October 19, 2006

By Diane Chiddister

Although on Monday Yellow Springs Village Council members consented to an annexation petition from owners of the Fogg farm, the move was a “pro forma” action, according to Village Planner Phil Hawkey, and should not be confused with actually accepting or rejecting the annexation request.

“The real decision point for the Village comes about 90 days from now,” Hawkey said in a presentation to Council on the annexation process.

Council took two pro forma actions Monday night related to the annexation of the Fogg farm, a 39-acre property on the western edge of Yellow Springs owned by the Fogg family trust and real estate company owner Doug Miller. The actions consented to the annexation petition and identified the public services the Village would offer.

Council virtually had no choice but to do so, according to Hawkey, who said both resolutions were prescribed by state law to take place within 25 days after the owners made the annexation request, which took place Sept. 29.

Council passed both resolutions 4-0. Council member Judith Hempfling was out of town and unable to attend. In an e-mail to Council, Hempfling requested that Council “not use the language of consent to annexation.”

Council could have objected to the petition at this point only on narrow procedural grounds, Hawkey said, and the Village solicitor’s review found no legal grounds. Had Council chosen to take no action on the annexation request, the request would have automatically been granted, he said.

A request for annexation of the Fogg farm first came to Council two years ago, at which time it sparked community protest over the owners’ plans to develop commercial property that some villagers worried would threaten downtown. Miller later withdrew the request.

In an interview last week with the News, Miller stated that he plans to seek only residential zoning on the land, and envisions having about 150 homes built on the property, which he will sell to developers if it is annexed.

Now the request moves to the Miami Township Trustees and to the county level. After it is approved by the county, the Village has to wait 60 days before either accepting or rejecting the annexation request, and must have completed the action by 120 days after the county action.

About 30 villagers made up the standing-room-only crowd Monday night. Of those who spoke, most expressed concern about the annexation and asked Council to weigh carefully its financial benefits with its costs to the Village.

“There are several developments going already. We have our foot on the accelerator,” said Chad Runyon, who urged Council to “step back” and determine the “overall costs to the Village of providing infrastructure.”

Several other speakers echoed his concern that the annexation might cost the Village more than it will gain.

“How is the gain from tax revenues balanced by the services we have to provide?” Dimi Reber asked.

Bob Brecha expressed concern at how a new development could impact the Village’s electrical load, which has already reached peak capacity.

According to Jerry Papania, “It’s important that any growth in the community pay its own way. Otherwise, the taxpayers subsidize it.”

Several who spoke in favor of the annexation said that if the Village annexes the Fogg farm, it has more control over the land’s development than if it does not.

“It seems it would be most prudent to carry this forward,” Sue Abendroth said.

Village Manager Eric Swansen said the Village has received only the annexation request, and will need specific details about development plans before determining potential costs and benefits.

The News will report on other Council business Monday night in next week’s paper.

Contact: dchiddister@ysnews.com