The Adobe Flash Player is required to view this multimedia interactive. Get it here.

Beavercreek BOE says restrictions may impede elementary construction

Ted Pitts

Santorum to visit Warren County
2/12/12
Benefit dinner held for girl  who died in car accident
2/12/12
Suburbs looking for ways to save, focus on regional issues
2/12/12
Victim of human trafficking speaks to students
2/12/12
Bullying law brings rule changes
2/12/12
> More headlines

By Christopher Magan, Staff Writer Updated 3:24 PM Wednesday, November 25, 2009

BEAVERCREEK — Beavercreek Schools must decide if the district can live with the restrictions of building in a planned community or abandon land donated for an elementary school.

“It’s very difficult to put a school in a planned community,” said Richard Eckhardt, board president.

Stonehill Village is a sprawling 1,200-acre planned community envisioned by Robert Nutter. He set aside a plot for an elementary school that he wants to blend in with the rest of the construction, currently under way with about 150 homes already built.

But school officials believe the covenants and design oversight by the homeowners association that ensures uniformity of the development could keep them from modifying their property in the future. The design review board would have approval power over the color, materials, style and landscaping of the project, according to the purchase contract.

“A board can’t live with that,” Eckhardt said. “It gives a private entity control over what a board wants to do.”

The district continues to negotiate for a 50-acre parcel along Dayton-Xenia and Ankeney roads, but Eckhardt worries the board may have to abandon that site too, which is adjacent to the community, possibly delaying the construction schedule even more.

Nutter and his attorney, Tom O’Diam, said the district is making too big an issue of the review board and covenants — especially since they haven’t been written completely. They said district officials have been aware of the restrictions all along, but didn’t start voicing concerns until late summer.

“We haven’t tied anyone’s hands to anything,” O’Diam said, adding they were willing to negotiate but have heard little from the district.

Eckhardt agreed the board knew there were strings attached to the property. “We knew some covenants were coming,” he said. “We were surprised when we got those covenants and they were more extensive than I had imagined.”

Residents of housing developments often agree to abide by covenants, which are rules or regulations that govern the properties in that development. The school district is concerned that a group of private citizens may have more control over the school than school officials.

The board will decide next month if it can work within the Stonehill Village restrictions or look at another site.

The district owns a nearly 100-acre parcel, at Indian Ripple and Alpha-Bellbrook roads, that it purchased in 2007 as a possible school site.

Current board members want to decide before the end of the year, in part, because the makeup of the board is changing.

Newly elected Kim Grant and Robert Dotson will join the board in January. Each received $750 from the Nutters in campaign funding — Dotson raised a total of $1,691 and Grant $2,125, according to pre-election campaign finance reports filed in October with the Greene County Board of Elections.

Grant and Dotson said the donations would not influence their votes and they hope the property negotiations are resolved before they take office.

Nutter said his support of Dotson and Grant had nothing to do with the property negotiations, but rather his disappointment that the current board members did not reinstate former superintendent Dennis Morrison.

School officials campaigned hard for more than a year to be able to build the new schools to ease overcrowding. The district’s facilities are already more than 1,000 students over capacity. Voters turned down two requests before approving a smaller issue in November 2008.

The district continues to use part of the $84 million bond issue to update aging buildings.

School officials had hoped to begin construction in September, but say if the dispute is settled soon, construction could still begin in time to open the new elementary for the 2012-13 school year.

“I think progress is being made. Still, it’s not a deal until everyone signs,” Eckhardt said.

Contact this reporter at (937)  225-2342 or cmagan@DaytonDaily News.com.

Share this article