Preliminary work on an $8 million renovation of the Denison Golf Club course in Granville could begin as soon as October after the Granville Township trustees voted unanimously to approve the project.
The trustees’ approval was necessary because of a conservation easement on the course on 149.4 acres in the heart of the village. That easement was granted to previous owner, the late Bob Kent, in exchange for $2 million from the Granville Township Open Space Program, which seeks to retain scenic vistas and maintain the rural character by preserving open spaces.
An overarching community goal at the time that easement and another with the village were signed in 2014 was to ensure that the land would not become a housing development. The same concern inspired the Open Space agreement in 2003 that kept the Bryn Du Mansion front yard from becoming a housing development. The mansion, the golf course and the Granville Inn were all once owned by the same person, and Denison now owns both the golf course and inn.
Denison hired the Hanse Golf Course Design firm of Malvern, Pennsylvania, to lead the grant-funded project, which is the first phase of what could be a two- or three-phase project. Famed golf-course architect Donald Ross designed the Granville Golf Course in 1924.
The trustees had twice delayed a vote on the project to allow time for Denison University officials to answer questions from both the trustees and area residents, particularly neighbors of the property. A vote scheduled for Sept. 9 was postponed until Sept. 23, when the trustees pushed back the vote until Sept. 30 – each time to address additional questions.
| Read more: Granville Township Trustees table vote on proposed golf course renovation
About 30 people attended the Sept. 30 meeting. Before the vote by trustees Rob Schaadt, Leonard Hubert and Bill Hoekstra, the trio heard from several neighbors of the golf course who raised questions about the plan to cut 362 trees from among thousands on and around the golf course.
Tracee Laing, who lives on Granger Street near hole four at the northern tip of the golf course, along Clear Run near Welsh Hills Road, shared a map showing property lines in comparison with drawings for the golf-course renovation. She said they seemed to show that Denison was planning to cut trees on an adjacent property.
Mary Tuominen, who also lives on Granger Street, asked about the definition of “thinning” trees along certain parts of the golf-course perimeter and whether the university planned to cut some perimeter trees, as suggested in renovation plans, or preserve those trees, as she indicated had been stated by Denison officials in presentations of the plans.
And Marilyn Messick asked for more details on the proposed excavation of a hill between holes 16 and 17, as well as a reconfiguration of those holes. She lives next to hole 16 and is eager to know how the work will affect her property.
| Read more: Plans for an $8 million restoration of the Denison golf course call for more open space, fewer trees
After the meeting, Jake Preston, Denison’s director of physical plant and capital projects, said he would get more information for Messick. He also said the “thinning” of perimeter trees primarily involves pruning them to allow more sunlight on the course to improve turf health. And he said the university will make sure it follows land surveys of the property, and that it will err on the side of not cutting a tree if there is any doubt about whose property it sits on.
He said tree work will begin in the coming weeks – during the fall and winter months, which comes after the nesting period for the endangered Indiana brown bat.
Following up on an earlier commitment by Denison President Adam Weinberg to “tree neutrality” and to ensure that trees being removed are replaced somewhere in the village, Denison Chief Financial Officer David English said after the meeting that the university gave the village $20,000 for the village tree commission to spend on planting trees in the village.
During the meeting, trustee Hubert read a letter from Thomas Miller, a Granville resident, who offered his “strong support for Denison University’s proposal to improve the Granville Golf Course. Denison’s proposed investment reflects a deep commitment to our community’s future.”
Miller, who wrote that he could not attend the meeting, said that “preserving this green space while allowing Denison to enhance it into a world-class facility aligns directly with the spirit of the Open Space Levy, which is to sustainably preserve land long-term.”
He wrote that open-space protection “should encourage responsible stewardship and sustainable investment, not restrict proper land management – much like we would support a local farmer appropriately maintaining agricultural land.”
And on that point, shortly before they voted, each trustee gave a brief statement, and Hoekstra said that his vote in favor of the proposal came down to the definition of “maintenance,” which he said he studied closely.
“I’m making my decision based on the definition of the word maintenance, and I do feel they have a right” to proceed,” he said.
He and Hubert thanked all who offered their thoughts about the project – in official meetings and in brief conversations on the street. Hubert said Denison officials did all that the trustees asked of them, from answering questions to holding an informational meeting with residents and offering guided tours of the golf course.
And Schaadt referred to the easement language about the purpose of the easement. That language says, “The purpose of this easement is to assure that the property will be retained and held forever in its natural, scenic, and open condition and to prevent any modification or encroachment resulting from occupation, development or other use of the property that will impair or interfere with the preservation of the property in that condition.”
And he said he believes the project will help the owners maintain that scenic and open condition.
The agreement gives the trustees, the “grantees” of the easement, latitude in making such decisions and cautions against “unreasonably” withholding consent for maintenance of the property:
“Except as otherwise provided herein, no filling, excavating, or removal of topsoil, sand, gravel, rock, minerals, oil and gas, or other materials shall be permitted on the property, nor shall there be any building of roads or changes in topography of the land in any manner, except with the permission of the grantee, which permission shall not be unreasonably withheld, provided that, in the grantee’s opinion, the proposed modification shall continue to be consistent with the uses authorized by (state law governing such easements).”
Alan Miller writes for TheReportingProject.org, the nonprofit news organization of Denison University’s Journalism program, which is supported by generous donations from readers. Sign up for The Reporting Project newsletter here.