Pickerington Area Taxpayers Alliance

more zoning info

from a prior string

4-13-2004
The land at Refugee and Milnor is a combination of R-1 and R-2. In the Northern part of the Township, most of the farm land is zoned R-2 and if a parcel has a dwelling on it (rural lot) it is zoned R-1. They did this blanket residential zoning back in the 1970's when it was ''Land use What?'' in the trustees mind at the time. Since that time any development proposal that does not meet a residential single family home criteria of the lot sizes for R-1 and R-2 of the current blanket zoning must go to the zoning board in a zoning hearing and then to the trustees for a vote. There is no way around this in th Township,such as what the city did on thousands of acres of land since 1999, they rezoned during the annexation proceedures by emergency vote, before any public hearing was held on the change in use of the land. In the Township at least two public hearings will be held and the adjacent property owners notified of the change and it is advertised in LOCAL newspapers before the hearing. This process is good as the citizens have an opportunity to voice their opinion, it can be drug out forever though with some developers asking for endless ''contiuations'' fo the hearings in order to buy time to wear the public out, or negotiate with the public. Most good faith developers negotiate and try to reach a plan that is palatable with the neighbors, it can be difficult and ultimately the citizens can take it to referndum if the trustees approve it and they do not like it as the trustees have no emergency powers to circumvent referendums.

Sycamore Creek was rezoned in Violet Township in 1996. The city annexed it shortly thereafter and it did develop as the Township plan was set. It is the single most dense development rezoned in the Township allowing 3.0 homes per acre. The land was right next to the city and the developers threatened to go to the city unless they got their high density. So the township caved trying to keep it in Violet..... and it went to the city anyhow with major utility service issues between Canal Winchester and Pickerington. The trustees probably felt they would not annex to the city but they were wrong as these developers have proven that they will go where the handouts and incentives are regardless of their good faith promises.

Here is an older zoning review we compliled on Township zoning

Winding Creek (Milnor North of Refugee) 1.77
(Hiser)

Barron?’s Ridge (Countrywood, newer section) (Hiser) 1.78


Summerfield 15 (Donley) East of Harmon Rd. 1.8
North of Refugee

**Summerfield 16 (Donley) Adjacent to 1.92**
Summerfield 15 off SR 204

**Citizens fought this rezoning and threatened referendum on the rezoning vote,
Donley withdrew the application after the zoning board approved the rezoning but before the Trustees voted on the rezoning. Donley stated to the press that they did not want to do anything the citizens would not support. Donley withdrew from contract on the property. The Edwards Land Company (Glenshire) closed on the property and it is known as Ashley Creek.
Ashley Creek (Edwards Land Co) (F.A. Kohler) 1.675

Spring Creek, (Halta Project), South of Refugee, 2.0 (single family portion only)
East of Milnor, across from proposed Wellington Park

Sycamore Creek (Now in the City of Pickerington) 3.0


-By Lisa Ross

zoning chart continued

4-13-2004
Woodstream (the Wayne Smith farm) 1.96
(Edwards Land Company)
2000*Property is in rezoning once again to allow 25 additional empty nester single family homes on 70?’ lots. The empty nester section will exist as a gated community, with lawncare and maintenance included, at the front portion of the property. A citizens Committee recently negotiated with the developer to allow this empty nester portion as the only change to this
development. He originally wanted to make most all lots 70?’ wide from the original 90?’ to 100?’ lots. His justification was that the Sycamore Creek project, across the street, was more dense and that Pickerington would allow him more density if he annexed instead of developing in the township. A citizen committe convinced him that it was in his best interest to remain in the township and lessen the impact on the schools with a lower density figure than his proposed plan and in return we would support increased density in the empty nester portion alone since it would lessen the impact on the schools and yet provide him with a bigger return on the land. We also stated that the empty nester portion of the development would attract more local residents if it did not have City of Pickerigton taxes to pay. The final hearing is rescheduled for June 21st at 7:30 p.m. at the Township Hall ?…7/12/00 update, rezoning passed at the final hearing.

2004 Woodstream density is 2.15 per acre

Glenshire (Edwards Land Co) 1.66

Mallard Pond (Dominion) 1.89
Across from Melrose
North Side of Refugee Rd
Donated 15 acres to Pickerington Local Schools, location of Harmon Middle School

Meadowmoore 1.78 per acre


-By Lisa Ross

rezoning numbers

For years the township has been so proud of its self by saying they have lower density zoning. They claimed they were slowing the growth with this method of zoning. First they may show that most of their zonings are lower than 2.0 but the township's minimum zoning is 2.178 which is higher density than what is currently used in the City of 2.0. This may slow the growth but when the growth is all homes or at least 80% homes we lose our tax base for the schools.

For reference there is 43560 square feet in an acre.

R-1 equals 30,000 sq ft lots density is 1.452

R-2 equals 20,000 sq ft lots. density is 2.178

My point here is that the township must have public involvement to control their zoning. Don't get me wrong public involvement is good but these developers have more money and more time to wear the public out. In fact Ms. Ross has acted at times to be burnt out over the amount of time required to keep the trustees in line and have them not vote to give away the store. Yet even with that involvement we still have failures like the Sycamore Creeks zoning issues and those house packed into that area. Please explained who was on the trustees and what was their logic?


The real issue here is the trustees have very little control over the development of this community. They must use MORCP and they must give in to developers demands or the developers move to the city. They can't with hold utilities nor can they create ordinances and enforce laws they can't write. They must use the Ohio Revised Code rightly or wrongly. If they don't cooperate with an incorporated entity then they can do very little.

read it first

First of all, the trustees do not use MORPC, they use the FCRPC Fairfield County Regional Planning Commission. I have attended numerous hearings at this body and in fact they usually rubberstamp a developers request. Secondly, your identity of R-1 and R-2 is in error. R-1 is a 20,000 sq ft lot in the township, R-2 is a 30,000 sq ft lot. Yes, it would make sense to reverse the numbers on the zoning to correspond to roughly two homes per acre for R-2 but in fact that is not the case at all. Most of the land slated to be rezoned is R-2 the 30,000 sq ft lot thus would yield a considerably lower density than 2.0.

The most recent development in the area we are currenty concerned about is Violet Meadows. It was rezoned as a PUD with a gross density of 1.37 per acre. That sure looks like a city zoning doesn't it. The neighbors formed the Northeast Violet Township Civic Association to oppose the original Violet Meadows development. They fought with the developer for over three years because the original plan was closer to 3.0 homes per acre. They were persistant and attended countless hearings and continuations of hearings during this period of time. I attended several of these hearings and some lasted well past 11pm at night and the room remained packed. Do you think these people are going to give up here? Not on your life. They will fight this until it is acceptable to the community.

The developer can develop now. I think the approach to accept any proposed zoning change in this case should be to get him to commit to the low density number the land now allows, ask for a donation for our schools of $1500 per home to the capital improvement fund, ask them to be willing to join any community authority that may form in the future within their development time frame. The township also needs help with a possible land donation for a new fire station in the Southern portion of the Township. All this should be on the table in my view. I am confident the people of NEVCTA will stand strong once again.

I agree with some of your statements of the limits on the trustees. But right now we must deal with the deck as it is dealt. Change is in the works in my view. During Sycamore Creekissue , the trustees were Dunlap, Diley, and Hartman.

I can tell you that I believe most people in Violet have no intention to merge with the city to get more control of these issues and would rather exhaust all other possibilities to get control before any merger would be considered. Those are the ''facts on the ground'' as I see them.

I agree that developers will try to exhaust the opposition if that is there intent but I have also seen good developers who realize that it is in their best public relations interest to make the neighbors happy. They realistically negotiate and do not plead poverty or the inability to do the so called impossible. They are the few unfortunately, and we do not know this particular developer so he has a blank slate and can make his reputation right now. (he is developing the Kroger property across from the High School)

WE all know they make millions of dollars in this business, good for them, but the community can no longer tolerate the loss of quality of life to protect their profits. We have been giving for a long time, have provided them with a marketable area, they need to give too.