<< Front page News November 21, 2003

New motion to rezone fails; College at a loss

Student appeal: Architect Jonathan Ferrut explains the pros of the housing plans in Tuesday's Student Senate Forum.
 

Oberlin College’s initiative to build 220 new student beds next fall sustained a severe blow this Monday when city council rejected a revised proposal for construction at the Johnson estate. This comes on the heels of the council’s decision to reduce the housing units planned for Union Street, forcing the College to cut nearly 100 beds out of next year’s plans.

The meeting to vote on the new construction plans was preceded by a public housing forum. Dean of Students Peter Goldsmith and Vice President of Finance Andrew Evans spoke at the hearing, responding to the residents and attempting to assure residents that “[the housing projects] are not about money.”

In the council meeting that followed, the College’s revised plans were rejected and the motion to rezone failed, 5-2.

“The city has declared the project as dead,” Evans said. “In the past it was tabled and sent back to the planning commission. This [rejection] is different. Now they’ve declared it a no go.”

“They turned it down on the first reading,” Goldsmith said. “We didn’t expect the votes to be distributed like this.”

Council chairperson William Jindra voted against the proposal. “My main reason was that it’s been an open space behind Johnson House for a long time,” he said. “I feel that it should continue to be that way.”

Council member Frances Baumann was one of the two people who voted in favor of the construction.

“I thought that the College had come to a compromise on the original plans, [on issues such as] the parking, etc,” she said. “I also think that the housing units are going to be very lovely. The restoration of the barn to me was very impressive. Besides, the historical commission approved [the plans, as did] the planning commission and the design review.”

“That project is finished,” Evans said. “The city killed it.”

“We made changes in the Johnson House plans,” Goldsmith said. “The parking was reduced, we met the concerns [of the town], but they still turned it down.

“One of the reasons they pointed out [against the plans] was preserving the undeveloped spaces, but this project was developed with enormous respect for that setting.”

“Council has the authority not to rezone the land to allow development,” Jindra said. “I understand that the College needs new dorm space, it’s just that particular location [that’s the problem]. A lot of people in town were very vocal about not wanting to see construction happen there.”

The College has not yet figured out its next step, according to Evans. “The College is considering its options,” he said. “It’s still new news.”

Although some of the issues surrounding the Johnson estate plans concerned the clauses of Hall’s will and Johnson House’s proximity to the arboretum, others, such as the construction of parking lots required for new dorms, were bound to resurface regardless of the site.

Many of those present at the public hearing mentioned the town’s struggling economy and expressed concern about the effect of new College housing on city landlords who have been renting houses to College students.

“Everybody, including Oberlin College, is attentive to the fact that there needs to be an orderly transition as the number of students is reduced, but it’s not an immediately pressing issue for the College,” Goldsmith responded.

Residents also pointed out that the local economy is adversely affected because the College does not pay taxes on any of its lands.

“When the College buys property and builds housing, they take it off our tax base,” Baumann said. “One of the suggestions I made was that maybe they could continue to pay taxes on the new housing. Maybe the College could make some sort of arrangement.”

“There are lots of things that are unfortunate about the council turning down the Johnson House plans,” Goldsmith stated. “This project was the only hope for the carriage house [behind Johnson House] to be preserved. I guess we will look into the question on whether or not we have some other options with respect to that project.”

“For now we are focusing on Union Street,” Evans said. “But we still have a commitment to build 300 beds.”

“There were changes on Union street plans,” Goldsmith said. “The buildings are not immediately adjacent now and the number of structures was reduced from 13 to 11.”

The first meeting for the Union House discussion will be on Dec. 15.

   

A note to our subscribers: Our subscription list was deleted.
Please help us reconstruct it. (Read on...)