Citizen Portal
Sign In

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

Get email alerts on the Zoning Ordinance Amendment topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Union City holds public hearing on proposed zoning amendment for 'redemption games'

Union City Borough Council · 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

Union City Borough held a public hearing Sept. 16 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 members of the public attended and the hearing adjourned at 6:09 p.m.

Union City Borough held a public hearing Sept. 16, 2024, to solicit comment on a proposed amendment to Zoning Ordinance No. 1118 that would define and regulate "redemption games" (also described in the materials as "games of skill") and add Section 701.04 to allow 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 ordinance amendment as described in the hearing notice would (1) provide definitions and regulate permitted-use zones for redemption games/games of skill, (2) add rules permitting accessory structures to be used on adjoining lots under Section 701.04, and (3) include a repealer, severability clause and an effective date. The minutes list those ordinance elements but do not record additional details such as zoning districts affected, licensing requirements, or draft ordinance text beyond the high-level topics named in the notice.

Councilors Cross, Osborn, Steadman and Kerns were recorded as present; Joyce, Winkler and Uber were recorded as absent. Solicitor Tim Wachter and Constituent Services Representative Kim Tuszynski were listed among officials present. The borough opened the floor for public comment; the minutes state that no visitors were present to speak during the hearing.

After the public comment period, Councilor Steadman moved to adjourn the hearing; Councilor Osborn seconded. The hearing adjourned at 6:09 p.m., and the minutes were attested. The record in these minutes does not show a vote tally on the adjournment motion or subsequent steps for further ordinance consideration, and it does not record any public testimony or written comments submitted during the hearing.

The proposed amendment remains under consideration by the borough; the minutes do not specify a next meeting or additional procedural deadlines for the ordinance beyond the hearing itself.