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

Judge rules for developer in wetland case

By Steve Bennish, Staff Writer 4:42 PM Thursday, April 9, 2009

A Dayton municipal judge has ruled against the Ohio attorney general in the high profile case of a developer accused criminally of bulldozing an exceptionally high-quality wetland surrounded by woods along Harshman Road for a commercial strip in 2006.

Under Ohio law, developers need special permits to do work that affects natural water resources, including wetlands. The Ohio EPA had issued no such permit.

The wetland was along Harshman near the intersection with Brandt Pike, across the street from Meijer. It was the breeding ground for a large population of salamanders, one of a few such areas left in the region, experts said.

Said the attorney general in light of the decision: “We are disappointed and respectfully disagree with the decision. The reckless or intentional destruction of wetlands is a crime that will continue to be of great concern to the Ohio EPA and the Attorney General’s office. This outcome will not deter us from aggressively pursuing similar cases in the future.”

Share this article

ADD COMMENT

Comments feed

The reason that the land was left for the last three years was because of the initial order to "restore" the land as it was. And, the "developer" decided to tie it up in court in the hopes that the whole issue would blow over. The developer prefers to make money at the expense of nature. But, the economy may not allow for yet another shopping area or a strip mall will vacancies.

tds
5:06 PM, 4/10/2009

REPORT ABUSE

The "developer" cut down the trees on a Sunday. They knew that there would be flak about destroying greenspace. If the "developers" wanted land, they should have looked across the street at the old Meijer's, which is for sale. People that use lies in order to destroy a natural habitat should be put in hell.

tds
4:25 PM, 4/10/2009

REPORT ABUSE

Who was the Judge? Why was that left out of the story? Aren't they elected public officials?

Daniel Kennedy
12:28 AM, 4/10/2009

REPORT ABUSE

If they had a purpose for cutting down the wetlands that would be one thing - but that mass of land has sat untouched for three years.

Thomas
11:36 PM, 4/9/2009

REPORT ABUSE

Also, I agree with Barry's comment that a property owner should be able to use their land as they wish, BUT, only if it doesn't have an effect on anyone else. For example, I cannot keep hundreds of leaky barrels of toxic waste stored on my suburban residential property here in Beavercreek... There needs to be common sense limits to what a land owner can do. Bulldozing established wetlands doesn't seem like a smart idea either.

Chris
11:02 PM, 4/9/2009

REPORT ABUSE

There are 10 additional comments

SHOW ALL

We welcome your comments. Please remember this is a public forum and behave appropriately. Your comments must conform to our visitor's agreement.