Zoning Commission - Regular Meeting

2025 meeting of the Union Township Zoning Commission is now called to order. Please rise for the pledge of allegiance. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands. One nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Thank you. Please be seated. Mr. McCormack, could you please call roll? Certainly. Mr. Smith here. Mr. Taft here. Mr. Wing here. Mr. Campbell here. Mr. Lewis here. We have quum. Thank you. All right. Do we have a motion to approve the minutes from our October 22nd, 2025 meeting? So moved. I'll

second. Second. Uh, Mr. McCorman, please call roll. Mr. Smith, yes. Mr. Tooff, yes. Mr. Wing, yes. Mr. Campbell, yes. Mr. Lewis, abstain. We have four nothing vote with an abstension. For those of you here, I was not at that meeting. I can't vote on a minute, so I'm not here. Just for future reference, if you're not at a meeting, you can vote for the minutes. Um, if we ever have a problem where there's not enough people, for example, you can you can vote for the minutes if you want. Oh, if the if we don't if we just have if we don't if we only have a quorum. If I

Yeah. If only three people showed up and we had a turnover on the board like the next time around. I've had that happen before. You can vote on the minutes. Oh, okay.

Thank you. Uh Mr. Campbell, could you uh make an announcement on the uh speakers? Uh yes, Mr. Chairman. So, prior to the hearing of the case this evening, I was asked to provide a brief overview about the process. When a case is called, the commission will hear from the applicant or their representative first. The commission reserves the right to question the applicant at any time. After the applicant's presentation, the floor will be open to anyone else who wishes to speak in support of the proposal. Then we will open the floor to those wishing to speak against the proposal. Those wishing to speak must fill out and provide us with a speaker registration form. All speakers must speak at the podium and into the microphone for recording purposes. Each speaker must identify themselves for the record. The commission reserves the right to ask questions of persons speaking against the proposal. The expectation is for speakers and observers to maintain the professional decorum of this meeting at all times. We understand that individuals are often passionate regarding their positions and preferences. However, this meeting cannot function properly if it becomes unruly. We will ask that all speakers be conscientious of the time and that speakers be concise and avoid making repetitive statements. Once those in opposition to the proposal have spoken, the case will be closed for public comment. Discussion at that time is limited to the commission, although the commission may ask questions of zoning staff, the applicant, or those in opposition. After discussion, the chairman will call for a motion from the commission. This motion requires a second after which the motion itself is open to discussion. A vote will be

called and action taken on the motion. When a motion receives a majority vote, the commission issues its recommendations to the board of trustees in accordance with the wording of the motion. The options before the commission are to recommend approval of the requested change. approval of the requested change with some modifications or denial of the requested change. The purpose of the motion is to make a recommendation to the board of trustees regarding the case. The authority to grant an applicant's zoning request or to deny an applicant's zoning request rests with the board of trustees. This case will be heard at the next meeting of the trustees which is scheduled for

December 9th. All right. December 9th, 6 PM. At 6 PM in this room. Uh, that concludes the opening statement. Great. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Campbell. Has everyone filled out a form that wishes to speak? All right. Thank you. All right. I don't believe we have any old business. Does anyone have any old business they're aware of? Okay. We'll move on to our first case. Case 3-25-Z, zoning map amendment. Uh, Mr. Mr. McCormack, could you please provide us a case synopsis?

Certainly. We'll go over the staff report that um you have and also the ones that I provided in the back of the room. Uh so the case numbers 325Z applicants Marian Development Group site location. Uh there are two address sites. one of which is cleared used to have a structure on it which is um I believe the 4662 Beachwood Road address and the other property being 4676 Beachwood Road which is still occupied I think by the people that own that property. Um owner of the first site is Charter Marshall. Second site's owned by the Brewbacres. The parcel numbers that correspond to each one um are listed here. Total acreage involved is 4.58 acres. Um if the property's developed, the property will be um consolidated. There will be some additional road rightway that would get um dedicated to the county. And as a result, that 4.58 acres would be reduced to right at four acres. Just so you know, if you looked at the numbers, that's why there's a discrepancy, I think. um existing zoning uh R is R2 single family detached structure and the request involves the reszone from R2 to plan development for the purposes of establishing a 118 unit assisted living living facility. Um so these are not apartments. We've had some people question about that. their assisted living units. And I believe the um average stay from talking to the applicant of each person is somewhere in the range of two to three years before they reach a point that they may need more significant care and they move to another facility. Um and they can and the applicant can speak about that a little more, but I did talk to them a little bit about that to try to understand the use a little more. Uh so that is the purpose of the the reszone. PD was the designation that

they had to look at because in reality we couldn't use the R4 designation because it's not quite something like a multif family. It's kind of commercial institutional. Um and that's why the PD is what we were directing them to apply for. Subject property. I mentioned the location. It's um just to the norththeast of the intersection of Beachwood Road and Old Beachwood. Um here's the zoning. As I mentioned, the site's zoned R2. Everything to the um northeast, east, and south is zone R2 and to the west, northwest is zone R1. Of note though, um that those properties that are just to the north and to the um east of the site, even though there are two under today's zoning scheme, they would probably be zoned R3 or R4. Um these units here immediately adjacent to the north and east are more like a two two and a half maybe story units that are multifamily. These ones that are a little bit more to the north east are more closer to three stories in height. I would say they're I would estimate they're probably between 27 and 28 feet in height if I had to guess. Maybe 30 at the most. Um and then the everything in the R1 area and everything on Tecumpsa is more like your single family ranch type home. I mean there might be a couple that are two stories. Um but again kind of the R2 designation to the north and to the east is a little misleading in the sense that like the under today's scheme these would probably be R3 if not R4 at least in terms of what touches that area. Um I have a question when I surveyed the the site today I noticed there's a

residence uh still just on the other on the north side of the uh right here of the development. Yes. and it looked like it's an occupied residence. Is that correct? Um I believe that it is um it is not part of the project as of right now. I don't know if the applicants talked to that that in particular person or not. They would have to address that. All right. But um yeah, that would be the if the project were to move forward in any fashion, that would be potentially the loan single family unit left between the this area and what's there to the northeast. And those are when I saw those are condominiums, twotory condominiums surrounding it. Yeah. Yeah.

All right. Thank you. Please proceed.

Relationship to the U 2030 comprehensive land use plan uh indicates the subject property is not located within a designated focus area corridor and as such u there are no specific recommendations regarding the land use patterns policy guidelines for that particular area. Um the proposed use would be considered more of an institutional use than a multif family use. Um and in that sense it is similar in nature not out of character with the adjacent existing multif family highdensity residential uses uh that I referenced here a minute ago to the immediate northeast and northeast or the commercial mixeduse areas and nearby not in nearby um Mount Carmel business focus area which is between 500 and 800 feet south of the site. um on the previous slide. Um for example, this is in the Mount Carmel overlay area and I think the other part of it right here.

So those are the two closest areas to this site. You've got that neighborhood on Tecumpsa and part of Craig that's between the focus area that's there. [clears throat] Um, as indicated in the land use plan, the 50 plus age demographic is increasing in the township as these generations age in place. And according to the 20 2023 5-year estimates, 36% of the township's population is within the 50 and older age cohort. By 2030, majority of the baby boomer generation will be entering the 65 and older um age cohort. So, the percentage of the township population that's in this age group is expected to continue to rise. And this is not a local phenomenon only this is happening everywhere. Um developments which provide for an aging population such as the project here um are intended to provide a location and affordable opportunity alternative for the township residents to continue to age in place or in close proximity to the community. In terms of uh page three of I have the uh reference to the Union Township zoning resolution applicable codes for the PD reszone process section 680 to 684 and 687 being the most um applicable in terms of the background for this site. Both of the properties appear to have been zoned single family detached residential since the towning township zoning map and its associated districts were initially adopted. I actually have the old map in my office. I took a picture and looked at it. They've been the same. Now the the thing that's changed is even though they've been R2 and R1 in that area, the criteria for that has changed since the late 50s, but the actual zone itself hasn't changed.

I see. So, um there have been no cases um for zoning involving these properties that we found. Um they've both been used prior for single family or currently being used in the one property for single family uses. Um the property at 4662 Beachwood appears to been vacant for about the past five years. And then prior to that on the aerials, you can see that there was a structure there. And so the other property involved is currently occupied is this one here and it is part of the subject site. The old house was there. You can see there's an old drive here. The old house I think was in this area here. Uh this is the proposed plan cleaned up. It doesn't have the setbacks on it. Um but the ones that zoom in do. Um but I they're hard to fit on the screen. So that I'll come to the setbacks here in a moment. Um the proposed development as I mentioned is for a PD to reszone to allow a uh a 118 unit affordable assisted senior living facility. Um affordable being for people at or below the 60% threshold of the area min median income um andor that have Medicaid Medicare waiverss. Um and there's um it's done with some incentives using LIT tech and so forth. The applicant can explain that a little bit better I think when when they get the chance to speak. Uh the building footprint as far as the footprint on the ground would be 29,820 ft. Um it is a fourstory structure with a peak overall height proposed to be 55 ft. um that is 20 feet higher than the height permitted in the adjacent single family the attached R1 and R2 zone properties um but is less next to the existing highdensity residential to the north.

Now that residence the apartment building to the north that's a three-story building but what's being proposed is four stories. Is that still higher than the four story that's being proposed? The one that's proposed tonight yes is higher. Yeah, this will be higher. The three stories higher than the four. This one will be higher. This one will be higher. This is a fourstory proposed building with an overall height of 55 ft at the peak. The ones that are there are probably pushing three stories and I'm guesstimating that those were maybe between 27 28 ft. Okay. I maybe 30 at their at the highest, but the R2 and R1 designations allow for 35 ft.

35 ft. Correct. Um, so that there is a 20 foot difference and that's what that is intended to cover. Oh, thank you.

Um, the and I'll show you the building elevations here in a minute to you have to kind of zoom in to really get a full idea, but I also have a picture for you to look at what they are intended to look at to look look like to some degree. All the proposed units would be studio onebedroom units. Amenities would include community dining, community television rooms, theater room, fitness center, other recreation facilities, terrace and patio areas, excuse me, landscape garden area, on-site medical office, beauty salon, barber shop, and laundry facilities. Um, the proposed structure would meet all the setback requirements with the closest setback on the revised plan being the 23 foot 5- in front setback along the new increased road rideway of Beachwood. And I mention it that way because the ride ofway if this would get built would increase pretty significantly. So it's not just, you know, 20 proposed to be 23 feet 5 in from the edge of pavement. That's from the new rideway line. So that additional dedication is going to make that a greater number than what it really seems. So from the road, it may end up being like, you know, 35 to 40 feet as a guess. I don't know for sure what that number is. Um, but there's there would be additional road rideway. It would increase to a 40 foot half ride ofway. And right now, I mean, it might be 20 to 25 ft. I don't know exactly what it is off hand. I can check if you want me to. Um,

that's fine. Thank you.

Proposed structure would be otherwise 55 feet or so from the southern property line, 95 ft from the eastern property line, and about 176 feet from the northern property line. Uh so again that one from Beachwood Road is really the only closer one. Uh this is the proposed building elevation. This darker material would be brick or brick base and this lighter material would be something along the lines of not wood but something that resembles wood. And the pictures that I'll have here in a minute, this it would look similar to this, but it would have probably three times more brick face than what you're seeing on these units here. Um, that was something that we told them they were they would have to have be consistent with like what we're seeing for the newer

development in the area. So, the rest of the building would be similar looking probably on the outside, but there would be a lot more brick appearance to the building. Um, let's see. Let's pause here. The review of the proposed development site indicates the plan would result in positive redevelopment of the site and that it would be um consistent with the adopted landings plan recommendations near the area more so for like the Mount Carmel area. The um developer proposes a visually appealing residential structure comprised primarily the brick face and fiber cement lap siding. That's the not wood but kind of a wood look material um with some other accent structures on the main access materials on the main structure. Adequate landscaping and screening plans um have been provided and they were updated on November 11th and so they have added some landscaping where I had told them I thought they should along Beachwood here and here particularly from the initial plan. Um, we have a recommendation about this area um, in the staff report later as well to still augment this further. And I'll come back to to this in a minute about the landscaping. Um, and then there the landscaping I was pointing out on northern part of the site. We were asking them to buffer the proposed L parking area a little little more for storm water management. You're not seeing anything here because it's all proposed to be underground. that will have to get approved through the county. There really isn't a place for them to put it on the site without putting it underground or acquiring more land. Um the site is intended to be served by a single access point here. Um which is one of the things that the comp plan has pushed for is is you know combined

singular access points particularly in area like Beachwood Road where you've got like a collector road with a lot of traffic. Um, I actually went out there this afternoon about a quarter till 5 just to take a look at how how it is and then stayed there for like 15 minutes and drove around and I I mean it wasn't as bad as I thought it was going to be because I've been through there during the day it actually wasn't bad in the period that I went through there. Now, having said that, if I had waited another 15 minutes, it could have been a whole different ball of wax because I kind of hit it just before five o'clock and then by the time I was heading back it was like 10 after five. Mhm. Um, but I do know that that area gets a lot of traffic because I have, you know, even during the daytime it's kind of busy.

Now, is there a service road there to the south? A service access. You said a single access point, but I'm seeing a that would wrap around the building from that main access here and then it comes out on Beachwood. No. Oh, it doesn't. It ends. This is the only way in and out. Service the back of the building. Yep. So, what's wrong with that? That's just some kind of it's a line but it's not. So this road comes around here to right here and this is service area truck. So it doesn't continue on. No this is all those are those other lines are all utilities. Oh under Okay. Thank you.

Those other lines that you see there are all utilities at the that are shown. Um, again, the site's intended to be accessed by single access point, which would still have to be reviewed and approved by the engineers department uh through the county since Beachwood Road is the county's road. And they will also make a determination not only about the access, but whether or not there's any improvements needed to serve the site. Could be a deceleration lane, could be turning lanes. Um, that's another reason why they would have that additional road rideway dedication. and they'll they'll be the ones that make the call as to like what road improvements would have to be made the actual Beachwood Road. Um, so that's kind of to be determined. The applicant may have talked to the engineer's office and have an idea what that's going to involve. Um, maybe even have have done some kind of traffic analysis, but that's something they can answer. Um the traffic impact was expected to be minimal as the residents at the facility rarely are noted to according to the applicants packet rarely drive often preferring to use the facility shuttle system other traffic being limited to employees and visitors. Now there are 118 planned units here and uh my dad lives in a facility that's a step below this. He's probably working his way up to something like this. And um you know with 118 units they only have 60 parking spaces. So that tells you right off the bat not everybody has a car because once you account for the employees you know that might leave you with what 3540 spaces. So probably about one and three people maybe have a car. Maybe if you kind of just do the math roughly. They might have a better answer than me but that's kind of like what I was thinking when I was in my head looking at it. Um, I mean the point being there's not a car there for every unit and for all the employees you'd probably be adding quite

a few more, right? Um, I did mention there's a road ride ofway dedication that would be involved. Um, additionally, there's about one right at two acres of proposed open space out of the four acres left after the ride of way is taken out of the equation. um building footprint would occupy about 17% of the reconfigured site. Proposed dumpster would be on the southern portion of the site right here and would be screened um here and would also have some landscaping along the back side of these um single family homes on Tecumpsa. I'll come back to that I think here in a second. We don't have a lighting plan at this point. Um but we would require that there be a lighting plan before we could approve um anything down the road. And um all lighting would have to be noted as being quote downward directed and shield and dark sky compliant. Um so that's a given that it would have to happen. Monument signage would be the only time type of signage allowed. No pole signage and it would probably be limited to something that's like 8 feet or less. Right now, their sign would be here. This here, I don't know what this was, but that that would be in the road right away, and we wouldn't allow that one anyways. But this was the area where we anticipated the sign was going to be based on where they had blocked it off. Um, the only other thing I would note before I get into some of the pictures is, um, I did talk to the applicant about a few things. From their original proposal, they did move the building back off of Beachwood about another 10 feet than what they originally were proposing. Um, they had a hard time trying to move it any more than that because of the topography over here on the east side. You can see this area here starts to, you know, dip and and

there's a low lowerlying area. So, it kind of became an issue. [snorts] the more they would move that direction, they're getting into like that storm water channel area and more fill. They would have to answer the specifics. I in general I know why they were trying to not go any further to the east. Um the other question I had asked or the they did make some changes to the landscaping. Um, we are going to ask for, you know, maybe some more, uh, landscaping birming along Beachwood itself to buffer from the road and from the neighbors across the street if the project were to move forward. Um, the other question I had asked was whether or not all these ex all this existing vegetation was really going to need to come out because we find as a staff that a lot of times people prefer to have the existing vegetation even if it's not really great vegetation than have the new 5- foot evergreen trees that might provide a year- round coverage. Um, for whatever reason, a lot of people still like to have the 30-foot trees even if they can see through them in the winter time. And uh at least in the last conversation I have with the applicant reps, like they thought that they were going to have to take all this vegetation out and then put the new vegetation in. Um some of that had to do with the with grading the site in the manner that it needed to happen. And then I think maybe part of it had to do with the um in this case perhaps the uh utilities that were on the southern part of the site because that was going to be another thing. if they didn't have to take some of that landscaping out, we would suggest they keep it maybe move the other plantings above, you know, towards their site and keep what they could to the south, particularly. Um, moving on to the site pictures. Uh, these were taken a few days ago when the weather wasn't so bad. This is looking south at the Beachwood Road, old Beachwood Road intersection with the site being kind of on the left. So you can kind of see the approach coming

towards the site from 32. Uh this is looking east at the um southern neighboring property from rideway and that's at the site. This is looking northeast of property from the rideway again across the streets everything basically through here. That's the old entrance there because you can see the car that we had um to get into the site and then it would continue probably about in here. There's the other house is up here somewhere. This is looking a little more um from the other from that side of the road. You're looking north. Kind of what you can see that that's this stretch here is a little easier to see. Um particularly as you look north on Beachwood. If you're closer to the curve on the south, that's the area where there's a little more difficulty to see. And again, this is more north on the site looking along the existing road right away. This is looking northwest across the street, the western neighboring property across Beachwood. This is looking south along the existing ride ofway. Probably a good thing that we' have the crab apple tree taken out. Looking southwest at the west western neighboring property from the site and looking south at the property from the ride ofway across the street. This is looking northwest from the interior of the site across across from what you can see um Beachwood. This is looking southwest within the site. towards Beachwood. Looking south of the neighboring property lines, I think you can kind of in some spots see the backsides of the Tecumpsa

properties just a little bit. Probably see it a lot better in about another two, three weeks. This is looking east at the proposed parking lot location. I think when this is the part I think when you come in roughly what you would see, this is looking east towards the proposed building location. uh southeast at the proposed rear parking area which I I think is more the loading unloading area and the dumpster area that you were looking at earlier. U this is looking north at the proposed access and parking location northeast at the proposed parking location. Um, pause there. In terms of the action tonight, again, as noted earlier, your your role in the process is either motion to recommend approval, recommend approval for the reszone with some modifications or to recommend uh denial of the reszone um to the uh trustees at the next meeting. Um, provided that there's nothing tabled, that would be the December 9th meeting we talked about. In terms of recommended modification, if the zoning commission should choose to uh forward a favorable recommendation, uh the staff would recommend that all the comments be addressed from the um other departments and agencies including the county engineer for the access point road design, county soil and water conservation district, um particularly more for like storm water design, um including the building department, u township fire department, which I understand and the applicants has has reached out to them about the emergency plans and so forth. Um, other recommendations include that staff recommends existing vegetation be preserved along the southern and eastern property lines to the extent possible, more spec more particularly along the southern property line with the the cumps of backyards for the single family

homes. Um, we would also recommend a burm along Beachwood Road to kind of enhance the buffer between the building and the road and the adjacent residential uses. Um, staff noted the applicant may need to remove or relocate the six parking spaces that you see when you first come in on the plan. these here. Um, particularly if there's any road widening efforts done. Um, I mean, it's a short run when you come in as it is, but if there's anything that's that's done to, you know, push the road more towards the site, these are going to be really close. May not need to take them all out. Maybe need to just relocate a couple. Uh, we'll need a fi final signage plan. Other than that box, we really don't have anything else for it at this point. We would need a lighting plan. Um, everything at the property line would have to be equal to or less than a foot candle at the property line and road right away. And actually next to adjacent residential property, it's going to need to be a half foot candle. And that would be comparable to what your normal neighbor who's not putting a really bright light would would generate for a single family house next to that next to your property. Basically, ultimately, if it moves forward, we'll also need a um new survey and legal description of the consolidated property. And then ultimately, we would also need a site plan that meets all the township zoning requirements from article 11, section 1131 of the code. Uh the only other things I was going to note, I did have phone calls from one of the neighbors on Tecumpsa. I never connected with him. Um he tra we traded calls twice and never

could catch each other. In general, like he more or less was telling me he was concerned about the intensity and the size of the building was kind of like the main things he mentioned. The only other person that I heard from um was the lady that dropped off the letter who lives at the end of Tecumsa. She kind of touches the project at the very south eastern corner and she's the one that wrote the letter that I forwarded on to you.

Um other than that, I didn't have not heard from anybody else. Um, I do know because I was here because I was here last Thursday. They had a meeting with um at least the immediate J property owners. They went, I guess, door to door and tried to get them to meet and they had a meeting downstairs in the Queen City room. Um, when I left, the people were starting to show up. I was just trying to make sure they were set up for the meeting. And so I do know that they did have a meeting and that there were some people interested, but I haven't talked to any of those people to know what transpired other than this one lady. And um I think she plans to attend the trustee meeting. She just had a conflict tonight.

So that's all I have. Um are there any questions that you have for me at this time? I don't have anyone else. Not at this time. I don't [clears throat] You want me to leave that up right there for now? I'd be I I have a quick question. Um so I'm questioning um so the plan that's in front of us tonight is it with the building being 23 feet from the rightway or has it moved back even farther? Yeah, that's the current plan is 23 five 23 feet I think 5 in. The initial plan was like 15t 14t something like that. Okay.

All right. Thank you. Uh, is the applicant or the representative here to uh speak for the plan? Please step to the podium and introduce yourself. And yourselves. Thank you. Um, members of the commission, my name is Cliff Ashurn. I'm with Dinsmore and Schol. I'm here tonight on behalf of the Marian Group. You say your name is Cliff? Yes. Cliff, thank you. Cliff Asher. Um, I also have Billa who's with Kimley Horn. Uh, Kira Blei who is also with Kimley Horn. And then Jared Burgess who was with Marian. Do you have the my slides? Would you mind pulling those up?

And uh in order to to be respectful of your time and everyone's time, I'm going to run through some a little bit about the use and kind of how the use was designed and why it was. Um and I'm going to let Bill talk about the plan in more detail. And I think he may be the best person to answer some of your questions. You said it's Phil. Bill. Bill. Bill. Bill. I'm sorry. Bill, thank you.

So, um, if you'll go ahead and advance the slide. Uh, we've I think we've looked at this enough. This is the subject property and kind of the surrounding area. You can see there's single family, there's multif family. Um, this use is best described as an institutional use uh, in the sense that while there are 118 rooms, there are not 118 dwelling units. And I'll get into that in just a moment. If you'll go ahead. Uh, this is the outline of the subject property. Um it's a little bit redundant of what Mark has already shared with us. You can go ahead. So uh this is the building and I just want to just touch on a couple of things preliminarily. First, we have reviewed the staff report and the conditions that are recommended uh by the staff. We are in agreement with the conclusions that were reached by your staff as well as the conditions of approval that are listed in the staff report. And I just put that on the record. So, uh this is this is the building. Um the reason why the building is the shape and size that it is, uh really comes down to uh the quality of life for residents. So, this building has most of its amenity spaces near the center of the building. So, that's where the entrance is, that's where the common dining area is, that's where the movie room is. on different floors. There are there's a a small gym, there's a library, uh there is a small office that a medical professional uses, not not every day, but uh visits. There's also a salon that is people rotate into and and are able to provide services to residents there. And the thought is that having uh those common spaces kind of focused in the center of the building where they're easily accessible so that people are not walking a long long way to get to them um is better for the residents, it's better for the staff and it's it's better for the operation. So go ahead

and advance the slide. So what is assisted living? How does it compare? It's kind of transitional between independent, so you're living at home, whether that is your home home or whether that's maybe an age restricted apartment or something like that, and you get to a point where you need some assistance. So that's reminders about medication. This is not 24-hour nursing care. This is somebody who can kind of handle themselves in many cases, but needs those reminders, needs maybe help getting dressed, things like that. Um, but is still ambulatory. So, this is a bridge between independent living and nursing. And what um what Marian has found out through its experience and Garden, who is its management partner, has found out through its experience is that people who move into these facilities and are able to be with um a staff and able to have a little bit of support are able to stay out of nursing care longer um and have a higher kind of a higher quality of life while they're in the property. Um, you can see some of the things that are provided here. So, there's three restaurant style meals every day, plus snacks. There's ongoing health monitoring within the units. There are, you know, within the bathroom there's the cord you can pull in order to get assistance if you need it. Um, there's lots of those sorts of things. Uh, and then one of the things that touches on the parking issue is the transportation assistance. So again, it the overlap of folks who need assistance with daily needs who are also frequently driving is actually pretty small. Um I I asked Jared as as Mark was giving his presentation. um they would estimate that about 10% of the people actually show up with vehicles and most of the time those

folks once they get used to using the transportation that's provided at the VA community um they really prefer that because they're going in a group and they're taking that group to a store, maybe they're taking that group to a movie or some other outing. Um so there's not a lot of resident traffic. most of the parking utilization and most of the traffic associated with this use is the staff. Um, and with 118 units, it's staffed at about during the day, I would say it's 25 to 35 [snorts] staff. Over the evening and and night hours, that staffing number goes down. If you'll go ahead and advance the slide. So, these are some photos of living spaces. Each of these rooms is either a one-bedroom or a studio. Uh they each have a kitchenet, meaning that they have a microwave and a small refrigerator. Uh they're not cooking with heat uh in their units. They're just using microwaves and things like that. Um most of the dining of course occurs in that kind of congregate area, the dining room. If you go to the next slide, please. Uh I think we covered this. You can probably go through this to the next slide. These are some of the amenity spaces. So the the photo on the left is actually from Vivivera Jeffersonville. There are two existing Vivivera communities in Indiana. One is in Columbus, Indiana, one is in Jeffersonville, Indiana. Um this these are photos taken at the Jeffersonville location. The one on the left is the lobby and kind of sitting area and reception. The one on the right is of the library space uh within the property. If you'll go to the next slide, please. Uh you can see the salon room there on the left and then obviously the transportation that's provided. Um and again this is at Vera Jeffersonville that that space is

surrounded by a mixture of uses. Um if you go to the next slide please. So I'm going to turn it over to Bill at this point. I just wanted to to really bring to the commission's attention an understanding of why the building is the way it is. um and an understanding of what assisted living really is, how it is more of an institutional use than it is a multif family use. Um so I'll hand it over to Bill and um we'll be happy to take any questions when we conclude. Thank you. Thank you.

Thank you, Cliff. Um Mr. McCormack, commissioners, thank you all for your time hearing us today. Uh my name is Bill Skea. the site civil engineer of record for this project. Just running through a few things at a high level. Mr. McCormack, thank you for running through some of the stats as it relates to the site. It's a lot of my job for me. Um, but really what I want to help communicate to you here is some of the logic as to why we're doing what we're doing as far as the placement of the building and things else on site. Um, it was noted um some concerns that related to the parking. The parking has been rightsized to provide an excess of what we observe to be the peak hour demand for parking for a typical VA product. Um the site has been developed such that we try to maximize green space but given the unique geometry of the site it's hard for us to find a place to put at grade storm water detention. So the plan is to put that underground with the pre-fabricated chamber unit something like an ads system. We work with the county to permit that both for a quantity and quality standpoint with the soil water conservation district as well. Downstream utilities. We plan on connecting our utilities into the Beachwood Road rightway um and work with the proper authorities to uh receive permit on those as well. Um, all that to be said, happy to answer any questions y'all have as might relate to the uh orientation of the site, landscaping, traffic, and the parking. Thanks.

All right. Yeah, I have some questions. Sure thing.

The uh I was looking forward to this plan, and I think this is a service that we need more of in this community to be clear, but what I was expecting was a design that was a neighborhood design. This what you presented is a very institutional looking building in the right place. it would be a a a great facility, but what I'm seeing is almost like a hospital, a very tall building, two floors higher than I was expecting. Uh a flat roof, not a pitched roof. Something that under plan development requirements, it's mandatory that the building and the facility and the the entire plan be in harmony with surrounding area and the surrounding housing. and you're completely surrounded by our two housing uh condominiums to one size, nothing more than two stories. You've instead presented four stories with flat top, a very tall building that would tower over everything around it. I'm concerned about that. Did you during the and I know this is a concept plan and it's in it you're at a stage where it can be changed. Was that discussed at all during the the the concept planning phase about being in harmony with the existing surrounding area rather than an institutional skyscraper?

Necessarily recognize some differences between what's listed in the uh base code for PD and what our product looks like here today. Specific to the site, um we tried to reconcile some of those differences by pushing the building as far north as we could to provide more difference between that property line and the neighbors there. And I might defer to Jared to speak a little bit more to the architectural nature of the building and why some of those decisions were made. Um, but as it relates to the delta there, we want to certainly respect um the base code and we do understand that what we're providing will require a little bit of variation off of that. However, we do find that some of the elements else on the site as it relates to the landscaping and proximity that we're trying to go in excess of what base code would require would help make up some of that difference there.

Okay. I mean, it's typically, we've got an example just on the outside edge of our township, a facility assisted living and and memory care called Sem Haven, and it's right in the middle of a a neighborhood. And it's got it's one and twotory area, gabled roofs, very architecturally blended with all of the surrounding houses. This really strikes me as a institutional looking building and is very, very high, higher than could could very well be appropriate for this location. But I just wanted to get your feel for what your thoughts were on that. And FU had discussed, you know, coming through more with a a more traditional look rather than an institutional look.

So again, I might have to defer to my uh partner Jared as it relates to some of the architectural questions. Um but given the requirements of which our development must adhere to both, you know, locally and statewide, you know, we do find that this footprint and combined with the architectural elements do meet the requirements um in order to provide a service that we're looking to provide to um the future um okay members of this community. Jared, I'm not sure if there's anything you might be able to add.

Commissioners, uh my name is Jared Burgess with the Marian Development Group. um based in Louisville, Kentucky. Um to comment on the building design, Cliff touched on it briefly during the presentation. Um every aspect of the building is designed with our residents in mind. Um, you know, when we when we see buildings with long corridors, um, residents tend to, you know, spend more time in isolation, struggle to, uh, participate in the communal dino dining setting. Um the when when we created this this building concept, it was we had very thorough discussions with our with our architects and with our operators and um our our management partner operates properties all across the nation and they were very adamant about this the four-story concept for for this um roughly 118 units um concept. Um,

was that a was that a driving factor? The number of units that you had to have in order to make the project viable.

That's been our our properties in Indiana are roughly 118. One's 114, one's a little over 120. Um, so 118 is um really right sized for um communities of of of this nature. And you don't adjust that based on the location that you're putting the facility, the surrounding area. You know, if it's plpped right down into a neighborhood as opposed being out what you had shown on the was shown on the screen and the building that's similar to the one you proposed is way out in the open, you know, away from from neighborhood. This one's plucked right down inside of a of a neighborhood on all on all sides. Uh Mr. Mr. Chairman to add to that question the Columbus Indiana and the Jeffersonville Indiana what are the surrounding properties is it is it in surrounded around residential as this is

different settings Columbus Indiana is more of a urban downtown setting um VA Jeffersonville um does have surrounding single family uses um and we're actually under construction on our first um Vivivera in in Ohio over in Coin Township and that those surrounding uses are predominantly single family homes. Okay. And that All right. Does anybody else have any questions? Not at this time. Thank you very much. I I have a question. Oh, yes, Doug. I'm sorry. I didn't see your hand.

Is it Bill? Um Bill, have you been in contact with the county engineer? Have you done a traffic impact study? And have you uh is that available? So, we've completed trip generations for this use. Um, in the AM we're looking at 23 peak hour trips and in the PM we're looking at 30. Working to get in touch with Jeremy Evans over with the county to talk through that in more detail, figure out that we are or to make sure that we're meeting the requirements and providing the proper studies whether it be access or formal impact that they might require. Okay. So, you don't know if any turn lanes are warranted at this time? Not at this time though.

Okay. Uh, another question I have for you is, uh, just looking at the topography and everything. Um, it looks like there's an old, uh, pond on the property and a stream in the bag. Have you done any wetlands or stream delineations on this property? That has been something we've discussed and we're certainly aware that if there are wetlands present or if there are any assets that might be recognized by either the EPA or Army Corps, we'd have to go through the necessary steps in the process to permit their disturbance. But at this time, we don't have an understanding if those have been formally classified as being some sort of protected asset. Okay. Thank you. Thank you, Doug. I appreciate it. Good questions. Anyone else?

All right. Thank you. Is there anyone else here tonight that would like to speak for the plan? Yes, sure. Please step forward.

Um, thank you very much. I just I wanted to to touch on a couple of things that I heard in the staff uh uh discussion as well as on the plan. So, um we did have a meeting with the community. Some of the folks who were at that meeting are here tonight. Um and they raised concerns about the size and location of the building, too. So, that's not unusual in any way. What um what Bill was able to do and Kira were were able to do between that community meeting and tonight was take another look at the landscaping, specifically the landscaping on the southern end, the southern side of this of the property. And so what's proposed now um is a 4 and 1/2t burm that you can see kind of on the southern side of the property. Uh our the thought is that you would top that burm with a double row of evergreen trees that would help soften the transition between the proposed building and the homes that front on to Kumsa. Um uh the comment about preserving existing vegetation, we can probably preserve some that is directly adjacent to the property line. Um, but I don't know exactly because that that comment was not something that we've discussed in detail with Mark, how much of that can be preserved. We we know that if we need to and we can commit to using Birming along that southern uh property line as well. Um, the other thing I'll mention because it came up in um in uh Mr. comments was this is this proposal is it's assisted living and it is designed to be for those who make 60% of AMI or less. So what that means in this area is somebody who is making about or has income whether that income is from social security or another source of

about $50,000 uh per year. Uh we think that this will allow more people a broader spectrum of people uh in the community to age in place, age in a market rate style and market rate amenized uh assisted living community. Um but that is not an opportunity that lasts uh forever. So we are asking that you all make a recommendation. We understand some of the comments that have been made uh about the final design. Um but we think that this the the staff has obviously found that the use is supported, concept plan is supported. We would ask that you uh follow the staff's lead. We're happy to to agree to the conditions that are contained in the staff report as well.

Yeah. And I appreciate what you said about the uh your your planned residence, but this commission also has to consider the existing residence and we have to we have to be very concerned about the impact on the existing families and residents and the height of that building could could very well be an issue for us. Uh we have to discuss that and we we will. the uh the height of the building and and just the nature of that building. When you you know, if you're looking up, you've got a pretty high building and and BMS and five and 10 foot plantings won't prevent that fourstory building from towering over everything that's around it. That's that's my concern and I have to we'll discuss that in uh in in session when we're done listening to everybody's input.

Thank you very much. Okay. Thank you. Is there anyone else here tonight to speak for this plan? All right. Does anyone uh would like to step up? I know we've got some papers uh that you would like to please step forward, sir, that you'd like to speak against the plan.

Good evening. My name is Rick Meyer. I live on Tecumpsa. We live down in the Calac area to the furthest point on the end. My my statement is concern is like yours. It's a four-story building. We don't have that anywhere around us. We've been in this house for 30 years. Love the area because it's nice, quiet, secluded. And here now, we're going to get this building where we have no way of getting away from it. You can, like you said, you can build a burn, you can put trees there, but it's going to be 40 years before those trees are tall enough before it blocks anything. And my other concern is where's the water going to go? Yeah,

they mentioned an underground water detention system and I've heard of this and the the county has to approve it and works with it. Uh I don't have any excuse me, I don't have any personal experience with it, but I'm I'm aware of it and it's supposed to be effective. Uh how effective that's for the county and that's a county responsibility. Living on the street for 30 years, water is already a problem on our street. Mhm. Our backyards flood every time it rains as is now. And you're just going to put more concrete and pavement here. The water's got to go somewhere. There is a natural creek that runs behind that property. Yes.

So, it's even going to get worse. So, I just don't know. It just doesn't make any sense putting this building where they're wanting to put it. there's other properties around here where they could locate and put a four-story tall building that work better for them instead of in a neighborhood with the where we're all at. To me, it's just not something that is be needed in our area. So, I mean, those are my concerns is traffic. We're going to have a dumpster behind our house now.

Well, it's it's all enclosed. You wouldn't see the dumpster, but it's an enclosure. And we see that, but I've heard that before. [laughter] Yeah. No, we we that's the advantage of planned development. Once it becomes a plan development, we can enforce that very strictly and and that all has to be sh you know has to be uh properly done, has to be properly concealed and all that and and we monitor on a regular basis and that's the advantage of a plan development over developing it as an R2. Uh we have control in that so we can we can avoid that. The the building height I understand your concern.

Yeah, we have no way of getting away from that. I mean, it's it's gonna tower everything around us. So, that's my biggest concerns is the height of the building, where's the water going to go and the amount of traffic and you know, we're going to have EMT units coming in and out of that place all the time. Then you're saying it's going to be on a lower income. So, what kind of what's that going to bring to us? We already have lower income all around us. So, we don't I don't think we need any more at this point. I appreciate your comments. Thank you. Thank you. Please step forward. Identify yourself.

My name is Jim Crush. I've lived in the air for four years. I love the area. I, you know, you get a little noise. I'm 32, but when I bought the house, I knew that in the morning and the afternoon, I can't get out of my driveway. And there's no way on God's green earth, I believe, when you put a unit in like this, it's got to include the traffic, you're going to have ambulances all through the night, stuff like that. And the other thing I'm really annoyed at is, do any of you guys live near it? Do you live on the street? No,

I didn't think so. And another thing is it's I can't understand why you can change the zoning on 32. You can build it there. And now I move in here and you're changing the zoning and we didn't even get a chance to vote on it.

No, that's not what's right. This this facility, this type of facility is is an allowable conditional use on an R2 zone. This could be built on an R2. So assisted living facilities are an accepted use, accepted application for R2 and R1 as well. So what they're asking to be done is change it to plan development. So we have a bit more control, a lot more control over how the overall process and development goes. But it could be built. It couldn't be built this high, but it could be built on the R2 district by itself. That's a

We got a farm farm field right across from here. That land can't be that expensive. I mean, you just got to be realistic about stuff. This whole area here is, you know, government buildings and stuff like that. You guys did a great job. Jungle gyms, all that in there was all that great. But it just sucks because four years ago, if I had known this thing was going in, I wouldn't have bought my house. All right. Thank you for your comments. Anyone else? Please identify yourself. Max Burus. Max. Thank you. 460 three to come see it uh drive is I live right behind what they're putting in. All right.

Okay. Uh number one, I have a problem with the borderline property line because I have three feet behind the fence. But they show they come to all the way to the fence. And so well I had that problem about 46 47 years ago. Uh well let me head you off. Before anything can be done a proper survey has to be done. It has to be staked off found what they surveyed. I'm saying they what they've already surveyed and they've been staked off.

Yeah. Well he didn't I didn't see the stakes. That could just be a preliminary layout, but they to be before anything can begin any any construction whatsoever, it has to all be professionally laid out to the property lines as the as the property county property maps list. He couldn't find it because he said his and it was stone markers and he his and he wouldn't pick it up and he went to Beachwood and said he shot it that way. And when they showed that they showed all the way to the fence 46 47 years ago, I had a problem with that. the people that owned it then. Uh I was uh I uh Porz Ivy and and Porz Oak was coming through the fence and I got behind the fence cuz I knew I had three feet behind the fence and uh I cleared it off because me and my wife are allergic to poor ivy. Max, I I appreciate

Okay. Well, let me I'm getting my point. All right. And so they said they didn't want it cleared off because it belonged to them. She had it surveyed and found that I did have three feet behind the fence. And I'm sure it'll be surveyed properly again before anything happens.

Okay. But the fourstory building just destroys our property because it's out of place. and I've been there 53 almost 53 years. And I moved there because I wanted peace and quiet. We do a lot of setting in our backyard because we like the like the outdoors and we can see the the birds and all. And yet that's going to take it all away. All All I can see is a is a fourstory building here. It's out of place. Be great. It's a beautiful building, but it's out of place in our neighborhood.

Thank you, Max. Is there anyone else to speak? Right. At this time, we're going to close to public input. Yes. Please step forward and identify. Did you fill out a form? No, I didn't. I'm sorry. I I can Yeah, we need to have you fill out a form. I've got to have the paperwork real quick. Can I ask a question of the uh developers in the meantime? Yes, absolutely. How many shuttle vans are you going to have on the premises? Is it just the one or is it multiple? Just the one. So, it's scheduled transportation. Yes.

Okay. I was just wondering with with less than 10% of the residents not having vehicles if it's all scheduled transportation. Okay. Yes. There there is a significant amount of programming that is part of this in terms of you know you can imagine the sorts of things. Sign up to go here. Sign up to go there. That sort of thing. Yeah. Okay. Um and and just to address it's like a 15 passenger van roughly I think. Do you know? Yeah. I think that's right. Okay.

Uh just to address one thing uh Mr. Burus brought up the property line and his fence. Uh I was Bill showed me a copy of the survey that we have. The the property line actually is north of the fence at a scale and and with the graphics that are shown up it doesn't show up but we we recognize where the property line is and obviously we have no intention of doing anything outside of the property. All right. And for the benefit of everyone else, assisted living units, I'm very familiar with assisted living. They do not run ambulances all night long. Uh there is a very rare case for an ambulance at an assisted living facility. It happens periodically but not not on a regular basis. Uh who do we have here? Charlie.

Yeah. Please please proceed.

Um I'm Chuck Ramy. Um, I'm a a 15-year resident of uh Union Township and um I I think that you folks uh unfortunately are facing uh a situation here today that um most of the residents don't realize that that they're they're placed in the greater Cincinnati metropolitan area. They have to accept that as fact. and the these poor folks that have been here for years and years and years. I I listened to a couple folks that said they've been here for 40 years or whatever and 50 years, but you have to realize that when they moved here 50 years ago, there were probably the same people that were going, "What are they doing here? They're ruining my my environment." All right. So, you know, life moves on, metropolitaners move on, metropolitan areas grow. Um, right. Uh the one thing that's interesting is that this area and I'm not sure the total acreage of this, but just down the street on Mont Carmel Tabasco Road, there's a new subdivision that's that's that's been there. And uh those lots are halfacre lots. And you know what? They're asking for those lots.

Oh, I imagine half a million dollars. Uh $200,000. All right. Less than I expected.

All right. So people have to realize that you're now Union Township is not the fringe of the metropountain area. It's now becoming a very dense uh densely uh developed area because of land cost. So um you people have to begin to accept the fact that this is going to go on. I mean, you just recently had a development down the road on Beachmont that was that was really uh strictly opposed because of the density. Um, and I think that you folks have got to basically be in a situation where you have to be sit here and educate the population that we are no longer a a halfacre single family neighborhood. We are now part of a a an inner inner kind of metropolitan area. And if you want to live out in the country, you're going to have to basically probably move now to Brown County if that's what you want because 32 is just basically made it possible for residential subdivisions to to to be created uh on the east side of Claremont County. You all are probably aware of all the, you know, of all the controversy of all these subdivisions that are happening just out east of here. What we have happening in Union Township is just infill now. And and infill has to be a much higher density, much higher uh, you know, viable use. And I think you guys here on this thing have to have to sit here and and be able to defend that situation. It isn't. You can't sit there and go, "Well, we we are going to deny this and we're going to wait for somebody to buy this land for half million dollars and put up two houses." That's not going to happen anymore. You have I think you've had one

single family house. Uh that's permit-wise that's been happening here recently because that's not going to happen in Union Township anymore. Okay, Charlie, your time's about to wrap up. All right. I'm just saying that I I think that you guys this the PL you know the zoning commission and and planning wise you you have to basically begin to basically point to the fact that we have to accept the fact that we're in a much higher density zone of the metropolitan area. Okay. Thank you for your comments.

All right. At this time we're closing to public comment. We will discuss this case among ourselves and uh if we have any questions of the uh developers we will uh ask those and anyone from the audience we may choose to ask a question but other than that we respectfully ask no one to interrupt our meeting. Yes, Mr. McCormack. Yeah, I did have one thing that I was thinking about that we had talked about because we've we've talked to the applicants a few times. Um, one other thing I was going to notice the graphic representation like what you see here, we can never 100% for property lines go by the aerial or the information that we get from the auditor's office. And

the overlay we we put on there is to try to give people the best idea we can. It's not meant to be 100% accurate. I mean, to have it accurate for sure, you have to have it surveyed.

But as far as the site, and I'm kind of surprised the applicant didn't mention this because, and I don't even know if this was necessarily in their materials. They were limited in where they could locate this facility because of the way that they're trying to I think finance it, right? And and I think that would help explain why they picked this site because I don't know that that ever really came up, right? they they are limited to I don't know if it's exactly the LMI area but there's a they can explain what that is and that and that's how they landed on this site because we were trying to talk to them about where else they could locate where it might be more in alignment with what was around it and they really didn't have wiggle room and that's why they ended up on this site.

All right. Thank you. So they you that part they may be able to answer. I don't know that it's going to change any outcome, but that's kind of an important thing. Keep that in mind as we discuss the case. Yes. Great. Thank you. Uh, all right, Doug, what are your thoughts?

Well, my initial thoughts are that it's uh it's it's it's out of place. It's too tall. It's it's too dense. Um, you know, it's um it seems to be just out of character with the surrounding land use. Um, I'd like to say, you know, that, um, you know, even though the there's the, uh, Beachwood Villa Apartments to the north, they're a three-story building. They're in an R2 district. However, you know, it does, you know, that's there. I don't know if it was before zoning or or how that became into an R2 zone, but I guess the point I'm trying to make is is, you know, it's it's a large dense multif family facility that does have though some kind of transition to the residential zones. I mean, you've got the to the south, you've got the uh condominiums on Aston Road that help a transitional zone to a residential zone. Uh and same to the north, you know, you have uh the apartments along um I guess it's or condominiums along Brookfield Drive that again provide some kind of transitional zoning as you go to the north. So, you know, in my opinion, you know, there is some some transition to deal with the Beachwood Villa Apartments, but then to come in here and put this in its place, I think we're we're kind of taking a step backwards in my opinion. Uh so those are my thoughts. I appreciate it. Thank you. Rob, what are your thoughts? [clears throat]

So, like everybody, my first thought was it's too tall. The the height showing on here is 55 and change as the maximum height, but if you follow the topography, it's going to be even higher in that uh souththeast corner because of the way the grade falls away. So, the people on Tacoma, it's it's even more in their skyline. Um, I understand the need for this, uh, but I just don't think this is the right place for it. It's that simple. All right. Thank you, Bradley.

The height is almost double what else is around. Almost double. So, it's not not 10 feet more than what's around. It's almost double. So, that's really, like you said, not the right place. Daniel, I mean, do you have anything else?

I I [clears throat] understand the need. Absolutely. And if again, if they can again make it a little bit more suitable with surrounding area. Um, again, I don't know if a three-story makes it that much more palatable, but it's not as jarring as a four-story building going up. Daniel

plan has significant merit. Um there is certainly a need in our community for similarly situated services to allow for people to age in in place. What the applicant has proposed in their manner in general in terms of trying to work with local residents and to work with staff is commendable. It's the way that we frankly like to see developers come in and compromise and and be willing to make changes. The the problem with it is, as already said, which is it's out of keeping with the location. It's a massive institutional use surrounded by residential use. It's a building that is too tall for the surrounding environment. Um, and it's it's just not a fit. I I drive on Beachwood on a regular basis. Um, so I I know the area. I've I've lived in the township my entire life. So, it's just it would be a jarring view somewhat similar to what you can see in the old portions of the township in the early or prezoning days. Um, so, but it's a shame because I I do think there's a a tremendous amount of merit in a project like this and and in applicants like this.

Thank you. I and I agree with what everything everyone said I however I I believe it it it's it and I agree it does have merit it's something that's needed but I think we could recommend approval of this case with two critical additional recommendations and that the maximum building height is 35 ft and that it gets a pitched shed roof instead of a flat roof that brings it down probably a two two and a half story height uh the maximum allowed in an R2 zone it it makes it look very much like what Simhaven is down just on the outside edge of our township. It would blend in.

It blends in. It It blends in. You're not looking at this skyscraper, this this tall building and it can serve. Now, we're fortunate. We're at the concept phase. This is a concept plan and uh that those kind of changes could be made at at this level. They could make the decision to build something different than they have built in the past. Uh and if not these people, then someone else. But I think we can we could I'm willing to recommend approval with those two stipulations along with the recommendations from the staff in the staff report. Uh adding those two requirements that we limit the height to 35 ft and that the uh the roof be changed from flat to the uh pitched uh shingle style roof.

Would would you would you be uh Doug, would you be uh I mean Bradley, would you be agreeable to that? That makes it a little bit more less jarring. Okay. I think we've used that word a lot tonight. I think that would uh be that that brings it I I think down into the level of the the neighborhood environment. I mean makes it look like a traditional building. It the architecture could look good. Uh the I I think we can make that work. If somebody came and built a few two and a half story houses,

correct? and and and because it's it's just completely surrounded by ranch style houses, ranch singlestory ranch houses all the way around directly adjacent to it except in the back on the east side it's got twotory and I've went back here and looked at all those they're attractive condominiums but they're twotory and they're probably at the 30foot level. Um uh but the I I think 35 is is a reasonable limitation and then requiring the sloped roof and it probably limits to to two storage or two and a half. Two and a half maybe. Yeah. Daniel, would you be agreeable with that?

I mean that change that changes it to make it more in keeping with the surrounding environment. It changes the footprint from being something that is sort of dominates the landscape above everything that surrounds it. uh and makes it blend better. And again, I think plans for leaving intact what natural vegetation that you can that is already there. I I commend that as an idea. I think staff did a good job on that. Staff recommendations, the way they're written are

I would agree. Uh I'm I would be more comfortable with it subject to those changes. Rob. Yeah. My my biggest issue with this is the height. So, yeah, if we could bring it down so it matches more of the nature of the area. Yes. Then I would go with that. Doug, what are your thoughts?

Well, um I agree. I know like I said was all said it's too high and to bring it down. My only issue is is I don't know if I want to sit here and be the designer for them, be their architect, and limit them to a 35 foot high building when I don't know what the facade what what the building is going to look like. But that would have to be presented. Well, I know. And well, if that's what they want, you know, let them bring it back. I'm not going to sit here and and in my opinion modify uh make a modification to to to an approval and put some limitations on them. Um that that's their job. It's not my job. So, that's kind of how I see it.

But we're at the concept phase rather than at the at the formal phase. So, we're not asking for a we're not changing their plan. We're just changing their the concept of the plan. Yeah. But still, I mean, you know, we we don't know what is it is. You say a pitched roof is sh you know, there's a lot to to consider in my opinion. And if that's what they want to do, if they do, bring it bring it back to us, you know, and let us let's take a look at that. That very well could be the result. Yeah. Yeah. So the foot footprint of the existing building, none of us are really, you know, the setbacks and stuff are all okay. Yeah. It's really just the height. Yeah. Well, that front yard setback's pretty tight, you know. Oh, yeah. It it is. But if you look at some of the other things that are in the area, they're pretty tight, too,

right? But I mean to put mounding in there like staff recommended, it's going to be difficult to get any kind of mounding of any size. I mean, to get a 4 foot high mound, you're going to need, let's see, uh 12 12 20 30 feet wide. You know, just to get a 4 foot mound, you know, you're at least need 30 feet. So, you know, I I don't see where the mounting it'll help in the southern end where the building's not too tight, but you're still going to have the building exposed to the to to the resident. Yeah. Mr. McCorman, did you have a question?

No, I to comment though on what you're talking about. Yeah. Pinch point there's going to be It's going to be difficult in that closest area to do maybe the mounting that you're going to be able to do once you get outside that pinch point. And it is what it is. That's pretty close to the axis. So, I mean, you're going to have an open area there anyways. Um, so the mound,

you know, if you work with the rest of the area with the mounting, it shouldn't it shouldn't be much wider than the area that's by the opening and slightly to the right when you're looking or to the south when you're looking at the site. Um, I was going to mention that, um, as you were talking about the building heights, um, one of the applicant representatives told me that, you know, if the building were to drop to three stories, they might need an additional like three feet to be able to put the type of roof in that you're talking about. So rather than having a cap of 35, they might need 38 to put in that type of roof. That would be up to the trustees.

Yeah. So that's that was something I was going to pass on because you know honestly answering that kind of thing on the fly is kind of hard to point. Um but saying it's going to be three story that kind of a roof I mean and it'll limit the the height as much as you can. I mean it's Yeah. I mean it would be whether it's a 20 foot drop or a 17t drop. It's Yeah. you want to focus the most you can get if that's what you're driving at. At the same time, because of the type of roof that you're talking about, it might not be able to hit that 35 number.

It's possible it may be required two story. Yeah, it all depends on how how um you want to be about that number. I guess I'm not willing to go beyond that number at this point myself. I'd have to see what everyone else's thoughts are. I want to limit it to the current R R1 and R2 limitation. Two and a half two and a half stories 35 ft. Yeah, 35. That's right. Then now to your point, if you recommend that to the trustees and they present to the trustees that they would need correct for whatever they could try to get the other that's up to the trustees. Yes.

All right. All right. I'll work on uh I'll work on a motion based on what we discussed. I kept hearing that crackling. What is that? Every time I move that

All right, I'm ready to forward a motion. We'll see if we get a uh a second regarding case 3-25-Z applicant Marian Development Group parcels 413111 A023 41311 A92. The zoning commission finds that the submitted concept PD application zone change request is consistent with the horizon 2030 land use plan but does not meet all of the plan development application requirements of the PD district plan. Therefore, this commission recommends the submitted plan be approved contingent upon adherence to the noted modifications as specified in this motion. All required supplemental information and plan modifications must be completed and submitted to the planning director no later than one week prior to the trustes hearing of this case. Findings of fact. We have two findings of fact regarding this case. The subject parcel is not located within any of the special development focus districts defined in a horizon 2030 land use plan. Second fact, the proposed plan development is directly adjacent to singlestory R2 single family housing on the north and south sides. Singlestory R1 single family housing is directly across Beachwood Road to the west. Twostory condominiums are directly to the east. The applicant has proposed a four-story flat roof building at a height of 55 ft. However, PD district regulations require developments be in harmony with surrounding land uses. The modifications are as follows. To maintain harmony with the surrounding housing, the maximum height of the building shall be 35 feet and traditional pitched roofing shall be used instead of the proposed flat roof. Second uh is a is a catch all. All recommended modifications listed on pages six and seven of the staff report are included in this motion. That completes my motion. Do we have a second?

I'll second. All right. Now, do we uh we can discuss this if we got a second on the motion. So, does anyone want any changes to that that motion? I guess a question is this consistent with the 2030 uh comprehensive plan. It does it it it doesn't address this. This is not in a focus district and in general there is no specification for it. It's har it's it's require it's adheres it it alludes to harmonious development but the harmonious development section is right directly from the PD regulations themselves that comes right out of our PD plan. So there's nothing in the in the 2030 plan that says you can't do this or you can do this. It's just not covered.

So why would we say it's consistent? It's be it well it's it's not inconsistent. And so we either have why do we say anything right? We could probably take that out. We could take that out

and not me. We've always mentioned the 2030. We always reference the 2030 plan and we always say that it's consistent. If it's not inconsistent. Uh if everyone wants that removed, I'll re I'll I'll withdraw the motion and reissue it with that statement removed. I I just think it makes it clear because there is looking at the 2030. There's nothing specifically about this. So in my mind, why have it in there? Just kind of muddies it a little It's not a fact. It's not a true fact. All right, you guys agree? Uh, traditionally you have included it because of inconsistent and then you go on to say it's not consistent.

Uh, but said requirements, but there shouldn't be an issue with its removal. Yeah, I I agree. I don't I don't see that it's necessary to remove it, and I'm willing to call roll to see if we fail it or we pass it. That's fine. It's not a It's not a I'm going to die on this. Yeah, because it's it's it's it's gets more complicated to remove the motion.

I'm not it it I guess the reason I bring this up is is um you know, we're saying something that trustees were a recommendation to the trustees, you know, um you know, is it consistent or not? You know, that's I just find it hard to say it is. Then and then if this case would let's say it did we go on to and again I'm might be getting over my skis here a little bit but what happens if it went a court of law and we said it was consistent you know when it's when it I don't know if it is our motions don't go to a court of law our motions are simply recommendations to the trustees okay and again I thought I might be getting out on my skis a little bit

and and in one way it is consistent in that it it these type of facilities are recommended in a 2030 plan it recommends that we need to consider this type of support system in our in our township in our community. And so in that, you know, an assisted living facility is recommended. You know, these types of facilities are recommended to be included in our community development, just not this. It's referenced in different sections of it. It's just not specifically saying we need to do this, but it is referenced. All right. Uh Mr. McCormack, would you please call role on the motion? We have a second. Yes. Smith. No. Mr. To? Yes. Mr. Williams? Yes. Mr. Camp? Yes. Mr. Lewis? Yes.

Motion passes. All right. Motion carries. Uh, this will be heard from the trustees. Uh, Mr. McCormack on the 6th. Did you say December 9th?

December 9th. December 9th. This will be heard by the trustees. We have forwarded this recommendation uh to recommend approval and limiting the height to 35 ft and traditional pitched uh shingle type housing. So, it would be very similar to a two-story uh facility. And the uh the traffic with these limitations, the traffic would be less than it would be if it were developed as a as an R2 housing complex with uh 16 homes. All right. Thank you very much for your attention. We're now going to move into a session uh regarding text amendments. Please exit quietly or are you welcome to stay and listen to our review of some text amendments that we're considering tonight. Thank you. notified by this.

I'm sorry. No, you need to attend the trustee meeting. Trustees meeting on the 9th at 6. What time? I'm sorry. 6 p.m. 6 p.m. in here. I think it's our job to to tell them how to go. All right, Mr. McCormack, we have some uh text amendment discussions. Yes. Oh, we we'll give it a couple minutes. Everyone, please please exit and and have your discussions outside. Out out the doors. Not outside, but just beyond the glass doors. Unless Thank you. Unless you're really interested in text amendments. That's right. J for Insomnia. One person staying.

Thank you. So, um the if you remember these two series of amendments, the first being, uh to do with short-term rentals, the second to do with more of the what we're now classifying as was it maintain natural lawns. Um we had set aside some language to be reviewed or updated and then I also had set aside some language to talk to our legal counsel about. And so, um I thought I thought that was interesting. Why does legal want forests and wooded areas removed from the from the the men from the from the text? I'm sorry. What

why did the legal want forested and wooded areas reference to forest and wooded areas not being included in this in this uh natural uh area to be with withheld from the text? They wanted all references to forests and wooded areas to be removed.

Um I I think I think it had to do with the um admin like how we would administer that and um they're still trying to place it to where the zoning inspector or andor the zoning director design would um could could go out there and say we're not going to apply this to a forested lot. Right? There's a difference between having a lot that's not improved and has versus someone who's intentionally trying to leave areas of their property not necessarily to reveate as a forest or whatever, but to be like a pollinator garden or something else. That's the in the the reason why this whole thing got brought up is we had people that were trying to create butterfly habitat and um other types of natural habitat as part of their yard. And the neighbors were complaining. Um and this came up a couple of times. It came up this year. It came up last year. I think the same neighbor or or same area both times the last couple years complained about the one neighbor They were doing it intentionally for the purpose of habitat or whatever. We sent someone out to Scott. We sent Scott out zoning inspector to talk to them. And honestly, he didn't really have much of a problem with it either. He more or less just said, "You need to clean it up so that it's clear like there's an edge to what you're doing and that you're also then maintaining the rest of your yard."

Um, and that was what kind of brought about this whole thing. Okay. And I think the language and I didn't spend a lot of time I didn't really write this language myself. I had um our other planner working on this and I think we borrowed this pretty much from um Anderson Township which is what the people had referred us to when they came in and said you know this is what's happening throughout the township. They came to one of the trustee meetings. And so I think that's where a lot of this is coming from. Okay. But that's the second of the two that I was going to go over and there's only a minor change proposed to that after what we discussed at our last meeting and what I discussed with our legal counsel. Okay.

The bigger, more significant [clears throat] change was to do with the short-term rentals. And before I get to that, actually, I forwarded you an email today from the neighbors on Massachusetts,

right? And basically they're just saying that um they think that the short-term rentals shouldn't be allowed in R1. And I I even though it's not explicitly referenced, I'm not so sure they're not trying to apply it to ER, but an ER area is a very different area than, you know, these R1 and R2 areas. And so you're generally more spaced out. Um some of these impacts that we're worried about are probably far less of an issue in the ER areas. Um R1 is actually bigger lots than what's in the R2, but at the same time like you're starting to get into these subdivisions, right?

Correct.

Um and and and out of all the ones that we've had discussion about, the one in Massachusetts is the one keeps coming back. And that's I think predominantly because and and we kind of found this out in the beginning, the bedroom of the people that live there overlooks the backyard and the pool and they can see and hear everything um or just about everything supposedly. But I do know that the owner is here tonight of that that particular unit and he has been trying to work to address all that and he can speak here, you know, if he wanted to here shortly because I know he worked with them to install something else to try to make there there be more of a visual barrier between what he has and and their property. So, I mean, I think what we should do is just go through the proposed changes real quick and then,

you know, of course, he's that's what he's here for and if he has something he wants to say, maybe hear what he has to say. He did send me comments previously that I forwarded to you. Um, the changes that we talked about from the last meeting, um, I don't think there was anything in 61211 on the first page. Um I don't think there was anything on the second page until you get to the part that where I added the health code to um 11 B six

because we had that there would be that swimming pools would be fenced and otherwise maintained in accordance to all applicable provisions of the UT zoning code and the Claremont County building and I put health codes because the health department has a lot to do with pools.

Yep. So, we just added that in there. That was an easy one. On the third page, we had quite a bit of discussion when it came to um nine subsection number nine um in terms of short-term rental regulated by section shall not exceed. I I'll pull this up on the screen. I wasn't thinking about this. There was the health code reference right there about the pools. The other one we were talking about was this one right here, number nine. So, there was a question about adults and there was a question about if whether we should define adults. Children are not referenced in here really at all. Um, and so forth. And so I talked to our legal person and she said, well, she didn't think we needed to have to define adults. I mean, it's pretty well, we could put it in the code, but it's like you're 18 or older basically. that's what you traditionally consider an adult. And she said we could go through there and define adult and children. But she said, you know, do they have a do we have a cap in there? Because she was trying to remember. She was driving when I talked to her the first time. Do we have a cap on the number of people that can be there? And we do. It's a 10. Doesn't matter at that point whether you're a kid or an adult.

So, in her opinion, we didn't need to change any of this. and she's been looking at some of these other codes that are applicable in other places and she thought this was a solid we should just leave it the way that it is unless somebody really has a problem with the way that it's written. Well, you'd fall back on Ohio Revised Code for the definition of what an adult is. I I don't in terms of enforcement, I don't see that being some somebody's going to bring it and say they're not adult, you know, they are or are not adults. I I don't I don't see it being an issue. I would agree with If we're if we're saying show not exceed 10 persons, right? Doesn't matter. Adults and children don't matter. It's 10 persons, right?

Yeah. I know. I I was thinking of a trip that I had taken a few years ago when I was traveling with my cousin's family and in our family even the girls can be six feet tall. So I had my two kids at the time and they were this would have been about six or seven years ago. So let's say it was seven. My daughter would have been the youngest of nine. and my son would have been about 13 and neither one of them had hit the drugs first. My cousin's kids were probably 14 and 16 and at 16 his boy was taller than me already and his daughter was pushing six feet tall. So when we were looking at beds in the unit, we couldn't really go by kids standards because his kids were like the size of adults. And I don't know how often it's listed that way. I know our our um audience member here can speak to that probably better than I can how they how that might be listed, but that was kind of a thought when we were bringing this up last time because, you know, some kids are not really kids size anymore when they're like 12, 13 years old. But she, our attorney said that she thought that this was perfectly fine moving forward. Um the the other main thing that we talked about was whether or not the chronic nuisance section and which is D

and section K regarding revocation of short-term rental use approval, whether we needed to have both sections or whether we that we could just consolidate. and she went back to the office and read them and she she said I think these are both good like you should leave them both in here. That was one of the other major things we talked about. The only other thing that I did is I took out f the email for emergency contact because at the end of the day if you have an emergency you can't really rely on email. You got to have a phone number or something. So I took that out because it's almost like what's the point and you could give a fake email if nothing else.

Sure. having their contact information as far as a phone number and an address if you had to mail them. I mean, if you're gonna have to mail them something, that's just as effective as email really. I mean, there's some people even on the board sometime that don't even have email, right? Sure.

Um, so I did that was the only other thing I really kind of took out. I think um in terms of what we talked about last time, that was it. Um, I know we did have some comments from um the gentleman that came here last time that was the husband of the lady that wrote us today. And I know I went over some of the comments and I'd sent you the comments for Mr. Reicholtz who's here now. And I think a lot of what he had comments on the gist was he didn't necessarily have a problem with doing a lot of that. um he can speak about anything specific himself. The um there were a lot there are a lot of kind of building code related issues in here which I don't know that the building codes necessarily need to be in the zoning codes but at the same time I don't know that it hurts anything. Um I'm not overly a big fan about having building codes in the zoning code because it means you're doubling up and having us do enforcement,

right? But I mean short of that I think most everything else that's in here is pretty good. The main thing in my opinion that we we we would have to establish short of his comments is do we want to allow these in these different districts

or do we want to limit them at all as in any way, you know, as she suggested in her email, you know, her email was more or less to say basically this shouldn't be in an R1. Um that's kind of the the more significant question I think that needs to come out of the discussion is you know whether the zoning commission makes that call or the trustees make that call is like do we want to allow them in all the residential districts or not. Um and that doesn't necessarily get applied the same way everywhere. That's one of those home rule

situations where you have to kind of figure out whether you want it in that area or not. Now, you can say initially we want them we want to try it in every area and see how it works. I will note also that I did send these to the board of zoning appeals and and they were interested in being involved and and commenting on this, but then I never heard from them on any of them. So, that was interesting because they're the ones that are going to have to actually post these,

right? So, I mean, I did send it to them and I'll send it to them after, you know, we have our meeting or whatever, but at the same time, like I was really kind of surprised that I didn't get at least some feedback from them on it, but they don't have anything to work with right now. So, that's part of it, right? I mean, if you restrict it and say you can't do it in R1, you got to do the same for R2. You can't say we're not going to permit these in R1 and R2. They're only going to be allowed in ER residential areas or for

a lot of it is in my opinion a lot of it is a casebycase scenario much like the variance and the other things that they're dealing with. There are some places where it's going to make more sense and there are other places it's just probably not going to make as much sense to do it. And in some sub particularly some developments that have like an HOA or POA, if they don't outright outlaw them, they're probably gonna proactively try to do something to address them anyway. Sure. Right. At some point. I mean, I can see the concern people would have about having this some, you know, a house like this next door and and people coming and going, you know, different people all the time. That would disturb me as well. I I understand that.

Yeah. I mean, 90% of the people that come there are going to treat it fine, but you got the 10%. We had that down our road. And the biggest problem we had was the number of cars that would show up there where they were actually Rumpky has no shoulder and they the bumpers of the cars were out in the road and it was easy enough to fix. Call the police, please come make a movement. But and it hasn't happened much since then, but I don't even know if it's still around. But um you know I think you can put all the rules on this you want. I don't think it'll fix everything. There's always going to be exceptions to it. So do you do you limit it to certain districts and you're still going to have some problems or do you let it work be worked out case by case like Mark said?

Explain to me. So, I wanted to [clears throat] to do the short-term rental on my house. Uh, what what's the process? I'd have to go to to BZA, ask for a conditional use. And what do I have to prove to BZA that they would want that we make them grant me a conditional use for a short-term rental? So, you would have to address all the criteria in this new code. And then you would also have to address the criteria for the conditional use itself. So, that's what has to happen. what Doug said, if you decide you want to do this to your house, you've got to go to the BZA to do this. Yeah, that's my point. So, it's going to take a lot of people out of contention because they're not going to want to do Yeah. It's essentially a licensing. Yeah.

So, my I guess where I'm going with the next thing I was going with that is, you know, is do we want to restrict it? I mean, it seems like it it has already some kind of mechanism to approve or not approve uh the use. I I think you're right. I I I agree. I don't know. I I'm kind of leading with Doug on that. I I don't know how we say you can do it in this district and not in this district. And you could have an R1 that's that's on two acres, right? You know, it's like I think it depends on the property and the location. Yeah. And that's what the BZA would look at, I guess. Did you have a a you had a whole presentation? I am prepared.

Okay. I wasn't able to make it last time because I had a issue with my eye throwing grass seed. I got something in my eye. So that I own three of the 13 short-term rentals in the area. So we're talking about 13 places. That's kind of helps draw back into what we're talking about, right? It's only 13 individual places. Um If you are my so

um Mr. Iols, is this different than what you had submitted we received last time? Yes. Okay. Yeah, I I revised it.

Okay. Um, so my request for conditional use was uh where kind of this all started where I had three homes and Mark recommended to run it at run it through as a bed and breakfast um because that had kind of been done before. Um the bed and breakfast uh rules don't match up right with what this is. You know, you're not literally serving food and having people spend the night at your own house. Um, so, uh, beyond that, I thought, gosh, I mean, how many bread and breakfastes are there? Are they really just, you know, should they really just be short-term rentals as well? I don't know how many there are. There might is there two? I mean,

maybe.

So, I mean, see what I mean? Like, we we're talking about a matter of 15 houses or something. So, if I was, you know, writing the rules, I would want to boil everything down um as simple as possible until something's needed. Um, so as far as the text, right, so 11B8 says, "Each guest room shall have a functioning lockable window." You know, I I don't see why this couldn't be a door or a window as far as a uh you know, it would be like a sliding glass door or something. It really doesn't matter, right? Um and then there was a section that you just brought up with uh this is 11B uh 4. A maximum of two additional adult persons shall be permitted in addition to those permitted by either subsection A or B as applicable. Again, it's kind of this is all a little bit too much. Maybe just say 10 persons and be done with it. I don't I don't know why it needs to be more complicated. It just doesn't. Um

that is a odd section and that's like half of what I called the attorney about because that section is kind of odd. I mean, you don't want in general what we don't want an overcrowded house. You don't want uh a bunch of people um in one room, I guess. But really, it sort of doesn't matter. I mean, is there if they're there and there's a maximum of 10, it shouldn't shouldn't really matter. You could take number three out of there because of the way that one, two, and four are written. I think

now I get into this chronic nuises uh nuisances uh section. This is verbatim what I wrote last time. It could be more complicated, but maybe what you have is just fine. Again, we're talking about 13 houses. Basically, you want to be able to say if this operator can't run this in a way that's uh not having legal complaints, um the police called, etc., etc. You know, you want to be able to say, "No, you're you're not allowed to do it anymore." Or, "Hey, come in here and say what you're going to do to to fix that problem." to your point. Um, one thing we did talk about on D last time is that if you had two calls, in order for this to be accounting against someone, they needed to be verified issues, not just that they got calls and when they got out there, there was not an issue identified. So, we probably should acknowledge, you know, no more than two verified or something of that nature.

Yeah. If somebody calls the complaint and they go out there and there's nothing the officer finds wrong. That's not verified. That happens with zoning violation all the time. All right. I agree. Now, uh Mark brought up uh email and home address don't need to be on the emergency contact. I know you guys I watched the video from last time and you said, "Well, why wouldn't you have your email and address?" Well, sure, people could get that, but this is the emergency contact, right?

Right. So, a phone number is what you call Um, that's self-explanatory. Also, I had a really nice emergency contacts list which includes the local fire department, police department, poison control, you know, general stuff that incident would happen. Somebody could get that information. Now, do you have to require this and all that? You know, we're talking about 13 houses. You know, you should have a good operator and they should want to provide that information. Um, okay. So, this the request to have uh the STR owners join this new community authority. It really sounds like a mismatch. Um, you know, we're talking about 13 houses here. The the new community authorities are about acquisition and development of properties in conjunction with the local government. There might be um I guess different road setups or different things that they might they adhere to. They're creating a new community, a new development, a new I don't know. It it seems like it's beyond what we need. Basically, I think, you know, if you want to do the annual inspection, put a $500 fee on it and collect that. And that's that's just easier for everyone to manage. I don't I don't know if I'm wrong. I don't know if is is there some is there you know it seems like you have to have a committee and a board and all this for the NCA. That just seems way over

the township created an NCA put the language together to put together an NCA this last this year I think. Um I don't it's I don't know that it's being applied anywhere yet. We're at a point where we're just about ready to start applying it. Right. This seems like the smallest potatoes thing you could

on the smaller scale of what it would be used for for sure. So it's an old tool that's getting brought back for new purposes and new uses. And you know to your point yes it was set up originally to probably you know do more to stimulate like a new community but it's more commonly now being used for things like the development of a place like Liberty Township. for Liberty Township to develop the way that it did. One of the ways that it's it's developed um or been brought about is because of their NCA. So like as an example, you can add a search charge to um like a beverage to help pay for the area. You can add a search like a search charge on to anything that would require a ticket, you know, so for like a a movie or whatever. if it's a sporting event, you can add a search charge to the registration for the teams. So, this language is coming um as part of what we received from our administrator. And I think I'm not sure exactly what the proposed mechanism is, but I think it's to gain something along the lines of what you would get for revenue if it was a hotel. I'm not sure exactly what the thought like how we would achieve that yet or not. And in instead of doing it as a percentage or something like that, I mean the alternative could be that you do what you're talking about which is to do

simple. I mean there's no need amount. Yeah. It's for each inspection because like it one you should have the inspections done because there aren't always going to be good operators. But I mean whether that's language that's changed now in what you're reviewing or whether you go to the trustees and suggest what you're talking about. I mean I think it could be done either way. It's just burdensome. It's, you know, it's too much for for this. It's um so I hope that that can get taken out. You already filed with state lodging to pay taxes. Correct. No, there's there's it's it's separate than uh lodging tax. Yeah,

you're paying Ohio and sales tax. Well, no, you're not. You're paying, you know, you're you're collecting taxes. Okay. And obviously you're paying for the property tax for the house. Um, so going back to the new community authority. So is there or is there not one? There is one. There is. There's it's just not we we've not I don't think used that tool yet. Like we're if we haven't used it, we're like this close on several things that we're working on. Okay. We set up the mechanism to allow it to happen. Okay. That's what I guess what it does.

Yeah. It sounds like something to where when you did Ivy Point, you got the 1% for all the employees that work there, right? That's the Jed. Yeah, it's a different Yeah. mechanism. But this this could be I mean you can use it. It's it's basically a tax that's just basically used however you want to use it. Whether it's for you want to tax a certain lots for infrastructure or if you want to tax like you said going to a ball game or tickets. It's just a but if we're trying to recoup the cost anticipated with these types of things you know you could either do it the way that it was put in here or you could do like a fee like what he's talking

charge an inspection fee once a year. I can't you established a fee that was a certain amount like that would probably be enough. But whether that's something that you want to have changed or you want the trustees to address that and and have you raise the question. I mean I think it can be done either way. I just hope it's simple for the benefit of all of us. I mean we haven't even used the NCA. We're going to use it on these simpler would be better. Yeah. So simple meaning uh we saying in here there's you know there's a $500 fee that's on the fee schedule and and people are aware that they have to do this.

I know like where I used to work that we didn't have an NCA provision and we were working on um rentals in a city particularly along the river and um they had to do rental registration and they paid their fee and I don't remember what it was offand but that's how they took care of it. Makes sense to me. So it was set up like what you're talking about.

So just to piggyback on that, Anderson and Milford don't have any fees related to them. You know, if this was Florida or something, there'd be a lot of activity and you would set something up that made sense. So um yeah, I talked about the recommended emergency and safety information sheet. Um I passed that out last time. I don't have a copy of it with me right now. Can I stop for a minute? In 11J, we refer to proof of filing of state lodging tax. So, you're not filing for state lodging tax at all? No. Why do we have that in there if it's not true?

Well, again, he's running something that is completely unregulated by So, should we take that out of there? That's a I mean that's kind of the I was under the impression he files with the Ohio State lodging to pay tax to the lodging. No, I think this was drafted by the administrator. Just he just pulled a boiler plate. Mhm. Okay. So, does the OC require this kind of property if we're saying tax? I don't I don't think so. Or it would be applicable across the board and it would be addressed through Airbnb also at that point. Okay. So it's not with Airbnb.

Yeah. I don't know verbatim, but I think there's a number of units in one property or something that gets flagged for for that type of, you know, it have to be. Wait, wait, wait. Has council reviewed the lang and approved the language because that's the subject matter expert we should be referring to before we start striking. I'm confused. I'm confused. Why? They did. They did review the initial draft. Now, when I talked to her, based on our first meeting, what we talked about, this wasn't something that we spent time talking about. So, I could always revisit it with her. Well, and that's the purpose of these discussions to is to ferret that stuff out. But, yes, I would like to know council's opinion on that.

Okay. Out of all the stuff that we're talking about this time around, that's probably the most significant thing we brought up, I would say. Right. Yeah. because the the question was brought up about how if it's generating the tax revenue for anyone anywhere and then when we referred to that that you must file state lodging tax within six months. I thought that was a real thing. Yeah. I mean at the end of the day you're going to see this again no matter what I can get this fixed. You're going to see this at least one more time if not two.

Yeah. Yeah. And this is probably one of the more controversial ones. Like most of the time they're not this hard to flesh out, but this one's kind of a significant one compared to like in terms of like people's opinions, right? And of course, you know, for the uh the old bed and breakfast deal, there's no there's no setup for that. You know, it's created a long time ago maybe and it didn't have that. But like I said at the beginning, maybe these are kind of the same thing. I mean, it might get to that point where in some other areas there there is state lodging taxes and all the owner does is pass it off to the consumer. Yeah. You know, they just they just charge it on to the rental. So, um

anyway, I don't think I do care. Why do we care if they're, you know, it's it's just generating revenue somewhere? I I don't know because that was one of the questions that was brought up that they're not generating any revenue for the township or and So like the hotels or whatever, there's revenue that gets distributed or direct locally or whatever. With the Airbnb type stuff, there isn't. So I think that's kind of they want to they want to make them subjected to kind of a similar standard, right? But Ohio doesn't necessarily require there's there's no there's no controls in place. Yeah.

No. And if it was a tourist town or something, it would make a lot more sense. you'd have a lot more rentals and you know it might be more applicable there. Um so with these rules um in place that's all fine and well um I found it very helpful to have uh these signs this signage that I have here and I think I showed it on another occasion. Um, I put this at the back door of all the houses. It simply says, it goes through what the rules are and um, so let's see what I wrote here. Um, signs create what is called passive supervision. They serve as a constant reminder. By posting rules such as no fireworks, no outside nors after 10, we prevent misunderstandings and reduce disturbances even when we're not physically present. Clear signage changes guest behavior the same way it works in hotels, hospitals, parks, etc. It protects the neighborhood without requiring constant enforcement. It's an easy way to assist in um making these transparent with with the houses around it. So, we did have a couple events at Massachusetts in May when we started and after the signage had gone up. Um, you know, it really works. It does. And I know that, you know, previous commenters said, "Well, he's not there. How can he, you know," but, you know, signs do have an effect when you're there and with other people and you can point to the sign and say, "No, Brandon, you can't, you know, you can't get out there and do that. It's after 10 and you're making noise." you know, it's a

lot easier for the family in there to to follow the rules. Um, so in general, right, we're talking about should we allow these short-term rentals anywhere in R1, R2, you know, where do they belong? How do you perfectly, you know, make a rule for that? And and again, I think Mark's right. You can't really make a u one fit one sizefits-all rule on that. It really comes down to the operator, the specific house. Um, you know, obviously I wouldn't want to have a uh a house with a extremely small backyard. And you know, some of these places, a lot of the areas to start with, anything with an HOA, you generally just can't do it. You you wouldn't do it, right? So there's only there's limited homes that would make sense to do this. They have to be u within reason of you know transportation and restaurants etc. So you know the houses that I have picked out have halfacre lots. These are much larger than than normal. They've got privacy fences. Um so when we first had that initial um meeting where I brought these three up at once, you know, it was kind of like a little bit overwhelming, right? you bringing in uh you know if you invite complaints you'll get them. So we've got three houses up and we've got everybody which was kind of good that we got a broad range of here's what it is overall right was kind of the test dummy of you know what should we do with these short-term rentals. Um so most of the activity around short-term rentals is indistinguishable from everyday residential life other than a higher level of pool use a few months of the year. So, four months out of the year year there's the pool and

people that don't have a pool, they're going to go out there and use that pool. So, I know that previous time Max said, you know, there there's kids swimming out there, you know. Well, you know, that's kind of that's kind of life. Lawnmowing, grilling, kids playing, people talking on porches, occasional music, motorcycles, backyard fires, guests visiting, even city sounds like sirens or construction. Uh, these are part of everyday living in any community. At my personal home, I even hear trucks from Evans Landscaping, train noise, and I've got a gun range down the hill on Round Bottom. We all share an environment with activity we don't always control. And when you definitely when you compare this against what we just saw with the giant building, gosh, this is like um it's it's it's so so small. You know, we're talking about residential folks visiting a house, staying there for a few nights, and leaving. They're using the house as normal people. Yes, they're on vacation, so they could use the backyard more than often. And I think, you know, that's what we found with with uh the backyard there at Massachusetts, but awkwardly like the the house that's on Lexington Green, it's got a pool. People always use it. never ever had any type of complaint. Um, so, you know, ironically, these short-term rentals often operate with more structure and accountability than typical homes because it's our business doing so. So, just recently, as Mark said, I was able to install a privacy screen with, you know, talking to that neighbor and that limits there. This house happened to have a little basketball court right at the edge of the fence. So on two occasions that basketball is rolled into

their yard and then um one occasion I I don't know if it's two or one but um one time a kid you know went and got it right. Another time uh gentleman tried to knock on the door. They didn't answer it right away or whatever and you know he ended up going and and getting it. Uh, that's why I've updated my my rules here with no drones or aircraft and never enter a neighbor's yard. And I could put something on the back sign there. Again, this is like specific for each property, right? If you've got, you're never going to have a basketball hoop on the edge of a property every time. But as I started these personally, I've, you know, talked to these neighbors and gave them my phone number. And that's why we've been communicating this entire time. And you know, they're they're extremely nice and they've been extremely nice to me. Um, and I know we're not talking about just an individual thing here, but kind of it fits the whole the whole deal, right? I mean, should we allow these or not? Um, gosh, if if I was a terrible operator, you know, and I did nothing to help this, um, and I, you know, let's say I put it for $100 a night or something or $80 a night, right? You're you're just inviting maybe more problems, right? These customers that I have happen to be paying anywhere from $250 to $600 a night. So, this is, you know, they're spending a good deal of money. That doesn't make everybody bulletproof a good person, right? But it it does have an effect. It could also mean that based on what they're paying, they feel entitled to possibly blow off more steam than they would normally do. I mean, I I think about what I do at my house and what I do on vacation. When I'm on vacation, I'm

doing more things than I am when I'm at my house not doing things. So, if every week is somebody on vacation, there's going to be more activity at that house than if it's a person living there that may go a week or two without doing hardly anything, never grilling. But then when it's constantly being used as a vacation spot, it's just going to be there's going to be more activity that there's just no way to argue that that's going to happen. I'm not saying it's it's bad. No, I think you having that open channel of communication with all adjacent neighbors on each side and possibly in the back if that applies. I think that's a really good thing. Yeah. And while they are on vacation, they're also here for a purpose. You know, they're going to be going to a wedding or, you know, visiting another event, whatever.

Well, that's a good point because they're probably not This isn't a vacation. No, they're not sitting here all day. Yeah. I mean, and and they could have their kids, they could have all day at the pool one day or two days or even, God forbid, it's the whole week, but these people are going to turn over and the next people are going to come and

you know, let's say they get the the six guys out there smoking pot, right? Well, on that day, if if that's not what you like, you shut your window and those people will be gone in a number of, you know, in a few days, you know, and and and if they're not doing anything illegal, you know, somebody could move in there and do the same. Somebody could rent it and do the same, you know. So, it's really I'm really happy with where I'm at right now with it because um putting up this privacy block um and having the signage, you know, we've really gotten to a place that's much better. And what's so funny is that I have eight Airbnbs and the only one I've ever gotten a complaint is from this this single one. And it doesn't mean that, you know, that person's a complainer or anything else. It just um there was a couple occasions where it, you know, it just seemed scary, right? There's different people in back the yard when they come out to their back deck, they look over and they see people that they they shouldn't belong there. They don't live there, right? They're at that table. What's going on? So, you're naturally kind of obsessed with checking that out. Who are these bad guys this time? Who's that? you know, so the blocker, you know, the privacy block tremendously helps, I think.

And I I appreciate everything you said. It's time to wrap this up. We need to move forward. So, let's uh let's put a clamp on this. And what do we need to do? We need to make a decision about can can we forward these comments to to legal? Yes. So, the only thing if you're good with what I've typed in otherwise, um I did mention or put make a note um on window and door on the one that you mentioned earlier. That makes good sense. And then I um I think we just need to acknowledge that the calls for service for nuisances are verified,

right? And then I will have to do some discussion about the NCA versus like a alternative fee for registration and inspection which is what we did at my last job. So like that that's probably the most significant one that might actually require some work. Yep. Everything else is pretty basically covered I think. As well as determining if we really need to put in proof of filing lodging tax. Is that something? Yeah. All that section that whole section I got circled. Yeah. So, and at this point we stay away from districts. I Yeah, I mean I think yes. Yeah, I threw that out there because that was the other thing that was brought.

The other thing that was brought up was like should we have any kind of stipulation about like the term of time or whatever and again I mean I've rented at these places before and the vast majority of the time we don't rent to spend our time there. I mean, if we have a whole week there, we may have a pool. We might spend a day or two in the evening or something there, but we're go like, if we're staying at these places, we are going somewhere, hiking all day in the city or whatever.

And this is just a place to sleep with the family and maybe if we're traveling with other family and it's better than a hotel situation when we do it. Um, so like I think a lot of people probably use it for that reason. I know some other people that own these and they all have to be mindful of the people that are wanting to use them for a party because that's bad for them, right? Let alone the neighbors, right? Um, but yeah, I don't I I think sometimes there's a little bit too much emphasis of like what can go wrong with some of these. If it's going to be a problem, our nuisance section will take care of it. I agree.

Just out of curiosity, what's your average term rental? Three days. Okay. Yeah, that's to your point. And and right now, you know, so the summer is the hottest by far. So, right there, that four months in the summer, it's booked. Right now, it's dead. I mean, there's nothing going on. I mean, it's just, you know, you're you're lucky to get somebody here and there. Um, I happened to bring guest book just with little comments. But it does kind of give you the nature of um, hey, there's people coming to stay here and

maybe we're not afraid of them, you know, like because when you don't know these people, you think that you have to assume the worst, right? You're like, these people are who are these people, you know? But when you when it when you look at the comments and see that, oh, we went to the basketball thing and we went to this and jungle gyms and, you know, you kind of feel a little bit more like, hey, they're just another person using this house. Maybe it's not so bad, you know. So, all right, we're done. Let's move on to the next tech section. Um, are you John's son? Yeah. So, you you don't remember me, but the dance world a long time ago. Jesse. Jesse and Stacy win with Anna. You used to go to the recital occasion or the Yeah, I was the guy that did all the props and stuff.

Oh, cool. So, but yeah, tell your dad I said hi. Thank you.

For the maintain natural lawns, we didn't change anything in the body of the proposed new section. The only thing we did is in the definition. I had questions about, you know, we had listed in the definition um natural and native and a and like you know a few other things and I asked if we should have those defined and she said no that's not really necessary but she did say when I was we were going over that definition that you know we have in there planting and maintenance of perennial flora native to Ohio. She suggested after we were about some things back and forth that we identify that how we determine what's you know native to Ohio. So there is a list on the ODNR website and that's a good a good reference. So we added that in there. Other than that we didn't really have any issues major issues with that thought last time. It was more like we got all these things that are defined. What is native? What's not native? So this was one way to try to address that without getting wordy.

Oh good deal. So, that was really it. This This is something when it goes through, we probably need to get to the nature center since they promote this. I do have I a note that that I was going to send this to Jeff Corny. I just never got it to him because Yeah, I mean that they actually as a member, they send you stuff about this all the time. I have his information. I just need to do it. Okay. Um and then we can defer these other things to the future. I have on there eventually, you know, maybe talk about babe shop, fencing in the front yard, driveway surfaces, particularly for What was on the driveway surfaces? Tell me.

It was to talk about how do we really want to make people pave driveways that are like several hundred feet long beyond that first? That's we were talking about 50 foot requirement and then beyond the 50 foot, not Yeah. 50 or 100 feet because these some of these driveways, especially like on pan handles, can be like 500 feet plus long. And what's the point after you get so far off the road? You can't see it. It's not affecting the road. No, I agree. I think it should be 50 feet. We've talked about that before. Grind up 250. And I to me that's just kind of over overkill for somebody that's got a driveway. That's I'm for it being 50 feet. I I don't see a reason for it to be beyond 50 feet or, you know, like if it's not in a subdivision particularly,

right? Yes. And it's a long driveway, right? you know, the number would be somewhere between 50 to 100 feet because you want to make sure that gravel doesn't get drugged out eventually onto the road. And 50 feet, I think, covers that. The only issue, and and I only know this because I ride motorcycles a lot on hillsides. Yeah. Oh, yeah. 50 foot the gravel will still travel down in the rain. Yeah. But again, how much of that do we have here? Not Not a Not very much. Yeah. But it's not. So yeah, maybe going to 100 feet would you know where State Road One is? Yeah. When it rains hard there, you can totally tell that gravel is all over that road. Okay, that's all I have, gentlemen. All right. Thank you. Thank you.

Thank you. We need to close out the meeting. Oh, no. Yeah, we still got We're still in session. So, is that it? So, we're not going to do anything more? Not. Okay. All right. All right. I'll call for adjournment. We're looking at uh 9:20. Meeting adjourned at 9:20. Thank you, gentlemen. Thank you.