January 18, 2007

By Diane Chiddister

At the Jan. 16 meeting of Village Council, villagers and Council members debated the purpose of the upcoming Jan. 29 special Council meeting on the Fogg farm annexation, with several villagers expressing concern that the meeting will not offer a balanced view of the pros and cons of the property’s potential annexation into Yellow Springs.

After dialogue with community members, Council members decided to go ahead with the original agenda, stating that Council must address the specifics of the Fogg farm plan. A more general discussion on annexation will take place at a Smart Growth forum on Feb. 11, although it is unclear what Council’s involvement will be in that event.

Some community members raised concerns after Village Planner Phil Hawkey presented the proposed agenda for the Jan. 29 meeting. The agenda includes a presentation of the Fogg farm plan by Fogg farm owner Doug Miller or one of his associates, a presentation by the engineering firm of Edwards and Kelcey, who wrote the Fogg farm annexation study, clarification of legal issues by Village Solicitor John Chambers and “facilitated public discourse,” which includes questions and comments from the public.

In response, several villagers requested that the meeting also include representatives from Tecumseh Land Trust or the Smart Growth group, both of which have questioned the benefits of annexation to the community.

“We need to hear the other side, the side that deals with the quality of life and preserving the uniqueness of the village,” Mary Donahoe said. “That would be more fair.”

In agreement with Donahoe, Marianne MacQueen stated that while most villagers had supported the annexation of land for the Center for Business and Education, the Fogg farm plan is ”more complex and conflictual. It’s about annexation in general, expanding the village,” she said. “It is a soul-searching process that we’re doing.”

Council member Judith Hempfling suggested that the Jan. 29 meeting would be more balanced without the presence of Doug Miller, one of the Fogg farm owners, or his associates.

The meeting should be “a conversation for the community,” Hempfling said. “It feels like it lists toward trying to sell it [the development] if the developer is there.”

Other Council members did not agree that Miller’s presence at the Jan. 29 meeting would be inappropriate.

“The decision for us is this annexation that we have 120 days to decide,” Council member Kathryn Chase said. “To have the developer there is appropriate.”

The purpose of the Jan. 29 meeting, according to Council President Karen Wintrow, is to present to the community the legal, engineering and planning work around the Fogg farm annexation rather than a general discussion on annexation. Village Manager Eric Swansen urged Council to go ahead with the Jan. 29 agenda, since Council has an “obligation to weigh” the Fogg farm proposal.

It would be helpful to the community if the Jan. 29 meeting also included information about development that is currently going on inside village limits, according to villager Chad Runyon.

“What is our current growth? It seems to be ignored,” Runyon said.

Acording to Hawkey, 72 new residential units have been approved inside the village. Swansen said that he did not see how that information would be relevant to the Jan. 29 discussion.

Council member Kathryn Van der Heiden, who was sworn in to office at the meeting, stated that she believed it would be valuable to have both the Jan. 29 meeting with Miller and to have a more general discussion of the pros and cons of annexation. However, she said, villagers can have the general discussion at the upcoming Smart Growth forum on annexation on Feb. 11.

“Some of these questions will be addressed,” at the Feb. 11 meeting, she said.

The Fogg farm is a 39-acre property on the western edge of Yellow Springs, located across Dayton-Yellow Springs Road from the Center for Business and Education. The Fogg farm owners, realtor Doug Miller and members of the Fogg family, this fall requested an expedited process for their request to annex the property into Yellow Springs. Council has until 120 days after its Jan. 2 meeting, which was the meeting when it officially acknowledged receiving the annexation request, to make a decision.

Miller has stated that he will sell the land to a developer rather than develop it himself. He also stated that he envisioned about 150 new homes on the property.

Other Jan. 16 Council business will be covered in next week’s News.

Contact: dchiddister@ysnews.com