Study recommends annex; Council seeks feedback
- Published: January 4, 2007
FOGG ANNEX INFORMATION
Interested persons may contact Village Planner Phil Hawkey at email@example.com or at 767-3702 to obtain electronic copies of the analysis draft, which may also be viewed online at http://www.yso.com/FoggAnnexationRequest.html. (no spaces between words) The deadline for receiving community feedback is Friday, Jan. 12. Responses should be made to Hawkey.
Village Council is seeking feedback from villagers on an analysis of the proposed annexation of the Fogg farm property, according to Village Manager Eric Swansen at Council’s meeting on Jan. 2. Village staff members will use the feedback to help guide discussion at a special Jan. 29 Council meeting on the Fogg farm annexation proposal.
A draft for public comment of the analysis, recently completed by the national engineering firm Edwards and Kelcey, recommends that the Village annex the Fogg farm property for residential development.
Council members did not discuss the analysis at their Jan. 2 meeting because they had received it just prior to the meeting. At the meeting they did officially acknowledge receiving the annexation request from the owners of the Fogg farm. Council now has 120 days to either accept or reject the request.
The Fogg farm owners, realtor Doug Miller and Fogg family members, have stated that, if annexed, the land would be sold for residential development.
The analysis identifies three “development scenarios” for residential development of the 39-acre Fogg farm, which is located on the western edge of the village across Dayton-Yellow Springs Road from the new Center for Business and Education.
The first scenario involves a continuation of current agricultural zoning for the parcel, which could result in the construction of up to 12 homes. The second scenario involves rezoning the property to the lowest residential density available under the Village Zoning Code, which could yield up to 100 homes. The third, highest density scenario, involves rezoning the property as a residential PUD, which could yield 200 new homes.
The analysis states that the first scenario, with 12 homes, would provide $25,391 in increased revenue for the Village; scenario 2, with 100 homes, would provide about $180,300, and scenario 3, with 200 homes, would provide $304,800 through increased income and property taxes to the Village.
According to the analysis, the costs to the Village for all three scenarios are small. The costs, which include fire, police, emergency service, snow removal, solid waste removal and road maintenance services, are estimated at $8,800 for scenario 1, $9,500 for scenario 2 and $9,820 for scenario 3.
According to the analysis, the Village would not have increased costs for police services in any of the three scenarios, solid waste removal costs would be passed on to residents, and fire and emergency services would be paid by a special levy. Road costs would not begin for about 10 years, the analysis says, because initial installation is the responsibility of the developer.
The analysis states that the Village electrical system already needs significant capital improvements and the increased tax base from annexation would help fund these improvements. The Village would also need to improve its wastewater treatment plant to serve increased demand.
Environmental impact of the annexation would be minimal, according to the analysis, which recommends the highest density scenario as the one which would provide the “best opportunity to protect the Jacoby Creek greenbelt through careful site plan review.”
While the analysis states that some may perceive the Fogg farm annexation as sprawl, “given the status of developable land within the village limits, and if designed and constructed correctly, new residential uses could adequately complement the existing village character and charm.”
Interested persons may also receive from Hawkey electronic copies of two other studies of annexation, one conducted by a national home builders association and the other commissioned by Tecumseh Land Trust, which concludes that residential annexation results in more costs than revenues to municipalities.
At the meeting Council member Judith Hempfling suggested that the home builders’ study should not be included in villagers’ packets, since the organization has a clear bias toward development. However, Bruce Rickenbach stated that he considered that study no more biased than the one from the land trust, and that both should be included and read in light of their sponsor’s bias.
Other Village Council Jan. 2 business will be covered in next week’s News.