Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Land Use And Utilities topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Resident Jeremy Veil urges council to let Logan County co-op serve Ludlow Ridge subdivision, raises annexation question

Bellefontaine City Council · June 12, 2024
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

Resident Jeremy Veil told the Bellefontaine City Council that one-third of a 70-acre Ludlow Ridge subdivision site is controlled by AES and two-thirds by Logan County Co-op and asked the city to allow the co-op to provide power uniformly; he also raised an annexation question about a retention pond parcel.

Jeremy Veil, a resident and developer with an address at 4198 State Route 68, asked the Bellefontaine City Council during the public-comment period to allow Logan County Co-op to provide electricity to the planned Ludlow Ridge subdivision rather than having two providers split service across the site.

"A third of that 70 acres is controlled by AES... 2 thirds of that property is Logan County co op," Veil said, describing the split and saying the co-op had equipment staged and was prepared to serve the project. He told the council that developers need clarity quickly because "we gotta have the lots on the ground by October" and that they would like power installed by about September.

Veil also raised a separate issue about an unannexed retention pond parcel at the corner of Lake and Mudlow that he said came to his attention the same day; he asked whether the council could allow that parcel to be included in the subdivision's annexation.

Council members asked procedural and jurisdictional questions. The chair and staff said the annexation application had not yet been filed and that planning commission review would likely be required; the administration noted that, as a property owner, the applicant would typically sign any annexation petition and staff would confirm the appropriate annexation path. The service safety director said he would look into the utility-provider question and recommended staff follow up with the co-op and any affected providers.

The council did not take immediate legislative action during the meeting; members directed staff to investigate and to bring forward any required legislation or committee referral if the matter requires formal action.

The public-comment exchange concluded with staff agreement to research the split-service question and with the mayor and council acknowledging the timeline pressures the developer described.