An easement on Oxford Village property that will allow construction of the Centennial Commerce Center downtown was approved 4-1 by council last week in exchange for a $15,000 contribution towards improving Centennial Park.
‘Getting $15,000 to me is kind of a positive, win-win situation,? said village attorney Bob Bunting, who recommended council take the money.
The approximately 303-square-foot easement is located along the building’s south side. That’s where piers attached to footings for the two-story, nearly 14,000-square-foot building currently under construction extend up to 2? feet at five points into village property.
These footing piers are located underground and will be covered by new sidewalk to be laid by the developer, the Orion-based Promark Properties, at his expense.
Council previously voted twice (July 24 and Aug. 8) to require the developer to remove these footing piers from village property.
However, it appears the third time was the charm as council reconsidered based on an Aug. 23 legal opinion from Bunting that the developer may have a legal basis to challenge council’s decision in court. ‘There’s merit in that developer’s position,? the attorney told officials.
Councilman Tom Benner asked that a provision be included in the approved motion that if the new building is ever demolished, the replacement building would be constructed within the property’s own boundary.
‘I feel that they should be put on notice,? Benner said. ‘Twenty-five years down the road if a tornado comes through and that building is demolished, we have it on record.?
In exchange for granting an easement to allow construction of the current development, the village will be paid $15,000, which council voted unanimously, at Councilperson Teri Stiles? suggestion, to spend on improvements to Centennial Park within 12 months of the new building’s completion.
Council debated over the whether or not the fence running along the north side of Centennial Park should be permanently removed when the sidewalk between the new building and park is replaced by the Promark Properties.
Village President George Del Vigna was in favor of getting rid of the fence.
‘One thing about a fence, it says ‘stay out,?? he said. ‘And unfortunately, when you have it around the park, it’s saying not to come in the park.?
Benner noted the fence ‘keeps (people) out of the flower beds.?
Sue Bossardet, who sits on the village’s Parks and Recreation Committee, explained how the fencing protects not only the flower gardens, but all the gardens and trees planted in memory of those who have passed away.
‘I think that fence offers a degree of protection to those things that people have invested money in (to memorialize others),? she said.
‘For that reason alone,? Bossardet argued the fence should stay.
Councilman Chris Bishop noted the ‘nice thing? about the fence is it ‘defines the relationship of the park with the adjacent building.?
Bishop also said the fence helps prevent people from using the park as a cut-through because it forces them stay on the sidewalk.
‘I’ve never heard in all my years of living here someone say, ‘Boy, I wish that fence wasn’t there. I can’t handle walking all the way around,? Bishop said. ‘You take that fence down and you’re going to have a lot of people all upset.?
Although to some ‘it seems like the park is sacred ground,? Del Vigna argued, ‘It’s just a park.?
‘We’re trying to make it better than what it is now,? the council president explained. ‘And to me, a fence says, ‘stay out, keep out.? It doesn’t make it open. It doesn’t make people want to walk around it.?
Ultimately, council decided the fence stays. ‘We’re trying to make it better than what it is now,? the council president explained. ‘And to me a fence says, ‘stay out, keep out.? It doesn’t make it open. It doesn’t make people want to walk around it.?
Ultimately, council decided the fence stays.