Blog 4: Zoning BOARD AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT MEETINGS

Blog #4

Collegiate Rebel Penguins

 

The room was organized with what appeared to be the experts (i.e. traffic management, parks and recreation, etc.) sitting at a table in the front of the room, perpendicular to the screen, and the board members parallel to them, also in the front. The audience sat in rows parallel to and facing the screen. Starting with the less disputed and more minute cases, the facilitator would read off the case numbers and descriptions and show the site plan on the screen. The applicants would make their way up to the podium, which was situated between the board members, experts, and audience members and was facing the screen. The chief chairman would ask the experts if there were any traffic problems or parks and recreational problems. If there was a problem, the experts would explain the situation. The chairman would then ask the audience if anyone opposed or supported the applicant. If yes, then they would go to the podium and argue their case. The chairman would then ask the board members if they had any questions for the applicant. After everything was made clear, the board members would vote on the case with either a “yes,” “no,” or “abstain.” The majority of the vote would be necessary to approve the plan.

 

There were seven scheduled cases to be reviewed, however one case was postponed for another day. The first four cases had little to no controversy or opposition and were approved by traffic and parks and recreation. It was difficult to hear some of the experts and board members from the back of the room. The entire room was full with citizens and applicants. The only two cases that received a reaction from the audience were the fifth and sixth cases. The fifth case had two nearby residents argue against the case and the representative of the applicant and a surveyor argue in favor of the case. The sixth (last) case involved the majority of the audience in attendance. The plan was to build an assisted living complex and a single family neighborhood off of Ulry Rd. and Warner Rd. was highly opposed by the community members adjacent to the site location. The entire process of the case had strong reactions from the audience. The largest reaction occurred at the very end when the board members were voting on their decision. By the time the chief chairman had to cast a vote, the other board members had three vote no and one vote yes. The chief chairman told the audience that he would vote no if the vote relied on him, but since his vote wouldn’t sway the final decision and since he wished to see an improved plan rather than no plan, he voted yes. Many members in the audience were not pleased with this decision and started verbally opposing the decision. Apart from that, the audience was well behaved and well mannered.

 

The fifth case regarded SBA Towers building a monopole telecommunications antenna on Lazelle Rd. Two residents of a nearby condominium complex spoke against the construction of the monopole. They adamantly opposed it and gave reasons such as poor aesthetics, house prices falling, and potential health effects from the tower. The representative of the applicant argued that a condominium complex was in the process of being built between the current complex and the location of the monopole. The representative defended the merits of constructing the monopole and at one point told the board members that they will do “whatever it takes” to approve the tower. At one point, the representative invited a surveyor up to the podium to offer expert advice on the project. The surveyor brought printed site plans of the location and its surroundings. He placed the plans on the table where the board members were sitting and explained what it was portraying. The board members all approved the case with a requirement from the parks and recreation department to add vegetation around the site.

 

Being a part of this meeting was both exciting and eye-opening for us. The room was electric with both the opinions of the Columbus citizens, along with the ideals presented by the council members. It was great to see the action being played out right in front of us, knowing that the changes being made were actually being implemented in the city in which we live. Experiencing real world situations that will affect local neighborhoods for decades to come is unique compared to learning about historical situations or theories in a classroom setting. It’s crazy to think that changes like this happen constantly within cities around the world, for better and for worse.  

 

 

One thought on “Blog 4: Zoning BOARD AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT MEETINGS

  1. Lucky 7

    The first case involved one 4-unit house currently listed as rural located on 1764 NorthWest Blvd. However individuals wanted it to be rezoned to RES-4, to fit the other similar buildings in the area because it was annexed into the city. No issues or reservations were made about the proposed zoning change which is usually very uncommon especially among parks/rec and transportation departments .The applicant for the zoning change spoke and the committee let the public air their grievances, none were presented therefore it the zoning change was approved. The committee board sat on the left side with the municipal departmental figures on the right with the speaker being station in between both parties and in front of the citizens The room primarily was made up of gentlemen over the age of 50. This seem like it was a very cooperative zoning adjustment compared to what is usually shown in the media.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *