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 zoning amendment to regulate redemption games and accessory structures
Summary
Union City Borough held a brief Sept. 16 public hearing on a proposed amendment to Zoning Ordinance No. 1118 to define and regulate "redemption games" (games of skill) and to allow accessory structures on adjoining lots; no public commenters attended.
Get email alerts on the Zoning topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Union City Borough held a short public hearing Sept. 16 to present proposed changes to Zoning Ordinance No. 1118 that would add definitions and regulation for redemption games—commonly described in the minutes as "games of skill"—and create rules allowing accessory structures on adjoining lots.
The hearing’s stated purpose was to provide information about the ordinance amendments and to receive public comment. Solicitor Tim Wachter and Constituent Services Representative Kim Tuszynski were recorded as attending. Councilor Cross called the hearing to order at 6:05 p.m. at First Global Methodist Church, 42 East High Street; Councilors Cross, Osborn, Steadman and Kerns were listed as present, and Joyce, Winkler and Uber were listed as absent.
According to the minutes, the proposed amendment to Zoning Ordinance No. 1118 would (1) add definitions and regulatory language for redemption games (referred to in the record as "games of skill"); (2) add a new Section 701.04 to permit the use of accessory structures on adjoining lots; and (3) include a repealer, severability clause and an effective date. The minutes do not record further detail about the specific regulatory standards, permitted zones, enforcement mechanisms or proposed effective date.
No members of the public attended to offer comment on the proposal, and the minutes record that the hearing received no public testimony. With no commenters present, Councilor Steadman moved to adjourn the hearing; Councilor Osborn seconded the motion. The minutes record that the hearing adjourned at 6:09 p.m.
The record supplied by the borough does not specify next procedural steps such as when the council will take a formal vote on Ordinance No. 1118, whether written comments will be accepted, or the precise wording of the proposed Section 701.04; those details were not provided in the minutes.
