Comprehensive Plan Steering Committee Hears Concerns

Tuesday evening the Comprehensive Plan Steering Committee held a public hearing on the draft Comprehensive Plan. Committee Chair Connie Barsky kicked off the meeting noting it was intended to be a public forum to gain feedback on the draft plan. Committee member and Township Trustee Fred Abraham clarified that the plan had originally been created by the planning firm Poggemeyer Design Group. He stated the Trustees had a number of concerns about the plan themselves and have heard residents express concerns. 

A number of residents attended and after a short committee presentation residents expressed their concerns and asked a variety of questions regarding the current plan draft. 

Some questions centered on the significance of a comprehensive plan and how a comprehensive plan related to zoning. Village Planner Alison Terry explained that a comprehensive plan is a vision of what community residents want the community to be in the future and that the comprehensive plan tells what future zoning will be available in different areas of the community.

The concerns expressed by residents focused on several main areas. There were a number of residents who live near areas planned for expansion of the "research and technology" land use category. Len Hubert questioned the prudence of expanding the amount of land to be used for research and technology when the community already has substantial land zoned for research and only a relatively small fraction of that land is currently being used. Hubert also noted the stretch of State Route 16 near the planned expansion is "one of the worst safety roads in Licking County" and that "safety is a big issue that needs to be given consideration." He suggested this was not the best place to place increased traffic that would result from expanding the area covered by the research and technology category. Another resident expressed fear that office buildings in the research and technology areas would be placed virtually in the back yards of existing residential properties.

Don Andrews questioned whether or not it made sense to expand areas available for commercial development when, according to a study completed as part of the 1998 Comprehensive Plan Update process, the Township already has enough commercially zoned land to support a city of 40,000 people.

Paul Jenks expressed concerns about what zoning would be available in the land designated for research and technology. Jenks mentioned that M-1 zoning does allow research and asked if that was the zoning that would be available in those areas. Bill Wernet pointed out another alternative, the Township’s PRO (Professional - Research - Office) zoning, includes both research uses and residential uses. Jenks suggested the Committee consider developing a table that would show what zoning would be available for each land use category. Jenk’s suggested table would allow residents to better understand how land might ultimately be used.

Wernet noted the drafters of the 1990 Comprehensive Plan had wisely taken significant chunks of land throughout the Township that were zoned for high density housing and rezoned all of them to a minimum of five acres per house. He questioned whether it made sense to reverse that 1990 decision by creating a new Township Suburban Residential land use category allowing up to four town homes per acre. He emphasized how this change would present a risk even in already "built-up" areas of the Township by giving an example of a property owner whose house burns down leaving an empty six acre lot wanting to place 24 town homes on the land. He questioned how the owners of a one dwelling, four acre lot next door might feel about that situation.

Don Andrews pointed out courts are saying the zoning chosen by the Township has to match the plan. He noted this makes choices made in the Comprehensive Plan critical choices.

Wernet mentioned the Committee might want to look for unintended consequences of its changes. As an example, he suggested the Committeee reconsider its planned modification of the Kendal property from a use restricted to senior residential living and care to Urban Residential (the same land use the Village downtown residential areas have). A change to Urban Residential would provide the potential for the property at some point in the future to be converted to, for example, apartment use for non-seniors with lots of children. Such a change would violate the original premise of the Kendal approvals: a land use that would not hurt the school district. 

Committee Chair Connie Barksy suggested that the community needs to focus on its long-term vision for agriculturally-zoned land. She said traditionally agricultural zoning has been viewed as a "holding pen" for eventual alternative land uses. Another resident pointed out that the planning process would benefit from determining how to best make agricultural use of Township lands a long-term viable option: "if we want a sustainable [agricultural] community what does that look like?" 

In addition to expressing his concerns about expansion of the research and technology area, Dan Van Ness suggested the committee may want to adjust the plan assumptions to reflect the significant changes resulting from the current worldwide economic situation.

The meeting ended with a commitment from the Committee to make revisions and follow up with additional public review and input.