until August 1. During the second reading, Council will hold a public hearing.

In May, the Village Planning Commission recommended that Council give final approval to the development’s first phase.

During Council’s meeting on June 6, one audience member asked Arnett if he would participate in Council discussions about Glenwood Springs, since he was involved in discussions about the five-acre parcel on behalf of the GHA. Arnett responded by saying that he would continue to chair Council’s deliberations.

On Monday, Arnett said, “I’m in a unique position to facilitate” the goal of protecting the five acres. When asked if his talks with Purple Sage about the land could influence his decision as a Council member on the Glenwood Springs development, Arnett said, “No, I think I’m capable of separating those two issues.”

“I don’t see any competing interests here,” he said, adding that he’s “acting on the interest of both of my constituencies.”

“I’ve got community members saying we would like to have the property protected and GHA board members saying we’d like to have the property protected,” he said of the five-acre parcel.

He also noted that the five-acre parcel is located outside the Village’s jurisdiction.

Arnett said that he has not received legal advice about his dual role in the matter, though he said he called the office of Village Solicitor John C. Chambers. As of Monday, he said, he had not heard back from the attorney’s office.

In a phone interview, Jennifer Hardin, the chief advisory attorney of the Ohio Ethics Commission, said that whether Arnett has a conflict with the Glenwood Springs development because of his role with the GHA would depend on the facts of the situation.

However, she did say that in general Ohio ethics law prohibits public officials from participating in matters that directly affect the activities of a nonprofit organization that has business before the public body. If actions by Council would have some direct effect on a nonprofit organization’s ability to acquire property, then the public official “would be prohibited from participating in that matter,” Hardin said.

Public officials should not participate in actions involving a separate nonprofit organization if the officials are officers or board members of the nonprofit, she said.