Village
Council business—
New
residential district approved
Village Council approved
last week the creation of a new residential zoning district, Residence
A-1, for larger lots. Council’s decision sparked a discussion among
Council members and between Council and the public about housing needs
in Yellow Springs and how best to meet them.
The 4–1 decision
came at Council’s meeting July 21. Council president Tony Arnett
and members Mary J. Alexander, George Pitstick and Denise Swinger voted
yes; Joan Horn voted no.
“I want to
lodge a negative feeling that such a district would smack of elitism,”
said Horn, who was absent at Council’s first reading of the proposal.
“This seems counterproductive if we’re trying to have large
homes and small homes intermixed in the village. I don’t see the
need for it.”
In response, Pitstick
said, “I call it upscale. I don’t call it elitism. There is
a need in this town for that type of housing.”
Council’s action
adds to the Village Zoning Code a fourth residential district, in which
lots must have a minimum frontage of 75 feet. The district’s frontage
standard was until recently the standard in the Residence A district.
Along with reducing the minimum frontage for Residences B and C, Council
in the spring lowered the minimum lot width of Residence A to 60 feet.
At the time Council said the move to reduce the street frontage requirements,
in part, was an effort to encourage growth in Yellow Springs.
Land in town would
not be rezoned Residence A-1. Instead a property owner or developer would
have to petition the village to rezone the land. Any area zoned Residence
A-1 must be at least 10 acres large.
Last week Council
added the new larger lot district in response to a June recommendation
from the Village Planning Commission. The planners said that they suggested
the new residential district to add to the zoning “tools”
of the Village. At the time, four members of Planning Commission supported
the recommendation, while member Dawn Johnson voted against it, saying
that the new district would limit the number of houses that could be built
in the village, and would therefore work against the housing diversity
that Council said it wants to create.
That concern was
also raised last week by Marianne MacQueen, director of Yellow Springs
Home, Inc., a local community land trust. That group has been working
the past two years to identify small empty lots in the village for potential
development of affordable housing, and, after calling 100 homeowners,
has found only two possible lots, she said.
“The idea that
there are a number of small lots available that affordable housing can
be built on is not accurate,” she said. “Where will those
lots come from if not from the older part of town? Establishing larger
lot sizes cancels out” the potential for affordable housing on those
lots, she said.
Pitstick maintained
that the Village has focused on affordable housing, such as the recently
approved Hull Court development off Xenia Avenue, to the exclusion of
more upscale homes.
“We have a
need to maintain diversity on both ends and we have avoided working on
the upper end,” he said.
In March, local architect
Ted Donnell, whose company Axis Architecture is developing the Hull Court
project, said the development would consist of 10 condos whose base price
would be around $120,000.
During the debate
last week Arnett stated that he supported the district because he agreed
with what he believed the Planning Commission wanted to address, keeping
on the books a “community standard” that had once been valued.
Commission members seemed to be saying, Arnett said, “don’t
throw away the idea of this kind of district.”
Swinger said she
supported the district because the 75-foot minimum district had been “on
the books 20 years and was not an issue then. I don’t have a concern.”
The discussion also
precipitated frustration from Council and audience members about how best
to express opinions regarding housing needs in the village. People need
to be able to address the housing issue without “name calling,”
Arnett said. He said that he was “bothered that the words ‘elitism’
and ‘classism’ are intruding back into the conversation.”
In response to Arnett,
MacQueen said that his remarks felt like put-downs to those who didn’t
agree with him. “I would like to say what I have to say and be listened
to,” she said, without feeling that her opinions were being diminished.
Arnett said that
he agreed that all parties need to be civil. “When the term ‘smacks
of elitism’ is used, that seems to me to cross the line and become
name-calling,” he said.
* * *
In other Council
business:
• Council members
unanimously agreed to move ahead with the Appreciative Inquiry visioning
process, which would include a “summit” during which local
residents would share areas of satisfaction about Yellow Springs along
with their visions to improve the community. The process would be facilitated
by Chester Bowling, an Ohio State University specialist in community leadership
and management, who developed a set of questions to use at the summit.
Last week Council
members approved the questions, although they questioned Bowling’s
proposed summit structure of a four-day event. Council members said that
it would be difficult to maintain enthusiasm over a four-day period, and
agreed that two days would be better. They also said that they wanted
the summit to take place over a weekend so those who work weekdays could
participate.
Council members said
that they want the process to be open to all who wish to participate.
In response to a question from Elsie Hevelin as to how they could ensure
that the event’s organizing group would be “representative”
of the whole community, Arnett replied that “it’s not our
objective to form a representative steering committee but to develop a
representative process.”
Council members will
begin circulating information about the Appreciative Inquiry process to
all area churches and other organizations to try to solicit interested
persons.
• Council members
agreed to take part in a study by the Greene County Office of Sanitary
Engineering on the volume of water in the county. Jeffrey Hissong, director
of the office, explained that the project will seek to determine how much
water is available, especially the quantity available in the Little Miami
River buried valley aquifer and “what is the maximum you can take
out of the aquifer without doing sustainable damage.”
The study will cost
$40,000, and if all local governments in the county take part, each community’s
price tag will be about $750, Hissong said, although he stated that so
far it’s unclear how many are participating.
Council members agreed
on the importance of the study. “I don’t see how we can afford
not to be part of it,” Horn said.
—Diane
Chiddister
|