MEDINA COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
MINUTES OF MEETING
WEDNESDAY, APRIL 4, 2007, 7:00 P.M.
PROFESSIONAL BUILDING, LOWER LEVEL CONFERENCE ROOM
Attendees / Representing:
Andy Conrad, Highway Engineers
Paul Lampert
Ryan Carr, RMCN Group, LLC
Jim Kamps, Hinckley Township
Al Kiene
Jeff Van Loon, Medina Soil & Water Conservation District
Andy Planet, Rolling & Hocevar
Judy Emrick, Montville Township ZI
Tom Mason
MCPC Members:
Lynda Bowers, Vice President
Buck Adams, 2nd Vice President
Pam Miller
Ron Rhodes
Larry Landis
Kathleen Scheutzow
Elayne Siegfried
MCDPS Staff:
Patrice Theken, Director
Cheryl Schmock, Administrative Assistant
Susan Hirsch, Deputy Director
Tom Russell, Associate Planner
Zach Greatens, Associate Planner
Chris Bartell, Associate Planner
Vice President Lynda Bowers called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
I. ROLL CALL
Ms. Schmock called the roll. Ms. Bowers, Mr. Adams, Mr. Landis, Mr. Rhodes, Ms. Miller, Ms.
Siegfried, and Ms. Scheutzow were present.
II PUBLIC HEARING
Ms. Bowers opened the Public Hearing on the revisions for the Medina County Subdivision
Regulations at 7:09 p.m.
Mr. Kamps brought up an item on page 50 relative to the stub streets. There was some
controversy to the wording and Mr. Thorne was to review it. The draft that came back was read
by the Township. Mr. Kamps said they are comfortable with it (in the current draft form). Ms.
Theken said there was a letter from Mr. Thorne that was a part of the packet that gave an
explanation. She said she did not change the Subdivision Regulations that were in front of Mr.
Kamps. She asked if it was alright to use the language in the letter of March 15th from Mr.
Thorne in Section 604 B3.
Ms. Bowers asked for comment from the public. There was none. Ms. Theken said she and Mr.
Russell met with Dan Wilhote and Andy Conrad and an email was sent out to the Commission
members early this week. The issue that Mr. Thorne brought up at the last Public Hearing was
that the language that was being used in the proposed Subdivision Regulations for local
floodplains was not appropriate at this time. Dan Wilhote, Andy Conrad, Patrice Theken, and
Tom Russell sat down, went through the proposed Regulations, and determined where it was
necessary to make the changes to accommodate Mr. Thorne’s concern until the floodplain
regulations are adopted.
Ms. Bowers moved to close the public comment section of the Public Hearing at 7:14 p.m.
Ms. Theken said all the reformatting should be taken care of, all the pages should be correct as
should the numbering. She has gone through it a couple of times and has not seen any errors, but
asked the Commission to point out any they may some across.
The first thing recommended when she met with Andy Conrad and Dan Wilhote was to remove
the definition for “local floodplain”, which is under “floodplain, local” on page 16. She asked if
there was any objection to that. There was none.
Ms. Bowers asked Ms. Theken to go through them one at a time and asked if there was any
objection. There was none.
Under Section 404b4 on page 29, the need for Stormwater study, the recommendation was to
delete “to be submitted with the Preliminary Plan” and to add the language, “such studies shall
comply with the current Medina County Stormwater Management Regulations”. There were no
comments on this Section.
C:\Docstoc\Working\pdf\025b660e-ea99-42a8-9c07-2520da0ee3e7.doc 2
Section 4042b7, on page 31, the proposal is to delete the phrase, “local floodplain elevations and
boundaries as described in Section 605C2 of these Regulations from the following”.
Ms. Theken said this was being done as a result of the concerns that Mr. Thorne expressed last
month.
Ms. Theken explained in the next paragraph, the idea is to take out the references to the local
floodplain elevation boundaries.
Section 404C 2d4, page 33, remove 100-year floodplain boundaries and elevation language.
Section 4042D 2a12, page 38, remove 100-year floodplain boundaries and elevation language
under the Final Plat requirements.
Section 404 D2a13, page 38, add the term “100-year” in front of floodplain. Ms. Theken said at
this time it only says, “floodplain” so this way it will identify it as the 100-year floodplain and
using the terminology from the definition.
Section 503 B8, it says “floodzone” and in order to be consistent with the definition they were
proposing to change “zone” to “plain”, so it is consistent with what the definitions say.
The last item that was not on the list was Section 605 C3b. Ms. Theken said it was proposed to
take that out, and if the Commission members do not have it, then she said that was the way it
should be.
Ms. Theken asked if the language for development within FEMA designated 100-year floodplain
appeared before all the members. They said yes. Then she asked if they all had a paragraph that
begins with, “all sanitary sewer systems…” Some confusion ensued with numerous members
talking.
The paragraph reading “development within local floodplains” should be removed. Ms. Miller
asked if it should be the whole paragraph. Ms. Theken said yes. She said that should leave you
with a paragraph that begins with “all sanitary sewer systems….” All members agreed.
Ms. Bowers asked if there was a motion to consider the amendments in whole. Ms. Scheutzow
asked when number 4 was deleted, on page 33, Ms. Theken would re-number the subsequent
items. Ms. Theken said yes she would. Mr. Rhodes moved to approve the amendments to the
Medina County Subdivision Regulations. Ms. Scheutzow seconded the motion. Ms. Siegfried
pointed out that in Mr. Thorne’s letter the word “guaranteed” is spelled wrong.
Mr. Adams questioned Section 605 C2, “local floodplains or streams which do not have FEMA
designated”, etc. He asked if that language will be remaining in. Ms. Theken said yes, because
that has been in there since 2004. He said ok, he just wanted to make sure. All voted AYE and
the motion was approved.
Mr. Thorne informed the Commission that on minor subdivisions, it specifically provides that the
Commission can conditionally approve a minor subdivision on the applicant’s compliance of
Section 307.37, the same Section they tried to use to get to the local floodplain. If the
Commissioners adopt appropriate regulations it would allow them to have site specific analysis
of those other two Sections. He did not know if it would be any benefit to the overall goal of
eliminating some of the flooding problems, but it may be something they want to recommend to
the Commissioners. Mr. Thorne added even if they were going to amend the Stormwater
C:\Docstoc\Working\pdf\025b660e-ea99-42a8-9c07-2520da0ee3e7.doc 3
Regulations and even if it only applies to a small class of properties. This could then be
referenced to the Subdivision Requirements and they could go through the individual analysis if
it was necessary for the Commission to approve a minor subdivision.
Ms. Theken informed Mr. Thorne the procedure now is if there is a floodplain on a property,
Andy Conrad catches it and lets the Planning staff know. The staff then has the applicant put the
appropriate floodplain language on the plat. Mr. Thorne said the Commissioners could adopt the
provision for the non-FEMA floodplain, which would allow for individual analysis. The minor
subdivision provisions of the Subdivision Code are now adopted and you can conditionally
approve on compliance of that Section of the law. If there is a real problem that compliance
could be that they have to have the individual analysis for the minor split prior to approval. He
said it may b duplicative, but there are different standards of it. Mr. Thorne said he was just
throwing it out there for information. Mr. Adams said they would consistent with each other, so
it would be beneficial.
Ms. Hirsch pointed out that the Commission does not see minor subdivisions. Ms. Bowers said
what would be the mechanism to get it before them. Ms. Hirsch thought that Ms. Theken could
bring it before the Commission if it were controversial enough. Ms. Bowers said the
Commission would have to have authority to do that in the Regulations. Ms. Theken said that
could be evaluated at another time.
Ms. Theken asked the Commission if it was their desire to approve the draft and send it on to the
Commissioners, or was it see the changes in place and then approve it.
Ms. Miller felt this has been gone over enough times and based on the corrections and
amendments to let it go through for approval.
Ms. Bowers asked for a motion to approve and send this forward to the Commissioners with the
correct text.
Mr. Adams moved to approve and forward to the Commissioners the Subdivision Regulations in
the current corrected text. Ms. Miller seconded the motion. All voted AYE and the motion was
approved.
II. MINUTES
Ms. Bowers asked if there were any questions or comments regarding the March 7, 2007 minutes.
There were none.
Ms. Scheutzow moved to approve the March 7, 2007 minutes as presented. Mr. Adams seconded
the motion. All voted AYE and the motion was approved.
III. CORRESPONDENCE
Ms. Theken stated that there was no correspondence.
C:\Docstoc\Working\pdf\025b660e-ea99-42a8-9c07-2520da0ee3e7.doc 4
IV. OLD BUSINESS
A. Saddlewood Subdivision, Preliminary Plan, Liverpool Township, 267-2007 PP
Mr. Greatens presented his staff report to the Commission regarding the above captioned
subdivision located on the east side of Station Road, south of Center Road, north of W. Law
Road. This proposed subdivision abuts the west side of Valley Estates Subdivision.
The current proposal is for 27 sublots developed under Liverpool Township’s Controlled Density
Overlay District regulations. There will be 15.85 acres (48.87%) of open space. The Preliminary
Plan approved on July 5, 2006, has been revised to reflect the current submittal. The current
submittal for 27 sublots was reviewed and tabled at the January 3, 2007 Planning Commission
meeting due to concern over long term maintenance of the open space.
Access to the subdivision will be from one point on Station Road. Horseshoe Trail, a proposed
60 foot public right-of-way street will access Station Road and terminate as a permanent cul-de-
sac to the east. All streets are public and have a 60 foot right-of-way. Street “B” terminates as a
permanent cul-de-sac to the north and is within the Medina County Subdivision Regulations
limits. No stub streets are indicated due to the floodplains/environmental conditions to the north
and east, and the land to the south is already developed.
Ron Rhodes asked Mr. Greatens to bring up the zoomed in map. He asked where the land in the
open space was getting deeded to. Mr. Greatens explained the allocation of the open space..
Pam Miller asked if both parcels were owned by the same owner. Mr. Greatens said yes, but they
are not part of the subdivision.
Andy Planet, Rolling and Hocevar, with Tom Mason, developer, said that Mr. Mason would be
answering any questions. Mr. Planet said that they were trying to work through and address
some of the open space items that occurred at the last meeting. Mr. Mason said, concerning the
open space, he has been trying to determine who would get what between the 2 farmsteads that
are there. Talking with the Township, Mr. Mason said he spoke with James Crocker and he
agreed that the way the CDZ zoning is written is what he was trying to achieve in keeping the
open space intact to the way the community is now. As far as Mr. Mason leaving it to the
existing farmstead, that was the whole purpose of trying to keep it intact through farming. At the
last meeting there was a possibility that the Park District could take some conservation, but he
was told that was not needed by the Trustees.
Ron Rhodes asked if the farmstead was split in two. Mr. Mason said yes. Mr. Rhodes clarified
the two parcels to the north are going to have control of the back half. Mr. Mason said that was
correct. Mr. Rhodes asked if the two parcels and the farmstead were part of the subdivision. Mr.
Mason said no. Mr. Rhodes asked who would have control of the open space once the farmstead
is sold. Mr. Mason said it would be stated in the deed that it would be combined as one, farm
and open space. He explained he owned the property and if he sold one, they would have an
eight-acres parcel combining the six acres to the north with the two-acre parcel. If that sold, it
would always be combined with that open space parcel. The parcel on the bottom, the three-acre
farm, would go to the south; all that open area would be combined with that farmstead. He said it
would always look the way it does now. Mr. Mason said if he ever sold them they would have
an eight-acre parcel and farm just like it is now. Ms. Bowers asked if there were restrictions on
the deed that keep those parcels that are not part of the subdivision from splitting down further in
the future. Mr. Mason said that would be addressed in the restrictions. Ms. Bowers clarified that
C:\Docstoc\Working\pdf\025b660e-ea99-42a8-9c07-2520da0ee3e7.doc 5
the deed restrictions on those properties were not in the subdivision. Mr. Mason said that was
correct.
Ms. Theken said she did not see language in the document that the applicant submitted that
would specifically state those restrictions. There was no language submitted that would reflect
what the deeds themselves would say and that would be a concern. She said the documents were
sent to the Prosecutor’s office for review and as Mr. Greatens stated we are still waiting for
comments. Ms. Bowers said she was particularly concerned because these are outside of the
subdivision. Ms. Theken said they wanted to make sure that this was going to be permanent open
space and if the farmstead is sold, then what would happen to the permanent open space.
Mr. Rhodes said that was exactly what he was concerned about and asked Ms. Theken if the open
space would be protected. She said she was not saying it would be protected. From her reading
of the language that was not what it said, but that was why she sent it on to the Prosecutor’s
office for their opinion.
Ms. Miller said she was having trouble understanding how this was permitted. Did the CDZ
overlay District in Liverpool Township describe such an open space procedure? She found it
unusual that Mr. Mason would not have the open space be a part of the subdivision so that the
people that live in the subdivision would have access. She said unless this was put into a land
conservancy she didn’t see anything that could bind it into remaining undeveloped. She also said
it really did not fit the true meaning of what open space is when you had it in a subdivision, but
she said she may have missed something.
Ms. Theken stated that the language that applied from the CDZ zoning district was in Staff
Comment 1 and 2. Mr. Greatens read from the Liverpool Resolution, Section 306.8A 2.
Ms. Scheutzow asked when they created the definition of “open space” under the controlled
density overlay, did it make any reference to it being part of the plat of the subdivision. Mr.
Greatens said he did not recall seeing anything that stated it had to be part of the subdivision.
Ms. Bowers said her recollection of the adoption was that planning staff specifically raised
concern about some of that vague language and the applicant chose to stay with it. Mr. Mason
said there is no common area, it was all open area.
Ms. Seigfried said the key is that the Township and the Prosecutor’s Office have to work out
language that would be acceptable to the Township to make sure that their concept of open space
is working. Ms. Theken said yes.
Ms. Scheutzow said what about funding provisions because there was some statement regarding
funding for the maintenance for the property. She questioned if this would be under one of the
County’s drainage assessments. Andy Conrad, Highway Engineer’s Office, said maintenance
would not be done on the open space (inaudible). Ms. Scheutzow said that would seem to be a
deficiency in the long term protection of that land. If both detention basins are in the open space
there might be some funding mechanism for maintenance for the retention basin, but not the open
space. That would seem to be a deficiency in the long term protection of that land. Mr. Conrad
said they would not mow that area.
Ms. Bowers asked the applicant if he would consider amending his subdivision application to
include the entire farm in the subdivision. Mr. Planet said they would be willing to include the
other two parcels where they would be platted together with the open space as an easement on the
C:\Docstoc\Working\pdf\025b660e-ea99-42a8-9c07-2520da0ee3e7.doc 6
plat. He said the Planning Commission would be aware that it would not be able to be split up
because they would have to appear before the Commission to receive the lot split. Ms. Theken
said with the understanding that the open space that was shown as open space can not be
modified as far as putting in tennis courts or any kind of significant modification to the
environmentally sensitive areas. Ms. Bowers said open space stays open space.
Ms. Miller asked about the language regarding reversion. Mr. Greatens read from Staff
Comment 3, reversion clause. He added that that language was also part of the Liverpool CDZ
language. Ms. Theken said if it was not maintained then it could revert to the Township for
maintenance. Ms. Miller said it did not revert when someone builds on it. Ms. Bowers said if it
was all included in the subdivision plat, it would have to come back to Planning Commission for
that to happen.
Mr. Greatens inquired if it were included with the plat would that not effect the overall acreage
and density. Ms. Bowers said it would not be less, so it should not be problematic. He said they
have certain percentages of open space in their CDZ district (not less than 40% and no greater
than 50%) and he did not know if that would cause a problem. Ms. Bowers questioned a
maximum open space provision. Ms. Hirsch cited an example using 10 acres and everything
would be put on one acre. That makes the one acre awfully dense and if you are adjacent to that
one acre you would want it dispersed more than that. She said it was not uncommon to have a
maximum to prevent any particular portion of the site from being overly dense.
Mr. Rhodes asked where the split was between the north and the south property. Ms. Theken
said it was on the larger drawing that was included with the packet.
Paul Lampert, Center Road, said his letter explains his concerns about drainage and the amount
of flooding if it rains over ¾ of an inch. The County has told him that they adjust for the flood as
far as the retention basins. According to what the EPA states retention basins have to take ¾ of
an inch of rain and disperse that within 24 hours. That is the main requirement; anything above
that is at the discretion of the County, so they meet the pre and post development runoff. He
said his concern was the location of this with the creek that drains into all lands west. There is
another creek that comes in down near the corner of Station and SR 303. That whole large area
between Station Road and Weigal Road winds through there and into that location. He said his
letter details how much water hits that area and that is his main concern. If the retention basins
are taken care of to the point that more than ¾ of an inch of rain is taken on, because 2 or more
inches could be taken on in that area. He said he had no problem with what Tom Mason has
offered and he knows who is “behind him”. According to EPA Regulations, up to 20 years, the
retention basins should be mowed every month. He offered the copy he had for anyone to read
and there is monthly, yearly, and going back 15 to 20 years as far as what has to be done to
maintain the basin. Once the basin fills in with pollutants, they have to be dredged out.
Larry Landis asked about combining the portions. Ms. Theken said the way she understood it
they were not taking the open space out of the subdivision and you can not deed something that is
in a subdivision to something that is outside of a subdivision. She said if the applicant were
going to make the farm and the farm house part of the subdivision then what the applicant was
proposing would be more likely to be able to be done.
Ms. Miller pointed out that what Ms. Theken just said was not one of the staff recommendations
and the applicant would not be permitted to do what they are suggesting they want to do (deed
within the subdivision). Ms. Theken said Ms. Miller was correct and as she looked at that she
C:\Docstoc\Working\pdf\025b660e-ea99-42a8-9c07-2520da0ee3e7.doc 7
just thought of it. Mr. Planet said you could own a sublot and an adjoining minor parcel. Ms.
Theken said they can not be combined. Numerous discussions ensued; inaudible.
Ms. Scheutzow stated that the parcel to the north would basically be landlocked and if they deed
it they would just give it to the same ownership as the parcel coming off Station Road. Somehow
they will have to come up with a restriction that says whoever buys the parcel on Station Road
has to buy the back land at the same time. They are not going to quiet the title and make it one
big parcel; it would be two separate parcels. The other parcel to the south has access on Station
Road and if it is owned by someone else, they could sell that to another party, but you are still
left with who would do the maintenance and protect the open space into perpetuity. She said
maybe the Prosecutor’s office is good on the language, but at this point, there has been
significant doubts expressed at this table about how that would be accomplished.
Mr. Mason answered that at this time this is an existing farm; soybeans were farmed there last
year, next year it will be corn. He said there is no maintenance. That is what he was trying to
achieve in the zoning. Ms. Scheutzow said, so the deed restrictions would be that this has to be
continuously farmed. Mr. Mason said yes, that was all you could do with it. He said they (?)
want it left open and untouched. Ms. Miller asked him about the creek. He said the creek can
not be touched because it is in a 100-year floodplain area. There are wetlands in there and you
are not allowed to disturb the area. Ms. Scheutzow said creeks need to be kept free flowing
under the drainage laws. She understood he was going to keep farming the areas that he was able
to, but there were some concerns about the drainage pond. Mr. Mason said that would be
handled by the County and if there was any maintenance, he was sure they would handle it.
Andy Conrad said they do not maintain the mowing, but the structure yes. Mr. Mason said he
would guess the owner would have to mow it even though it has not been mowed in the last 100
years.
Ms. Miller asked Mr. Mason why he did not want a homeowners association. Mr. Mason said he
did not like the politics surrounding them and that no one wants part of them anymore, in his
opinion.
Mr. Rhodes said he respected that Mr. Mason wanted to farm this property the rest of his life, but
he could not assume the future property owner would farm it just as he would. Mr. Mason said
he did not have to farm it as long as he left it natural and does not build on it. Ms. Bowers asked
Mr. Mason if he could appreciate the concern that his intention to maintain the ponds sounds
good, but was not enforceable unless there was some guarantee that would make that happen.
Mr. Mason said he guessed he would have to make some kind of guarantee.
Ms. Hirsch offered that we could more easily attain what we want if the two parcels were in the
subdivision (or at least one). There also needs to be a way to write deed restrictions that would
allow it to be maintained by those homeowners in perpetuity (and include the retention basins).
She said the wording that they have seen does not work at this time and it was her understanding
between last months Planning Commission meeting and this months that was what was going to
be done. Mr. Mason said he was under the understanding that they wanted it see to put under a
Park System or someone else holding the reservation easement on it. Ms. Hirsch said that was
one alternative, but if nobody is willing to take it then there has to be wording that would show
the Commission it will remain open and maintained. Ms. Bowers asked Mr. Mason if he would
like an opportunity to do that. He said yes. Ms. Bowers asked if he would ask the Commission
for a table. Mr. Mason said yes. She asked that he get that in writing to the Planning staff first
thing tomorrow morning.
C:\Docstoc\Working\pdf\025b660e-ea99-42a8-9c07-2520da0ee3e7.doc 8
Mr. Adams moved to approve the applicant’s verbal request to table Saddlewood Preliminary
Plan Subdivision. Ms. Siegfried seconded the motion. All voted AYE and the motion was
approved
V. NEW BUSINESS
A. Colonial Hills Subdivision, Ph II, Preliminary Plan, Sharon Township, 040-2007 PP
Ms. Theken presented her staff report to the Commission regarding the above captioned
subdivision located south of Fixler Road and west of Colonial Hills Drive.
The proposed Phase II of Colonial Hills Subdivision will complete the division of the property
initiated in 1997. Twelve sublots are to be served by county sewer and on-site water wells.
Access to Phase II is through Phase I, which accesses Fixler Road by way of Colonial Hills Drive
and Beacon Hills Drive, both having a 60 foot right-of-way. Beacon Hill Drive stubs into
undeveloped land to the west with a temporary turn-around and a 10 foot reservation strip.
Ms. Theken added that the applicant did need to correct the rear yard setback, submit the Army
Corps letter, correct the acreage, and if homeowner association documents are necessary, they
would need to submit those. For the Final Plat they need final zoning approval and new street
name approval by Tax Map office. She also would recommend to the applicant that they come in
for a pre-application meeting prior to submitting the Final Plat documents.
Ryan Carr, RMCN Group, stated that the comments would be addressed as necessary.
Mr. Landis asked what the correct acreage was. Ms. Theken said it was off a fraction of an acre.
He asked if it had any effect on the two acre lots. Ms. Theken said no.
Ms. Miller moved to approve the staff recommendation of Approval for Colonial Hills, Phase II
Preliminary Plan excluding staff comment # 4. Ms. Siegfried seconded the motion. All voted
AYE and the motion was approved.
**Mr. Rhodes recused himself from the next discussion at 8:11 p.m.
B. Secluded Highlands Subdivision, Replat 2, Ph III, Replat, Hinckley Township, 040-2007
PP
Ms. Hirsch presented the staff recommendations to the Commission for the above captioned
subdivision located on the west side of Oviatt Road southeast of Rising Valley Park.
The current proposal is for a Replat to create two sublots (51 and 52) where Blocks “B” and “C”
had existed.
All of the streets within the subdivision are public with a 60 foot right-of-way. Access to the
subdivision is provided by means of one access from Oviatt Road, which also has a 60 foot right-
C:\Docstoc\Working\pdf\025b660e-ea99-42a8-9c07-2520da0ee3e7.doc 9
of-way. Oviatt Road is itself a cul-de-sac since it dead-ends in Rising Valley Park for
approximately six months of the year due to mud and snow.
Andy Planet, Rolling and Hocevar, addressed the comments from Tax Maps and said the changes
have been made to the plat.
Jim Kamps, Hinckley Township, said they have reviewed the plat and they have no problem.
Ms. Scheutzow moved to approve the staff recommendations of Approval for the Secluded
Highlands Replat 2, Phase III Subdivision. Ms. Siegfried seconded the motion. All voted AYE
and the motion was approved.
**8:17 p.m., Ron Rhodes rejoined the Commission and Elayne Siegfried recused herself from the
next discussion.
C. Montville Township Text Amendment, 039-2007 TA
Mr. Bartell presented staff recommendations to the Commission regarding the above captioned
text amendment regarding various changes to the Zoning Resolution. Chapters 210, 310, 410,
414, 450, 510, 520, and 710.
The proposed text amendment was initiated by Montville Township Zoning Commission. This is
a clarification and update of numerous sections.
Judy Emrick, Zoning Inspector Montville Township, said the Zoning Commission had the public
hearing last week. They will be meeting for a special meeting tomorrow evening for their
Comprehensive Plan. She did put Planning staff comments for the Township’s review when they
meet for that meeting in case there were any changes before the Trustees meeting.
Ms. Miller questioned the “accessory living quarter”. Ms. Emrick explained it was an in-law area
that does not necessarily have to be in the main dwelling and can not have a kitchen.
Ms. Miller moved to approve staff recommendations of Approval with Modifications for the
Montville Township Text Amendment. Mr. Landis seconded the motion. All voted AYE and the
motion was approved.
**8:22 p.m., Elayne Siegfried rejoined the Commission.
VI. PLANNING DIRECTOR’S REPORT
The monthly budget was also included for the Commission to review.
Ms. Theken provided a handout from the NOACA site about the transportation for livable
communities initiative and this is a program out of NOACA where funding is available to
communities for certain kinds of planning for transportation projects. It is something that she
wanted everyone to know about just in case there was interest in putting together some kind of
project or program such as those listed on the printout.
Every month if she finds items of interest, she will include them in the agenda packet. She was
not sure whether or not everyone looks at it or finds it useful. She was wondering if under some
C:\Docstoc\Working\pdf\025b660e-ea99-42a8-9c07-2520da0ee3e7.doc 10
circumstances rather than make copies and put them in the packet it would be more beneficial to
email the links to all the members. Ms. Bowers asked if they could do some one way and some
the other, that may save some copying time.
Mr. Russell suggested inserting it as an information link on the Planning Services website. Ms.
Theken said that way it would always be available for a period of time. Ms. Scheutzow said she
sometimes receives it both ways (email as well as paper copies).
Ms. Theken said the bottom line would be the things she provides to the Commission, did they
find them helpful, useful, and was it something that they want Planning Services to continue to
provide in one way or another. Mr. Rhodes among other members stated yes. Mr. Adams
asserted that he personally liked the links because he sets aside time everyday to read his email
and look at the links that are sent to him. He said he has found he spends more time reading
online than he does from the packet.
Mr. Russell said as a side note, in May, (there is a website called Cyburbia that was fairly well
known in planning geekdom), a planner from Lake County will be coming down to do a
presentation on planning and zoning information that was available on the internet.
VII. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
Jeff Van Loon, Medina County Soil and Water Conservation District, requested some time in the
near future be set aside when his office could come in and present the Balanced Growth Initiative
project that has been in the works for Medina County central north. Ms. Bowers asked how much
time would be needed. He said about a half hour. Ms. Bowers asked if the Commission minded
having the meeting a half hour earlier (6:30 p.m.) and asked for a consensus. All members
agreed that the May 2, 2007 MCPC meeting would begin at 6:30 p.m. Ms. Theken asked Mr. Van
Loon if he needed until June. He said he would try for May.
VIII. OTHER BUSINESS
Ms. Miller brought up in the Subdivision Regulations under Purpose, Section F that one of the
purposes of the Regulations is to insure adequate and convenient traffic movement, utilities, etc.
She learned recently that apparently there are some issues regarding electricity in our County. As
an example, Medina General Hospital has a backup system through Ohio Edison that if the power
goes down, there is another source of power. Because of the growth in the County they need new
high power transmission boxes that are not in the budget nor are they in any part of future plans to
build. As a result, they are going to take away that ability for the Hospital to have the ability to
switch on to the other system. As a result the Hospital was going to have to spend a lot of money
to insure they can be up and running if there is some sort of emergency. She questioned if that
was an issue that as a Planning Commission they should be looking at; that if there is not adequate
electricity in the County then they should not be approving these subdivisions that were going to
require more than we could supply.
Ms. Theken said she was not sure how to analyze that. Mr. Russell suggested that the PUCO has
the authority to regulate public utilities. She said this was a disturbing situation and it is one more
of those growth issues in the County.
C:\Docstoc\Working\pdf\025b660e-ea99-42a8-9c07-2520da0ee3e7.doc 11
Ms. Hirsch pointed out all the subdivision plans do get sent to Ohio Edison, they just do not
comment.
IX. ADJOURNMENT
Mr. Adams moved to adjourn the April 4, 2007 MCPC meeting at 8:35 p.m. Ms Miller seconded
the motion. All voted AYE and the motion was approved.
________________________________ _________________________________
Colene Conley, President Cheryl Schmock, Admin Asst
C:\Docstoc\Working\pdf\025b660e-ea99-42a8-9c07-2520da0ee3e7.doc 12