Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Agricultural Districts topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Pataskala Council reviews multiple agricultural-district applications; committee recommends approval
Summary
At a council public hearing, Pataskala City staff presented seven agricultural-district applications for parcels around the city. Planning staff and the agricultural committee recommended approval of each application; no public comments were recorded and the council adjourned after a motion.
The Pataskala City Council opened a public hearing to consider seven applications to enroll parcels in agricultural districts. Planning staff presented locations, acreage and zoning for each parcel, and the council's agricultural committee recommended approval of all applications, the hearing record shows.
Scott, a city planning staff member, summarized each filing: an application from Tim and Cheryl May for parcel O63-140454-00 at 13861 East Broad Street; a renewal from Ralph E. Jr. and Dorothy I. Stock for parcel O63-141612-00 (about 37 acres on Summit Road); a renewal for Michael R. and Angela L. Moore for parcel O63-141030-01 (just under 28 acres on Cable Road, with noted FFO adjustments); an application from Mary Alice Wege and R.J. Wege Farm Co. for parcels O63-141744-00 and O63-141738-00 (about 255 acres on Havens Corners Road, zoned Rural Residential/R-87); a renewal from Lee M. Smith for parcel O63-141450-00 (about 74 acres on Main Street); a new application from Chukco Development LLC for parcel O63-141468-00 (about 53 acres on Lane); and a renewal from Bradley Dean and Aaron Bridal for parcel O64-1528800.004 at 288 Mill Street (about 19 acres). Scott told the council staff had no objections to the applications and noted recommended conservation designations where applicable.
A member of the agricultural committee voiced the committee's position multiple times: "I recommend for approval," which the record attributes to the committee for each application. One council member identified in the record as "Mister Reaghe" said he would recuse himself from consideration of the Wege applications; council members and staff clarified that the committee recommendation was the committee's action and that the recusal referred to the individual's participation.
The mayor confirmed a quorum and solicited public comment; none was recorded. With no outstanding questions or public testimony, a motion to adjourn was made, recorded as "Moved by Mister Galick, seconded by Mary Hite," and adopted by roll-call vote with the members present voting yes. The council adjourned without taking separate formal votes on each application during the public hearing; the record reflects committee recommendations and staff reports but not final council enactments on those applications within this session.
Next steps: The hearing record does not specify whether each recommended application was scheduled for a subsequent council vote or placed on a consent agenda for final action; the transcript does not record final approvals, denials or ordinance numbers for these applications within this meeting.
