[0:00] Oh,
>> this conference will now be recorded.
[0:05] » This conference will be recorded.
[0:10] » All righty. Well, let's uh call to order
the zoning commission regular meeting
[0:16] for Wednesday, September 9th, 2026.
[0:22] You uh call the role, please.
>> Okay. Mr. Fwell
[0:27] » here. Mr. King
>> here. Mr. Pratt
[0:30] » here.
>> Mr. Green
[0:31] » here.
>> All right. Um, next we have the to uh
[0:37] approve the minutes of the July 8th,
2026
[0:41] meeting.
We have any additions or corrections to
[0:45] those minutes?
>> None.
[0:48] » All right. If not, we entertain a motion
to approve.
[0:51] » I'll move to approve minutes from uh
July.
[0:55] » I'll second.
>> Okay. Call the RO, please.
[0:59] Okay, Mr. Sab.
>> Yes,
[1:03] » Mr. King.
>> Yes,
[1:05] » Mr. C.
>> Yes,
[1:06] » Mr. K.
>> Yes.
[1:09] All right. I see we have no old business
on the agenda. So, we'll move right on
[1:14] to the new business. Uh, first we have a
text amendment for article 8,
[1:20] supplemental regulations, section 803.
You mind walking us through that, Daryl?
[1:25] Yes.
This past spring, the Sain Township
[1:30] Zoning Department was made aware of the
inaccuracy in section 8003 of the
[1:35] Savannah Township Zoning Resolution
regulating agricultural uses.
[1:40] Specifically, per the Ohio Revised Code
section 51921, [clears throat]
[1:45] townships in Ohio cannot regulate
agricultural uses on any parcel not
[1:51] within the private subdivision
regardless of the acreage size of
[1:55] parcel.
Additionally, there is interest among
[1:58] some township residents to expand or
modify the allowed farm livestock uses
[2:04] on parcels that are that are within the
private subdivision.
[2:08] SP [cough]
[clears throat] department is presenting
[2:11] two amendments to section 8003.
One of them must be approved to align
[2:16] this section of the Spain and Township,
sorry, the Spain and Township zoning
[2:22] resolution
with section 521 2021 of the OC.
[2:28] Proposed amendment number one corrects
the language of section 8003 to
[2:33] adequately meet the requirements of the
OC. No additional regulations or
[2:38] allowances are added.
No definitions are amended.
[2:45] and no new definitions added to the
zoning.
[2:49] Post amendment two corrects the language
of section 8003 to adequately meet the
[2:55] requirements of the OC plus refine
subsection 803B on the livestock use
[3:02] permitted on competitive lots measuring
1.01 to 4.99 acres in size.
[3:09] Additionally, the definition of
livestock is removed from article 19
[3:13] definitions of the zonal resolution and
replaced with livestock and non
[3:19] livestock.
Lucas County Plan Commission planning
[3:23] planning staff recommended approval of
the staff report and at the August 26,
[3:28] 2026 hearing, the plan commission voted
to recommend approval to the township of
[3:34] proposed amendment number two. zoning
staff has no recommendations.
[3:44] » Okay. So, you've given us
>> a little bit confusing.
[3:47] » Yeah. You you've given us what we
currently have and then also the
[3:52] proposed U markup here to reflect those
those changes. Um
[4:01] any any comment comments or questions
from the the board members here?
[4:10] » And generally speaking, you don't get
many calls from people in a platted
[4:13] subdivision that want chickens or
livestock anyway, right?
[4:19] » You do.
>> You do.
[4:22] » But this is still not allowing it. On
the flip side of that, we get calls
[4:25] [clears throat]
from people in the subdivision
[4:28] complaining about somebody.
>> Exactly.
[4:31] » It's a double-edged sword.
>> So, we do get calls.
[4:34] We just run both ways.
[4:41] » But long story short, we were out of
compliance before anyways cuz we were
[4:45] » the Ohio strict. So per the OC, if it's
not in a planted subdivision, we can't
[4:53] regulate how much li what livestock they
have or how much regardless if they're
[4:57] on half an acre or 50 acres.
>> And we were
[5:02] » Yeah.
[5:07] Okay. So if I'm in a subdivision on a
halfacre lot, I can have as many
[5:14] chickens in my backyard as I want.
or I cannot have those chickens. Okay.
[5:20] As long as it's platted.
>> It's platted and I cannot. If it's
[5:24] platted, I cannot.
>> And then HOAs would have their own rules
[5:28] also probably in most subdivisions.
>> Yeah.
[5:36] » Uh any any comments or questions from
the crowd? Please go to the podium.
[5:41] State your name, don't I?
>> Yeah. Just name and address for the for
[5:46] the record there.
>> My name is Yuri Aster. How my address is
[5:48] 2231 Centennial Road, Toledto, Ohio. I'm
also the chairman for the board of
[5:53] zoning appeals for Sennsylvania
Township.
[5:55] » Okay.
>> So, a little bit of context of why we're
[5:58] here and what we're doing here. So,
specifically, so Darl and I, as well as
[6:03] Oliver and then John Burell, legal
counsel for us obviously, um have been
[6:08] looking at this carefully. So, we've had
quite a few cases over the last year
[6:12] regarding chickens, mainly in areas that
are platted. So, platted is not like you
[6:19] typically think of a subdivision. So,
subdivision can be platted. All
[6:23] subdivisions are platted, but not all
platteds are subdivisions.
[6:27] So, for example, like you t think of
like um Deer Point or something like
[6:32] that would be a typical subdivision.
Usually those are less than an acre,
[6:36] usually a half acre, quarter acre or
something like that. Those are almost
[6:39] always platted because they have to be
platted to be subdivided. What has
[6:43] became a problem is these larger spaces
that are acres or like for example on
[6:49] Gradwell there's a a lady came in and
she has 2 acres but it was platted back
[6:55] in 1950 something or something like
that. I don't recall it was a long time
[6:59] ago. It wouldn't be your traditional
subdivision. Looks nothing like a
[7:03] subdivision. She cannot have any
chickens under the proposal. So, as we
[7:08] started digging into this a little bit
deeper, we saw two issues. The first
[7:11] issue is what the First Amendment is
addressing. So, in the state of Ohio,
[7:16] like Daryl said, you cannot regulate
agriculture on anything that is not
[7:22] platted.
So, if it's platted, you have as a
[7:27] township, it's called powers conferred
to the township. We can regulate that.
[7:31] But if it's not platted, you cannot
regulate that. So, we have to clean that
[7:36] up. So that's the first amendment. As we
dug deeper into this and we started
[7:40] looking at this under the second
amendment or the way the resolution is
[7:44] wrote now, if you look at it, um the
rules are for 1 to four acres and this
[7:50] is where it gets a little confusing
because it refers to not platted and
[7:54] it's like well you can't regulate that.
But the intent was is you could only
[7:58] have one livestock animal per acre. Now,
this is where this gets a little bit odd
[8:04] because that means that I could have one
draft horse, which is a massive animal
[8:08] or a cow, for example. But I can't have
two chickens. You could only have one
[8:13] chicken. It just doesn't make a lot of
sense. So, we started talking to um the
[8:19] other township. So, I specifically
reached out to Parisburg Township. Hey,
[8:22] what are you guys doing with your
chicken rules? What are you doing with
[8:26] your livestock?
um looked at a lot of different
[8:29] municipalities actually and townships
and for the most part everybody's
[8:34] regulating them at six per acre is a
reasonable amount of chickens. So that's
[8:40] what we included in this proposal and I
got to give credit to my wife Amanda
[8:44] here. Um she's the one that actually
came up with the definition of hooved
[8:48] and nonhooed animals. I would not have
thought about that. But your hooked
[8:51] animals and you would know Mike or all
your cows and your your donkeys, your
[8:57] you know what goats,
horses, you know, all that sort of
[9:01] thing, right? Those are big animals
generally speaking. They're noxious
[9:04] animals at times. I mean, you have to
have some land, which makes sense to
[9:08] have one um farm animal per acre.
Chickens, on the other hand, they're
[9:12] non-hooved. Rabbits are non-hooked.
Under the current resolution, you can't
[9:16] even have a rabbit. Now, what this
proposal still eliminates, to your point
[9:22] previously, is anything that's under an
acre the township can regulate that's
[9:27] platted and it's you cannot have any
livestock on it. So, your subdivision
[9:32] specifically like Deer Point or
Farmbbrook or something like that, you
[9:36] can't do that. You don't have enough
livestock or you don't have enough land
[9:39] out there to do that. In addition to
your point too, Tom,
[9:43] HOA always supersedes our township
rules. So you do the towns or the if a
[9:48] specific subdivision says hey you know I
really don't want chickens they can have
[9:52] most of them have there like eagle um
Eaglewood has HOA rules that says hey
[9:58] even if we could have chickens now it's
in Sylvania we can't we we don't want
[10:02] chickens here so we think that we put
together something um that is fair to
[10:07] everybody um that kind of meets both
criteria that allows those people that
[10:12] has that little bit more rural area to
have chickens. We also tightened up,
[10:16] you'll see in there, which Daryl really
helped with this, but with the the
[10:20] setbacks, making sure that you have
enough space, like for example, 50 foot
[10:24] setback from any dwelling or property
line. Livestock can't be 5 foot. It
[10:29] can't be anywhere within 5 foot of the
property line. Barns and stables have to
[10:33] be clean. Slaughtering, you can't do
that, that sort of thing. So, we tried
[10:37] to really um look at everybody else's
code and try to put in things that were
[10:41] going to be a problem. So obviously
like you to prove it but that's your
[10:48] consideration. So any questions
[10:54] additional questions?
>> Okay. Thank you very much for uh for
[11:00] that explanation. That that certainly
helps.
[11:03] I I'll ask this for Daryl cuz he was
involved with the uh what was John
[11:08] Bell's stance on like the legal side? I
mean, if someone's horse runs over, they
[11:13] got to have more homeowners insurance,
right? That doesn't put the township at
[11:17] any liability, does it? For
>> um We didn't look at that specific
[11:23] issue, but no, I would see
>> I would think it would go with the Yeah,
[11:27] it would go with the house or the farm.
>> Same as if somebody's dog
[11:35] goes and damages someone else's property
or bites their kid or that. Yeah, cuz I
[11:41] mean sadly dogs can be more annoying
than most livestock. We did have a
[11:45] donkey once. So they when you have one
>> once,
[11:50] » they're companion animals. One can be
really noisy, but it actually was a
[11:54] better guard dog than a dog. [laughter]
So I'm just saying we should tread
[11:59] lightly because some animals are when
there when there is only one, you know,
[12:03] whether it be a cow or a horse, usually
the goats, they all like to have two
[12:08] generally. But if you're 5 acres or
more, it's not an issue, right? It's
[12:13] just for the one acre, you're allowed
one.
[12:15] » Yeah. So, it's one per Yeah.
>> So, if you had two acres, you would
[12:20] allow you'd [snorts] be allowed to have
>> companion both animals.
[12:24] » Yeah. I think you guys did a good job.
It's sized right in my opinion. And it's
[12:28] not allowing everybody to have a horse
in the township, you know.
[12:33] » Yeah, I agree. main thing is is that
we're back in compliance, but we put a
[12:39] lot of thought into,
you know, it being as fair to all of the
[12:46] the residents of the community and and
also fair in both ways, not having too
[12:52] many animals and and you know, not
overregulating. So, um, any additional
[12:59] comments from the board before we
take a, uh, take a motion to approve?
[13:10] I'll make a motion to approve. I'll
second that.
[13:15] Wait, do we need to do both? I'm sorry.
Uh, we'll make a a proposal to um or a
[13:23] motion to
>> for each one.
[13:24] » Yeah, for each one. So, proposal one.
Um,
[13:30] » I don't think that you actually have to
vote on both of them.
[13:32] » Oh, okay.
>> You just have to one or the other.
[13:39] » So, if you decide to take the second
proposal, you can
[13:45] on that one
>> because the second includes the need
[13:48] language to fix the first one.
>> So, the second two proceeds.
[13:52] » I didn't
catch that. Okay.
[13:56] » Well, we could just make a motion to
approve both text amendments.
[14:00] » No, it's proposal one or proposal two.
Proposal two is ultimately
[14:05] » what cleans everything up.
>> Gotcha.
[14:08] » Okay. So, um All right. Let's strike
that.
[14:11] » Start that over again.
>> Yeah.
[14:15] » Yeah. Yeah. It's uh great leadership
here.
[14:18] » Okay. I will make a motion to um approve
proposal two on the text amendments and
[14:25] I'll second that.
[14:32] » Mr. Zel,
>> yes.
[14:34] » Mr. King,
>> yes.
[14:36] » Mr. Pat,
>> yes.
[14:37] » Mr.
>> Yes.
[14:39] » All right. Motion passes.
Uh so now we have a second text
[14:45] amendment. It looks like article 19 uh
definitions in section 1900.
[14:52] » Mr. Chairman, that actually
[14:57] we probably should have maybe worded
these a little bit. Um but the
[15:02] definitions are included at the end of
the uh second.
[15:08] » It's the same.
>> Okay. It is the same. Okay. Well, that's
[15:12] uh you know, strike two for me tonight.
So I guess
[15:16] » I think pretty
>> so we do not need to enter put this
[15:20] together for us.
>> Yeah. Well,
[15:23] yeah.
There are two items there in different
[15:28] sections. Um, but let the record be
known that we have already voted on both
[15:34] of those article text amendments in
article 8 and 19 as under one uh
[15:42] amendment in the in the second proposal.
[snorts]
[15:49] Okay. Do we have anything else for the
good of the order?
[15:56] No. Well, nothing else. Let's uh
>> no meeting next month.
[16:00] » And no meeting next month. Okay.
>> I'll make a motion to adjurnn.
[16:04] » I'll second.
>> Okay.
[16:08] » Mr.
[16:13] » Yes.
>> Yes.
[16:15] » M.
>> Yes.
[16:17] » All right. Meeting is adjourned.