Citizen Portal
Sign In

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

Get email alerts on the Zoning topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Union City holds public hearing on proposed zoning rules for 'redemption games'; no public comment

Borough of Union City · September 16, 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

The Borough of Union City held a Sept. 16 public hearing on a proposed amendment to Zoning Ordinance No. 1118 to regulate "redemption games" (games of skill) and to add rules for accessory structures on adjoining lots; no visitors spoke and the hearing was adjourned.

The Borough of Union City held a public hearing Sept. 16, 2024, to discuss a proposed amendment to Zoning Ordinance No. 1118 that would add definitions and regulations for permitted-use zones for "redemption games," commonly referred to in the record as games of skill, and would add Section 701.04 governing use of accessory structures on adjoining lots. Councilor Cross called the hearing to order at 6:05 p.m. at First Global Methodist Church, 42 East High Street.

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.” Solicitor Tim Wachter and Constituent Services Representative Kim Tuszynski were listed as officials present. Councilors Cross, Osborn, Steadman and Kerns were recorded as present; Councilors Joyce, Winkler and Uber were absent.

The stated purpose of the hearing was to provide information and receive public comment on the proposed ordinance changes, including the new language addressing redemption games and the proposed Section 701.04 for accessory structures on adjoining lots, and to include a repealer, severability and effective-date clause. The minutes state that no visitors were present and therefore no public comments were recorded.

Following the presentation of the ordinance language and the public comment period, Councilor Steadman moved that the public hearing be adjourned; Councilor Osborn seconded the motion and the hearing adjourned at 6:09 p.m. The record does not state any vote tally or next procedural steps following the hearing.