|
On March 5, the Oakwood City Council will consider the current proposal for Sugar Camp for passage. This may be the last opportunity for residents to voice concerns about the plans of the Oakwood Investment and Versant Groups to develop the former NCR property. Whereas the conversion of existing buildings along Schantz Avenue into a religious campus is a prudent and unobtrusive use of the grounds, the plan to put high density housing on the remainder of the property is not in the best interest of our community.
According to the Sugar Camp master plan at least 125 new residences are to be constructed. When such a large number of new homes are introduced into a small locality, the impact upon several aspects of community life should be carefully considered. Backers of the development bill the proposed Sugar Camp housing as being targeted for “empty-nesters” - that is, retired people who have no school-age children. However, it is doubtful that members of this age group will choose to enter a community with relatively high income and property taxes.
Schools- A look at recent trends indicates that new residents in Oakwood accept the higher taxes because of the schools. Enrollment has increased dramatically during the last ten years, already triggering an expansion of the schools. The risk of adding so many homes is that another shortage of space will occur again, necessitating further additions. The Sugar Camp development could add more than 200 students, with all elementary students entering Harman School. The size of even the smallest of the proposed residences- 2200 square feet- does little to discourage, say, a family of four from moving in. While school officials now report some spare capacity as a result of the most recent renovations, the influx of new students, coupled with increases that may occur even without Sugar Camp, raise the real possibility that Oakwood schools would become overcrowded.
Property values- A large infusion of new properties into an already slumping real estate market can only lead to lower property values across the board. Overcrowded schools can not be beneficial either.
Traffic- The plans call for a new traffic light on Far Hills Avenue opposite Springhouse Rd. to serve the residential portion of Sugar Camp. In addition to congestion at that intersection, new restrictions will be imposed elsewhere, for example right turns only will be allowed at the Far Hills-Volusia intersection.
Aesthetics- Unlike the rest of Oakwood, the proposed housing development, with its one point of entry has the look of a gated community. The layout of the plat and the design of the homes are inconsistent with surrounding neighborhoods. The developers are asking for too many exceptions to current zoning regulations, most notably one to allow structures up to 50 feet high, compared to the current limit of 30 feet. Incredibly, the developers reveal their disdain for the rest of the city on their web site by referring to Oakwood as “a community bereft of architectural distinction.”
Environment- It would be poor stewardship of community assets to saturate one of our last vestiges of undeveloped land with so many new structures. Most of the trees would be removed in favor of the development. The result would be increased storm runoff into the Miami River. The proposal does not offer new energy-saving technologies, such as solar panels.
Alternative Uses- With limited space available for developments that benefit the city’ s population as a whole, other uses of the land should be considered rather than filling it up with new residences. The proposal does call for a new community center, but it would be open only to residents of Sugar Camp. No significant amount of space is set aside for public parks.
Given the potential impact of the Sugar Camp residential development on the community, citizens are urged to attend the March 5 City Council meeting at 7:30 p.m.
Dan and Shelly Janning
Oakwood
Last week Oakwood Mayor Judy Cook was quoted in the Dayton Daily News as saying that the Versant / Oakwood Investment Group plan for the development of the NCR Sugar Camp property was “a dream come true.” Some people, including a lot of us who live across West Schantz Avenue from Sugar Camp, think it could be more like a nightmare.
To transform West Schantz Avenue, a busy yet still residential street, into a business thoroughfare with multi-story commercial buildings across from our homes is not conducive to maintaining the quality of life we’ve long enjoyed. It is also likely to bring about a sharp drop in our property values.
To see all but a few acres of mature trees cut down so the developers can squeeze up to six dwelling units per acre into the site is not our idea of a dream come true. When those trees come down a wildlife habitat will be destroyed, another precious piece of urban green space will vanish and the already offensive noise from outdoor events at the Fairgrounds and the Marriott will no longer be muffled.
To install a traffic light at Kramer Road at the top of a hill around a blind curve is a recipe for auto accidents, especially in winter snow when motorists have a hard time negotiating that hill.
There remain concerns about possible contamination of the land, storm-water run-off, the density of the development, its impact on our already crowded Oakwood Schools, and what happens if and when the developers of this ambitious plan run out of money and can’t finish what they started.
Last month the Oakwood Planning Commission pretended to listen for two hours while citizens expressed these and other concerns regarding Sugar Camp. The chairman then read a previously prepared statement accepting the plan basically as submitted, and passed the issue to Oakwood City Council for final approval. Never mind the citizens’ comments; they were for the most part ignored or dismissed as irrelevant.
The Oakwood Planning Commission “hearing” was a charade we do not want repeated when the Oakwood City Council meets on March 5 to consider the Sugar Camp plan, at which time Oakwood citizens’ concerns may once again be dis
regarded.
Or, just maybe, Council members and the Mayor will listen to the voices of those to whom they owe election to office, those to whom they are accountable as city officials. We Oakwood citizens elected them to represent our interests, not those of the Versant Group or the Oakwood Investment Group; if they fail in that obligation we can also remove them from office. But first we should do two things.
1. Now is the time for us to write letters to Oakwood Council members expressing our concerns so they have time to consider thoughtfully what action they will take on March 5.
2. We need to show up at that meeting – as many of us as possible – to remind Mayor Judy Cook and her fellow council members that they are responsible to the citizens of Oakwood and not to the Sugar Camp development interests.
Lastly, I write in behalf of those West Schantz Avenue homeowners who want it clearly understood that we welcome the Beth Abraham congregation to our neighborhood and to the City of Oakwood.
George Houk
Oakwood
top of page
|
