Pickerington Area Taxpayers Alliance

I have heard from a number of people that have posted on this site but no one is answering the question. What is the difference between the township's R-1 and R-2?

On April 20th the township zoning board meets to consider this rezoning. The new property owners want to put in 214 single family homes and the current zoning allows them only 157 single family homes. Yet we get this gibberish about green space and low density. I see a difference of 57 more homes if the township approves this zoning change.

I know these developers want to maximizes their profits, but should they be doing it on the backs of our local taxpayers? How about Terry and Harry where do they stand? Maybe the city moratorium of only 100 homes slowed down things but they did finally moved after public pressure. I think the township resident must even move pressure against our two pro-growth trustees.

The trustees have rejected every other option that would give them move power to control the rate of growth and this zoning change will speak volumes of their intent.

By Average Joe

Root of the problem

You have identified the root of the problem.

Will the trustee's listen & react as their constituents want them to do? Can a trustee be pro-growth and state to have the best interest of the township at heart?

Do we want trustee's that quote the ORC as to why they can't be more effective? Do we want trustee's that are sorry for the effects they have on our school system, but again state why their hands are tied? If trustee's can't even put up a stop sign - do we need them?

We need trustee's in place after the November election that will support Home Rule Township government and change their actions as it relates to growth.

All questions that need to be asked and answered in the coming months.

This shift in density is a sign that development is moving into the township too. Acceptance of that by school district residents hurts everyone. Do NOT think this is NOT in your back yard. The effects of rapid residential growth will hurt every family in this school district. The effects are just beginning !!

Amanda Northern in Woodstream

I have heard the Township Trustees complain that they have no control over the speed limits on their roads and stops signs. When they allowed the Woodsteam development to be approved they also allowed or I should say they insisted that Amanda Northern go thru Woodstream and closed the older section. Now cars wanting to go from Basil Western up toward Pickerington will be driving right thru this sub-division. I believe Dunlap was on the board of trustees when this development was approved.

The reason they will give is that there was probably a culvert that needed replaced and the township was too cheap to replace it. They pat them selves on the back for saving the township residents money only to create a traffic problem later and who do they blame? MORPC!!!!!!!

Why do we expect so much from the city taxpayers in building infrastructure? A packed house allowed the trustees to approve this project with no one protesting Amanda Northern being diverted thru this subdivision. Now wait for the car to start their short cuts thru these homes. Another problem created by our trustees.

I also know that Terry and Harry voted for this subdivision and the road being diverted.

question was answered

From a prior posting, you need high speed to read all these.

R-1 = 20,000 sq ft lot

4-13-2004
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.

-By Lisa Ross

Reply to This Message