of Chillicothe, Ross County & South-Central Ohio
of Chillicothe, Ross County & South-Central Ohio
new 9/21/04
The large residential lot at 989 Western Avenue, on the north side of the road, just east of its intersection with Plyleys Lane, is on the road to becoming a commercial development. It may be graded and paved over after discussion of its use in a zoning board meeting May 12th...and then again July 14th. A 14,820 square foot Walgreen's drug store is proposed for the 1.45 acres parcel in the southwest portion of the tract.
All links on this issue:
The September 20th Chilicothe City Council was a review session. As Councilman Joe Herlihy explained,
Review Sessions are informal Council meetings. The intent is to allow a more open discussion on a particular issue. There is an understanding Council runs the meeting, and that input from the audience/public can be limited. The September 20th review session will be relaxed with opportunity for give-and-take among council members. Council will have the discretion to allow audience participation, but it can be limited - there is no requirement to allow it like in the following public hearing the next Monday. A few may be allowed to speak, especially if they have prepared statements. 989 Western Avenue will be the only topic to be discussed in this meeting, so it will have everyone's focus.
However, no one from the audience was permitted to speak, which disappointed Mr. Herlihy, who had never been to a review session where no one from the audience was allowed to speak. That was at the discretion of City Council President Bob Shoultz.
I also disappointed myself by arriving late. I assumed the session started at 7:30, like other city council meetings, so I arried early at 7:20. However, I have not attended a review session before...and all review sessions begin at 6:30. <Grumble>
When I arrived, Council Member Bart Henshaw was reviving her classroom skills by chalking up the pro et con list on a chalkboard:
PRO |
CON |
|
|
|
City council was clustered on the left side of the chamber, on the same side as Johnathan Wocher, the developer's representative, along with Mayor Joe Sulzer. Council member Joe Herlihy was almost along on the right side. Council member Bart Henshaw was in the middle.
By my count, there were 19 people in the audience, including:
 |
| A panorama of the property as it is now...before any more changes. This is the first of a series of visual suggestions of what might happen with this property if it is rezoned. |
Significant points that I heard or saw while I was there (not necessarily in chonological order):
I didn't know that was a concern. So, you're going to build on a swamp, the headwaters of Honey Creek - draining it with tiles, filling it in, and paving it over - and you offer better water control? Wetlands work by slowing absorbtion, and thus flow, of water. All you are going to do is cause it to never sink in, and to flow faster through pipes to somewhere else. Like other aspects of this development, this is a trasfer of costs to somewhere and someone else.
What?! By funneling it behind Bob Evans?! Through the golf course?! Whose delusion is this? And yet, no one pointed out the silliness of this assertion. This is typical of the token - and ridiculous - offers that developers toss out like scraps to dogs to get their project approved. His salesman's oily tone of voice only underscored this attempt at mollification.
(Council members Trotschel and Shoultz later mentioned that there is more traffic coming out of St. Andrews Boulevard than there is from Brewer's Heights.)
Mr. Wocher, the developer's representative, was taken aback by the question, and explained that it was simply a matter of a seller offering land there.
Then, he added that the traffic was also a reason.
And, because a competitor is right there almost across the street! Be honest. These drug stores have a habit of wanting to compete face-to-face, and so when you see one build, you see another build soon nearby - and usually across the street, presumably to catch the traffic coming the other way.
And this is similar. Although the developer has asked for rezoning for only the front parcel which they plan to develop immediately, they will certainly want the same for the rear soon. And it sounds like the owner on the south side opposite Governors Place will also want to be on the badwagon soon. So, this is a after this discrete check is written for discrete rezoning, we don't know what the next ones will be demended for.
Was it simply force of habit, or was it a rush to begin work and avoid any grass-roots delays after getting thier way?
 |
| Western Avenue traffic zips past the front yard of the L.T. Franklin house and the amputated stone bridge that serves it and the neighboring John Franklin house. |
'Unconstitutional contraints of property rights'? Stop trying to scare us. There are plenty of stricter constraints enacted in other cities that have been defended sucessfully - in communities that value quality-of-life, inherent uniqueness, and tourism income, over character-robbing, short-lived, carbon-copy developments.
'Widening Western Avenue beyond the city limits'? You should have thought of that before it got junked up with unplanned development outside of the city limits. Keeping it from becoming another Bridge Street? It already is, and looks just as horrible (unless you're making money from it).
'Traffic studies are not cheap'? Congestion is costly. Convenience is valuable to residents, shoppers, and visitors, and its loss is a hidden cost of unplanned development. Jerry-rigged street expansion is expensive. Character is priceless.
Council member Herlihy mentioned that the Houseman study (of Western Avenue?) was an inch thick and cost $10-20,000.
'Zoning as master planning for the city'? Then why are you trying to defeat it?! Why are you ignoring proper procedure and trying to undermine public debate about it?!
 |
| Aerial photo of the parcel, from the Ross County Auditor's web site. The parcel is outlines in yellow, with Western Avenue running along the bottom. Only the south part of the parcel is requested to be rezoned now. |
For how long? Until the restaurant is built? What about the rear part of the property which will developed whether Barlow admits it or not?
At that, the session was closed.
Some of the audience were members of the "Orchard Hill Vigillantees." Orchard Hill is the subdivision on Courtland Drive that runs south off Western Avenue up the hill past the A-frame church. The "Vigillantees" had opposed having the only the access of the Blockbuster video store onto Courtland Drive, but had not opposed the store itself. They have yet another battle now, 9 months later. Many had signed the petition. As far as they know, no one asked refused to sign it.
Other comments heard:
Duly elected representatives ignoring the grass-roots statements of their constituents? Then they must have orders from - or be following - other leaders.
Do those who want this development to happen care about what happens in someone else's backyard? (Or front yard?) Does the owner, Mr. Barlow, care about what he will leave behind when he moves to Florida with his money?
Clear Channel radio produced a good story on the meeting. The story mentions that At-Large Councilman Joe Herlihy is "leading a crusade against the rezoning legislation."
Do we worship "progress"? Are we bought off by the mere mention of "jobs"? Do we allow owners of historic properties, of important parts of our community, to neglect their civic obligation and rape thier properties for money?
I fear that the answer has not changed in many years.
Next will be a public hearing on Moday, September 27th. ...
More soon...
