Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Agricultural District Applications topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Agricultural district applications in Pataskala area recommended by committee; no public comment
Summary
An agricultural-district hearing reviewed six applications for parcels in the Pataskala area; an agricultural committee representative recommended approval for each application and no public comments were recorded. The meeting ended with a motion to adjourn.
An agricultural-district hearing covering multiple Pataskala-area parcels concluded with committee recommendations in favor of six applications and no public comment, meeting participants said.
The hearing, convened to consider agricultural-district applications affecting parcels in Pataskala City and nearby areas of Licking County, Ohio, opened with a quorum and a series of staff or committee reports. An agricultural committee representative said of the first application, “We are in favor. We recommend it.” Similar verbal recommendations followed for each subsequent application.
The applications reviewed included filings by Kane Hain Lehi (address on file in the meeting record) for parcel 063-141162-00.000; John B. and Beth E. Shannon for parcel 063-141510-00.000; Craig W. Maynard for parcels 063-141186-00.001 and 063-141186-00.002; RRIFI Columbus 96 Land LLC for parcel 064-152898-00.000; James P. Schafer for parcels 063-141420-00.000 and 064-152670-00.000; and John M. Wege for multiple parcels including 063-141618-00.000, 063-141672-00.000, 063-141678-00.000, 063-141684-00.000, 063-141762-00.001, 063-141762-00.002, 063-141762-00.003, 063-140844-00.000 and 063-143634-00.000. Meeting speakers identified the parcels by the numbers listed above and placed them as located in Pataskala City and Licking County, Ohio.
No members of the public rose to comment during the period for public remarks. After the committee reports, Board member Epperson moved to adjourn; Board member Galick seconded. A roll call recorded votes in the affirmative by Epperson, Oven, Hampshire, Airlick and Lee, and the motion carried.
Nut graf: Agricultural district designation is an administrative status that can affect land-use options and tax treatment for qualifying farmland. At this brief hearing, committee representatives recommended approval for each application on the record; the transcript does not show final county-level determinations or formal votes on each application during this session.
The meeting record contains each application’s parcel number and mailing address as read into the record; applicants included individual landowners and at least one corporate applicant. Participants did not raise substantive objections or request supplemental information during the session. The hearing concluded after the motion to adjourn passed.
