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 rules for 'redemption games' and accessory structures
Summary
Union City Borough held a Sept. 16, 2024, public hearing on a proposed amendment to Zoning Ordinance No. 1118 to define and regulate "redemption games" (games of skill) and to add rules for accessory structures on adjoining lots; no public comments were received and the hearing adjourned at 6:09 p.m.
Union City Borough held a public hearing Sept. 16, 2024, on a proposed amendment to Zoning Ordinance No. 1118 that would define and regulate "redemption games" (also described in the agenda as games of skill) and add Section 701.04 to permit the use of accessory structures on adjoining lots, officials said.
The hearing, called to order at 6:05 p.m. by Councilor Cross at First Global Methodist Church, included a reading of 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.” Councilors Cross, Osborn, Steadman and Kerns were recorded as present; Joyce, Winkler and Uber were noted as absent. Solicitor Tim Wachter and Constituent Services Representative Kim Tuszynski were listed as officials in attendance.
According to the hearing agenda summarized in the minutes, the proposed ordinance amendment would (1) provide definitions and regulation of permitted use zones for redemption games, (2) add Section 701.04 concerning use of accessory structures on adjoining lots, and (3) include standard repeal, severability and effective-date language. The minutes do not record detailed debate, proposed amendments to the draft text, or any formal vote on the ordinance itself.
No visitors attended to provide public comment during the hearing, the minutes say. The council moved to adjourn after the hearing: Councilor Steadman moved that the public hearing be adjourned and Councilor Osborn seconded; the minutes state the hearing adjourned at 6:09 p.m. The transcript does not record a roll-call vote on the adjournment motion.
The minutes do not specify next steps for the proposed amendment, such as whether the borough will schedule further hearings, accept written comments, or place the draft ordinance on a future council agenda for action. Those procedural details were not provided in the minutes.
