Dear Mayor, Council Members and Members of the Community
As I have publicly stated, I do not believe that the Homewood ordinance should be rescinded now that a referendum petition has been filed. The Ohio constitution provides citizens with this ability to question city council?’s decisions by referendum and to abrogate this right would be an act of bad faith. Moreover, the proposed passage of new ordinance concerning Homewood by ?“emergency?” demonstrates nothing less than a cynical disregard for the rights of the voters of this community.
If, however, the counsel does rescind the ordinance over my objections and that of a substantial portion of the community, I believe that the minimal obligation the council owes the citizens of the community is to send the Homewood Plat back through the approval process for further deliberation. At that time the following suggestions that have been forwarded to me by concerned individuals should be considered:
1. Mandating an eight-month construction schedule to comply with the concerns of the environmentalists about disruption of nesting patterns at Pickerington Pond.
2. Mandating that the 21 acres be granted directly to the City for use solely as a preserved wetland. The present proposal would allow the land to be sold by the city to a developer, who would then build more homes on the property. Moreover, the agreement would require the City to turn over one half of the proceeds with Homewood. The fact that this land is already tentatively platted out for homes and there is a clause requiring sharing profits with Homewood in the event of a sale is very disconcerting.
3. Either closing the entrance on Schoolhouse Road or requiring the builder to contribute money to the County or Township for improvement of the road to make it capable of carrying traffic. If Schoolhouse is unavailable, we need to be concerned about the funding of improvements to Diley Road.
4. Raising the donation to the school to an amount sufficient to offset the financial impact of over three hudnred new homes on the school system. One way of looking at this is the cost of an elementary school. For example, if a new elementary school has about six hundred students and the new homes would likely add another three hundred students to the school system, Homewood should be prepared to contribute substantially to the construction costs. Paying approximately $5,000.00 per home, most of which would likely be passed to the home purchaser, would raise nearly $1,500,000.00 towwards the construction of the proposed school at Sycamore Creek. This more realistically reflects the impact of the development on our school system. The present amount offered by Homewood is insufficient to support for even one year the teachers that would need to be added for the additional children.
5. That the concerns raised at the September service meeting concerning the restrictions on basements, storm sewer piping, lighting, buffers and the bicycle path be incorporated into the final plat or into an enforceable agreement.
6. Placing a limit for building permits in this subdivision per year to allow construction over a ten-year period. This would ease the burden on our already overtaxed school system by phasing new families into the system..
During the process other citizens may raise additional concerns. These provisions, however, would seem to balance the needs of the community against the desires of the developer.
` Sincerely yours,
David B. Shaver
By David Shaver
