Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Agriculture topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Pataskala City panel recommends approval of six agricultural-district renewal applications
Summary
At a Pataskala City agricultural meeting, members recommended approval of six renewal applications for agricultural district status covering roughly 585 acres; staff reported no objections and no public comments were received.
Speaker 2, the presiding member at a Pataskala City agricultural meeting on Oct. 12, 2025, opened the session saying, "The purpose of this meeting is to review agricultural district application." The meeting considered renewal applications for six properties and the panel recommended approval of each application.
The panel reviewed renewal applications for: King King LLC (2670 Alford Road, about 23 acres); John Lee and Benny Shannon (61100 Summit Road, about 25 acres); Craig Maynard (0 McIntosh Road, about 20.65 acres); Bridal Columbus Land 96 LLC (3049 Aetna Parkway, almost 106 acres); James Schaeffer (two properties at 7770 Nick Street and 7506 Hazelton Road, about 110 acres total); and John Swaggy (multiple parcels on Summit Road and Dixon Road, about 300 acres). Staff had no objections to any of the renewal applications, and no members of the public spoke during the meeting.
For each application, a member moved to recommend approval and another member seconded the motion. For example, the motion to recommend approval for King King LLC was moved by a member identified in the record as Speaker 2 and seconded by a member identified as Speaker 1; Hampshire and Lee recorded affirmative votes when the motion was called. Similar motions and seconds were recorded for the other applications; votes were recorded aloud for the members present and the presiding member declared approval. The meeting record shows affirmative responses from members identified as Hampshire, Lee, Ike and Amchar at various points during the roll calls for the individual motions.
Staff noted no objections to the renewal applications in each case. After the panel completed its recommendations, the presiding member asked for additional public comment; seeing none, the meeting adjourned following a motion to adjourn and a second.
The meeting record contains no mention of formal denials, conditions attached to approvals, or follow-up assignments. No statutes, ordinances, or other legal authorities were cited during the discussion.
