[0:00] skate up

[0:05] too much to alligators 9250 with literature roof I have several questions

[0:10] regarding the procedure that's followed

[0:15] uh it's a affirmation I guess but I'm a little bit

[0:19] more well first of all I wonder if the application is available

[0:25] location by the applicant Mr research is the application available

[0:31] the answer to that I don't know either I mean

[0:35] well I believe that this request came in directly to a building department Mr

[0:40] Finch's office and Mr Finch made the request to Planning Commission I'll be

[0:45] happy to have that on behalf of the property owners

[0:49] taking the form of the Africa the African yeah the required Africa as the

[0:56] owner of the following property the name press and Zoning class and proposaling

[1:02] class the vicinity of the map is there a map

[1:07] available for the area you know it's it says it requires I

[1:13] guess that the map and the um all the information is available at

[1:19] the application is available at the clerk's office yes the the math if I'm

[1:24] sorry the map and the uh the property question has been available

[1:30] um okay then

[1:34] let me just go through a couple of things that I need wrapped some

[1:37] affirmation on so the application is available but I

[1:43] think if we read the application we'll find that

[1:47] section of zoning code 1201 applies here

[1:58] it's 1201.

[2:04] I guess there's been some controversial Mr maestros about what 1201 really

[2:08] requires and I just want to and note was I noticed the application here

[2:12] refers to the codified origins 1201 is requirement

[2:18] and hopefully that's why we're having a

[2:21] public hearing

[2:25] which 1201 requires it's part of the ordinance it's in the

[2:30] legislation you look at that it will go on the ballot the council approves

[2:40] it seems to be the authority this is also Charter I mean the charter

[2:44] also parents staff which provides a Planning Commission reviewed it November

[2:48] it's been sent to council and council's right three times I think the reason

[2:52] that I'm bringing this up is there has been controversy if you remember over

[2:55] the years 1201 requires this no it doesn't require that but according to

[3:00] this it does require public hearing and okay

[3:06] just to recap of what I understand things to do now they say the current

[3:11] map is available

[3:16] is that the current map

[3:20] I don't believe that that one actually is but the exhibits are attached if you

[3:24] go on your iPad all the the application the requests the maps they're all

[3:28] attached to your legislation yeah yeah very good now I understand

[3:34] and the reason I'm bringing the map into play

[3:37] and I'll just get okay so you know

[3:40] a lot of delay here according to our current map as I see it

[3:49] and the latest map I can get a hold of is dated

[3:54] as well but in the area

[3:58] of C5 district is what we're talking about

[4:02] there have been 60 66

[4:05] amendments to the code and I don't think we voted on 60 houses

[4:13] I don't believe in that um

[4:18] there have been originally there was 44 c5s on the old map and what I want to go

[4:24] back to is the reason I think this is important is because it appears if we're

[4:29] using a map of 66 amendments that was never simply objected

[4:33] to people by this procedure that you're using

[4:36] tonight which is a public hearing invoke

[4:40] and um

[4:44] I recognize that the city five districts in my history I'm going to share it with

[4:49] you the C5 District was recommended by the Planning Commission in 2007.

[4:55] and they outlined the area

[5:01] it's outlined and it was prepared by Planning Commission January 25th 2007.

[5:07] it was approved on April the 23rd two thousand

[5:13] seven the map of May 18 2007 has all of this

[5:19] land rezoned C5 this is all full C5 this is all new 60 Parsons

[5:28] I can't find an ordinance I can't find a ballot and I can find anything on Walter

[5:33] drain report that identifies these Parcels being rezoned by ordinance

[5:40] Terry

[5:44] all I'm asking is somebody have some information that I can't get a hold of

[5:50] them and this is the procedure as I see it that's followed in 2000 2012 and 13

[5:56] when we rezone land these are the procedures that are followed the

[6:02] ordinance the Supreme Court of Elections the ordinance the parcel number and

[6:06] address is all listed without going to do is that a ballot

[6:11] that you have well this is from the Board of Elections yeah these are the

[6:15] ballot issues okay you can't find a valid issue for these 66 parcels

[6:21] um

[6:25] as I said the Walter green report

[6:29] is missing those 60 certified certified ordinances certified

[6:35] by wall of Missouri

[6:38] see I've been here a long time I see you educate me on Walter green is it

[6:43] I'm not familiar with that term s

[6:48] my fault I apologies I thought you were talking specifically about some sort of

[6:53] standard that's the company that's the publication of all the codified

[6:57] arguments my mistakes the boundary changes according to

[7:04] ordinance and um

[7:12] um

[7:15] that's what I'm here to find out you know if you have any information

[7:24] relating to those topics so I'm going to refer to my law director

[7:30] and we don't have an advantages

[7:35] I can share with you what I have okay okay

[7:43] so I just want to uh point that out

[7:48] before we can do any rezonings

[7:56] okay

[8:00] is there anybody else you'd like to speak in regardless to more than 1226

[8:04] 2000 winter

[8:16] 704 Harbor Glen Drive Apartment 105 here in clintonburg Ohio

[8:26] I've done some research also on this because the comprehensive plan has been

[8:31] a key issue of topic here in town for the last year or so during its update

[8:36] and as I understand this property is on C5 probably was done back in 1989 it's

[8:42] one of the original C5 commercials the basement

[8:48] voted on by the people in other areas this is gaydosh

[8:53] I was looking into I also don't find that on your Maps

[8:58] um this property has been Zone C5 and the

[9:01] comprehensive plan is listed as a transitional piece of property

[9:07] inspector

[9:11] I do understand the concept of transitional zoning and the intrusion of

[9:16] a C3 zoning classification into the C5 mixed juice Pittsburgh

[9:21] uh my opinion is is

[9:27] the property owner must be aware I'm sure of the term caveat answers

[9:32] Let the Fire beware they purchase this property

[9:37] therefore City Council in my opinion should reject this zoning application if

[9:43] there is to be any validity to the recently updated comprehensive plan

[9:47] which clearly shows that is a C5 mixed juice District

[9:52] everybody in this room that I know of the last year and a half that's all I've

[9:56] heard about is how we're going to have our comprehensive plan and Downtown

[10:00] Development now we're going to intrude the C3

[10:04] District into the N35 district and bring that commercial Corridor right now

[10:10] not only that but also moving behind our residential area

[10:14] the residentially zoned property directly east of that uh this gentleman

[10:18] spoke in favor of it but he has his issues with it when the traffic noise

[10:23] and headlights additional intrusions into their property and the quietness of

[10:28] their area that they've grown to love in their Community is going to be an issue

[10:33] then you'll probably hear a different story

[10:38] it could possibly lead to evaluation issues

[10:42] if the plan is simply abandoned for any property owner is simply take a

[10:46] quick Dollar on the sale of their property I'm at a loss in reading all of

[10:51] the minutes of the Planning Commission meeting to hear our economic development

[10:56] director talked about this is primarily for the sale of the Visa property with

[11:00] the property owner never even showed up at the Planning Commission meeting

[11:03] because it was represented by our director of Economic Development

[11:08] planning for our community

[11:12] Property Owners never made any comments about that

[11:16] the property owners not wish to present his case for resorting city council to

[11:20] reject this request my opinion it bursts out unethical for

[11:24] our director of Economic Development to represent a property own clearly is

[11:29] doing us to make money on the sales property he's got somebody who wants to

[11:33] buy it and wants to have it rezoned and they can give them an offer to continue

[11:38] to the rezoning process being taken place

[11:41] I really do believe people in this position should number one get their own

[11:45] independent Council

[11:48] personally pays substantial salary and benefits for this director of a planning

[11:53] and development and it should represent the city in my opinion understand they

[11:57] can talk about planning zoning comprehensive plans but

[12:00] in no way represent them specific Property Owners that's their obligation

[12:04] as a property owner the application for rezoning was not

[12:08] accompanied by any deposit of funds to betray the city's cost in this fair was

[12:14] absorbed by the city that's on the application which I do have a copy of

[12:18] this evening so I did a records request on it

[12:21] since the city does not own or have any interest in this property to my

[12:26] knowledge you authorized the waving of these fees Council I'll find that out

[12:31] diverges on the abuse of power who in this community has right away

[12:36] fees can we get pardon me pick this way the same way or you know who waves these

[12:41] things um

[12:43] and if you're going to wave it just because somebody uh took a piece of

[12:47] property that bought it using it for business wants to rezone it at the very

[12:52] least if you're going to do that go back five or ten years and find out who else

[12:55] may have paid for these rezoning application fees and refunded to them at

[13:00] least they may not feel like they were discriminated against

[13:04] um since this resorting application was not unanimously recommended by the

[13:08] Planning Commission in the Planning Commission units clearly

[13:11] shows this resorting appears to be I do politically motivated more purely for

[13:16] the profitability and sales of property since the city council must reject this

[13:20] request or admit to the city city of that the city of twinsburg's integrity

[13:25] and planning is for sale controlled by politics and not our

[13:30] comprehensive plan if you're going to do that then you have

[13:34] for instance plan I understand there's a plan subject to change

[13:38] it's a major issue if you're going to have any integrity and what I've heard

[13:44] the family wants to do in Downtown Development allowing people just to push

[13:48] C3 districts in from all directions and if you're going to allow this

[13:54] property rezone C3 and no longer be the transitional property to C5 you're just

[14:01] pushing that off onto the next property owner and that next property owner is

[14:05] going to be entitled to come in and say I want my results C3 too I would do the

[14:10] same thing I would like to also verify that the

[14:14] public hearing this evening was advertised and that adjacent property

[14:19] owners were notified for public hearing take somebody ought to verify that

[14:24] Iowa City Council deny the next request for these only to

[14:29] C3 on this corridor has to ask yourself that question

[14:33] because proper planning and discrimination did not go well together

[14:38] thank you

[14:52] oh

[14:56] I don't want to disagree with anything that's been said there it's his opinion

[15:01] look we moved here 12 years ago we built a house next to McDonald's

[15:07] we're building a we have a house that's next to a daycare center this property

[15:12] has been commercially used next to our property

[15:20] we don't have any problems with McDonald's we aren't going to have any

[15:23] problems with the daycare center we aren't going to have any problems with

[15:26] what can be developed on this project the fact of the matter is is that your

[15:31] ordinances as they stand right now provide protection between commercial

[15:37] and residential zones and these aren't named pamby

[15:41] protections for example Lighting on any commercial property has to be limited to

[15:49] the lighting on that property it can't go over to order it doesn't matter

[15:54] second no commercial dumpster no commercial

[16:00] disposal can be within 50 feet of any residential property next to a

[16:06] commercial Zone third

[16:09] there are mounding and screening and fencing and wall requirements in the

[16:16] ordinances as they exist right now between residential and Commercial zones

[16:23] fences eight feet high in some cases mounting four feet high I'm up to 12.

[16:30] we know what we're doing where we're living

[16:33] and what we were doing when we bought the property and we're confident of what

[16:37] we've seen in the past 12 years that whether it's the city or the adjoining

[16:42] landowners they're going to do the right thing being nice to a residential

[16:47] property so I think that some of the concerns that were expressed might look

[16:51] good in generalities I'm dealing with specifics that live within every day and

[16:56] I know what I've seen I know what I experience and it's been a damn good

[17:00] experience

[17:06] speak on this topic

[17:09] Mr maestros just if I could maybe try to clarify some of the issues that were

[17:14] raised first of all the comment was made that this property has been sown C5

[17:18] since 1989

[17:23] and I think um we'll have to look at this but Mrs

[17:28] gayash made mention of 60 some of my properties that were rezoned in a period

[17:32] of time I my guess is and I'll confirm this is that when the city adopted the

[17:38] C5 zoning designation I want to say it's been within the last

[17:42] five to seven years that that C5 was established and that was

[17:47] established and established in certain downtown districts which covered my

[17:51] guess is these same 67 properties is probably the number of properties that

[17:55] were covered by that but prior to that we

[17:58] didn't have the mixed use designations it was a new mixed-use designation as

[18:04] adopted by the erect Murder By The Planning Commission went through that

[18:07] process when that destination came

[18:11] and like I said I'll try to find out the date but my guess is within the last

[18:17] one and this property was designated C5 at that time so and and

[18:23] I'll check Mrs gay I should be able to check to see if that's when that

[18:26] happened but my my thoughts

[18:35] I would also like to mention that although the applicant was not at the

[18:39] Planning Commission meeting that with or attention to the law director and myself

[18:43] and discussed the sampling and the requested company

[18:49] okay Lauren safe stock again

[18:53] respectfully disagree with your law director I think he goes back to 1989

[18:58] you will find that C5 is always and a limited amount of regulations existed

[19:04] the personal property is on your map 1989 is C5

[19:10] your C5 mixed use districts didn't come along until a considerable number of

[19:15] years later and therefore I just want the record to be clear that needs to be

[19:19] verified in the fraud record can prove that any substantiate that the council

[19:24] so you can have all the information and active form on this issue thank you

[19:37] The Establishment for the regulations for the ce5 district the ordinance was

[19:43] clearly before establishing regulations the ordinance was just to establish

[19:48] regulations not to amend the man your resolution to the Board of

[19:52] Elections however was altered to include the net

[19:57] so the ordinance did not provide for amending the map the resolution said and

[20:02] the map and the map of

[20:06] to some history where Jordan 69 was passed I know there were five six

[20:12] Apostles of land that were rezoned based upon that order

[20:17] Ed by the courts 69. more than 69. 000

[20:25] feet um

[20:28] anyway it was and another point I want to make is I

[20:34] mean you can find all this out virgin 69 was establishing the regulations for the

[20:39] C5 District we call that Gary I was in public hearing and I said what does

[20:44] organization

[20:53] at the time they questioned it in October for the election and that was

[20:59] told and it was a matter of fact the bulletin leader colony and they said are

[21:04] people there and Mr maestros and Mr Finch both

[21:08] confirmed

[21:21] and the six Parcels of freezoning you are establishing the map

[21:27] you're certifying commands that was the opinion that if you approve

[21:33] the Morgan 69 and the six Parcels that were ordered by the court you are

[21:39] approving the map as proposed by the Planning Commission it's only a proposal

[21:44] as a matter of fact I go a step further I was even in caution by one of the

[21:49] planning oh

[21:52] we have a voted on this we proposed it and three weeks after we proposed a

[21:58] council published around with the zones already there

[22:01] so I mean that was a long time ago I didn't make an issue of it because I

[22:05] thought well we'll work it out it'll work itself out but it's not working at

[22:10] something and I have to be here because procedures and

[22:15] rezonings and you know my complaints

[22:21] you get it disgruntled development

[22:25] or get one someday we'll get one we have currently a property that's in front of

[22:31] us with legislation we're here for a public hearing so

[22:34] that property is currently zoned C5 do you agree with that

[22:40] yes and Facebook has been applied for and improved the recommended by Planning

[22:45] Commission that it'd be put on a ballot for a

[22:49] change in zone are we okay with that no but I guess I'm

[22:53] okay with the whole thing I don't know one way I just feel like that's why

[22:57] we're here tonight this Parsley was land and having public

[23:02] hearing on this particular issue

[23:06] you're using the face map

[23:12] of a certified map

[23:17] if it's a certified map fed certified do what you have to do but

[23:23] I'm questioning whether or not they can be certified if it hasn't been

[23:27] adopted by

[23:30] vote that's my only concern

[23:38] s

[23:42] if this time I'm closing the public here of

[23:46] negative if anybody would like to speak in the

TWINSBURG PUBLIC HEARING 1/13/2015 GAYDOSH AND SENGSTOCK

Transcript