Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Zoning Ordinance 1118 topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Union City holds brief public hearing on proposed Zoning Ordinance No. 1118 amendment
Summary
Union City Borough on Sept. 16 held a short public hearing on a proposed amendment to Zoning Ordinance No. 1118 to define and regulate redemption games (games of skill) and allow accessory structures on adjoining lots; no public comments were offered and the hearing was adjourned.
The Borough of Union City opened a public hearing Sept. 16 to present a proposed amendment to Zoning Ordinance No. 1118 that would add definitions and regulation for "redemption games," also described in the record as "games of skill," and would add Section 701.04 to allow accessory structures on adjoining lots, borough records show.
The hearing was called to order at 6:05 p.m. by Councilor Cross at First Global Methodist Church, 42 East High Street, where the borough’s vision statement — "The Union City area is a thriving rural community of families, businesses and organizations dedicated to encouraging growth while maintaining small town values" — was read into the record.
Councilors Cross, Osborn, Steadman and Kerns were present for the hearing; Councilors Joyce, Winkler and Uber were recorded as absent. Solicitor Tim Wachter and Constituent Services Representative Kim Tuszynski were listed among officials present.
According to the meeting record, the purpose of the hearing was "to provide information and receive public comment on the proposed amendment to Zoning Ordinance #1118, to provide for definitions and regulation of permitted use zones for redemption games, otherwise known as games of skill; adding Section 701.04 to provide for use of accessory structures on adjoining lots; and provide a repealer, severability and effective date." The minutes note that no visitors attended and therefore no public comments were offered.
With no public comment, Councilor Steadman moved to adjourn the hearing; Councilor Osborn seconded the motion. The hearing adjourned at 6:09 p.m., and the minutes were attested.
The record does not indicate any formal votes on the ordinance amendment, amendments to the proposed language, or scheduled next steps for further consideration. The hearing served as a public notice and opportunity for comment; because no members of the public spoke, the record contains no public testimony for or against the proposal.
