Oxford Village officials made it crystal clear the property at 98 S. Glaspie St. should be marketed and sold for “residential use only.”

That was the motion council approved last week in a 5-0 vote.

“I’m not interested in anything other than residential,” said village President Sue Bossardet.

“I’m of the exact same mindset,” said Councilman Erik Dolan. “I won’t accept . . . anything other than residential.”

Kathleen Sanchez and Lisa Forbes, the real estate professionals from Coldwell Banker Shooltz Realty who were hired in May to market and sell the 3.42-acre village-owned site, had previously asked council for some direction regarding potential buyers.

Basically, they wanted to know if the village wished to limit itself to buyers looking to develop the land for residential purposes or were officials willing to entertain offers from industrial users.

A $300,000 offer from Brian Harrison, founder and owner of the MYCO Enterprises, prompted Sanchez and Forbes to seek council’s direction. Harrison wants to use the site for light industrial purposes. His business designs and assembles ergonomic lift-assist mechanisms for the auto industry.

But council has absolutely no desire to pursue Harrison’s offer or any other industrial proposal, for that matter.

“I think we need to just let people know we’re not interested in any industrial there,” said Councilwoman Maureen Helmuth. “That whatever goes there has to be either residential or compatible (with) a residential district.”

Helmuth noted, “Part of the reason the village paid so much money for this property was to protect its wellfield.”

“I think taking that back to industrial totally negates the fact that we did that,” she said.

The village purchased the former industrial site in March 2006 for $700,000. Officials claim the main reason the village bought it was because of its close proximity to the municipal wellfield. They didn’t want to risk another industrial user moving in and possibly contaminating the groundwater.

The 98 S. Glaspie St. site, which consists of two parcels, is currently zoned for single family residential use. The property is surrounded by single family homes, the village’s Department of Public Works garage and water treatment plant, Scripter Park and Round Lake.

“If someone comes (to the village) with an interesting use that is compatible with the area, I don’t see any problem with considering that,” Helmuth said. “And there are uses that do fit into residential areas.”

Council’s anti-industrial stance was echoed by members of the audience.

Local developer Chuck Schneider, whose proposal to build a 76-unit multi-family residential development there was shot down earlier this year, told council “under no circumstances” should an industrial use be permitted.

The problem is, Schneider explained, if council sells the property to a low-intensity industrial user and rezones the site to industrial, there’s nothing to stop it from being sold, at some point in the future, to a more intense user.

“No industrial, period” should be the village’s direction to its real estate team, in his view.

Village resident Kelly Arkles, who lives on nearby Round Lake, agreed that an industrial use is “unacceptable” for that site for the reason Schneider stated.

She’s also concerned about potential noise pollution. Living on the lake, Arkles said, “We hear everything.”

“Sometimes it’s lovely and sometimes it’s not,” she said.

She fears the noise pollution from an industrial user would be “severe.”

Where Schneider and Arkles disagreed was on the future of the site.

Schneider advised council to sell the property for multi-family residential development because that will generate more property tax revenue for the village than single family homes.

He said the village could allow 45 multi-family units there as opposed to 15 small, single-family houses, which he referred to as “900-square-foot cracker boxes.”

“If you get a decent tax base in there, that will mitigate some of your loss,” said Schneider, referring to the fact the village paid more than double what’s being offered for the property these days.

“You’re going to take a haircut on this deal any way you cut the cake,” Schneider said. “It’s just a question of how much.”

Just as she was with Schneider’s 76-unit proposal, Arkles remains adamantly opposed to turning the site into a multi-family development because she believes it would be much too dense for that area.

She believes the site should be used for public recreation. “I want a park,” Arkles said. “I’ve always wanted a park. I’ll always want a park.”

“Give us $300,000 and we’ll give you a park,” remarked village attorney Bob Davis.

“I do understand that potentially is not feasible unless I come up with $300,000,” replied Arkles.

If a park is not possible, then Arkles requested council simply “keep it as zoned.”

“I would prefer it (to have) the lowest density residential (use) possible,” she said.

At the end of the day, Dolan said, “There is no doubt that we are never going to recoup the losses of this property.”

But he doesn’t believe selling 98 S. Glaspie St. is simply about dollars and cents. He thinks it’s also about finding a use that’s “a good fit for the surrounding community.”

“It’s a multifaceted transaction, in my opinion,” he said.