|
I have two concerns about recent decisions regarding the Sugar Camp property:
1. The Ohio EPA recently requested data from the city of Oakwood and NCR “for purposes of investigating whether conditions at the hazardous waste facility or other location where hazardous waste, solid waste, industrial waste, or other waste was treated, stored or disposed, constitute a substantial threat to public health or safety, —-“ and as of the 21st of Aug they received the data.
Needless to say it seems only reasonable and no less logical that the Ohio EPA be given time to complete their investigation before decisions about special use or any other decisions are made by the City regarding the Sugar Camp property.
I talked with Mr. Smindak of the EPA who requested the data yesterday and he said he has not had time to review the data and that the City was trying to move faster then his office could support.
2. I am concerned that the City management is not following the requirements of the city planning documents. I believe there are several areas of malfeasance in the decision made by the Planning Commission on this subject, but the most glaring was the decision to approve a special use for a piece of the property without having a detailed plan for the total property in question.
How do you determine the adequacy of the infrastructure without having a more detailed plan; e.g. roads, sewer, water, etc.? The owners have said they will have such a plan by December. Doesn’t it seem reasonable and logical to wait until that plan is available for review before making decisions on any portion of the property and oh- by- the-way this would be compliant with the city planning documents.
The obvious question is WHAT IS THE RUSH? Use good judgment and wait for the detailed plan and the Ohio EPA assessment.
Gene Burbey
284 W. Schantz
In a letter to the editor printed in the Register two weeks ago, the following was stated in regard to the Sugar Camp property:
“…the developer and the Oakwood City Manager each obtained hazardous waste information from NCR but signed confidentiality agreements preventing what may be important facts from being disclosed to ordinary Oakwood citizens.”
For the records, I have no knowledge of any hazardous material located at Sugar Camp. I signed a confidentiality agreement on Oct. 8, 2003 when I was negotiating with NCR for the purchase of the Sugar Camp property. The use of confidentiality agreements is common practice when negotiating land purchases. That agreement expired on Oct. 8, 2005. I did not receive any information about hazardous material during the course of the negotiating or anytime before or since then.
To ensure that environmental questions or issues about former NCR-owned property in Oakwood are adequately addressed, the city retained the services of Dr. John Eastman, Ph.D., P.E., Chief Environmental Engineer, LJB, Inc.
Dr. Eastman has worked for the city on a regular basis for the past 18 years and has offered a letter regarding the alleged hazardous waste. If any citizen has firsthand knowledge about hazardous material at Sugar Camp, I ask that the information be presented to the city so that it can be studied and so that appropriate action can be taken.
Norbert S. Klopsch
Oakwood City Manager
I have attended the two recent meetings at the Oakwood Community Center concerning the redevelopment at Sugar Camp. The primary focus of these meetings has been the segmented planning approach to changing the classification of the 4.2-acre parcel from an educational to a religious use. This approach could have merit if there were a fully-developed plan for the overall redevelopment of Sugar Camp.
Unfortunately, the planning framework presented was very broad-brush with reference to some type of empty nester housing which appeared to be apartment buildings that could rise to six stories.
In addition, the Oakwood Investment Group stated that they are not developers or builders. Their intent is to sell off land parcels to builders who would design and build parts of the Sugar Camp site. Using this approach, the Oakwood Investment Group or others could request that additional parcels of land be designated for religious use and reduce the tax base for the city of Oakwood. The consequence of having multiple builders would be the difficulty of maintaining control and keeping a unified design concept for the redevelopment of Sugar Camp.
The importance of Sugar Camp is amplified by the economic problems facing the cities of Dayton and Oakwood. There are more “For Sale” and “For Rent” signs than I can remember at any time since the fall of 1957 when we moved to Oakwood and I joined NCR.
The city officials of Oakwood do not appear to share my concern over the financial crisis facing the community. They are proposing a landscaping project for Park Avenue costing in the range of $1-million dollars. The city has already invested over $5-million in the renovation of the City Administrative Building. It would not be difficult to argue that these funds should have been invested in more effective control of Sugar Camp.
The city officials of Oakwood need to be good stewards for the community they serve. This requires that the potential of Sugar Camp be fully realized. Redevelopment should (1) recover the $300,000 tax income that NCR provided when it was an educational center, (2) provide a neighborhood of housing that will be an attractive addition to the community, and (3) provide a well-designed recreational and green space that would reflect the natural beauty of the Sugar Camp site.
If the city continues the practice of allowing property to be subdivided in order to squeeze out more tax revenue, Oakwood as we know it will no longer exist. In contrast, the effective redevelopment of Sugar Camp could help assure a vital future for Oakwood. We have a Comprehensive Plan for the city. Why are we not using it? This is too important a project to rush into without adequate planning.
Hugh Stephenson
Oakwood
Our re-zoning request has become an issue that is receiving a lot of attention, both in community debate and in the local media. We believe that public debate is important. We also believe that public debate needs to be based on accurate factual information, as opposed to inflammatory rhetoric. We would like to point out the facts in the case, in an effort to set the public record straight.
The facts are that sub-division of property has been anticipated in the City’s Comprehensive Plan. An extremely restrictive zoning ordinance was designed and put into place to protect the community from unacceptable development. Re-zoning is permissible only under very strict guidelines. Our proposed development meets the standards of acceptability under this zoning ordinance because it meets or exceeds all of the restrictive technical requirements, including: meeting current R-1 standards for lot size, frontage and set backs for our lot on Ridgeway;
proximity to an appropriate zoning classification for the new lots; and
meeting current R-4 single family residential requirements for lot size, frontage, and set backs for the lots on Fairmont.
The current R-4 code requires much larger lots than most of the existing R-4 property in Oakwood which was “grandfathered” under previous standards. The result will be three very nice home sites that are much larger and less dense than any
of the existing lots facing Fairmont. The ability to sub-divide our property is a very unique situation which can not be duplicated on Fairmont Avenue and would be difficult to duplicate anywhere else in Oakwood.
This information was thoroughly presented by Mr. Jay Weiskircher, Deputy City Manager, at the July 12th meeting of the Planning Commission, which was attended by almost all of the residents of Fairmont Avenue south of Oak Knoll. Our preliminary plan was positively evaluated by the City of Oakwood’s outside consulting firm, finding it to be responsible and in line with the City’s Comprehensive Plan. The Planning Commission voted unanimously in favor of recommending our application for re-zoning. It’s also important to understand that the process doesn’t end with City Council’s vote on our application. If our application is approved we must then submit final sub-division plans to the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission made it clear in the July 12th meeting that they will carefully scrutinize these plans for acceptability to ensure that they are not detrimental to the neighborhood or the community at large. As a result, attendees at that meeting should have clearly understood the following:
Re-zoning our property will not “open a Pandora’s Box” of re-zoning in the community or along Fairmont Avenue. Because Oakwood zoning
laws are extremely specific and stringent, this is simply not possible. We are the only property along Fairmont able to meet the requirements for re-zoning.
Once re-zoning is granted we cannot “do whatever we want to” with the property. As stated above, if our request for re-zoning is granted we must formally submit sub-division plans to the Planning Commission for their review.
Our proposal exceeds the requirements for R-4 zoning. While concern about neighborhood density has been raised, our proposal for three large lots is actually close to meeting the requirements for the next larger classification R-3, minimizing the impact to the neighborhood.
Even though the above facts were clearly explained at the Planning Commission meeting, they were ignored by the residents of Fairmont Avenue, who have presented these issues inaccurately to the community prior to and during the August 7th City Council meeting. In addition, the following information was also presented at the City Council meeting. Again, the facts tell a different story.
No one sacrificed their land to save our trees. One resident claimed that they gave up three feet of property in order to save our trees during the Fairmont repaving last year. Actually, it had nothing to do with our trees. The city did what they needed to in order to create uniformity on both sides of the street. In fact, we lost several feet of property in the process. As platted, our property formerly extended five feet into Fairmont beyond the properties to our north, but as a result of the repaving project it is now in line with the rest of the block.
There will not be a 40 percent increase in traffic. There is no statistical or mathematical model that can support this claim. Fairmont is a through street with over 30 homes on it. These three lots are at the end of the street, directly off Dorothy Lane. It is impossible for these lots to almost double the traffic.
It would take far more space than is practical for us to rebut every piece of misinformation that the opposition has presented. Other arguments were presented as fact, but are based in conjecture. What is known, however, is that increased income for the city and a broader property tax base is certain, and the potential for new families who wish to build a mid-market home in Oakwood will be realized.
Fear of change is common because it is difficult to project what the impact will be. This natural fear may be more profound in Oakwood because we want to protect this very special community. The tactic of using any means necessary to incite this fear of change, however, is offensive, unethical and is not in the best interest of the community. Quite often the result of change is positive and we could cite many examples of positive change in Oakwood.
It has been our goal throughout this process to answer honestly any questions asked of us so that we may bring about positive change. Before the Planning Commission meeting even occurred we attempted to hold an honest and comprehensive conversation with Mr. Dan Draper, the main spokesperson for the Fairmont residents. During that conversation he admitted his only real concern was for his property value. We have discussed this issue with a realtor with expertise in Oakwood real estate. She suggests their property values would not be negatively impacted and instead would probably be favorably impacted by the addition of new homes.
Sub-dividing property is a long and difficult process put in place to prevent the degradation of the community. We honor the intention of that process and we are determined to create a positive outcome.
Several people have stated to us that, “it’s your property, you should be able to do whatever you want with it.” We don’t quite agree – we should be able to do what we want within the established guidelines of acceptability. These are standards we will meet and are standards we would want others to meet in order to keep Oakwood the desirable community that it is.
Mike Disbrow
Lynn Disbrow
2750 Ridgeway Road
Oakwood
My heart goes out to the residents of the 2700 block of Fairmont Avenue in their fight to preserve green space. I too was once a resident of that block - a newly-married resident of 2750 Fairmont Avenue. In 1962, my wife Kay and I were seeking our first home together when we were smitten one very hot day with the tall, overarching trees and deep shade of that particular block. Lo and behold, was that a For Sale sign at 2750? Yes, it was! To make a long story short, we bought the very house that the young couple, Dan and Shanna Draper now own - and we lived there happily for 15 years. How often history repeats itself. We also had to fight rezoning there.
Some older residents will remember another battle. In 1963, Dorothy Lane was indeed a lane and there was no Ridgeway Road overpass. One cold Thanksgiving, Kay and I circulated a petition favoring the construction of a bridge over Dorothy Lane. Few would argue today that this was not a good idea.
I thoroughly agree with young Dan Draper, current resident of 2750 Fairmont when he said recently, “Any changes to existing laws should be for the good of the community as a whole, not for individual gain.” Greenspace is scarce and is getting scarcer - even in Oakwood - and we all need to cherish and preserve it.
David L. Smith
Oakwood
The first block of Fairmont Ave. is one of the most unique in Oakwood. For the past 40-plus years I have enjoyed coming home using this picturesque, narrow street with architecturally interesting houses on the east and large mature trees on the west.
Every Oakwood resident not familiar with this special little block should visit it so that they will understand why “caring” Oakwood residents are against the Disbrow’s desire to rezone the west side of Fairmont Ave. The Oakwood City Council should be against it also.
In response to David Hale’s (Aug. 22) letter to this paper, it is inconceivable that someone who has lived in the community 20 years would make so many uninformed statements.
When I attended Oakwood’s outstanding schools, we were taught to research a topic and back up statements with facts. Mr. Hale did neither; instead, he resorted to name-calling. This is a sad example for children who read the Oakwood Register to learn about their community.
The “large Fairmont Ave. lot” is actually part of 2750 Ridgeway. That is why the zoning change is required. Unlike the second, third and fourth blocks of Fairmont, which have a full width street with sidewalks and platted on both sides, the west side of the first block was left as the backyards of the big R1 properties on Ridgeway provide a natural transition to the smaller R4 houses on Fairmont. Step down development has always been part of the desire of good zoning and planning. This is affirmed in the “Comprehensive Plan”.
Many residents who know and appreciate the heritage and ambiance of Oakwood have expresses objection to the Disbrow’s plan. They aren’t “whiners”, they have class.
Mr. Hale’s statement that “a potential of around $15,000 per year of property tax revenue, a small but very necessary addition to our coffers” is Fuzzy Math. Of the $5,000 per property, 70 percent - $3,500 goes to the Oakwood Schools. Oakwood
spends $9,304 per student of which 60 percent is paid by local property taxes - $5,582.40. Families move to Oakwood for the quality schools. Assuming that the families who occupy the three proposed houses have a school age child, Oakwood Schools have a shortfall of $2,082.40 for the first student per dwelling and each additional student is a $5,582.40 shortfall. THIS IS A HORRIBLE DEAL FOR OAKWOOD SCHOOLS!
John H. Patterson and the early residents of Oakwood believed in green space. We enjoy Hills and Dales and Community Golf Courses instead of living next to Patterson Ville. Up until now, the residence of Ridgeway have honored their vision taking the moral high ground and passing down the heritage. Hopefully, Council will do likewise.
Nevin E. Wagner
2420 Ridgeway Rd.
58-year Oakwood Resident
top of page
|
