[0:00] Should we say

[0:05] I woke up

[0:28] » 7 o'lock? If everybody's ready, I'm going to do

[0:31] ahead and call this meeting to order.

[0:36] Silence yourself. We are working on our live streaming

[0:41] here. >> You go for it.

[0:44] » I know it's there's just um we always begin our meeting with pledge

[0:48] allegiance. Please join us.

[0:53] » There we go. I aliance to the flag of the United

[0:58] States of America and to the republic for it stands one nation under God

[1:04] indivisible with liberty and justice for all

[1:13] » here. Darcy Ke. >> Angela Brown.

[1:17] » Jasper Dis >> here.

[1:20] » Shields here. Ray Armstrong >> here. Keith Gosha,

[1:25] Evan Mine >> here.

[1:28] » Thank you. All right. Um I am not going to read the

[1:33] adopted policy because I believe the audience are both applicants tonight.

[1:38] Correct. >> Okay.

[1:40] » So we will dispense with that. Lisa, can

[1:43] you move to verify that this meeting is advertised?

[1:46] » Um yes, on August 26 on the township website and August 28th on the township

[1:51] Facebook page.

[1:55] All right, we have meeting minutes from our previous meeting back on August

[2:00] 25th. I would like to accept a motion to approve those meetings, please.

[2:05] » Motion to approve BCC minutes from August 25th, 2026. Second,

[2:12] » Mr. Christopher. >> Yes.

[2:14] » Miss Shields. >> Yes.

[2:16] » Um, let's see. Mr. Matheni, >> yes.

[2:20] » Mr. Mr. Arshaw. >> Yes.

[2:22] » Miss Caval. >> Yes.

[2:26] » So this evening we do have a hearing for ACC

[2:31] 18-002 amendment number three 66 Hyatts Road.

[2:36] This is a request for approval of modifications to the Heights Plaz

[2:40] development plan for parcel 418330 01079002.

[2:47] Um to relocate the proposed monument sign along pre and permitted.

[2:54] So our applicants are sure

[2:59] Jacob, do you they've already have your summary?

[3:03] » Okay, cool. >> Hi, I'm Connie Kle and I represent the

[3:08] applicant or the owner of the property. Um, this particular building is

[3:12] construction constructed. You probably see it when you drive by. Um and um what

[3:18] happened is is we have um some some information well we have a lot of things

[3:23] going on in this site as far as uh landscaping which has all been done

[3:28] in in accordance with your code. everything in the site plan as approved,

[3:32] originally approved. We're we're keeping that, but for signage um in our sign

[3:37] board area, uh we need people to see it obviously. And uh the location that was

[3:43] approved with your original plan, as we started construction and did things, we

[3:48] realized that there was a gas line easement in that particular location,

[3:52] which would not permit a sign to be there. So, I'm going to hand out so that

[3:57] I can tell my story a little better. I'm going to hand out to you several things

[4:02] that I'd like to go through with you. And I have them in order.

[4:06] What you'll see on the very first page is the actual sign, which is the height

[4:13] and um area of the signage. And that has been approved in the original location.

[4:23] Um that particular sign we'd like to keep it. Um very importantly I'd like

[4:29] you to notice that the area that's being used for the sign board itself uh we

[4:34] have numerous tenants and obviously um we have no access of 23 to this site

[4:41] only from Hyatt Road. the people going north and south on 23, the only way

[4:46] they're going to know about this is if they see this sign and know then that

[4:50] they're going to have to turn. So, this signage itself is very important. If you

[4:55] go to the next page, I have a circle um in yellow, I believe. I believe in

[5:01] yellow. >> Yes.

[5:02] » Okay. Yeah. Um where where we are proposing the sign to be, which you

[5:08] probably saw in your packet. Now, what's what's interesting is this sign being 15

[5:15] foot from the ride of way. The original sign was in accordance with the code 27

[5:19] ft. A little more to the left of where it is. And that is where the gas line

[5:24] ement. On the next page, you'll see the gas line easement. It's highlighted in

[5:29] yellow. And you'll see in red the approved or yeah, the approved signage.

[5:36] You'll see a bit to the right of it the proposed location and then circled in

[5:42] red to the left is a location that could could be um will be in accordance with

[5:49] your current code. Let me explain this. This this circled area. We literally

[5:55] could go farther to the south on 123 27 feet um and stay in accordance with the

[6:03] code 27 foot set back with the same sign, same height, everything. But that

[6:08] is we thought around 7. It's about 5 1/2 6 ft lower than our approved sign area.

[6:14] It's also where the drainage area is and and the topo begins to go down. So it's

[6:20] not very good for the signage because it's low and it's difficult to see. So

[6:26] that is a difficulty right there. That's a practical difficulty to to abide by

[6:31] the code there. And obviously you can't in the gas line. Now where we would like

[6:36] it as we show is 15t from the ride ofway, but we don't want to have to

[6:40] reduce the signboard area because of the size for people to see it, know what the

[6:46] tenants are, etc. And we don't want to decrease the base which was approved

[6:50] architecturally uh to be attractive. Now a very interesting thing on

[6:55] [clears throat] the next page

[6:59] actually not the next page go on to the next page touch that

[7:03] I think this is very interesting. Um the ride your signage

[7:09] uh code is is basically from the edge of the ride of way. What I've done is taken

[7:15] an aerial photo here of the 23 ride ofway. On the left is the subject

[7:20] property. On the right is the gas station. In red, I have highlighted the

[7:25] edge of the ride ofway on the 23. On the east side rightway, you'll see it is

[7:32] along the edge of the road, the improved road. On our side, the ride ofway is set

[7:38] back many feet from the actual road. So when we are asking for 15 ft from the

[7:45] ride ofway unlike the gas station which has a sign very [clears throat] close to

[7:51] the actual ride ofway road the actual road our sign will be in

[7:57] addition to the 15 ft all the distance that's exists in that rideway before you

[8:03] get to the pavement. So we have a much larger gap between the actual road and

[8:09] where our sign will be. The next page is an actual photo showing you the large

[8:15] green space that's in between US 23 and our site. It's quite a distance back.

[8:23] There's also it's at an angle 23. If you look at the right of way, 23 as it goes

[8:28] down creates more of a triangular size between our property, our actual

[8:33] property which goes directly south and this area here. So there's a large area

[8:39] of green space and drainage area. You go to the next page, you'll see the

[8:45] actual sign that's on 23 at the gas station, which is very close to the to

[8:52] the um actual 23 and actually much higher than this sign that we're

[8:57] proposing. Now,

[9:02] I understand um and I read the report, which I thought was very well done. Um I

[9:08] understand what sign codes are about not having a lot of signage basically

[9:14] polluting the roadway, about not having things be in the way. But this sign will

[9:20] obviously be very far from the actual roadway. This sign will be in in

[9:27] accordance with what was originally approved and it will accommodate the

[9:32] people there in the center and you'll be able to see and not be going, "Oh my

[9:37] gosh, I have no idea who's there." We drive by and it's very difficult to run

[9:42] a retail center without people knowing who and where you are. Um, in addition,

[9:48] I'm going to provide to you another exhibit

[9:52] that Mr. has provided me tonight, which um shows you the landscaping that was

[9:59] approved for this site that has been planted. Now, keep in mind that this

[10:04] landscaping, well, it was approved, it's this.

[10:10] So you'll see a as it matures it's going to get much bigger and it probably a lot

[10:17] of the building will not be able to be seen given the level of 23 and uh the

[10:22] landscape that will be shooting up next to the building. So signage becomes even

[10:29] more important as time goes by this site so that as I'm driving north or south on

[10:36] 23 I don't have to search for the sign. it's easily seen and I can locate what

[10:42] where what is there and actually know what's going on without stopping or

[10:46] looking or whatever.

[10:50] Obviously, we would prefer not to have to get this deviation, but the the gas

[10:55] line required it. Uh moving farther south puts us in a hole, and we think

[11:01] this is the best location to to address that.

[11:06] Sure.

[11:12] Any questions? >> So on this picture, the your proposal is

[11:17] basically saying this far right side is >> Yeah.

[11:20] » closer to where that one um

[11:26] put it here.

[11:32] » Yeah. Okay. Show me what you just asked me.

[11:35] » I was just Yeah. I was saying looking at the front of the building. I was trying

[11:37] to It looks like from your proposed location it's close.

[11:40] » It's going to be like around in this area right here.

[11:52] » I have a couple questions. >> Sure.

[11:54] » So, I I see the original space and that that's on the gas um so that won't work.

[12:00] And then your proposed location. I see what you're saying about the rightway

[12:05] line on the east side is much closer to the road than one on the west side. It's

[12:11] farther away. How many feet difference? >> Actually, I tried to figure it out out

[12:15] of the augur's map, but it's over an acre of land that's in the right way.

[12:20] » Wow. >> Yeah. So, that I I that that doesn't

[12:23] give you the width, but the view, >> right? Um and I know you said then the

[12:28] other space if you moved it south, >> the topography is dropping. So it

[12:32] wouldn't be as visible. Any possibility of changing the base to rise it up or

[12:37] does that then >> exceed the height?

[12:39] » That would exceed the height then. >> So we would like to keep the height.

[12:43] We're fine with the height as it was originally proved but just sliding it.

[12:51] » Yeah. Yeah. I mean, my concern is once you get a deviation for something like

[12:55] this, it's everybody's going to want it closer to

[12:59] » Well, I I think I don't I think obviously we would have we have to say

[13:03] why and gas line eastment, >> right?

[13:06] » We have landscaping and we have to literally that as you go south it goes

[13:10] to a flood plane. That's where all the drainage goes. And uh and we have a

[13:15] specific situation here that's not always we have a widening as it goes

[13:18] south between the actual building. So I think there's a lot of facts that

[13:23] could be used to say this was created for these particular facts.

[13:28] » Anybody else? >> So in the original location it looks

[13:32] like it was kind of angled to go along like you said how kind of

[13:37] » triangle triangles down. Is it possible to put it in the same location it was

[13:43] but just outside of the gas line and angled in that direction?

[13:47] » That's sort of what we're doing now with the width accommodating the width and

[13:50] everything. Is that what you're saying? >> Um I guess just like cuz here it looks

[13:56] like it's almost uh perpendicular to the building like here's the building and

[14:02] this is this way. Yeah, we can we can make it angle more. Yeah,

[14:05] » because I was thinking if if people are coming along the road, they're they're

[14:09] » we'll just say that drawing. Okay, we'll make we'll probably make it

[14:13] perpendicular to the ride of way. >> But then I just didn't know

[14:18] if you move this sign just outside of the gas line, then you're still further

[14:22] away from the right of way. >> I think John can speak to that. why it

[14:27] » why it wanted to be tucked so much further north.

[14:31] » She's saying >> I'm John project.

[14:35] » She's saying why not slide it >> just slide it outside of the

[14:38] » the you could the grade starts to go down

[14:43] there. >> Okay. So if this elevation

[14:48] » it's just with grade >> when you start going down you lose that

[14:53] reader board. >> I think that we have that elevation

[14:55] which I skipped. It's helpful

[14:59] to the north. >> There you have the elevations where we

[15:04] got it is 917. You'll see those little dotted lines

[15:10] and and if you go to the actual elevation where it had been before it

[15:16] would be 95

[15:26] push it straight up

[15:31] here [snorts] to the location you had to

[15:39] So you could do this [snorts]

[15:44] shift 18 in high.

[15:56] So on here, where was the proposed like if if you

[16:01] could guess where was it before?

[16:15] just had the pizza on Friday night, so I'm very familiar with them. [laughter]

[16:23] » Okay.

[16:30] [snorts]

[16:34] Any thoughts, questions? >> No,

[16:39] I am not. It's a great thing of uh

[16:45] having the same size at 15t.

[16:50] I don't I don't like that proposal. Um in order to get the size that you want,

[16:59] yes, it's going to have to be moved in my opinion. Um,

[17:04] I would rather be able to see a a larger base, but with the size of that still be

[17:10] the 27T back. We've got a lot of roads in this township.

[17:15] They're not anywhere near the center line right away. So, that's nothing

[17:20] unusual or out of the ordinary anywhere. So that's just

[17:28] the Rhode Island one is some 7 ft out the center. So

[17:34] that's counting rooms. Nothing unusual there. I would like to

[17:39] see them uh do either do something with the base and still have it that 27 ft to

[17:46] have that size or

[17:51] or if it's still going to be 15 ft back from

[17:56] reduce the size of the side both sides. I'd like to show you this.

[18:17] And I I understand what you're saying about the right away and um and I think

[18:21] about uh something that we've dealt with with right away and the expansion of the

[18:27] road, you know, in the future is that that could be room for, you know, while

[18:32] they may only have the rightway on that side and very little road space, but

[18:37] they could have already expanded at that point where they could be expanding. And

[18:42] so if they do that road that right away, that road could come up right up to that

[18:48] line, you know, at some point in the future. So then you're right on top of

[18:52] you're 15 ft away from that sign as well. So I I do understand what you're

[18:58] saying about the how much space is it feels like so much space,

[19:02] » but in personal experience

[19:06] when you think you have a lot of space with right away, you don't sometimes.

[19:11] That's it's it's [snorts]

[19:16] thoughts here.

[19:21] » Yeah, I'll just add a couple. >> Yeah, I was just going to ask. Great.

[19:27] So, you're saying moving it farther, making the base

[19:31] larger, even if that then makes the overall sign taller than

[19:38] » it does. I would, you know, for the size >> cuz I realized what what they want. I

[19:43] mean, >> John and I worked on this like how many

[19:46] years ago? >> Too many.

[19:50] [clears throat] >> Yeah, I agree. I was inspected then. But

[19:55] anyway, the I understand that they want the size of

[20:00] the sign to stay the same for visibility.

[20:04] You know, if it's if it's not a red light, you're not going to see it and be

[20:08] able to read it at 55 miles an hour going past it either direction. You

[20:12] know, you're going to have to be had a light or taking off or slowing down in

[20:17] order to read it. I can understand it with the size,

[20:21] but I don't want 15 ft. I would rather see it at 27. And that's

[20:29] » that's down in the grade that you're saying. Well, it there there is a grade

[20:34] going down there, but uh I can see an adjustment to the base in order to keep

[20:42] that size.

[20:45] Are you saying I asked are you saying okay if it's dropped 5 and 1 half six

[20:50] feet from where we have it stays 27 ft back but we add that 5 and 1/2 six feet

[20:57] to the height >> to the base

[20:59] » to the base. So then that size of the sign the sign board itself is still the

[21:04] same size but the base is increased in its in its depth.

[21:08] » Yeah. I don't know what that measurement is. That's that's a giant question.

[21:11] » Actually the base itself right now is 45 in. So it would be increased by about 5T

[21:17] or 5T. >> Is it that steep at that point?

[21:21] » Yes. >> Yeah.

[21:24] It's pretty awkward too. So the proposed location approved

[21:30] was 915.5 grade and at the new location at 27 ft

[21:37] it's 910.

[21:44] What what is that distance in relation to

[21:50] the road or the

[21:55] » in other words it may have been up on a hill so to speak and now it won't be. So

[22:00] what's the difference? Okay >> 5 and 1/2 ft

[22:04] » uh difference from the original what is the what's the elevation of the road

[22:11] service? I don't know.

[22:13] » I think we need to find that out because in other words,

[22:16] » well, but >> if it's uh if if it's the same height,

[22:20] for example, then we don't need to base. >> The issue is from people traveling

[22:26] southbound because they're at an elevation that's higher. As that sign

[22:31] sinks, they lose the bottom half of the board. Southbound coming northbound is

[22:37] not a problem. You'll see it. So, what we need really is the elevation of the

[22:42] road. If it's 9:15 uh at the location of the sign,

[22:49] » it looks like on this >> the new location. What What's that in

[22:52] relation to the road? >> That's

[22:54] » I don't know. >> I mean, if it was the same at 9:15,

[23:00] » the toos the topo lines on the show >> are going are going down for the road

[23:06] here. So, that's those are the to lines. using

[23:11] here. >> We don't have

[23:14] right >> down here.

[23:16] » And the rightway is 912 here. That would be at the um 27 ft back if we

[23:24] pushed it to the south

[23:31] kind of parallel. So >> yeah, because that's the right

[23:35] » I'd say the road elevation out here.

[23:41] The road the road itself

[23:46] pretty much matches the the graves that are there.

[23:50] » Oh, John, excuse me. Can I get your address, please? You're a visit.

[23:54] » 49 East 3rd Avenue, Columbus, Ohio. And

[23:59] » are you in the firm or is it just your name?

[24:01] » Archaw Architects. Yep. Thank you.

[24:08] Well, that makes it pretty

[24:12] » tricky. >> It is. That That is tricky.

[24:15] » But I see what you're saying. If you're coming if you're higher up and you're

[24:18] coming southbound and you lose if it's sitting lower,

[24:23] you're losing that bottom half. So, I I understand what you're saying.

[24:27] » And you're there's a lot going on there. You're moving pretty quick. Lights.

[24:34] » Feel the difference.

[24:48] Yeah, I myself can't really countenance putting

[24:54] that size sign 15 ft off the rightway. And you know, I'm conflicted because I

[25:00] realize that right away is, you know, pretty far west.

[25:06] But, um, I guess I have to fall back on. I think those rules regarding sign sizes

[25:12] have good reasons and I'm very hesitant to, you know, to make that change.

[25:19] That's my own. So, I'd like to find a way

[25:23] to keep your sign size. Yeah. I mean, I I don't know if it I mean, can the base

[25:30] be that tall? >> Well, an option could be

[25:36] » because two, you're >> maybe this

[25:38] » you're pushing the the if you're pushing the sign to the end, how close is it to

[25:43] the traffic light as well as you're coming southbound?

[25:46] » Yeah, it's better to stay away from that if we can. Normally, you just put the

[25:51] sign in the middle of the site. The further south you go, the closer it is

[25:55] to decision making. But if we left the sign

[26:00] where it's approved, but pushed it out of the gas easement,

[26:06] if we could eliminate the base and lowered it to 10 ft.

[26:14] It's not as high, but I still have the reader board to display all the

[26:19] antennas. Yeah, it' be a lesser deviation. Instead

[26:23] of going to 14, it'd be approximately 10.

[26:28] » Or if it was if it's there's a grade there, can you put the base into the

[26:34] grade? Like start the base in the grade. >> You can have a little base,

[26:38] » you know, >> a foot or something where it slopes

[26:43] » like like a rot almost like you do a rotating wall. Sure. So you can take the

[26:47] side height down from the top of that grade if you want.

[26:50] » The important thing is to keep the sideboard size

[26:54] and if the base is 48 in now and we decrease it uh so that instead of 14 ft

[27:02] high we have a sign of about you know 10 or 11 10

[27:07] » 10 10 11 ft >> because obviously something has to

[27:11] change >> so what's the best? So, what would you

[27:15] be safe? >> I I think I don't like moving it to the

[27:19] south because it's too close to the intersection. It should be center that

[27:23] lot where you make your decisions quicker. So, I I think our precipice

[27:28] would be if we could push it out but lower and eliminate the base

[27:35] extra area so you can see it. That would that would make it work for

[27:42] this site. that seems appropriate based on the conditions we got.

[27:48] » I feel better about, you know, really just saying we have to move it x number

[27:53] of feet outside of the gas. Keep the same place and reduce the size of the

[27:59] base

[28:07] [snorts] 17. We just lower the base.

[28:14] » So, it's >> 2T

[28:16] » 10 ft instead of 14. >> I mean, you need some base obviously

[28:22] just >> and it's a pretty base. I like your

[28:25] base. [laughter]

[28:30] » There you go. But I do think that the square footage needs to sit

[28:37] » almost in part because I mean if it gets much smaller at that speed,

[28:44] » you might as well not have it. >> You're not going to see eight tenants.

[28:46] » Yeah. >> So I mean you need the square footage. I

[28:50] think if you could come on the height a little bit and come off the gas. I think

[28:54] it gets into a what is it? Compromise. Nobody's happy

[28:59] but >> So then it would basically be

[29:05] 84 in off of the gas line gasing. Correct.

[29:12] Um, >> whatever your face is, the width of your

[29:17] face, >> the the width or the the width of the

[29:20] actual sign is um if we took it outside of the the 76 in wide

[29:27] » and then if we took off 3 ft [snorts] or so off the base,

[29:31] » yeah, we >> we would then have we would have 11 ft

[29:35] side or >> uh 10 to 11 11 to 11 ft.

[29:41] high low,

[29:45] » right? But I'm saying because you're still going to have to ask for

[29:49] » Yeah. >> It's still not 27 ft.

[29:52] » Exactly. >> You know, so it would it would be

[29:54] whatever is again, your base is 84 in wide.

[29:59] » So 84 in off of >> gas. It's probably going to be about 16

[30:05] ft back instead of 15 because as that goes on the angle, we'll be able to push

[30:10] closer to the gas line, but we'll still have

[30:14] a variance of 27 ft.

[30:18] [snorts] >> Not only that, but the foundation and

[30:20] everything has to be able to spread underneath it. You can't

[30:24] for sure, >> right?

[30:31] Jacob Jeff.

[30:38] So it looks like based on the table in article 25 every foot we move back from

[30:43] 15 ft. You're allowed an extra half foot height and an extra four square foot

[30:49] side area for side. [snorts and clears throat] So

[30:52] it would be eight for both sides. So I think as you mentioned no matter what if

[30:57] you're moving it closer than 27 ft there's going to be a variance a

[31:00] divergence involved there. Um I did a rough measurement on the other website

[31:07] during a question about the ride of weight. Um it looks like it's about 30

[31:10] ft like to see some official before put any weight to that. That's what the

[31:16] measurement on the area says. Um the requirements of 15 ft. Um you allow

[31:26] the backs 8 ft in height and 32 square foot in the sign area and obvious that's

[31:29] a big difference from 14 ft in height and 128 square feet area.

[31:34] Um in the report I mentioned kind of some

[31:38] of the criteria for approval. If you have any questions on that feel free to

[31:42] let me know. Um regarding criteria F the proposed development will be compatible

[31:47] parents with the remainder of the district. In that I kind of include a

[31:50] table of other signs around the kind of around the area. Um

[31:56] I didn't include the pool sign mentioned for the gas station because I took the

[31:59] final approval for it. That's not to say it wasn't it might have been built

[32:03] before there was only

[32:08] [laughter]

[32:12] » we don't like to keep making the same mistake.

[32:17] So,

[32:20] » but yeah, so touch on some additional topics.

[32:23] » So, I'll ask to me there's a big difference between

[32:29] keeping the originally approved sign height and dimensions and having it 15

[32:36] ft off the rightway than there is saying keep the sign but absolutely got to move

[32:42] it outside of the gas easement. It's like a three-year-old. and let its

[32:46] toe touch the bearing head. But [snorts] to me, that's a big difference is um you

[32:54] know a divergence 15 ft from the right of way versus yeah, we got to move it

[32:58] out gas line. It's just me. I mean that seems reasonable. I mean

[33:05] really all that you proposed seemed reasonable but

[33:10] still

[33:13] » and I think we're we're fine with saying it it comes out of the gas line ement

[33:19] closer to the ride ofway and we could say whatever width it requires as close

[33:24] as we can get to the gas line ement including the base and and in lowering

[33:29] it I mean taking three feet or something off the base so

[33:34] is that now we have 10 three or four feet cuz I think the base is

[33:40] » even in the base.

[33:45] » We took 3 ft off where we would be at 11 ft height instead of 14.

[33:51] [sighs] >> So in terms of of options obviously the

[33:56] commission can continue to deliberate as long as you like. Um, obviously you can,

[34:00] if you feel that you're not done and you have more questions, you can continue

[34:03] the hearing. Um, I don't know that that's where you folks are tonight. If

[34:08] you want to make a decision, the board for the commission has three options.

[34:13] You can move to recommend approval of the application basically as is to the

[34:19] um to the trustees. You can move to recommend approval with modifications.

[34:26] The modifications could be again of location, the size, some of the things

[34:31] that you've been talking about. Or the third option is you can move to deny. We

[34:36] recommend denial. Um, but so I I I think I'm hearing a bit of um I think maybe

[34:44] you're struggling or not struggling, you're debating whether or not to ask

[34:49] for some type of modification. Um, and if that is the case, it would be a

[34:55] matter of just making sure that those modifications are sufficiently

[34:59] documented. Um, and then I would perhaps put to the

[35:04] applicant when you go in front of the trustees, it may be a good idea to have

[35:09] updated material so that it clearly shows. Um, but

[35:15] I think that's that's all I have to say. You folks have any questions and I do

[35:18] have draft motions if and when folks are already

[35:28] like the modification just letting it out of the gas and lowering it to keep

[35:33] it the same. Like I said, it's not unreasonable to not put something in a

[35:38] gas season. [clears throat] >> How many store fronts do you have?

[35:42] » How many store fronts do you have in there?

[35:44] » 12. We think some of the tenants may take

[35:49] two spaces. So that's why we have three reader boards. So we att

[36:05] » Can I clarify what what you mean by that? So when you say moved out of gas,

[36:09] are you talking this existing proposed location? Just move it just enough so

[36:13] it's outside of the gap

[36:17] » east. Um yeah, >> that's attachment floor that I'm

[36:24] » so approved location sliding it outside the gas. How much did

[36:30] it intrude to the gas ement as you proceeded with this? Did you have

[36:37] » the whole side in the gas? >> Pretty much. Yeah. So nice.

[36:43] » It was a difficult site before that.

[36:50] » It was difficult just houses in that because of the gas heat and it wasn't

[36:57] building in gas.

[37:07] We we do it at the top >> in the east.

[37:12] » So, sounds like it's an approximate move of six feet to the west assuming you

[37:18] keep the same angle and position reducing the base so that the total sign

[37:25] height would be no more than >> 11.

[37:31] Move it to the east. >> So, I can do that. So reducing the total

[37:36] height I'm sorry reducing the base um so that way the total height of the sign is

[37:42] no more than 11 ft. Moving it to the east end and yes

[37:49] sliding it to the east.

[38:02] » That's fine with us. that

[38:06] more thoughts, concerns, questions. I mean, it's still deviation.

[38:12] Um, >> but

[38:17] I mean, >> it doesn't put you so far south, but it

[38:21] also stays at 15 ft.

[38:25] » Hate to give up that pretty base, but something's got to get you. Well, they

[38:29] still have >> still prec [laughter]

[38:37] I think you can live with that as far as recommending that.

[38:42] » All right. >> So, I may read a couple conditions just

[38:47] to make sure sounds right. Um the location of the sign it'll be subject to

[38:51] the following modifications. One, the location of the sign shall be as close

[38:56] to the gas ement as possible. i.e. move the location due east

[39:02] two reduce the height of the base of the sign so that the total height of the

[39:06] sign is no more than 11 ft. All right. Um do you want to include as

[39:13] a third condition that the applicant will submit updated material before the

[39:18] trustee >> hear? That's in your best interest.

[39:21] Yeah.

[39:25] » Should we also include in that the fact that the size of the solid remains to

[39:33] request so that not just the height but the square

[39:42] » remains the same. So that's not an ambiguous

[39:45] » or the width >> the width would be

[39:48] » 64 square foot per side. So if the just so I understand so if the

[39:55] square I'm sorry so we're reducing the height of the sign

[39:59] » but allowing the square footage of the sign to remain the same

[40:04] wider >> no just

[40:07] the sign

[40:10] it'll sit on a shorter bit >> okay I'll say the um

[40:15] » the main cabinet would that be the the however they label

[40:20] Top cabinet cabinet display

[40:24] » display area will still be 64 per side.

[40:32] » You said 64. >> Yes.

[40:35] » Okay.

[40:41] [snorts]

[40:50] » [snorts]

[41:23] [clears throat] [snorts]

[41:31] » Let me we change the two of the three. Um so to reduce the height of the base

[41:37] of the sign so that the total height of the sign is no more than 11 ft. The

[41:42] display area of the sign shall remain 64 ft per side

[41:48] and that the applicant shall submit updated materials to the zoning

[41:52] department reflecting these modifications prior to the board of

[41:55] trustee 64 square ft.

[42:08] And whoever is interested in reading motion, if you'd like me to if you'd

[42:12] like me to decide

[42:16] to have

[42:20] » it is a lovely thing for township to have an attorney available.

[42:23] » We love that. >> Yeah, I'm I'm many and then we have to

[42:27] wait and see. >> It's a new thing. We're still enjoying

[42:29] the novelty of it. I support it.

[42:33] » They [laughter] used to teach their grade.

[42:35] » Oh, you're good. There you go. >> All right. So, applicant, do you wish to

[42:39] proceed with the vote this evening? I'm understanding.

[42:41] » Yes, we do. >> All right. Perfect. All right. I make a

[42:44] motion for approval with modifications. Finding that the application meets

[42:48] criteria for approval set forth in section 17.08 [cough and clears throat]

[42:52] of the zoning resolution. I move to recommend approval of case 18-002

[42:58] [snorts] amendment three for modifications to the

[43:01] Hyatt Highest Plaza final development plan for parcel number 418 330

[43:09] 9002 to relocate the proposed monument sign

[43:14] along US 23 and diverge from the permitted sign height and display area

[43:19] restrictions set forth at article 25 with the following modifications.

[43:24] One, the location of the sign shall be as close to the gas ement as possible,

[43:28] i.e. move the location due east. Two, reduce the height of the base of the

[43:36] base of the

[43:41] that one. That's a

[43:47] » Oh, [snorts] of the sign. Okay, there's your G. So that the total height of the

[43:51] sign is no more than 11 ft. The display area of the sign shall remain Oh three.

[43:57] The display area of the sign shall remain 64 ft per square feet per side.

[44:03] The applicant shall Oh, was that part of two? Okay, so that was part of two.

[44:08] Three, the applicant shall submit updated materials to the zoning

[44:11] department that reflecting these modifications

[44:15] uh per prior to the board of trustees meeting.

[44:22] » You got me on that one. >> I'm so sorry.

[44:26] » Second,

[44:30] » Miss Shield. >> Yes.

[44:32] » Mr. Matheni, >> yes.

[44:34] » Uh Mr. Mr. Christopher. >> Yes.

[44:38] » Mr. Armstrong. >> Yes.

[44:40] » Miss Kappa. >> Yes.

[44:42] » Thank you very much. >> You are very welcome. Thank you for

[44:46] working with us on this. >> Do you want to um sign anything?

[44:56] » Let's not wait another 10 years to work on the next project.

[45:00] » I'll be too old. So [laughter] we'll talk about something else.

[45:05] » Yeah. Thank you. Bye. Take care.

[45:09] » Lisa, you had asked earlier today for some documentation.

[45:16] » Yeah. And and next we had it's like 400 pages or 420. So next time we do a

[45:23] resolution, we're just going to like make a reference to it being in the

[45:26] zoning office or something because we had to put So Julie helped print these

[45:30] out. Six of page, double spaced, and we'll put these in. It's a whole zoning

[45:35] resolution. >> So, that was going to be not fit in the

[45:38] book. So, next time we'll do it differently.

[45:53] [laughter] >> Okay. And you know, I could have I could

[45:57] have done conting some third graders. I could have done

[46:02] context clues and I'm like >> so it is Ray's birthday.

[46:07] » Happy birthday. >> Thank you.

[46:09] » Yeah. So, um do we have >> 75

[46:15] more to discuss about our possible amendments? I know there's a

[46:19] » I had something I wanted to present regarding that.

[46:23] » Um I did want to give an update. It was routed to the regional planning

[46:28] commission. and their meeting got moved up to the 17th. So, we will have

[46:32] recommendations back from then for our 27.

[46:36] » Um, we've still kind of been working on kind

[46:40] of with the county um on kind of the BIO VCO. So, I kind of wanted to present

[46:47] kind of an alternative option to what I proposed to the last. Um, so I'll go

[46:54] ahead and hand this out and we can kind of go through that. That should be

[46:56] short. Not very long.

[47:03] [snorts]

[47:35] So this is kind of based off of I remember from our last discussion

[47:39] there's kind of the intention that VIO and VCO are administrative approvals as

[47:44] in the applicant comes in they propose what is in the plan um they essentially

[47:51] get approved. Um and there is a little confusion as far as me understanding

[47:57] that. So I think that's kind of somewhat where this propos comes from me fully

[48:02] understanding that more. Um so kind of what this potential amendment will

[48:08] involve will be kind of retaining that existing BIO structure where it's

[48:13] administrative. um the developer comes in they meet it

[48:17] to the exactly it's it's a very administrative process I think where

[48:22] kind of the confusion [clears throat] that I have is when you go to the basis

[48:25] of approval for some of those the bio it still includes kind of some subjective

[48:32] language as far as this development meets the

[48:36] ship for example or typically if it's administrative

[48:40] approval you would be more objective standards and I'll kind of go over this

[48:43] more where you're saying this meets the provisions of the zoning resolution or

[48:48] this meets the design guidelines of the resolution and you get less into kind of

[48:52] this meets the public safety goals of the township. Um because [snorts]

[48:58] ideally I mean when you when you approved the BIO the trustees kind of

[49:03] already made that determination that it meets the morals and the public safety

[49:07] goals of the township. So that's kind of where where this is coming from as far

[49:10] as if we could fix that as far as our

[49:14] existing BIO goes. That that's item number one. Item number two is adding a

[49:20] second kind of path that would give applicants more flexibility in that say

[49:28] there's a slight modification they want to do to the BDIO guidelines or they

[49:34] want to completely do something different. This would we would still

[49:37] kind of have a path in the form of providing another overlay that would

[49:41] allow them to use kind of more of a two-step method where they could propose

[49:46] guidelines similar to what we're normally used to. That's with our

[49:50] residential development. >> So not pulling into the cloud is kind of

[49:55] what you're alluding to if I'm wrong. >> Yeah. So kind of keeping the cloud it's

[50:00] administrative and then kind of adding it. It's kind of a second cloud where

[50:05] they can propose their own guidelines and then you'd have a chance to approve

[50:09] it. One of the things that was laid out

[50:15] did this went through it was let's say they didn't pick the thing

[50:20] they wanted to do something else in that case then it becomes

[50:26] regular procedure and that is you have here

[50:38] the the the speedy path to approval doesn't exist and you

[50:46] go through a full res. So that's not really a cloud. It's just you you know

[50:51] you decide you're going to be the cloud

[50:56] application. That's the difference and that's why we set it up.

[51:01] » I would say it's essentially the same thing. It's just making it more obvious

[51:05] that that's the route in the zoning code to kind of

[51:10] for whatever reason it's it's confusing when you look at it. So the the idea is

[51:14] to make the reszoning route more more apparent to people that are applying.

[51:19] » That sounds like where you follow the path like

[51:24] » this way and this is your path this way. >> We've always looked at it's a toggle. If

[51:28] you don't meet the criteria, we're not going to approve you and But I know you

[51:34] said there's some subjective language. I don't know why that's there, but

[51:38] I don't know, maybe we were thinking if they come up with some NS code that kind

[51:44] of little loophole and we're like, no, you can't build a nuclear plant. We

[51:48] missed that. So that's my, you know, kind of knee-jerk

[51:53] thought because that's what we kept that language there for. But if you don't

[51:58] meet the criteria, then we can't do an administrative approval because It's not

[52:03] subject to referendum. >> So, we've kind of said, you know, you

[52:06] need it or you don't. And to your point, what I'm understanding is you're saying

[52:10] if you don't, then you follow the other pathway. Okay. That [clears throat] and

[52:14] I think we're all on the same page. I think

[52:16] » that's correct. >> So, really kind of on the second page

[52:20] here, I just kind of say there's two parts. Part one is the development text.

[52:25] Part two is the development plan. In the case of the BIO and the BCO, the

[52:31] the township's already done part one. Basically, that's the cloud. That's the

[52:35] overlay BIO. So, in theory, all the development needs to do is bring a

[52:39] development plan that meets the development text that the trustees

[52:43] township approved and then they get approved. Um,

[52:49] and then kind of skipping to page four is kind of where a developer will see

[52:53] these criteria of approval and it it won't necessarily connect with them that

[52:57] it's administrative because it's still still kind of subjective to the board.

[53:03] It it's not as simple as saying, oh, I met the zoning code and I'm going to get

[53:07] approved because it's still these subjective um, do I meet the public

[53:12] safety rules of the township, for example? So that's kind of the the

[53:16] thought there. And so on those two pages, I kind of highlighted the

[53:20] subjective ones in red and on the next pa next page, the objective ones in

[53:25] blue. Kind of from my point of view. I mean,

[53:28] that's up to debate. It's which ones you want to keep and which

[53:33] ones you want to change. power.

[53:39] Skip through here.

[53:43] And in this um I included OCP as well because that also uses the same kind of

[53:51] cloud as Vio. So, I kind of looped that one in there

[53:57] as far as >> but I think that's that's a

[54:01] touchy subject because it doesn't meet the like the comprehensive plan as

[54:05] adopted is does not meet OCPD. They don't or they're not similar.

[54:12] » That that that is that is true. So then if you're adopting that then you could

[54:18] pick the finding that it doesn't meet the comprehensive plan. Um so that's a

[54:22] good point.

[54:27] So that might be one in OCPD. You might want to leave that finding in there. So

[54:31] you have to meet the comprehensive plan >> even though it [clears throat] is

[54:36] objective.

[54:43] » I mean we've always kind of had that language about the general public

[54:46] health, safety, welfare, and morals. I don't believe we've ever declined

[54:51] an application based on that. Um, we've had plenty of audience members come up

[54:56] and say they should. Um, I mean, it's subjective and I get it.

[55:02] I'm hesitant to remove it and I'm not really sitting here thinking a developer

[55:07] is going to go, "Hey, my plan needs everything, but I don't know about this

[55:11] one." Well, I think it kind of it lends itself to what we've talked about like

[55:14] when we talk about the noise and the um you know, it's it may not be something

[55:19] that we necessarily deny because of, but it's that we're keeping that in mind

[55:24] when we have like like we had rise come in and they had the the noise

[55:28] generation, you know, those type of things. Like I I wouldn't say it's a

[55:32] » it gives us latitude to have that dialogue.

[55:35] » I mean, to your point, it's subjective. I get it. Um also almost a minuscule

[55:42] part of our language. >> And because we do ask for like the fire,

[55:48] you know, inspections and and roads and traffic studies and things like that,

[55:52] that also, I think, lends itself to

[55:59] safety and welfare of the township and immediate vicinity.

[56:06] I get it's subjective, >> but I I think you could see it

[56:09] subjectively or you could see it objectively in that matter,

[56:13] » right?

[56:16] » I mean, I personally do not like the morals language at all. Um because

[56:23] » are is it my morals or is it your morals? So,

[56:27] » well, I think I think that lends itself to like what we when we talk about like

[56:31] the historic vibe of the township or like the rural vibe of the township that

[56:36] we and I wouldn't say like I don't think

[56:40] morals is the right word either, but I think that that's probably what it lends

[56:44] itself to is cuz we use that. I mean, my issue isn't like this board comes up

[56:50] with something that believes, you know, morals are wrong, but like I mean, that

[56:56] gives someone, I don't know, in my mind way too much power to be like, well, I

[57:02] don't really like that people can buy alcohol on Sunday, you know what I mean?

[57:07] Like, I don't know that that scares me that someone could all of a sudden up

[57:12] and decide the moral is totally different.

[57:15] » But we we have had discussions about like marijuana and um dispensaries and

[57:21] things like that. We've talked about that in our zoning resolution, too. So,

[57:25] [snorts] and if I may, because you you folks aren't wrong, but that is an that

[57:30] is a very odd word and that is something that is outlined in the law in terms of,

[57:37] you know, general health, safety, welfare, morals. Um and and so that so

[57:43] what I would say I don't know that I'm saying anything that the commission

[57:47] doesn't know is that those are that is the legal standard. Um I don't disagree

[57:53] with you that it seems like uh morals is probably a full word of the day gone by.

[57:59] Um >> it's a 19th century word.

[58:01] » Exactly. Exactly. Um but um and and while your ability to pick things on on

[58:10] true morals is probably would have been well you can't have a a

[58:15] liquor store near X Y or Z or um I don't know like a radio station

[58:22] playing you know music of illreute near school. So again, those things that just

[58:28] maybe aren't necessarily such a world problem these days,

[58:30] » just like legal just legal guardian. >> Exactly. Exactly. So um and what what I

[58:35] would a government for. >> Correct. Um and what you know what I

[58:40] would say is it is a it's a from a um

[58:48] having that type of language. I I don't disagree with anything that J said in

[58:52] terms of you know objective standards that type of thing. But I wouldn't say

[58:55] right or wrong or different. Sometimes it's nice to have that backup

[59:00] um as just like a back stop if nothing else. Um and so

[59:06] [clears throat and cough] but but again at the end of the day it's ultimately

[59:09] the commission's decision. Yeah, I'll caveat saying if

[59:15] the goal is to streamline certain approvals that exactly meet the BIO as

[59:22] it was approved by the township, then it might make sense to kind of maybe lessen

[59:26] some of those things.

[59:31] » I I'm more like the six doesn't make sense to me in a way. I mean, we have

[59:36] got very specific architectural standards. I

[59:42] don't know how we throw number six into that with a straight face. Um

[59:50] » Yeah, I agree. Um because we already have a very thorough checklist.

[59:53] » Yeah. Um so I could see that one going away.

[1:00:07] and proposed development number three, conformity with comprehensive plan. I

[1:00:11] mean, if it's designated under the BIO, the BCO,

[1:00:16] I'm not sure the relevance of that. Um, am I missing something

[1:00:24] as long as they're alive? I mean, >> well, that also might may apply to the

[1:00:29] fact that talking about whether it's commercial or industrial

[1:00:36] Okay, that makes sense >> because you don't want to set

[1:00:40] » we don't want to spot zone. >> No,

[1:00:42] » we we don't want to drop industrial use of the commercial and vice versa.

[1:00:49] [clears throat] >> So that's one of the things that we

[1:00:53] » that way we didn't want to do that. So >> that's that's not subjective though

[1:00:58] either. I don't find that language subjective for free.

[1:01:03] » I don't either. What I can think of in terms of that Oh, and I agree with you

[1:01:07] there. That's a good reason to keep it, but I wouldn't necessarily say it's a

[1:01:10] joke.

[1:01:15] » That would almost play Sorry to inter that almost play in with the ending of

[1:01:20] number six, I would feel like more to your concern with the surrounding

[1:01:25] existing proposed land uses instead of dropping a industrial right in the

[1:01:30] middle of a commercial. Mhm. >> If you want, you could separate that

[1:01:34] out.

[1:01:40] » It says appearance. So >> draw appearance.

[1:01:53] My thinking with these ones that I kind of put in the red here, if if the board

[1:02:00] if the commission's happy with the BIO, then if a project comes that is

[1:02:08] » if a project comes that meets everything in the BIO, this filing should be

[1:02:11] relatively straightforward. >> It it should.

[1:02:13] » If not, we should change the BIO, >> right?

[1:02:17] Well, okay, not to stir the pot too much, but you know, we had all these

[1:02:20] gentlemen from economic development and it stuck with me. The one gentleman

[1:02:24] said, you know, we I'm paraphrasing, we sort of doubt that you guys really want

[1:02:28] this to be developed. And I was a little takenback by that because I'm like,

[1:02:35] you know, >> I saw that more of a thing that track

[1:02:40] because, you know, they got the infrastructure in now. They're going to

[1:02:47] get a return for it which I understand county for that for

[1:02:53] the pump station and the you know putting in

[1:02:58] the water power that sort of thing. So you know now that the infrastructure is

[1:03:02] there they want to accelerate using the thing and I I took that more as a thing

[1:03:08] of them saying well prove to us that we want as a way

[1:03:13] of reaching I I took it that way.

[1:03:18] » I just got the zoning in place, the plan's in place. Um we can quibble on if

[1:03:23] we think certainly do stay right. It'll never be 100% the way we want it. But

[1:03:32] does seem straightforward to me and I'm not a developer so

[1:03:42] » we'll see what >> I Do you really feel like these are

[1:03:44] obstacles to a streamlined process? >> So from my experience, anytime you have

[1:03:51] something that isn't a checklist that's if you do this, you're going to

[1:03:56] get approved. >> It introduces risk and uncertainty and

[1:04:01] developers don't like search.

[1:04:07] » Yeah, you can't really fit that one into a check box.

[1:04:18] Wait, did you have stuff that you proposed instead of those?

[1:04:21] » So, our current

[1:04:25] initiated amendment has no changes to the planning. So, as is

[1:04:30] kind of um what what we put forward kind of a change from the administrative

[1:04:37] process to more of a two-step process where now

[1:04:42] This proposed amendment would be keeping the administrative process and kind of

[1:04:46] also including that two-step process and we would

[1:04:52] be modifying the findings for that that um existing process at [sighs]

[1:04:59] if that makes sense. >> Yeah. I don't think we ever

[1:05:05] looked at this as if we wanted to discard the administrative

[1:05:11] process refine it and make it

[1:05:17] more approachable.

[1:05:20] I I see what you're saying about those things you can't just fit into a nice

[1:05:23] neat check box. Yes, we need in particular number eight I'm hesitant to

[1:05:29] discard. [snorts] Um,

[1:05:34] I think number three seems to me to be self.

[1:05:39] [laughter] >> I think all number three really does is

[1:05:41] just asking you know applicants to take a look at the

[1:05:46] comprehensive land use plan and make sure that you know it it matches what

[1:05:53] is asked of. >> You could put that in your box honestly.

[1:05:57] Does this meet the current comprehensive plan? Yes or no?

[1:06:01] » Do we know do other counties include number eight? Like is that like a

[1:06:05] regular thing that other counties? >> So it's not like they're like, "Hey, we

[1:06:09] got to go to Berlin where they're foot loose and you know what I mean? like can

[1:06:14] we go argue with this board or not? >> That's pretty boilerplate language.

[1:06:20] » Exactly. In terms of town township zoning, that is like that's just a a

[1:06:24] core fundamental principle that your authority rests in public health,

[1:06:30] safety, welfare, and walls. >> Yeah, I was going to say cuz I know four

[1:06:33] and seven. I was pulling up that 519021 and they're like verbatim

[1:06:39] » correct >> from the description of the Ohio. So, I

[1:06:43] was just trying to find where those maybe a couple of these others were in

[1:06:46] there. And it's not so much that we created them for the BIO. It's more just

[1:06:50] we included them because there is that 5192

[1:06:55] [clears throat] >> legal boiler point.

[1:06:57] » Yeah. Well, and kind of >> I think what distinguishes this one in

[1:07:01] in five 50 519021C, the trustees are approving step one and

[1:07:07] they're using all those findings in their approval of step one, which is the

[1:07:12] BIO cloud that was already approved by the township and they use these findings

[1:07:18] cloud. Um, so theoretically, everything that's allowed in that cloud should be

[1:07:23] always fine, right? I'd say the same thing with the

[1:07:27] comprehensive plan as well. Uh by virtue of floating the cloud

[1:07:32] that the township said, you know, these uses in this area

[1:07:37] meet the comp plan. They meet the public health safety and welfare and morals of

[1:07:43] of the county as well. Yeah, if anything, these are

[1:07:50] duplicative or >> and I think that's why opening up the

[1:07:52] use codes and and really digging deeper into those is helpful to allow more

[1:07:57] applicants to come in and say, okay, we now have a shot in Berlin,

[1:08:03] » then it's an easier easier process with your thing or could be an easier

[1:08:09] process. But if you want to take it to the take it deeper, then you could take

[1:08:14] it deeper. Well, and I think and we've all talked about it. The original BIO

[1:08:19] VCO 2019, 2020 or six years down the road,

[1:08:27] everybody, nobody was coming until they had the infrastructure because they

[1:08:30] couldn't build anything anyway, right? >> I'm like, but now six years later, what

[1:08:34] is what's coming to Delaware County and asking them if they can go there is not

[1:08:39] what would have been coming and asking them six years ago.

[1:08:42] » So, I think I think I think I think part of that is going to

[1:08:46] be the economic development committee being more communicated to us of here's

[1:08:53] what we think is coming. Can we be proactive to get them into your

[1:08:57] resolution before we get the application and now

[1:09:01] we're waiting on you to get your zoning updated to get them to be able to come

[1:09:06] in. >> Yeah.

[1:09:07] » You know, if and I think that's it. I think we're a couple years behind what

[1:09:11] they're getting and they're saying, "Oh, we have all these people that might be

[1:09:14] interested, but they're not okay for zoning." And we're like, "Well, how

[1:09:17] would we update anything if we don't know them?"

[1:09:20] » Exactly. >> Like, you know, in other words, if they

[1:09:23] have leaders out there they think are going to, [clears throat]

[1:09:26] we need them coming to us before those people are like, "Oh, well, it's not in

[1:09:30] your zoning code, so we're going to go somewhere else." Like, if they're doing

[1:09:34] this type of review every couple of years, I think maybe we can get what's

[1:09:39] kind of more of the common or more prevalent development right now as

[1:09:43] opposed to like you said 5 10 years ago. I mean you couldn't have 5 10 years ago

[1:09:49] you wouldn't have guessed all the data center issues. You wouldn't have guessed

[1:09:52] a lot of the other industry that started to come up with the EVs and everything

[1:09:55] that would be coming into the area that >> you know we just didn't see it. Neither

[1:10:00] did they really. So I understand they

[1:10:06] want to get you know they say that you know you must not want any develop we

[1:10:10] don't know what we don't know >> exactly. So,

[1:10:15] » so then almost a potential third item on the on the front page of reviewing the

[1:10:22] list of permitted uses, reviewing and potentially updating based on Yeah, that

[1:10:28] is a good point. It's hard to believe 2019 and 2020, better part of a decade

[1:10:32] ago. Um, no, that that is a fair point of not just making the administration

[1:10:38] and the process easier, but are there that

[1:10:42] makes sense now that makes sense >> and those I think we're get those we're

[1:10:47] getting. >> Yeah, I think I think

[1:10:49] » so. We did a good job >> done our best at this point

[1:10:55] » on that.

[1:11:00] Just to close that out, just on the second to last page, there's a table. It

[1:11:05] kind of outlines two of the options that I've talked in. It kind of outlines the

[1:11:10] paths the developers could take. Um whether it's the it's the standard

[1:11:16] administrative or the kind of alternate path that

[1:11:21] we talked about.

[1:11:27] I still think we need to discuss like you suggested about flipping the ARB

[1:11:34] somewhere else because I think they're coming in here like,

[1:11:40] "Wait a minute, I have to have all the details of everything before I even make

[1:11:45] it to the BBC to know if this is going to be an okay project."

[1:11:52] And on this table, um, I kind of separated it between development and

[1:11:58] site plan review, which is kind of a term for final development plan. So,

[1:12:04] kind of on this table, anytime it's supposed to be a final development plan

[1:12:07] is when the ARB is involved. >> Um, you notice in number two, step one,

[1:12:13] the RB is not involved because it's still just a preliminary development

[1:12:16] plan. Um, and then step two, the RB gets involved because when they're giving

[1:12:22] their final development. They should have those things figured out.

[1:12:27] » So, once again, I'm stirring the pot. Um, option two moves us back to a

[1:12:33] two-step plan, which we do get rid of that how many years ago? Three, four at

[1:12:39] the urging of our trustees. Um, I was opposed. It was the L. But, but here we

[1:12:46] go again. I mean, the pendulum is swinging. Is is that really our intent?

[1:12:51] And will that be supported by the trustees?

[1:12:54] » I think what with what he's saying is that there's it's just it's the path of

[1:12:58] the developer. It's not the path of us and what we decided.

[1:13:03] » It is cuz then it comes to us to >> right. I'm saying like it's whatever the

[1:13:08] cuz like you know how we talked about it the developer then it takes a number of

[1:13:12] days a number of days a number of days or applicant I should say and then it's

[1:13:17] them deciding whether they want to take that long path or they want to take the

[1:13:20] short path >> you know that that's on them if they

[1:13:24] want to take the full you know >> sure

[1:13:26] » two-step path and it's going to take a long time to make sure things are right

[1:13:30] » that's on them >> but as of right now there is no two-step

[1:13:34] path am I Right. >> That's that's that's correct.

[1:13:38] » Unless it's the full reason like you suggested,

[1:13:42] » right? >> Well, I I think for one point when it

[1:13:46] [clears throat] went to one step and they're to come in here with final

[1:13:51] development plan, the reason we went to the two-step in

[1:13:55] the first place was the fact that we were getting complaints about, look at

[1:13:59] all the money I got to put in this thing through final development plan. I even

[1:14:03] have to have PL ready to go, stuff like that. And uh might get turned down or

[1:14:10] have to redo it all in the one step thing before it goes to the trustees. So

[1:14:17] they spend all that money for nothing. they get to redo it for the trustees or

[1:14:22] they get turned down here and the trustees and then put all the money in

[1:14:27] which is why we went to the twostep in the first place was to try to eliminate

[1:14:33] wasted money and time on the part of the developers

[1:14:38] actually came in with stuff and got a yes or no before they invested all that

[1:14:46] » I would say just further clarify this. So you'll see the box one is the OC

[1:14:53] 519021C. So that's the the streamline approval

[1:14:57] administrative. Um and the next two boxes are kind of

[1:15:01] two different options the developer can take. So instead of going to either a

[1:15:06] one-step process or a twostep process, we're basically saying that the

[1:15:09] applicant can decide if they want to do a one-step process or a twostep process

[1:15:14] for that second part when they're mod when they're using 51921A instead of C.

[1:15:24] » So we'd be presenting an option that doesn't currently exist, which would be

[1:15:28] that two-step process. Mhm. And that that would be for the for the applicant

[1:15:33] that wants to know if their use is approved before they go through and get

[1:15:38] a full final development plan. >> And it's also it's the planned unit

[1:15:41] development. It's not the BIO or the BCO. So it would be more traditional

[1:15:46] zoning not falling into the cloud. So it's not administrative review.

[1:15:51] » Correct. Okay. >> Make sure

[1:16:05] My bias has always been the two-step process. So I talking um but if we're

[1:16:12] going to add the two-step process back, I think

[1:16:17] that's something we haven't really

[1:16:22] flushed out. I guess >> as long

[1:16:26] They haven't chosen to do the administrative.

[1:16:29] » Sure. Right. >> The other question I've got is

[1:16:35] this really isn't just for the BIO. I mean, we should be considering the BCO

[1:16:41] besides we've got a lot more. If you look at the percentage, we've got 500

[1:16:47] acres in Ohio, right?

[1:16:54] » [clears throat] >> Yeah, my intention is that it would

[1:16:57] apply

[1:17:01] as well. I also include those CPD because it's also [snorts] a C uh it's a

[1:17:05] 50921c type of cloud overlay. So it's a very restrictive law for the way.

[1:17:14] » So it we can do it either way. We can do Vio BCA BCO and drop OCPV

[1:17:21] keep it OCP whichever whichever way you prefer.

[1:17:31] [snorts]

[1:17:42] I'm not sure the OCPD fits into this. It seems like that's a can of worms.

[1:17:50] » It was a can of worms. >> It It's worms. [laughter]

[1:17:55] » Um,

[1:17:59] okay. Another question that I feel like it should have an obvious answer and I

[1:18:03] just don't know is all right two-step PD path does show it going to the ARD

[1:18:11] and my understanding was the only things that went to the ARB were things that

[1:18:15] pulled into the cloud. Am I wrong? Did I

[1:18:20] » So does the CO and OCP right now are the only things. So step two having the ARB

[1:18:28] in there I'm a little perplexed by. So >> it was still a part of the twostep when

[1:18:33] it was a twostep >> bio this sp

[1:18:39] » since it still would be the pertaining to the Berlin business park bio bio I

[1:18:45] still >> because it's in that designated land

[1:18:48] area it would still okay I mean I'm okay with that I just didn't we did that

[1:18:54] » yeah it seemed to me that the intent was in this area you want the air looking at

[1:18:58] » yeah I mean I I would agree I mean, we did have an applicant three years ago, I

[1:19:03] guess, that came in and said they were going to be in the spirit of

[1:19:07] which it's really vague. I like that.

[1:19:17] » I mean, I think this makes sense. Like, you know, I agree with you that anytime

[1:19:22] a developer, right, doesn't have their checklist, like, yeah, absolutely.

[1:19:30] be going somewhere else. So, I mean, I like that you have this, but

[1:19:37] you know, obviously if the trustees don't want us to do a two-step, I mean,

[1:19:41] that would be that would be a whole different

[1:19:43] » I think we need a conversation with them because they were very adamant when we

[1:19:46] went to one step.

[1:19:52] » We have some different trustes now, too. I feel like it more often than not

[1:19:55] though I but I get it. I don't know that there has been many that have come

[1:19:59] through the BIO or the BCO since we went to a

[1:20:03] one step if any at all. >> You know that who's to say it's not

[1:20:08] going to be denied going to come back to us anyways and the

[1:20:11] » technically it becomes a two-step. >> Well, and one trustee said to me one

[1:20:16] step doesn't mean one meeting. >> That's that's a really good point.

[1:20:20] Sometimes they do kind of come in and that first meeting we're going to

[1:20:23] approve tonight. It's there's way too much to be considered early for that to

[1:20:29] be realistic.

[1:20:33] So call it one step, call it two step as long as they didn't stop.

[1:20:40] Um Jacob, do you talk to the trustees about

[1:20:45] any of this stuff? Is that a doorway that you are walking through ever or

[1:20:51] » see? We we get opinions from them. >> I mean, has this twostep been posted at

[1:20:58] all? >> There there's there's I would say

[1:21:01] there's a desire to provide alternate routes for

[1:21:05] » Okay. Yeah. I just would hate for us to put this into, you know, action and

[1:21:09] they're going to go, "What are you doing now? We're not going to do that."

[1:21:15] » Yeah. So like we we've been working with the county economic development. Okay.

[1:21:19] » With that getting

[1:21:23] a way to get people in the door and >> that's what I think.

[1:21:26] » And has it any >> I mean I hate it. I think you guys are

[1:21:31] the face of this, right? Like let us help you with that checklist. And um I

[1:21:38] think a lot of it lands at your feet. So Oh, you're making a sad face. Is that

[1:21:43] bad? [laughter] me you me oh no no no no

[1:21:49] it is very fair point of just like I've been reflecting on what you said of you

[1:21:53] know economic development folks saying they don't want development you know

[1:21:56] like this is instead of putting it in to help

[1:22:01] um facilitate development of like this is the goal is to hinder and you know

[1:22:05] that to to cause more of a problem that there's a lot of food for thought um

[1:22:11] » I was really taken back by that I know they have their way presenting stuff and

[1:22:15] I was like I how can people even say that that and get and you know I think

[1:22:20] that um the meetings that I've said and where this discussion's come up it is a

[1:22:25] consistent theme of put something in a few years ago we hadn't had any

[1:22:28] applications for an obvious good idea like okay how do we what we have now

[1:22:33] clearly is not um motivating applicants so what can we do

[1:22:39] » right >> I'm not trying to be the bad guys either

[1:22:44] you know, we do try to make it [clears throat]

[1:22:48] » streamline it and close as possible.

[1:22:53] » I mean, we're looking after the township, but we're trying to follow the

[1:22:57] code and the law and stuff.

[1:23:02] » I find that

[1:23:09] [laughter] 23

[1:23:12] look at it this way. There there's other business parks within Delaware County.

[1:23:17] You know, city of Delaware has one now because we're drive

[1:23:22] it is and some of the other locations do. Also, ours didn't have

[1:23:29] Jasper's one hit this on the head was, you know, until less than a year ago, we

[1:23:35] didn't have the infrastructure to put in anything,

[1:23:38] » right? >> It wasn't complete. The water tower

[1:23:42] almost in his backyard. Uh what wasn't even completed [clears throat] until

[1:23:48] what a year ago, something like that. And uh you know, they're certainly

[1:23:54] reinforcing the electric substation up here, you know, changing all the lines

[1:23:59] out of it. So, you know, for increased capacity and

[1:24:06] in other words, you know, without the uh pump station being down until this last

[1:24:12] year also, I mean, there there was nobody to put anything in

[1:24:17] business except going to build a piece of land.

[1:24:21] » So, now is the time of economic development

[1:24:25] at least on this one, right? I know that they work on the entire county and these

[1:24:31] other business parks also, but that's why they I'm sure they came to us

[1:24:37] and we need to talk about coats because those haven't been touched since the

[1:24:41] thing went in years ago. >> That's the driving factor for

[1:24:56] » Okay. So >> that's this is not part of what we put

[1:25:00] forth in our original recommendation. Correct. So I know there's going to be a

[1:25:04] lot of dialogue. This is stuff to consider.

[1:25:07] » So if the commission's okay with their direction, I can start working on a um

[1:25:14] amendment to the amendment. [laughter]

[1:25:18] And then >> the only other thought to that is um and

[1:25:23] I hate to kind of start two amendments at once. However, the only other thought

[1:25:27] is regional planning will not if if the goal is to amend the amend the current

[1:25:32] amendment, regional planning will not preview that language, right? And um

[1:25:38] given that there's been county input and discussion, that may be something that

[1:25:42] is quite valuable. So, it may be to start two amendments at once, but um

[1:25:48] just something to think about. I will say I did kind of give

[1:25:51] the regional commission a heads up that this there might be some more changes to

[1:25:57] this. So that's not going to catch some surprise that there is going to some

[1:26:01] further changes to it. >> Okay. How would we integrate that before

[1:26:05] it gets to

[1:26:09] » I don't know if you officially can do it.

[1:26:11] » Yeah. >> Okay. So this just have to be part of

[1:26:16] the dialogue as we proceed through our hearings and things

[1:26:24] a lot of threads to pull.

[1:26:30] » I I would say that this change in kind of a roundabout way isn't

[1:26:37] changing much in that we're I've kind of already given them the two-step code

[1:26:42] process because I wasn't understanding administrative process.

[1:26:46] » So now we're just kind of adding both my changes we put forward on the 25th and

[1:26:52] also keeping our original code kind of adding two options.

[1:26:59] » I mean >> just have to make it

[1:27:00] » if it's kind of what we're doing is this really just like a branding you know

[1:27:05] what I mean like you know is this like a website clarification rather than like a

[1:27:11] code clarification? I would say at a at a base level it

[1:27:16] could be done that way. Um but I would say there still are things in the code

[1:27:20] that need to be cleaned up.

[1:27:26] » So we really can't take any action on this per se.

[1:27:31] » Correct. >> We're getting started.

[1:27:34] » Yeah. Just getting feedback kind of an update on kind of what's going on here

[1:27:39] with >> staff's thoughts.

[1:27:47] makes sense.

[1:27:56] » If we're done with that, I did want to introduce formerly our new zoning

[1:28:00] inspector. >> Hello. You want to say anything to

[1:28:04] » um happy to be here. I I'm coming from Blended Township,

[1:28:10] uh kind of where West Columbus me. Um, this is a lot closer to home and my

[1:28:18] in-laws live over there on Black. It's kind of more home ground for me.

[1:28:24] So, happy to be here. >> Welcome.

[1:28:28] » So, what two two and a half weeks in now?

[1:28:30] » Uh, this is the beginning of my third week. So,

[1:28:33] » okay. >> And he didn't run away.

[1:28:36] » He hasn't run yet or scream. I did I did ask is the door locked from the outside

[1:28:42] » from the inside.

[1:28:46] » Everybody contains here. >> That's our new HR policy.

[1:28:50] » Pat, since the writ of Pat started, he's made some built-in modifications.

[1:28:56] » Oh my god. >> All right. Any other business we should

[1:29:00] consider or talk about? Um, don't forget to sign your meeting minutes, please.

[1:29:06] And shall we juror? Yes,

[1:29:09] » I'll make a motion to adjourn. >> I'll second. All right,

[1:29:14] my gown. Thank you.

[1:29:29] » Seems like if you show up, >> I guess how [clears throat] it works. I

[1:29:33] was so sad.

Berlin Zoning Commission - 09/08/2026

Transcript