Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Zoning Permit Denial topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Zoning Board of Appeals denies request for video-gaming café within 1,000 feet of place of worship
Summary
The Zoning Board of Appeals voted 6-0 on July 10, 2025, to deny a conditional-use permit and a variation that would have allowed a video-gaming café in a B‑1 local business district located less than 1,000 feet from a place of assembly in Milton Township.
The Zoning Board of Appeals voted 6-0 on July 10, 2025, to deny zoning petition 25-035, a request for a conditional-use permit and a variation to allow a video-gaming café in a B‑1 local business district less than 1,000 feet from a place of assembly in Milton Township.
Board members said the petition did not show the required hardship for a variation from the 1,000-foot separation standard. Member Moran moved to deny the variation and the conditional use; Member Murphy seconded. During discussion, Member Moran said, “I just, the hardship. I just didn't see the hardship.” Member Murphy urged that the board consider the long-term effect on neighbors, saying, “I'm gonna vote no on this. Basically, because this affects the neighbors. It affects the values of their houses and everything there.” The chair clarified that because the motion on the floor was to deny the petition, members saying they would “vote no on this” in effect were voting to support denial.
The board called the roll. Member Moran, Member Murphy, Member Geragh, Member Ramon, Member Schultz and Chairman Cartel all voted in favor of the motion to deny. The motion carried by a vote of 6‑0. The board did not adopt any amendments to the petition or impose conditional limits; the action recorded was a denial of both the variation and the conditional use.
Earlier in the meeting staff noted several emailed public comments had been submitted by residents — Rachel Brunewald, Jonathan Shukhtar, Peggy Collins, Jenna Eisenberg, Jerry Musher, Aaron Segoe and Sue McElroy — but said those submissions were not part of the record for this hearing under open-meetings rules.
Board members and staff discussed the practical effect of the 1,000-foot rule and said the separation standard applies regardless of the size or frequency of use at the nearby place of worship. One member said it would be difficult to parse a spacing rule by the level of activity at the nearby use, and that doing so would undercut the plain measure of distance. The board did not direct staff to draft alternate conditions or to remand the petition; the formal action taken was denial.
Staff and the chair indicated procedural next steps for the petitioner would follow existing county development processes; no timeline or specific next steps were specified during the meeting.
