June 7, 2005, Public Hearing

The Clarion Borough Council held a Public Hearing on June 7, 2005, at 6:30 p.m. in the Assembly Room of the Clarion Free Library, the purpose of the hearing was to receive public comments regarding a petition from Ms. Pamela Songer for Clarion Borough Council to re-zone a 35.31 acre parcel of land in Clarion Borough formerly owned by the Lake Erie, Franklin, and Clarion Railroad and identified by Property Map No. 05-02.0-001-000. 

A list of the people in attendance is attached to the Official File Copy of these minutes.

Ms. Vavrek, Chair of the Housing and Zoning Committee, called the hearing to order at 6:30 p.m.

Ms. Vavrek:  The hearing for the Songer property, Ms. Pamela Songer, 212 Arch Street, New Bethlehem, has submitted a petition to Clarion Borough Council requesting the re-zoning of a 35.31 acre parcel of land in Clarion Borough formerly owned by the Lake Erie, Franklin, and Clarion Railroad and identified by Property Map No. 05-02.0-001-000.  The property is currently zoned as I-1, Industrial, and is bounded on the northeast by a single-family residential (R-1) housing development known as the Troese Addition; on the northwest and west by lands of Owens-Illinois Glass Container Corp. (I-1); on the west by other lands of Owens-Illinois and lands of Allegheny Power (I-1) and Areto Associates (I-1); on the south by a single-family residential (R-1) housing development known as University Manor; and on the east by lands located in Clarion Township.  Ms. Songer is requesting the zoning of this parcel be changed to R-3, Multi-Family Residential, for purposes of development.  Now it was reviewed by the Planning Commission on Wednesday, May 25th, and I believe there was some discussion at that time that Mr. Songer was perhaps going to re-file his petition to change his designation to R-1 as opposed to R-3.  When that was done or mentioned, or talked about at the Planning Commission, the Planning Commission Members then voted by motion to have his request, if indeed it was changed, to be rezoned R-1.  So, we’re having this hearing tonight and if Mr. Songer is here, if you wish to speak to this, you should be first.  And then we’ll ask anyone in the audience who might want to discuss this and I have a letter also to read.  So, if you want to talk a little bit about maybe what you’ve done at this point or what you want to do.

Mr. Rick Songer: Well what we were just in the process of doing is trying to rezone in order to market the property in order to be sold.  We ended up, we had first said R-3, which we didn’t know, we ended up into a lot of discussion over it and we decided to change it to R-1, which it’d be more satisfactory to the people that live around the area, which is fine by us.

Ms. Vavrek: Do you realize you’re probably going to have to re-file everything to do that?  You can’t here tonight just change everything.  You’re going to have to go through the whole process of filing again but filing under R-1, if indeed that’s the conclusion everybody comes to tonight.

Mr. Songer: Cause we talked to Mr. Ragon and was it the Zoning Committee that we talked to?

Ms. Vavrek: Planning Commission

Mr. Songer:  Yea, we talked to them and I brought it up before that (unintelligible) started to change that over in the process before we went on and they said about they didn’t know if we had to re-file anything.  Or the big thing was she doesn’t have a whole lot of money so that’s what we were talking, we’re talking about the $300 and stuff like that in order to do that.  And we were just, when we first filed it, if we would have known what we were getting into at the beginning, we would have just filed it as R-1 and we would have saved that.

Ms. Vavrek:  I think Bob checked with the attorney; Bob; you want to speak to that?

Mr. Ragon: I did check with our Solicitor, and he did inform me that yes the process would have to start all over again and the fees would be due.

Mr. Songer: Okay.

Mr. Ragon: Unfortunately, yes.

Mr. Songer: Okay, that can be handled.

Mr. Ragon: They cover our advertising, notifications.  And what you paid the first time, covered notifying all these people of what you were trying to do.  So another re-filing produces the same thing.  We have to re-notify, do the advertising in the paper.

Mr. Songer: Okay, and then if we re-file and something, we have to go back through the same whole process.

Mr. Ragon: Yes.

Ms. Vavrek: Right.  And I see all these people here tonight.  So obviously you have opinions about the neighborhood and you may take a turn if you want to address this in some way, simply go up to the podium and state your name and where you live and you may give your perspective.

Mr. Frank Lignelli: I’m a member of the Planning Committee.  And we went on record when we held our meeting rejecting the R-3 request.  Then when he indicated he was interested in R-1, and we went on record recommending that he would not be assessed another fee for re-filing.

Ms. Vavrek: Okay, that’s not in the minutes here.  So I was not, oh you put, it just says that they question the need to re-file.  But he’s going to have to re-file, but we can talk about the fee maybe after the

Mr. Lignelli: Well we were recommending, we went on record recommending that he would not be required to forfeit another fee.

Ms. Vavrek: Okay.

Mr. Dan Breniman: Would there be another hearing?

Ms. Vavrek: There would have to be another hearing.

Mr. Breniman: Okay, so, whatever we say tonight

Ms. Vavrek: Well, but I’m interested in what you have to say.  I think it’s important for you to tell us what it is you’re

Mr. Herman: It’s important.

President Wilshire: It might influence them in terms of what they decide to do, too.

Mr. Dan Breniman: I live in the University Manor.  I came in support of R-1, if it would go that way, under certain conditions.  R-3 is just out of the question.  I don’t think anybody here would be in favor of R-3.  R-1, I would like to know who’s developing it, where the roads are going to be and so forth.  Do you guys have anything like that?

Mr. Songer: We don’t have anybody right off the bat wanting to buy it right now.  We lost one.

Mr. Breniman: You’re in search?

Mr. Songer: Yes.  Now the road we were looking at was coming down the old railroad bed, are you familiar with the old railroad bed?

Mr. Breniman: (Unintelligible) I was a former LEF & C employee.

Mr. Songer: Yea, so is my father, you probably know. 

Mr. Breniman: Martin?

Mr. Songer: Yea.  Well coming from the back side of the Borough property that they bought, there is a section of ground there that is deeded that runs straight over and runs right into the top corner of our property and that’s one of the roads we were looking at or one of the places we’re looking at to get a right-of-way to bring around because of the grade, the bedding that is already there so you wouldn’t have a pile of money into putting a surface down for it plus the grade would be for like your sewage and stuff that would have to come through.  The other perspective place was coming down over Riverview and coming straight down over and back there, which there’s already a right-of-way there that belongs to Mr. Troese.  We were talking to Mr. Troese about maybe getting a right-of-way off of him.  I haven’t spoke to him in probably about a month or two months now about it.

Mr. Breniman: Would then the Planning Commission restrict this as far as, I mean the recommendation as far as size of dwellings or is that just strictly

Mr. Crooks: They’d have to adhere to all the R-1

Mr. Breniman: Yea, I know what R-1 is, but that doesn’t say what size the dwelling unit, does it?

Mr. Herman: No, it doesn’t.  That’s something that really needs to be, at least for the property owners, it needs to be understood is that R-1 has a minimum square footage, Bob, what’s the minimum square footage?

Mr. Ragon: Per lot?  7500 square feet.

Mr. Herman: Okay.  And based on the square footage and the fact that no more than two unrelated

Mr. Breniman: Yea, yea.

Mr. Herman: persons, two unrelated, so as long as it fits that then they can put any dwelling on there that they desire.  So, the problem then becomes what value does that dwelling and that property have compared to the property assessments of people that already own homes there.  So, you know, for example, in University Manor, there are covenants already there that dictate

Mr. Breniman: Uh huh.  And that’s why I was saying

Mr. Herman:  type of dwelling, minimum square footage.  R-1 doesn’t handle that.  So, it would certainly be in voting on something, even on an R-1 you’d be voting on for one of better term a pig in a poke, you wouldn’t know what you

Mr. Breniman: No, and I think that’s where I’m leading is too is what we’re going to put in there.  And I didn’t know whether you guys, if you’d sell it to a developer, where does that leave the rest of the property owners around there and what are we going to have in there?

Mr. Songer: I know, I understand.

Mr. Breniman: I know you guys are trying to

Mr. Songer: Yea, I understand what you’re saying about whether, if they put a cheaper house in there would lower your property value.

Mr. Breniman: Yea.

Mr. Songer: That I couldn’t answer yet.  I don’t know what, if somebody wanted to buy it, what they would do.  That would have to be discussed with them and the people around them.

Mr. Breniman: Yea.  I would certainly want to and I think everybody in here is looking for that to see what does R-1 really mean.  And having said that I will sit down.

Ms. Vavrek:  Is there, I’m sure there must be someone else here who wishes to speak to, no?  Well this is one way that the Councilmembers that are here will be able to

Mr. Jeff Waple:   I’m from University Manor as well.  Rich, I want to go a little bit farther in what you were saying, because I’m still trying to understand these designations R-1 and R-3.  I mean R-3 I understand what that is; and yea, but R-1, I am concerned about the minimum square footage issue.  I mean as a property owner in University Manor that pays a high amount of tax to Clarion, I mean I wouldn’t want trailers and single, you know, I’m looking at higher square footage than 7500.  I don’t know how the discussion go, but that’s my other concern, 7500 minimum, is that going to drive down our property value in University Manor?  Do we get to pay less taxes then?  You know, we’re paying a big chunk of change; our taxes are what, $3300 up there?  You know, and that’s not fair to put in smaller homes down there.  I mean I’m telling you, I don’t think that’s very fair.  Someone like to speak to that, please?

Ms. Vavrek: To the taxes?

Mr. Waple: Well no, to the whole R-1 designation.

Mr. Crooks: I always say when people approach me about Borough taxes.  You know, everybody has a tendency to lump them all together, school, county taxes.

Mr. Waple: Well sure.

Mr. Crooks: When you look at our Borough taxes, they are so incredibly reasonable.  In fact, I rarely find a Borough resident that even know what they actually pay in Borough taxes.  You know, they

Mr. Waple: Well we know.

Mr. Crooks: just like you did, I do the same thing, you lump them all together.  But I think it’s obviously going to R-1 from Industrial is

Mr. Waple: Well certainly.

Mr. Crooks: a very positive step for that.  I think that

Mr. Waple: Well yea, I agree with that.  I’m with you on R-1.  I just

Mr. Songer: That’s the reason why we decided to change it.  Not only to market it, but I mean I don’t think anybody wants to put a factory or (unintelligible) garage or something like that behind their big houses they have sitting on the hill there.  That would be horrible.  I understand that completely.  That’s why

Mr. Herman: But understand this, once you sell the property

Mr. Songer: Um hum.

Mr. Herman: and it’s zoned as an R-1, as long as they comply with R-1, they can put anything they want in there.

Mr. Songer: Um hum, as long as it meets the standards.

Mr. Herman: Yea, but the standards are very vague when it comes to what kind of dwelling is going to go in there and how big a lot is going to be.  That’s up to somewhat the developer as to what’s going to go in there.

Mr. Waple: Okay, and that’s my

Mr. Herman: And that’s the plain fact.  Bob, you want to expound on that please.

Mr. Ragon: What the Zoning Ordinance is giving is minimum lot sizes for a certain district.  And it was basically formed for around the size of the lots within Clarion Borough.  It was devised before Chernicky even thought about putting his development out there.

Unidentified Individual: Right.

Mr. Ragon: But that’s where the developer comes in.  Mr. Chernicky did not put together a development on minimum sizes.  He put something together that he could market, basically on the high end.  But what the Zoning Ordinance gives you is the minimum amount that’s required in an R-1 District.

Ms. Vavrek: And it will come through you, correct?

Mr. Ragon: Yea.

Ms. Vavrek: So, you would have some control in terms of R-1 and what was designated.

Mr. Ragon: I can control as far as the Zoning Ordinance allows me to control.  If someone comes to me with a plan that has a lot that is 7500 square feet, they meet the 10’ side yard setbacks, 25’ front yard, they have frontage on the street, 15’ rear yard, no more than 35% lot coverage, that’s something I would have to approve.

Mr. Waple: Yea, that’s what I thought.

Mr. Herman: See that’s what I’m saying.

President Wilshire: But you can’t put, Jeff had mentioned trailers, you can’t put trailers.

Mr. Ragon: No, only with Borough Council approval.

Mr. Crooks: Well that’s not going to happen.

Mr. Ragon: They’re a conditional use and have to be the same standards as a house is.

Mr. Herman:  But you could end up with a structure that is far less in resale value

Mr. Waple: Right.

Mr. Herman: to what you currently own.

Mr. Waple: Yes.

Mr. Herman: And that’s your question

Mr. Waple: Yes, and that’s my legitimate concern.

Mr. Herman: and that’s the answer.

Mr. Waple: Yes.

Mr. Herman: In an R-1 designation.

Mr. Waple: Right, and I mean even for the Troese Sub-Division, I mean those homes are, you know, 12, 13, 1500 square foot, too.

Mr. Herman: Right.

Unidentified Man: Is University Manor an R-1?

Mr. Herman: Yes.

Mr. Waple: Oh yea.

Mr. Herman: But it has covenants.  It has, it’s like a contract, so when you buy a lot out there, you meet a different standard of restrictions that are higher than what the basic R-1 gives you.  So, you’re almost guaranteed to get a home that has a certain value of it.  The difference is if we were to approve an R-1, straight R-1 on this particular site, all I’m saying is that there are no covenants that are sitting there on that property that is going to be developed.  So, as long as it meets the minimum standards, then you’re still looking at that.  So, I’m trying to use the time to educate tonight so that everybody knows exactly what they are looking at.  R-1 is nice as long as R-1 goes in the way we’d all like to envision R-1 to be.  That doesn’t necessarily mean that it will end up being policed that way.

Unidentified Man: I thought single-family (unintelligible) entered into that R-1?

Mr. Herman: That’s correct.

Mr. Crooks: Yea, that would be correct.

President Wilshire: You can only have

Mr. Crooks: two unrelated

President Wilshire: two unrelated people in an R-1.

Ms. Vavrek: R-1, yes.

Mr. Crooks: With our current law, we can’t say that this new R-1 section, if it is passed, is going to look like the Troese Addition homes or University Manor.  We can’t really, because if we don’t have the law, we don’t have the zoning.

Mr. Herman:  Now if you could convince Mr. Songer

Mr. Crooks: Right.

Mr. Herman: to come with a plan, that’s a whole different issue.

Mr. Crooks: If he sold it to a group of you that wanted to develop it,

Mr. Songer: That’s exactly what we’re trying to do.

Mr. Crooks: you could say this is our new plan.

Mr. Herman: Well (unintelligible) designation I’m talking about.

Mr. Crooks:  You could then control it like Mr. Chernicky did with University Manor and say the homes that are going to be built here have to be 3500 square feet and over.  You know, but

President Wilshire: And that’s a private arrangement.

Mr. Crooks: Right.

President Wilshire:  And in terms of covenants, the Borough doesn’t enforce them.

Mr. Herman: No.

Mr. Crooks: You can’t by law.  It’s our current law.

Mr. Breniman: So, (unintelligible) power you can go from R-3 to whatever.  You can say (unintelligible).

Mr. Crooks: But we can’t say a minimum of 3500 square feet.

Mr. Herman: Now they could present something that said that.

Mr. Breniman: Yea.

Mr. Crooks: Right.

Mr. Herman: They could present a plan to say we put in writing such and such and such and such that when the property is sold that they’ll meet such a criteria of some sort.  That could be done; we’re not, we can’t require that, we’re not asking for that, but that’s something that could be done.  Inotherwords to satisfy some fears that homeowners would have.  I have the same fears, you know, I live there.

President Wilshire: How close does this property come to University Manor?

Unidentified Individual: Right up against it.

Mr. Lignelli: You know, I would think any builder would have enough pride that they would insist; when you take the Troese Addition, when we bought our property 37 years ago and one of the things that Henry Troese specified he would like to have a home at minimum $30,000 or higher.

Mr. Crooks: Or higher.

Mr. Lignelli: Now my home is worth 5 times that.

Mr. Crooks: Your garage is worth that amount.

Mr. Lignelli: But he made a point, because he took a lot of pride

Mr. Crooks: Right.

Mr. Lignelli: in his development.  And I think anybody that purchases this property, you know, if they intend to make any kind of money, they can’t afford to allow anyone to put a cheap structure, because that’s going to hurt them in the selling of the other lots.

Mr. Herman: Right, but you, I guess all we’re saying is, too, you have to know that once it’s designated R-1, somebody puts the minimum in behind your place, then you’re stuck with it.

Mr. Dave Sentner: How many could they put in that size of acres?  How many R-1 units?

Mr. Crooks: Really depends on the roads and (unintelligible), do you want to guesstimate Bob?

Mr. Ragon: If you just look at the numbers, it’s 35 acres.  If you were looking at a lot, 1 acre, that’s 35 homes. 

Mr. Herman: That’s 1 acre, that’s 1 acre a home.

Mr. Ragon: 7500 square feet, that’s as (unintelligible). 

Mr. Sentner: But what’s the minimum lot size for R-1, is it 1 acre?

Mr. Ragon: 7500 square feet.

Mr. Herman: No, 7500 square feet.

Mr. Sentner: So, if you were a developer wanting to maximize your return including roads and every (unintelligible) development, you could put how many homes in that area?

Mr. Crooks: (Unintelligible) 70 (unintelligible)

Unidentified Individual: (Unintelligible) depends on how many people want to build on that size lot.

Mr. Songer: Yea, but there’s also that, there’s a law there that they wouldn’t be able to build underneath power lines.

Mr. Sentner: I just wanted, what I said was (unintelligible).

Mr. Songer: Yea, there’s probably, I’m going to say probably roughly about 8 acres there

Mr. Sentner: So, potentially instead of 75 being 60 maximum.

Mr. Songer: You’d have to have a pretty good planner to probably

Mr. Sentner: Right, I’m just saying that that’s one boundary we should all be aware of

Mr. Herman: Right.

Mr. Sentner: in considering to rezone that.

Mr. Herman: That’s exactly right.

Mr. Sentner: Because any developer that’s doing it is going to make as much money as they can.

Mr. Herman: I don’t know anybody that goes into business that doesn’t try to make a buck.  So, I mean, that’s right.

Mr. Breniman: Are you guys interested in making a covenant like that for a buyer?  I mean not, I’ll support you guys a 100% in this if you would, you know, just not R-1.

Mr. Songer: Yea, I would love to do that, but like I said I don’t know the legal aspect behind all that stuff and what pertains to money-wise (unintelligible) getting into.

Mr. Herman: One thing, just as a suggestion, you may want to see if you could find, there’s got to be a copy of the Chernicky Development

President Wilshire: Covenants.

Mr. Herman: for an example.  Not to follow but for an example.  It might give you some (unintelligible) as to how to set up.

Mr. Songer: See what we’re interested in, I mean anybody can buy it.  I mean anybody here that would like to buy it and do the same thing Mr. Chernicky did, I’d love to see that.  That’s what I would really like to see.  I don’t feel that anybody would build a cheap little house behind something as nice as that development; you know, because they would be a fool.  They’d make more money on bigger houses and bigger developments.

Mr. Herman: But you understand there’s no guarantee,

Mr. Songer: Right, right, yea, I understand.

Mr. Herman: And see, so,

Mr. Songer: I mean I can’t guarantee that myself.

Mr. Herman: when you’re not dealing with guarantees and that’s why people are here

Mr. Songer: Um hum.

Mr. Herman: because they are concerned about that.

Ms. Vavrek: Rich, we need to allow other people to speak to this.

Mr. Herman: I’m sorry.

Ms. Vavrek: No, that’s okay.

Mr. Zerfoss: I have a question for them.  See you wanted it rezoned to sell.  Your intent,

Mr. Songer: Yes.

Mr. Zerfoss: you’re not going to do any, you’re not going to run

Mr. Songer: No, I’m not building anything.

Mr. Zerfoss: I mean, for me, as a Councilman, to really (unintelligible), it was Industrial now you went to an R-3 and the neighbors objected, so you said okay I’ll go to an R-1,

Mr. Songer: Um hum.

Mr. Zerfoss: the only thing left is R-2.  I think you got a lot of homework to do before I could even, because I need to see a plan.  I mean you’ve been all over the map on our zoning; and I don’t mean this in a negative way, but for me as a Councilmember 35 acres is a whole lot of land.  And yeah we want it developed, but not the way I’m hearing tonight from you.  I mean we’re a long ways from making

Mr. Songer: Well see the original way we

Mr. Zerfoss: I could go to an R-1, but like I said that’s awful vague.  A good example, when you, R-1, I live on Oakwood Drive, a dead-end street, and we pay taxes.  My taxes are high and so are my neighbors.  Look before you, on the, it was the Smith property before you go down and turn on, what is it Heidrick, there is, that’s R-1.  There is a home there that is R-1, and look at it. 

(Unidentified Individual): Yea.

Mr. Herman: I didn’t want to bring that exact place up,

Mr. Zerfoss: No.

Mr. Herman: but that’s what I have in my mind though.

Mr. Zerfoss: We did, and I’m on the upper side of, but this is the lower side, (unintelligible) and they spent a lot of their own money to try to prevent this, and I don’t know how far it is, but you sure don’t need nothing on those 35 acres, what’s down my way.

Mr. Crooks: In all fairness to Mr. Martin, he built that home with a permit

Mr. Zerfoss: Right, I’m not,

Mr. Crooks: that permitted that.  And that was the original plan, and it was turned down by the Courts.

Mr. Zerfoss: yea.

Mr. Crooks: So, I mean, we can’t, we really can’t

Mr. Zerfoss: No, I’m not saying that, but I’m just saying when they’re talking homes, there is one down there.

Mr. Crooks: Going to an R-1 from

Mr. Songer: Industrial.

Mr. Crooks: Industrial is, I mean how can you wish for anything better than that.  We don’t have anything better than that.  We don’t have an R-1-1.

Mr. Zerfoss: Take time out and go down there.  All those neighbors down there,

Mr. Crooks: What would you rather have there, would you rather have Industrial

Mr. Zerfoss: ask the neighbors, don’t ask me.

Mr. Crooks: park?

Mr. Zerfoss: Go down and ask those neighbors.

Mr. Crooks: These are the people that live there.

Mr. Sentner: I’ll tell you what I would like the Borough to really consider is certainly it might be better than Industrial.  But I’ve lived in communities where a zoning variance has come up, and supervisors really did press for a variance without a good understanding of what they were allowing to happen.  And they made a zoning change, it was a serious issue.  It had a big impact on our Borough.  Not just the University but the entire Borough.

Mr. Herman: Right.

Mr. Sentner: Number of streets (unintelligible) to plow, lighting, basic things, how many children are going to come into the schools, and so are you going to be adding over 100 families, you know, 100, no, we said 60.  But there are a lot of issues that you have to look at, and I would question right now that if Clarion Borough could support another Chernicky Development.  If (unintelligible) design and build those price-range of homes and expect to see all of those with our current economic, and the University is not that position right now right now, but the real issue and the point I’m trying to stress in particular is this is a major decision and what I’m requesting, not as a University Manor resident but as a Borough resident, that Council that they really weigh this carefully, because it will have a major impact on our Borough.  It creates the future of our Borough.

Mr. Crooks: Now let’s say the Songers have the right to request this change.  Would you rather us say to them, and this is just a question; you know, I do think you have a very valid point there.  But we say to them ‘well we’d like to see the R-1 Plan before we change it to R-1’? 

Mr. Sentner: Yea, I would

Mr. Crooks: But they don’t have any intention of developing it.

Mr. Sentner: That’s a different answer.

Mr. Crooks: We say to them ‘sell it as Industrial with the idea we’re committed to an R-1’?

Mr. Sentner: That’s an option they would have to look at.  (Unintelligible) areas that I’ve been involved in zoning issues with so yea (unintelligible) did, when they made a decision on that size of property, they requested a lot of information.

Mr. Herman: What it really comes down to is is somebody bought a piece of land and has speculated on trying to make a profit on that land; and there’s nothing wrong with that.  But in speculating to make a profit, and I agree with the folks here and with Earl, that it really comes down to, really needing to see something more tangible and being able to weigh it so that we know what we’re voting on instead of just voting on something blind.  I couldn’t support that at least not currently.  I don’t see how anybody could.  I understand where you guys are at trying to speculate on turning the property over and you have every right to do that; you should do that.  And yet we have an obligation to the people that border that property to make sure they’re safe, too.  And so it’s more about working together than to solve that problem than it is coming apart.  So, if people are willing to work together to solve that problem, that problem could be solved.  I think that’s the advice that I, at least from my standpoint, that I would give.

Ms. Vavrek: Okay, we need to take time to hear from other people, because we have, Jerry?

Mr. Jerry Magistrella, 1289 Stephano Strait: I want to make a quick first comment, I hope I’m speaking for most of the Troese Addition residents, and then I want to address directly what you all are trying to educate us about that I think very few of us probably, I’m learning tonight, wide an R-1 leaves the door open.  But first of all, as you might expect already, and I was afraid we wouldn’t convey this enough tonight.  I had hoped more people would show up.  Some of us did do some telephone calling but the word wasn’t completely around.  We’re always concerned about what happens to development.  Any of you who live in any neighborhood is concerned about the disposition of that neighborhood over time, whether the quality remains, hopefully it will, and always try to preserve that.  And we’re no different.  We’ve seen a lot of impacts, and I’ve stressed this Mr. Songer and well, Douglas and Rick here, and have gone through this process, I don’t know, I’ve lost count a number of times.  So, first of all, we’re very concerned about the integrity of that neighborhood being preserved.  So, our main intent is to try to guide this to the extent we have any ability to have that happen.  And we’ve had some discussions with Mr. Songer.  I didn’t want you all to think that because we are very few here that we don’t represent very many people’s intentions in the Troese Addition.  That’s not the fact.  From whatever their reasons are, some didn’t get the word and whatever other reasons they have they didn’t come as strongly as we hoped.  Now number two you’re discussion on the disposition of R-1 and how far you can go with it; we’re trying to get the bar raised to the best level we can with the very limited ability we have.  They’re not selling the property.  So, we’re at the mercy of the seller and the basic ordinances and so forth.  If you can give us a schedule of events in an ideal world that you think should now take place between whomever and the Songers, so that the kinds of structure that you are talking about and the integrity that you’re trying to tell us about that will happen in an R-1, if certain things take place, we need to know what those events are in an orderly fashion, how they should be pursued to make sure that ideal situation under an R-1 is accomplished.  And somebody I’m sure from our group would be willing to sit down with one of you and discuss what we should discuss and with the Songers to get this orderly process done for the best ability within the R-1 framework.  So, I hope that this will proceed that way; and I hope the Songers will remain open to helping us realize, in addition to their willingness or desire to sell it, to sell it in a way and under the fashion that you’re talking about, so that the best integrity will remain up there.  I don’t know how I can put this anymore strongly, and I hope I’m speaking for everybody up there.  We’re getting gray hair and some of us have lost a lot of hair over the years going through all this many times.  So, please, wherever you folks go with this, please keep that in mind.  And we’re willing to meet whatever kinds of scheduling or agendas that will accommodate what we’re trying to preserve.  So, in your educational process, if you want to ask one of us to meet with somebody and lay this out in a way, you know, better than we do, we’re certainly willing to meet that schedule.  I hope I haven’t said anything out of line with the rest of you folks up there in the Troese Addition, but this is how I think we all feel.  Is that not correct? 

(Unidentified Individuals in the audience agreed.)

Ms. Vavrek: Is there someone else who

Mr. Darrin Frederick, 1320 Robinwood Drive: I’ve been there about 2 or 3 years now.  What my concern would be is not so much of the rezoning as R-1, but the traffic impact it would have providing if the right-of-way was through the Troese property if you were to extend Riverview out.  As it is now, there’s no sidewalks in our development at all.  You know, so you have to walk on the road if you walk and I’ve got children.  You know, the added traffic would certainly be a concern of mine.  We have Hill City Apartments on the one end, and then we’d have another one up at the other end of Robinwood and that would concern me so I don’t know if anyone else has that same view or not.  But that’s one thing I would, you know, if the development were to go in there, I’d prefer it not to go up Riverview.  That’s all.

Ms. Vavrek: Anyone else?

Mr. Beryl Snyder: I live on Riverview and paid taxes for about 39 years and yet with this development they’re not, have not investigated any access road.  It’s like a landlocked property now with maybe plans to have access, and it was brought up to Riverview or another road was.  Traffic right now; it can’t handle what it is.  It was a nice, quiet, semi-dead-end street up there when I moved there.  And now with Hillside as he addressed the situation, we got a speedway.  And we’re not real happy with it.  And if this would add to it, we’d be less happy.  That’s really all I have to say.  It’s the access that they didn’t take into account when they got the property; now they’re trying to sell it.  There’s been no plan yet other than the one road, is that right?

Mr. Songer: No, I’m in the process of buying another right-of-way, which is the railroad bed.  I’ve been in the process over the last couple of months trying to get it.

Mr. Snyder: Riverview can’t really handle.  Like I said, 39 years of watching the traffic coming (unintelligible).  It’s not good.

Ms. Vavrek: Anyone else here that wishes to discuss this?  (There were none).

Ms. Vavrek read a letter from Henry and Arlene Troese, Sr., which is attached to the Official File Copy of these minutes.

Ms. Vavrek: If there’s nothing else, is there anyone else who wishes to address?  (There were none.)  We’ll close this hearing and then we can move it up to the top of the agenda, I think, correct?  I don’t know that any decision can be made tonight other than we can reject the R-3, which is essentially what started this meeting.  Again because we could change, he has to re-file again.  So, that’s what the hearing was held for originally; so I’m guessing we can reject that.  But there are some other issues that I think Council needs to discuss.  And one is the re-filing fee, whether you would have to do that again or whether we could waive that.  I don’t know whether we can do that, but I think it would be up to, I assume Bob, could Council do that?

Mr. Ragon: Oh yeah.

Ms. Vavrek: Okay.  So, we’ll close this meeting now, this hearing and then we’ll start the Council Meeting.  And then we’ll come up to the front of the agenda and go through that again.  Thank you.

Ms. Vavrek adjourned the Public Hearing at 7:09 p.m. with action to be taken at the Council Meeting immediately following.

                     ______________________________

                     Linda M. LaVan

                     Administrative/Zoning Secretary