|
|
A Revolutionary War veteran’s estate is at the heart of a battle over Loveland’s future. But perhaps even more significant than the conflict between commercial development and residential character is the struggle by some residents to have a say in the outcome.
In 1996 the city of Loveland purchased the Paxton-Ramsey Homestead, also known as White Pillars, for $2.7 million. White Pillars was the home of Col. Thomas Paxton and is said to be the site of the first corn crop in what is now Loveland, the first polling place and the first church, according to Bob Rutter of nearby Miami Township.
Paxton ate Christmas dinner with George Washington at Valley Forge, according to David Miller, who is working to prevent commercial development of the site.
“He was the first white settler in this area,” Miller says. “He really carved out his own home.”
The property is zoned for residential use, but the city wants to see commercial development there.
In July city council passed an ordinance allowing the rezoning of parcels five acres or larger even if the new use would not be contiguous to the zoning of adjacent properties.
Loveland residents and business owners Miller and Paul Elliott don’t want commercial development in residential neighborhoods, so they set out to put the ordinance on the ballot.
This ain’t the Magna Carta
Miller and Elliott obtained a certified copy of the ordinance, the first step in the process of circulating a referendum petition.
The referendum required 409 signatures. In 15 days, 12 volunteers collected 815.
When the citizens tried to deliver the petitions to the city, however, Tina Bunnell, the clerk of council, refused to take them.
“This sort of lowest of city officials now determines that she’s not going to take petitions,” Miller says. “Her role is not to determine whether or not the procedure was followed.”
In fact, there is reason to believe the city had decided in advance to block the referendum petitions. When the petitions were submitted, Bunnell read a statement saying she was not accepting them.
The statement was prepared because city officials “suspected” the petitions were not going to be valid, according to City Manager Fred Enderle.
“It’s at the clerk’s discretion whether she accepts the petitions or not,” he says.
Bunnell followed the advice of the city’s attorney, Frank Klaine, Enderle says.
A memo from Enderle to city council further shows the city was predisposed to blocking the referendum, the organizers say.
“Upon Tina’s refusal to accept the petitions, they asked why we just didn’t tell them by phone or e-mail we were not going to accept the petitions,” Enderle wrote. “Tina told them it was something that should be done face-to-face, which is true. Frank and I did discuss whether it needed to be in person or if we should call or write them ahead of time.”
Enderle says the petitioners never resubmitted the certified copy of the ordinance they had received from the clerk.
The petitioners returned a notarized copy that Elliott certified. He argues Ohio law doesn’t require the copy be certified by the clerk.
“The city has taken it upon themselves to interpret it that way,” he says.
Enderle acknowledges he never indicated the petitioners had not followed procedure.
“It’s not our responsibility,” he says. “It’s their responsibility to know the law and comply with the law. This is a legal action … that these folks were taking against the city.”
But Elliott rejects the notion that a citizens’ referendum is similar to a lawsuit.
“It’s neither pro-city or against the city,” he says. “The exercising of rights — that’s what our nation is founded on.”
The clerk of council has no authority to decide which referendums go on the ballot, according to Miller.
“It has to go to a third party to determine if it was filed the right way or not,” he says. “She’s not an impartial person to judge whether or not we get to put this on the ballot.”
Elliott says the city doesn’t want to accept the petitions “because they know that they’re good.”
The clerk of council is supposed to take the documents and safeguard them so people can review them, according to Miller. After 15 days, he says, the petitions must go to the county board of elections.
“On August 21, 9 a.m. (approximately) they became ‘public’ election documents,” Elliott and Miller wrote in a newsletter distributed to residents. “They then follow a chain of custody that must begin with the Loveland Clerk of Council. This chain of receipt is clearly laid out in the Loveland Charter and the Ohio Revised Code. It must be followed.”
The petitions are now in a sealed envelope at the Hamilton County Board of Elections pending resolution of a lawsuit filed by Elliott and Miller.
Few residents had any objection to the ordinance anyway, according to Enderle. Before the petition came up, only about 18 people contacted the city about the project.
“For them to try to blame us or Tina Bunnell because in the petition drive — they’ve only got themselves to blame for it,” Enderle says. “The petitions have to be valid before we accept them. If they’re not valid, we have no responsibility for them.”
But for all Enderle knows, Elliott says, he could have placed the Magna Carta in front of Loveland citizens.
“They haven’t rejected the petitions,” he says. “They failed to receive them. He would not know if the petitions are valid or not. He’s never accepted them.”
‘Hearings,’ but not listening
Residential areas surround the property, but the city wants to place a 16-acre commercial complex on the site, according to Miller. He says a study conducted for Loveland’s master plan found that commercial and retail zoning would not work in the area.
Rutter agrees.
“It’s in the wrong location,” he says. “It’s surrounded by residential property.”
“We looked at everything from industrial park to just plain open space,” Enderle says.
The study found an industrial park or commercial center unfeasible, he says. There was some potential market for mixed-use development that would have residential, limited commercial and office space, according to Enderle.
“Everything was to try to keep it in scale with the residential development around it,” he says.
The planning process included a White Pillars focus group with people from Loveland and Miami Township.
“Not everybody in that group, but a majority of the people, also felt that the mixed-use development was appropriate,” Enderle says. “Every step of the way on White Pillars, we’ve had a hearing.”
But Elliott says the city administration hasn’t been listening.
“Every focus group that’s ever been documented has wanted to maintain the residential flavor of that area,” he says.
Small retail and office space have never come out of focus groups as desirable, Elliott says.
He believes the city should spend its energy on existing commercial and retail areas that are foundering.
“The work that they are not up to is to stabilize and revitalize our existing economic infrastructure,” he says. “All the city sees are decimal points and I think they have no historical sense of what this community is all about.”
Negotiations with a developer were recently completed; city council scheduled a public hearing for Nov. 19.
The planned development will include office and small retail space, single family housing and single family attached housing, as well as some open space. The single-family homes will run about $400,000 each.
The sale will probably close this year for $3.4 million, Enderle says. The development will probably generate about $180,000 in property taxes and another $40,000 or $50,000 in income taxes each year.
The Paxton-Ramsey Homestead and about 10 acres of land will be preserved, according to Enderle. The city will remain the owner.
The city’s previous zoning code prohibited putting commercial development in the middle of residential properties, Miller says. In order to change the zoning at the Paxton project, the city exposed the rest of Loveland to the possibility of commercial zoning in residential areas, he says.
Enderle, however, says the five-acre minimum limits the ordinance’s impact.
“There are not any large vacant parcels like that,” he says. “They would still have to go through a rezoning process. It’s not an easy thing to do. There is no obligation on the city’s part to grant that zoning to anyone.”
Most Loveland parcels with at least five acres house churches or apartment buildings.
“The likelihood of those getting rezoned to commercial are slim to none,” Enderle says.
White Pillars is zoned low-density residential, allowing nothing smaller than one-acre lots. If developers get the zoning changed, the minimum lot size would be one-third of an acre.
Miller says White Pillars won’t be the last place this change will affect. He believes Loveland will try to annex farmland or residential areas.
“They’ve got a whole lot of Warren County targeted for commercial development,” he says.
Enderle says unincorporated areas, if annexed, could be developed for non-residential use. Eighty percent or more of Loveland’s land area is residential. One of the goals of the city’s master plan, he says, is to better balance and diversify the tax base, including more commercial development.
But before that happens, Miller and Elliott are determined to let voters decide the future of the ordinance.
“We intend to go to the Ohio Supreme Court if necessary,” says attorney Bob Newman. ©
This article appears in Nov 20-26, 2002.