[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.