Gated Community Proposal Withdrawn

Let's look at it this way:
* The baseline zoning for the property is 5 residential units.
* The developer wants to put in 64 units, plus an option for more later.
What is the developer offering to obtain such a lucrative zoning exemption?
In a place with competent public officials, the deal might look like this:
* 25 units in a conservation development. (5x baseline density)
* development rights purchased from other landowners to reduce density elsewhere -- thus, no net density increase community-wide. (These are called TDRs, transfer of development rights.)
* 15 acres placed in a conservation easement.
* paths designed for residents and community use; located to make connections to neighboring properties possible if future development occurs.
* sewers shall not be oversized and shall be properly restricted in use.
* age-restricted deed covenants shall be put in place (if marketed at empty nesters, as the developer states) OR (in lieu of deed restrctions) a 1 mill payment for 20 years to the school district (the same as Park Trails pays). (Money restricted for school construction costs.)

This type of deal may or may not work for the developer and the community. If it doesn't, the developer has lost nothing. He still can develop 5 homes -- like everyone else. But when he's talking about 64+ homes on a small piece of property -- just 25 acres -- the conversation should be about what sweeteners the developer can provide to earn a major deviation from our Comprehensive Plan.

Granville Township Trustees have shown no skill in protecting the interests of residents and taxpayers. I don't expect this to change. The Trustees believe it is their job to work FOR developers and AGAINST citizens, who are perceived as too "anti-growth," too demanding and too attached to the community we know now.

But this is how a deal might look like if a developer hopes to have success in requesting a massive and lucrative upzoning of his property. That is, if the developer has to deal with elected officials who know how to do more than smile.

gated communities. Do we have any information other than Bill's work with SWL water/sewer linking him to the proposed gated community?

A few comments on this story:
* Granville shouldn't do gated communities. That should be a fundamental planning principle here. You don't remain an interwoven community when you permit developers to slice off parcels and isolate residents from the rest of Granville. The Erinwood developer originally wanted to make that a gated community. Granville said no, we don't do gated communities. Gated communities are for communities that don't work as a whole; residents seek smaller, functioning units. Granville does work. If you want to gate yourself off, you're better off in Gahanna or Pataskala or any of the many places that are mitigating the mistakes of the past.
* The danger of bringing in sewer and water without zoning controls becomes all the more apparent with this proposal. Even if the claim that it's aimed at empty nesters is true -- where are the deed restrictions? -- once you're on the slippery slope of providing SWL sewer to high density residential developments, you can kiss the southern part of the township goodbye. (And start building new schools.)
* The Township should have an official policy of consulting the school district on residential development. (The Village has a school board representative on its Planning Commission.) Likewise, the school district should pay attention to residential development. The district expects us to deploy open space money to keep the student population down and spend tens of millions of dollars to build new schools. The district has an obligation to pay attention to development that affects taxpayers and schools. If the school board doesn't understand why providing SWL sewer to residential developments in the township and near Union Township is a threat, then it needs to educate itself right quick.
* If anyone had doubts about Habig's goal to use SWL sewers to fertilize development of every kind -- drive-thrus, residential, any darn thing a developer wants -- it seems impossible to look the other way any longer.
* Even with his pro-growth extremism, you'd think Habig would have some skill in negotatiing a deal to make growth more palatable to Granville. In fact, he doesn't appear to have a lick of skill -- or just doesn't care. The developer here is trying to get township approval for a "conditional use" that makes little sense -- 64 condos and zero offices in a zoning district for offices? (Note: Office developments pay off big for the school district; new homes are money-losers.) The developer should be offering conservation easements, buying development rights elsewhere, deed restrictions, impact fees for the schools, etc. Heck, even the mediocre Kraner deal has these things. Developers offer Granville nothing because they know Habig is in their pocket, and Fred and Wes are too dim and deferential to represent taxpayer interests.

The good news is the Granville Township Zoning Commission is made up of community members. The members have a world view that extends beyond plotting with developers to cash in Granville and its school district. Expect the developer to be back with the same proposal that offers him everything and Granville nothing -- except promises. When you've got an appointed trustee trying to deliver developers whatever they want, there's little incentive for a developer to do anything other than put in a road and make promises. It's time for our township trustees -- paid elected officials, collecting pension benefits and getting medical insurance --to start working for the citizens who pay their salaries and not developers who are their peer group.