Trending
CANFIELD -- A plan to annex township property for residential development has been rejected.
The Mahoning County commissioners on Thursday approved a resolution denying a proposal for the city of Canfield to annex 11.13 acres of township property for a housing project.
After Canfield City Council on Oct. 10 narrowly approved the submission by On Mark Communities LLC to build single-family homes in a new development at the end of Laurel Hills Lane, Canfield Township trustees voted unanimously against it on Oct. 16.
"The board of commissioners held a hearing, and we met with both parties, and we heard from our counsel, and after looking at everything, we felt the petition did not meet the statute that covers it, so we ended up denying it," said Commissioner Anthony Traficanti. "There are certain requirements that are involved in the annexation, and there were various points inside there that did not meet the annexation, and that was based on our counsel from the [Mahoning County] Prosecutors Office."
Traficanti said he was not at liberty to discuss the specifics, but one of the issues was a safety concern.
"This was strictly based on the merits of what was presented to us," he said.
Traficanti said the petitioner can appeal the decision.
Public business records show that On Mark Communities LLC is based in Hubbard, and the registered statutory agent for the business is Robert Hallapy of Forest Hill Drive.
Chris Vecchione, a Laurel Hills Lane resident and unofficial spokesperson for the Laurel Hills and Savannah Court residents, said he and his neighbors are pleased with the commissioners' decision.
Vecchione said he and others took exception to On Mark's pursuit of a Type 2 annexation, which he argued, was chosen specifically to avoid interacting with affected residents.
“Why not the normal annexation process, is the question. There’s no emergency, there’s no reason other than avoiding us and interacting with us,” he said.
During Canfield City Council's meeting, the city's law director Mark Fortunato explained that type 1 annexation obligates the land owner to the process of trying to get the land annexed entirely into the city. Type 2 annexation is faster, and under those terms, the city and township share the land. The township would have collected the property taxes on the improved land while the city received income taxes. The city would control the property’s zoning and provide police and road department services, among others.
Vecchione said residents have concerns about safety, the developer's track record in other communities and the inconsistency in On Mark's statements about the number of homes to be built and their prospective values.
“The intent initially was maybe nine to 11 homes. Now, at a recent meeting, he’s discussing 17 homes,” Vecchione said. “So it keeps changing, and we want to understand, really, what the intent is before we actually get it.”
He said the proposed value of the homes raises other questions.
“There’s no home in our community that’s currently worth a million dollars, and that’s a red flag right there. Typically, you don’t find someone wanting to build million-dollar homes in neighborhoods that don’t have million-dollar homes,” he said. “So that was just a red flag. It sounds like an empty promise.”
Vecchione said the other end of the price scale is a problem, too.
“And when you go down to that $500,000 level, now you’re talking about, really, homes in our community that are worth more than that. So I’m not sure that that would benefit the overall neighborhood,” he said.
Canfield City Council President Christine Oliver said she shares those concerns, and that is why she and Councilman David Schialdone voted against the annexation.
"He first says nine new homes, then it was 15 to 17, and he wasn't clear about the values," she said of On Mark's representative at the meeting, Attorney George P. Millich Jr. "He kept saying 'hopefully' between $500,000 and $1 million, and I told them these people don't want to hear 'hopefully'; they want clear answers."
Oliver said the city still doesn't know if the land is viable for development.
"We don't know if there are wetlands back there, and if there are, then he can't build on it anyway," she said. "I just didn't feel comfortable with the information we had and I sided with our residents."