Residents in the northwest portion of Oxford Village turned out en masse last week for a public hearing regarding the potential development of some vacant public land.
Council was considering developing 3.125 acres of village-owned property (south of Dayton St. and west of Pleasant St.) into affordable housing for senior citizens and a park/recreational area to serve the surrounding neighborhood.
Three of the four parcels in question (the 0.589 acres, 1.460 acres and 0.645 acres shown right) were donated to the village in 1995 by the Oxford Housing Corporation with ‘the hope? they could be used for ‘community activities or development,? according to an Oct. 28, 1994 letter from the donor.
Manager Joe Young noted there’s currently a limited amount of senior housing in the village and officials believed adding more could give ‘people in the village somewhere to retire to without having to move out of the village.?
Officials said they have been approached by numerous parties interested in purchasing and developing the land. A few offers to buy portions of the property were made by residents during the public hearing.
But before officials seek development proposals or take any action, council sought input from residents living around the property.
‘I believe we all have open minds at this point,? said Councilman Dave Bailey. ‘I do not know anyone here on the council who I believe has made up his mind.?
The majority of residents who spoke at the hearing favored either developing it into a park for neighborhood children or keeping the land as vacant, open space.
If housing is built on the property, residents favored single family homes and staunchly opposed any multiple family developments such as apartments, condominiums or a retirement home type facility.
Cliff Wilkerson, of 68 Dayton St., said if the property is developed, it should be for single family homes only because ‘that’s all we have around there.?
‘My property backs up against the 1.460 acres,? he said. ‘I do not want to look out my backyard, out my window, and see several units stacked side-by-side with a large parking lot.?
Wilkerson said single family homes are the only type of development which will allow his and surrounding homes to maintain and increase their values.
‘If you put in a retirement home, it will bring the value of my house down,? he said.
Wilkerson said he’s also in favor of building some type of park/recreational area where neighborhood children can play.
‘We are out here on this little corner of the village and we have nothing,? he said noting kids have to play either in the street due to a lack of sidewalks, the nearby cemetery or downtown at Centennial Park.
Gail Pierce, who’s lived at the corner of Maple and First streets for 14 years, said she too would love to see a park developed for local children.
‘If you look around, most of the newly-built subdivisions have parks for their children and I think we should have one for ours,? she said.
Maureen Helmuth, of 47 Dayton St., doesn’t wish to see any of the land developed.
She said she wouldn’t be opposed to creating a small park or putting in a basketball court. However, she doesn’t wish to see all the vacant land developed and she’s definitely opposed to building any homes on it.
Helmuth noted kids love to play in the wooded, open area and to develop all of it would be taking away from what little open space remains in the village.
Tanya Heuser, of 34 Lafayette St., said when her family purchased their home nine years ago, it was their understanding a park was going to be built for local kids.
‘We don’t want to look at apartments. We don’t want to look at condos,? she said. ‘It is a single family dwelling (area) and we’d like it to stay that way.?
Heuser also suggested officials offer the land to adjoining homeowners to expand their backyards.
Twila Stone, of 18 Dayton St, said she would prefer the property stay as is, complete with wooded areas and places for kids to play.
If housing is built on the property, Stone said, ‘Single family homes I guess would be all right, but no apartments, no big buildings like that.?
Sue McGinnis, of 7 Pleasant St., voiced her support for single family homes and turning the 0.431-acre lot into a ‘passive park? with a playscape, picnic tables, restrooms and access to the Polly Ann Trail.
Councilman Steve Allen invited audience members to attend the village parks and recreation committee meetings on the second Monday of each month to ‘share ideas? as to what kind of park they would like to see there. ‘If a park is really what you seek, bringing those ideas to the parks and rec. committee would be a great help,? Allen said.
Officials noted they must still investigate certain legalities involving with the donated property to see what the village can and can’t do with it. Any sale of the property would require a vote of village residents.
Young said the current zoning of the donated property must also be investigated. According to May 19, 1981 meeting minutes, the village planning commission recommended to council the three parcels be rezoned from single family (R-1) to multiple family (RM-1), the purpose of which was to accommodate more senior housing, something which fell through due to the inability to secure funding.
Thanks to the input received at the public hearing, council President Renee Donovan told the audience, ‘We have a very good idea of what the people want.?
‘There has to be a way to incorporate everything and develop it the best way for the entire village, especially for the residents around that area,? Donovan said.