Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Zoning topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Union City holds brief public hearing on proposed zoning changes for redemption games and accessory structures
Summary
Union City Borough held a short public hearing on Sept. 16, 2024, to present proposed amendments to Zoning Ordinance No. 1118 covering regulation of redemption games (games of skill) and a new Section 701.04 on accessory structures on adjoining lots; no public comment was offered and the hearing was adjourned at 6:09 p.m.
Union City Borough held a public hearing Sept. 16, 2024, to present proposed amendments to Zoning Ordinance No. 1118 that would define and regulate "redemption games," often described in the draft as games of skill, and to add Section 701.04 governing use of accessory structures on adjoining lots. The hearing was called to order at 6:05 p.m. by Councilor Cross at First Global Methodist Church and adjourned at 6:09 p.m.
The minutes open with 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.” Councilor Cross, Councilor Osborn, Councilor Steadman and Councilor Kerns were recorded as present; Joyce, Winkler and Uber were listed as absent. Solicitor Tim Wachter and Constituent Services Representative Kim Tuszynski were recorded as officials present.
The stated purpose of the hearing was to "provide information and receive public comment on the proposed amendment to Zoning Ordinance #1118," according to the minutes. The amendment text noted in the record would (1) provide definitions and regulation of permitted-use zones for "redemption games" (identified in the minutes as games of skill), (2) add Section 701.04 to allow use of accessory structures on adjoining lots, and (3) include a repealer, severability clause and effective date. The minutes do not include the full ordinance text, any staff presentation details, or an explicit timetable for next steps.
No members of the public attended the hearing, and the minutes record "No visitors were present," so no comments were taken. The minutes show Councilor Steadman moved that the public hearing be adjourned; Councilor Osborn seconded the motion. The record states only that "the hearing adjourned at 6:09 P.M." and does not record a roll-call vote or further action on the proposed ordinance.
The minutes do not specify when the council will next consider Ordinance No. 1118, whether written comments will be accepted after the hearing, or a timeline for adoption. Those procedural follow-ups were not recorded in the minutes.
