Pickerington Area Taxpayers Alliance

R1 and R2

The Township's zoning is different from Pickerington's.
I believe that R1 in the Township allows 2 houses/Acre.
R2 in the Township allows l house for every 30,000 sq. ft.

R1 and R2

The Township's zoning is different from Pickerington's.
I believe that R1 in the Township allows 2 houses/Acre.
R2 in the Township allows l house for every 30,000 sq. ft.

214 lots on 109 acres

I hate to burst your bubble but the lower the number the higher the density in the towsnhip. Please read the zoning change request. They are asking for 214 single family lots on 109 acres. They come just uner the line of two lots per acre.

R-1 = 20,000 sq ft lot

R-1 in Violet is a 20,000 sq ft. lot


R-2 is a 30,000 sq ft lot, there for, less dense than R-1

A PUD does allow mixed use on the land but that does not mean mixed has tooccur. They must appoach the zoning board with a plan specifically outlining the layout of each lot the sq footage of the homes, the proposed density etc etc. A PUD allows them to reconfigure lots to be smaller than 20,000 or 30,000 sq feet but also requires 15% of the land for greenspace. It also requires curbs gutters and sidewalks.

In the past, the citizen opposition approach has been to figure out just how many homes the CURRENT R-1 and R-2 zoning allows on the land now because in fact the landowner would have the right to develop under this current zoning, this number is most always usually way below two homes per acre gross density. The opposition then state to the zoning board that the developer should try to limit the number of homes to no more than the current zoning allows to lessen impact on the community resources. If he wants to reconfigure some lots smaller in some areas, he may if the configuration fits in with the surrounding rural development, but if he does,he must allow public use organized open space (parks, nature preserves etc) to offset the reconfiguration of the lot sizes.

Until the trustees adopt a slow growth plan that they can enforce limiting home starts, frankly in my view this approach is the best we can do because the landowner has the right to develop right now. Ultimately, the developer gains buildible lots because he can move lots out of less desireable areas for building and not lose them in the total number so it is still a win for him even if the total number of lots stays the same as the current zoning because if he had to use the current zoning, he would probably lose some lots to flood plains, wooded wetlands or soil concerns etc,. If they tell you they cannot do it they are wrong, they have been doing it for a long time. Donley cried that they could not do it in Ashley Creek so they let another developer buy the land and they then bought lots from him, they do it in meadowmoore,Haaf Farms (Homewood) is zoned R-1, 20,000 sq foot lots, they are selling and building homes there still,so the arguement they can not do it is mute in my view.

The problem is that if every farm develops even at a low density, the schools and roads are still overwhelmed. Before the big city rush to build everything, 150 homes per year were too much for our schools, now that we get 600 that number looks good but it is NOT GOOD!

We need to control the numbers of homes per year, we must find a way legally to do this, we must do it NOW.