Comprehensive Plan Steering Committee Urged to Have Legal Review of Comprehensive Plan

The Comprehensive Plan Steering Committee has made a number of key plan modifications based on feedback received during their October 27, 2009, public hearing. Village Planner Alison Terry presented details of those changes during a brief presentation at a Monday, March 1, 2010, Public Hearing.

The changes included reducing the amount of land contained in the Research and Development use category. During the October, 2009, hearing, concerns were raised about adding additional land for research and development use when the community already has substantial land zoned for research and only a relatively small fraction of that land is currently being used. The need for expanding areas available for commercial development was also questioned as, according to a study completed as part of the 1998 Comprehensive Plan Update process, the Township already has enough commercially zoned land to support a city of 40,000 people. 

The committee’s revised draft plan also removed a potential problem where land intended to be used for long term senior care might have ended up being used for high density, non-senior housing. 

After Ms. Terry’s presentation, members of the public were invited to share any concerns they had regarding the current draft. 

A village resident expressed his concern that the draft plan is very large, has no table of contents, is hard to navigate, and has "just streams of words that sometimes contradict each other." He indicated his preference for a comprehensive plan that would be relatively brief and easy-to-read; perhaps something that could be read in twenty minutes. He pointed out that the 1990 Comprehensive Plan, which dealt with considerably more issues, could be read in about twenty minutes. One of the problems with large and complex plans is that the people involved in creating and approving the plan frequently don’t understand the full ramifications of the plan. In this case the resident pointed to concerns raised at the October, 2009, meeting: that the plan’s inclusion of the new Suburban Residential district cuts away at the protections of the long held rule in Granville Township of a maximum of one house per five acres. The plan’s Suburban Residential district would allow up to two houses per acre or up to four town homes per acre. He posed the question of who was asking for four units per acre.

The village resident also raised a concern about a part of the plan that appears to give developers a toehold to force the Village to extend water and sewer into the Township despite the contrary wishes of the Village Council and the Township Trustees (see Chapter 9, page 7 of the draft plan). Committee member and member of Village Council Steven Mershon posed to Don Wiper, who has a strong background in land use law, the question of whether or not this was a real problem. Mr. Wiper indicated he shared the concerns raised about the language. Several people in attendance indicated that extension of water and sewer into the Township should only be selective extension at the option of the Village and only for the purposes of development which would provide sufficient tax revenue to justify the extension (i.e., offices, research and development, and not retail or residential). Committee Member and Township Trustee Dan Van Ness indicated he felt that retail to meet local community needs would be appropriate. According to materials handed out at the meeting, several Township commercial zoning classifications (Professional Office Research, General Business and M-1) include residential uses. This makes the plan’s call for extension of water and sewer to some of these areas particularly problematic. 

A concern was also raised regarding the inclusion of language regarding tax abatements and the reality that frequently tax abatements are used in a way that results in destruction of downtowns as commercial centers are built outside of the downtown area. 

A concern was raised regarding language used in dozens of places in the draft plan; language that does not make it clear that certain things are required by the plan. An example was given in the case of the one house per five acres rule in the Township. The draft plan worded that rule in a way that did not make the rule mandatory. The committee agreed to review the language and make the appropriate corrections.

Another problem with the draft plan mentioned at the hearing was that the plan decreases the amount of open space required from 50% to 30% in a couple of use categories (for example, see page 13 of Chapter 4). Dan Van Ness indicated that perhaps this was a change suggested by a firm originally hired by the Village and the Township to assist in creating the plan and that the open space requirement would be changed back to 50%. Poggemeyer Design Group, the firm hired, has since been removed from the Comprehensive Plan project and a good amount if not most of what Poggemeyer produced has been either removed or replaced by the Village and Township. 

One resident, who noted he had only heard of the 7 pm meeting at 6:30 pm and accordingly had not had any time to read the plan itself, asked if the plan had been reviewed by legal counsel. The committee paused for a bit. Then another member of the public said he thought that was a good question. After a bit more of a pause, the committee indicated they had not had the plan reviewed by legal counsel. The second resident said that it seemed important to have the Comprehensive Plan reviewed by an attorney with strong legislative drafting and interpretation skills to minimize risk the Comprehensive Plan might be overturned. The Village has from time-to-time had legislative interpretation difficulties with a relatively recent example being the overturning of the Village’s legal interpretation of the Village Architectural Review Overlay District in a case involving proposed additions to Denison’s Cleveland Hall. 

After the public comment period completed, the committee decided to postpone recommending the plan to the Village Council and the Township Trustees until after an executive summary could be prepared. Discussions after the meeting indicated that perhaps a table of contents would also be prepared. Presumably the other concerns raised at the public hearing will also be reflected in changes to the plan. It was agreed that there would be another public hearing once changes are made and before the plan would be sent on to Village Council or the Township Trustees.

While there was newspaper publication and posting of notices on the door of the Township McPeek Lodge, etc., announcing Monday’s public hearing, many people were not aware of the hearing until relatively shortly before the meeting when the Village sent an email announcement on Friday afternoon. Given the large size of the document (it is in 24 parts on the Village web site and is an inch or so of double-sided pages in printed form) it is hoped that the email announcement for the next meeting is sent out at least a couple weeks or so before the next meeting. This would allow more people to look at the draft plan and offer their considered comments and suggestions.