February 22, 2007

By Diane Chiddister

The air was frigid Thursday evening, but more than 60 villagers made their way to the Bryan Community Center gym for a three-hour forum to consider the proposed Fogg farm annexation. The gathering, which was moderated by Bruce Heckman, was the second Village Council-sponsored gathering on the annex request.

The event offered villagers and Council members opportunities to listen to short presentations from local experts on issues related to the annex request, then to raise questions and express concerns. Villagers’ comments ranged from specific budget questions to emotional appeals, with some making passionate statements about how their own life experiences have colored their perspective on annexation.

To Mary Donahoe, the Fogg farm annex request brings back painful memories of the Oregon town she lived in before moving here, which grew over two decades from 3,000 to more than 30,000.

“It started out just the way this is starting, with the first annexation that upped the land values,” she said. “The heart of the town disappeared and it turned into a place I didn’t want to live.”

But annexation could provide necessary affordable housing, according to Council member Kathryn Van der Heiden, who offered her own story of having to wait 10 years before moving to Yellow Springs because she and her husband couldn’t find an affordable home.

“It feels that as a community we’re afraid to grow,” Van der Heiden said. She also stated that the essence of Yellow Springs would not be changed by one annexation.

“To me the uniqueness is the proportion of intelligent and thinking people in this community,” she said.

Council must respond to the request for annexation of the Fogg farm property by the beginning of May; Council members have identified their April 2 meeting as the likely time to do so. At an earlier forum, Fogg farm co-owner Doug Miller and designer Joe Roller presented the concept plan for The Village Greene, their proposed housing development on the 40-acre farm on the western edge of Yellow Springs adjacent to Yellow Springs High School. At that event, Miller said the new development would probably contain about 210 new housing units, including both single family and multifamily dwellings.

Legal questions
The state of Ohio allows the Village the discretion to either accept or reject an annexation request, according to Village Solicitor Shannon Martin, who responded to a question from former Council President Jocelyn Hardman. Hardman asked whether, given the “inviolate” nature of property rights in Ohio, the Village could legally say no to a request that meets Village annexation standards.

The Village may reject the request as long as it is not judged to be acting in an “arbitrary or capricious way,” Martin said. “The Village has a legal obligation to act rationally.”

The Village cannot act in a way that would appear discriminatory, according to Council member Judith Hempfling, but beyond that there are many legitimate reasons the Village might reject the request. For instance, she said, the Village could determine that the annexation would, given the amount of already planned or potential housing developments in town, push village population growth over an acceptable level. Council could also determine that the increased population would create new energy needs that the Village deems too extensive given its current infrastructure.

“I would see those as rational reasons,” she said. “I’m sure there are many more.”

Local experts respond
A panel of local experts spoke to the Fogg farm annex request in the light of green space preservation, economic development, affordable housing, smart growth and energy conservation.

The annexation of the Fogg farm would affect future efforts to secure conservation easements on Jacoby green belt land, according to Krista Magaw of Tecumseh Land Trust, because annexation would increase property values of land neighboring the annexed area.

“This land will become more expensive to protect,” she said.

However, the new residential development could help attract new businesses to Yellow Springs by offering housing right across the road from the Center for Business and Education, according to Ellen Hoover, who has previously worked as economic development director for the City of Springfield. New businesses are attracted to communities that offer affordable housing, good schools and efficient utilities, she said.

The annexation could be an opportunity to include in the village more energy-efficient homes, according to Pat Murphy of The Community Solution. While a very few local builders have constructed energy-efficient homes here, most have not, Murphy said, and developer Miller has expressed an interest in doing so.

The Fogg farm proposal could increase Yellow Springs’ dwindling supply of affordable housing, according to Marianne MacQueen of Home, Inc., who discussed the difficulty Home, Inc. has had finding sites in the village for Home, Inc. homes. The Village could put in place preannexation agreements which would require the Fogg farm development to include affordable housing, she said.

“Ironically, if we annex the land we have the potential to put controls in place we don’t have in the village,” she said.

But the annexation would not allow Yellow Springs to grow in ways consistent with smart growth principles, which advocate greater density and mixed use along with green space preservation, according to Smart Growth Education Task Force member Dimi Reber. She stated that while she appreciates that developer Doug Miller met with the task force and attempted to incorporate some smart growth principles into the proposed development, he did not go far enough.

“In the balance, it’s not a smart growth move,” she said.

The main question for the Village to address regarding the annexation, according to urban historian and Smart Growth member Steve Conn, is “What is the relationship between the physical space in the village and the goals of the village?”

Yellow Springs development should reflect the standards of the community, Conn said, and the village should be cautious in making a move which may diminish the uniqueness of the village at a time when it is trying to regenerate the job base.

“Competing for jobs is a tough business,” he said. “Our competative advantage is that we are still a functioning small town.”

Questions of cost
During questions and comments, several villagers expressed frustration with what they perceived as a lack of information about the overall financial costs and benefits to the Village of the Fogg farm annexation.

“You’ve got to sit down with a sharp pencil and decide what this will cost,” said Mike Breza, who warned Council that infrastructure expenses around the annexation would gradually increase.

The annexation cost/benefit study completed by the engineering firm of Edwards and Kelcey has turned out to be inaccurate because it was based on faulty assumptions regarding the cost of housing and income levels, according to Rubin Battino, who asked for someone to tell him specifically what the annex would cost the Village.

But the answers are not yet clear, according to Village Planner Phil Hawkey.

“It’s important to keep in mind that it’s not something that can be predetermined at this time,” he said.

While specific figures are unclear, it’s sufficient that the study concludes that the annex revenues will be greater than costs to the Village, according to Council Acting President Karen Wintrow.

“It will not be a loss, and that’s enough,” Wintrow said. “I’m not looking at financial information solely.” She has also been influenced by the school board’s statement that the district needs more children, Wintrow said.

Different perspectives
Some who spoke expressed frustration with those who asked Council not to take action now on the Fogg farm.

“People don’t want the town to grow. They’re used to things a certain way,” said Joan Edwards, who said she supports the annexation request because it would provide affordable housing to the village.

The same controversy arose 50 years ago when the Village annexed the Whitehall Drive area where she lives, according to Peggy Erskine, who stated that that annexation clearly benefitted the village.

In response to a question from Erskine about how the annexation could harm Yellow Springs, Council member Judith Hempfling said her main concern is how the Fogg farm annexation would affect Village energy use. An influx of 400 new residents would likely increase local energy needs to the extent of having to build new infrastructure, Hempfling said, when, given the global warming crisis, the Village needs to move instead in the direction of energy conservation. It will be a challenge to both attract new businesses and to conserve energy use, Hempfling said, but other communities are meeting that challenge and she would like to see Yellow Springs join them.

“Personally, I don’t think we have a choice as a planet,” Hempfling said.

While Fogg farm co-owner Miller has said that he will include some affordable housing and possibly energy-efficient homes, it’s hard to trust those promises, said Monica Hasek, who said the community was “green-washed” by developers of the Center for Business and Education. The public was promised a building with environmentally-sustainable design principles that never materialized, she said.

“I’m a little nervous when I see a concept plan,” Hasek said. “I wonder if it will really be what we want.”

Some say slow down
Several villagers made impassioned pleas to Council on Thursday to slow down the annex process.

“I don’t think we’re afraid to grow, but the issue is how fast,” Nadia Malarkey said, stating that the Village won’t solve its longterm problems with the quick fix of annexation.

New resident and Wittenberg University employee Heather Wright expressed dismay at what she saw as Council’s rush to annex before it has more specific information on costs and benefits.

“It strikes me as profoundly irresponsible that Council wouldn’t wait,” to gather more information, she said.

Byron Dann urged Council to turn down the request in order to engage the community in a more extensive dialogue before choosing annexation.

“We need to take the time to decide what kind of village we want,” he said.

Village Council needs to sponsor a visioning process to allow villagers the opportunity to identify values and standards, Hempfling said.

Many attendees called for the Village to draft a new zoning code that more clearly reflects village values. Until the Village does so, Conn said, it will find itself embroiled in controvery whenever an annexation request comes forward.

But calls to wait on the annex request disregard the work that previous Councils and local leaders have done to prepare for possible annexation, Council member Kathryn Chase said.

“The longer we continue to sit and do nothing, the more our population dwindles and ages,” she said. “It seems unfair to disregard all the good planning and groundwork that has been done for us.”

Contact: dchiddister@ysnews.com