Planner's News - Ohio Environmental Law Blog

The Ohio Planner’s News � November/December 2006 • Vol 56 • No 6

OhioThe

Planner’s NewsOhio Planning Conference – A Chapter of The American Planning Association

February 6, February 8 & February 15, 2007Agri-Business Retention and Expansion Roundtables, OSU Extension Medina County, 120 West Washington Street, Medina (February 6); OSU Extension Muskingum County, 225 Underwood Street, Zanesville (February 8); and OSU Extension Allen County 3900 Campus Drive, Lima (February 15). To RSVP or for more information, please call the Center for Farmland Policy Innovation at: (614) 247-6479 or [email protected], or visit http://cffpi.osu.edu

February 14, 2007Complete Streets Audio Conference, 124 West Washington Street, Medina and NOACA, 1299 Superior Avenue, Cleveland. See www.ohioplanning.org for more information.

February 22, 2007 Promoting Tourism in Your Community: Getting the most out of the assets in your community. Medina County Department of Planning Services 124 W. Washington Street, Medina. To RSVP, or for additional information please contact [email protected], (330) 722-9219.

April 14-18, 2007 American Planning Association’s 99th National Conference, Philadelphia. See www.planning.org for more information.

OhioC a l e n d a r

America’s First Statewide Association of Citizens & Planners November/December 2006 • Vol 56 • No 6

I n s i d e First Word ......................................... 2OPC Officers Elected ......................... 3OPC Board Election Results ................ 3O-K-I Regional Conference Pics .......... 4Medina Mobile Workshop .................. 6

Solar & Wind Energy in Central OH .... 8Eminent Domain Op-Ed ................... 10Legislative Update ........................... 12James Jennings Jr. Scholarship ......... 13Tom Hylton Book and DVD ............... 14

“Walkable Communities” continued on page 7.

Walkable Communities Workshops Energize Public Officials and Plannersby Cheryl Onesky

Imagine having the authority and funding to make the sidewalks, bikeways, roads and crosswalks in

your community more attractive, safe, efficient, and even fun for pedestrians and bicyclists. Public officials, plan-ners, and interested citizens had the opportunity to take on this task at Walkable Communities workshops, co-sponsored by the Northeast Ohio Areawide Coordinating Agency

(NOACA) and National Center for Bicycling and Walking (NCBW).

The half-day workshops, conducted at five different Northeast Ohio locations from October 16 through 18, focused on improving mobility for pedestrians and bicyclists. Workshop attendees took a walking tour of part of their community, identified impediments for pedestrians

Participants in the Cleveland Sight Center Walkable Communities workshop offer their visions on how to improve mobility for pedestrians near the Cleveland Clinic.


America’s First Statewide Association of Citizens & Planners May/June 2006 • Vol 56, No 3

Ohio Planning Conference - A Chapter of The American Planning Association820 Prospect Avenue, Cleveland, Ohio 44115

by Dan Boron, AICP

As 2006 draws to a close, I would like to thank all of you who made the 2006 Ohio-Kentucky-Indiana Regional Planning Conference in Cin-cinnati such a success, whether you participated as a conference attendee, sponsor, volunteer or speaker. While the final tally has not been calculated at this time, the financial success of the conference will allow OPC—along with its sponsorship partners the Indiana and Kentucky Chapters of APA and our Greater Cincinnati Section—to invest in programming and member services in 2007. Please see page 5 for a list of conference sponsors and conference steering committee members. Thanks again!

OPC is looking for a few good men and women to serve on one of its standing committees and boards. Let us know if you’re interested.

I would like to reserve the re-mainder of this space to thank three departing OPC Board members for their service to the organization.

Vince Reddy, AICP, was OPC Vice President from 2004 to 2006, concur-rently serving as Cleveland Section Chair during that time. Vince was involved in helping develop OPC’s present web site design and format-ting, initiating our conference early riser exercise walk and co-chairing the very successful 2005 OPC State Planning Conference in Cleveland.

Randy Mielnik, AICP, served as an OPC Board member and Treasurer from 2002 to 2006. In that capacity Randy was responsible for coordinat-ing with our executive director in balancing our books, preparing tax

Board of TrusteesDan Boron, AICP, President Aaron Sorrell, AICP, Vice President Christopher Strayer, Secretary Kristen Hopkins, AICP, Treasurer Vince Papsidero, AICP, Immediate Past President

OhioF i r s t W o r d

OhioThe

Planner’s News

Joyce Braverman Patrick Etchie, AICP Tim Hershner Robert Kagler, AICP Larry Long Gary Powell Russell Sparks William Ulik

David Edelman, AICP Jennifer Evans-Cowley, AICP Michelle L. Johnson Wendy Kellogg Wendy Moeller, AICP Nancy Reger Patrice Theken, AICP

Bruce Knight, FAICP, APA Region IV Board Director Michael Wozniak, AICP, AICP Region IV Commissioner

Committees Larry Long, Chair, Audit Joyce Braverman, Chair, AwardsDan Boron, AICP, Chair, Conference Jennifer Evans-Cowley, PhD, AICP, Chair, Education/Program Dan Boron, AICP, Chair, Executive Joyce Braverman, Chair, Governance Chris Gawronski, Chair, Legislative Tim Hershner & Patrice Theken, AICP, Co-Chairs, MembershipJoyce Braverman, Chair, NominatingVince Papsidero, AICP, Chair, Strategic Planning

Editorial Board Robert S. Kagler, AICP, Chair, Russ Sparks, Tom Stahlheber, Chris Strayer, AICP, Aaron Sorrell, AICP, Patrice Theken, AICP, Susanne Wingenfeld Vais, AICP

Staff Terry Schwarz, AICP, Executive Director phone: (216) 357-3436, fax: (216) 357-3430 e-mail: [email protected]

Express yourself . . . The Ohio Planner’s News is published bimonthly. Contributions that are timely, newsworthy and of statewide interest are welcome. Dated material should be submitted well in advance according to our deadlines below. Submitted articles of 500 words or less in length should be sent by e-mail to [email protected]. Articles that include artwork, illustrations or photographs will receive first consideration. Images must be scanned at 300 dpi with a print size at least 2-1/2 inches wide. The author’s name, position, and employer’s name and city must also be included to ensure proper credit. Shorter articles and announcements of 100-150 words are also welcome.

Submission Deadline November 30, 2006January 31, 2007March 31, 2007May 31, 2007

Issue - Publication Date Jan/Feb - January 2, 2007Mar/Apr - March 1, 2007May/June - May 1, 2007

July/August - July 1, 2007

returns and our annual budget. I per-sonally extend my thanks to Randy for his work in keeping our financial house in order in late 2004 and early 2005 while we transitioned away from our first executive director. Randy also guided the develop-ment of a section support policy that will guide the allocation of chapter resources to support of six sections. Speaking of sections, Randy is also to be commended for his contributions to the Northwest Ohio Section of OPC (NWOP) as it reestablished it-self in the Toledo region this decade.

Anne McBride, FAICP, concludes 20 years of service to the organiza-tion as a member of the OPC Board of Trustees. Anne has quite literally held every position within the orga-nization including President, Vice President and Professional Develop-ment Officer. Anne was co-founder of the David J. Allor Planning and Zoning Workshop that is sponsored by the Greater Cincinnati Section of OPC as well as the biennial Ohio-Kentucky-Indiana Regional Planning Conference that OPC.

Anne was instrumental in the merger of the citizen planner-based membership of OPC with the profes-sional planned-based membership Ohio Chapter of APA in 1986, result-ing in our present organization, The Ohio Planning Conference, A Chapter of the American Planning Associa-tion. I can now speak from first hand experience on Anne’s commitment to the organization as I had the honor to serve with her as Co-Chair of the 2006 Regional Planning Conference in Cincinnati. These achievements, in part, led to Anne’s recognition earlier this year as a member of the College of Fellows of the American Institute of Certified Planners (FAICP).

Dan Boron, AICP is OPC President and Principal of Dan Boron Town Planners, LLC in Cincinnati. He can be reached at [email protected].


Does OPC have your email address? If not, update your information by con-tacting us at [email protected].

OPC Board Election Results

OPC’s Board of Trustees welcomed newly elected and re-elected Board members at

the Board meeting on October 6th in Cincinnati. New to the Board is Nancy Reger, the Manager of Transportation Data for the Mid Ohio Regional Plan-ning Commission in Columbus. Nancy was elected to fill one of the profes-sional planner seats on the board.

Re-elected Board members in the professional planner category include Joyce Braverman, the Director of Plan-ning for the City of Shaker Heights; Tim Hershner, Planning Supervisor with the Clermont County Department of Community Planning & Development; Vince Papsidero, AICP, Administra-tor of the City of Columbus Planning Division; Chris Strayer, Village Planner for the Village of Granville; and Patrice Theken, Director of the Department of Planning Services in Medina County.

Jennifer Evans-Cowley, PhD, AICP, Assistant Professor of City and Region-al Planning at Ohio State University and Larry Long, the Executive Director of the County Commissioners Association of Ohio were elected to fill the citizen planner seats on the Board.

All eight will serve a 4-year term that began with the October 6, 2006 meeting.

OPC Officers ElectedThe OPC Board of Trustees elected

officers for two-year terms at its meet-ing on October 6th held in conjunction with the Regional Planning Conference in Cincinnati. Newly elected officers include:

Dan Boron, AICP, was re-elected OPC President. Mr. Boron owns the consulting firm Daniel Boron Town Planners, LLC, in Cincinnati and works primarily as Planning Consultant to the City of Springboro in Warren County. Mr. Boron has served as OPC President since October, 2004 and as a member of the OPC Board since 2000. Mr. Boron was Co-Chair of the 2006 Ohio-Kentucky-Indiana Regional Planning Conference, and has worked in various roles within the organization includ-ing OPC Vice President (2002-2004), a member of the OPC Executive Commit-tee since 2002, the OPC Editorial Board (1997-2001) and committees charged with overhauling the chapter website and the search for the current executive director.

Aaron Sorrell, AICP, was elected OPC Vice President. Mr. Sorrell is a Community Development Specialist with the City of Dayton. Mr. Sorrell also serves as Chair of the Miami Val ley Section of OPC (MVOPC) and has been a member of the OPC Board since 2005. Mr. Sorrell recently Co-Chaired MVOPC’s 20th Annual Planning and Zoning Workshop held in Dayton in December.

Chris Strayer was re-elected OPC Secretary. Mr. Strayer is Planner for the Village of Granville and has served as OPC Secretary since October, 2004 and as a member of the OPC Board since 2002. Mr. Strayer also acts as Section Director for the Central Ohio Section of OPC. He co-founded the Charles Wilkins III scholarship pro-gram that benefits planning students through its annual golf tournament and other activities.

Kristin Hopkins, AICP, was elected OPC Treasurer. Ms. Hopkins is a Principal Planner with the Cuyahoga County Regional Planning Commission in Cleveland. Ms. Hopkins has served numerous roles within the organiza-tion including posts as Vice President (2000-2002), President (2002-2004), Co-Chair of the 2005 OPC State Plan-ning Conference held in Cleveland and the OPC Editorial Board (1997-2000). Ms. Hopkins has been an OPC Board member since 2000.

The four elected officers, along with Immediate Past President Vince Papsidero, AICP, comprise the OPC Ex-ecutive Committee. This committee is responsible for managing OPC’s affairs between Board meetings.

For more information on the OPC Board of Trustees, visit the OPC web-site at www.ohioplanning.org.

Available from the Ohio Department of Natural Re sourc es,Division of Geo logical Survey

ORIGINAL LAND SUBDIVISIONS OF OHIOMG-2 Version 2.1

Originally released 2003

Compiled by James McDonald, Joseph G. Wells, James W. Wright, Christian D. Steck,Lawrence H. Wickstrom, Brian D. Gara, and Lap Van Nguyen.

Cartography by Donovan M. Powers.

Ohio was the fi rst state whose lands were subdivided by the federal government and sold off or given to American citizens. Soon after the end of the Revolutionary War, land in Ohio was sold to assist in paying the national debt or was given to veterans of the Revolutionary War to compensate them for their military service. Various land subdivision schemes were tried in portions of Ohio before the standard Public Land Surveying System (PLSS) of subdivision was adopted. The PLSS scheme, originally applied in northwestern Ohio over 200 years ago, was used subsequently for surveying the rest of the United States. The map and data set were compiled for use at county- to statewide-scale purposes and cannot be used for applications such as de termina tion of exact property boundaries. However, the map and data do provide an important index of the original land sub divisions for use as a geographic and historic reference and within many geo-graph ic information system (GIS) applications.

This map and digital data set represents the only known digital compilation of the original Ohio land subdivisions on a state wide basis. The Division of Geological Survey fi rst released this map and GIS in 2003. This new version (2.1) shows all land subdivisions with labels and has been made to appear very similar to the historic Sherman (1922) map. The GIS fi les have a much easier-to-use data structure and has had further refi nement of the boundary lines and topology.

Map price: $15.00 • Digital data price: $25.00(plus sales tax and shipping)

An order form is on the reverse for your convenience

Scale 1 inch = 6 miles

Available from the Ohio Department of Natural Re sourc es,Division of Geo logical Survey

ORIGINAL LAND SUBDIVISIONS OF OHIOMG-2 Version 2.1

Originally released 2003

Compiled by James McDonald, Joseph G. Wells, James W. Wright, Christian D. Steck,Lawrence H. Wickstrom, Brian D. Gara, and Lap Van Nguyen.

Cartography by Donovan M. Powers.

Ohio was the fi rst state whose lands were subdivided by the federal government and sold off or given to American citizens. Soon after the end of the Revolutionary War, land in Ohio was sold to assist in paying the national debt or was given to veterans of the Revolutionary War to compensate them for their military service. Various land subdivision schemes were tried in portions of Ohio before the standard Public Land Surveying System (PLSS) of subdivision was adopted. The PLSS scheme, originally applied in northwestern Ohio over 200 years ago, was used subsequently for surveying the rest of the United States. The map and data set were compiled for use at county- to statewide-scale purposes and cannot be used for applications such as de termina tion of exact property boundaries. However, the map and data do provide an important index of the original land sub divisions for use as a geographic and historic reference and within many geo-graph ic information system (GIS) applications.

This map and digital data set represents the only known digital compilation of the original Ohio land subdivisions on a state wide basis. The Division of Geological Survey fi rst released this map and GIS in 2003. This new version (2.1) shows all land subdivisions with labels and has been made to appear very similar to the historic Sherman (1922) map. The GIS fi les have a much easier-to-use data structure and has had further refi nement of the boundary lines and topology.

Map price: $15.00 • Digital data price: $25.00(plus sales tax and shipping)

An order form is on the reverse for your convenience

Scale 1 inch = 6 miles

go to www.ohioodnr.com/geosurvey for more information


Scenes from CincinnatiTOP LEFT: APA President Dave Siegel lays out the plan.

TOP RIGHT: Keynote speaker Tom Hylton and Katherine Keough-Jurs, Cincinnati Planning Department.

MIDDLE: Joyce Braverman, Dan Boron, and Larisa Sims at the Tall Stacks reception.

BOTTOM: L-R, Indiana Chapter President Glen Boise, Kentucky Chapter President Kevin Costello, APA President Dave Siegel, Ohio Planning Conference President Dan Boron.


2006 Ohio-Kentucky-Indiana Regional Planning ConferenceCincinnatiOPC would like to thank the following organizations, listed alphabetically, that provided financial support to the 2006 Ohio-Kentucky-Indiana Regional Planning Conference.

American Communities PartnershipAmerican Consulting IncorporatedAnchor PropertiesBird/Houk CollaborativeThe Brick Industry AssociationBurgess & NipleDaniel Boron Town Planners, LLCEdwards & KelceyEnviroscience IncorporatedGrand Wayne Convention CenterHC NuttingHNTB CorporationKeating Muething & Klekamp, PLLKinzelman Kline GossmanKleingers & AssociatesLSL Planning, IncorporatedManley BurkeMcBride Dale ClarionMcKenna & AssociatesMSA ArchitectsMyers Schmalenberger, IncorporatedOswald CompanyPike Legal GroupPoggemeyer Design GroupRatio ArchitectsTerra Firma PropertiesThomas Graham Associates, IncorporatedVinyl Siding InstituteWoolpert, Inc.ZP Systems

TOP LEFT: Conference Co-Chair Anne McBride, FAICP, and OPC Board member Joyce Braverman.

TOP RIGHT: Cincinnati Vice Mayor Jim Tarbell welcomes attendees to the city.

MIDDLE: Site Planning 101 session attendees.

The 2006 Ohio-Kentucky-Indiana Regional Planning Conference was produced by a 14-member steering committee who volunteered their time over a 14-month period to make the conference possible.

Dan Boron, AICP, Committee Co-ChairAnne McBride, FAICP, Committee Co-ChairChris Anderson, AICP, RegistrationJulia Carney, AICP, Mobile WorkshopsPaul Culter, AICP, SponsorshipLarry Fronk, AICP, ProgrammingKatherine Keough-Jurs, AICP, PublicityDeborah Luzier, AICP, IPA RepresentativeLois McKnight, AICP, ProgrammingWendy Moeller, AICP, Greater Cincinnati Section RepresentativeJeff Palmer, PublicityLarisa Sims, AICP, KAPA Representative, RegistrationRuss Sparks, ReceptionsJonathan Wocher, AICP, Receptions

The conference steering committee would like to acknowledge the contributions of Bonnie Grieshop of McBride Dale Clarion without her contributions this conference would not have been possible.


Medina Mobile Workshopby Susan Hirsch

As part of the 2006 Zoning Workshop Series, the Depart-ment of Planning Services

hosted a mobile workshop on Septem-ber 8th to view mixed-use projects and redevelopment projects in northeast Ohio. Fifteen village and township officials, planning staff and county residents began the day with a short briefing at the Planning Services office before boarding the van.

The first stop was Brunswick Towne Center on S.R. 303 in Brunswick. Roger Westfall, Chief Building In-spector for Brunswick and Pamela Plavecski, Secretary for the Brunswick City Planning Commission, met with the group on site. They explained the goal for the Town Center project to be a focal point for the City of Bruns-wick, both for commercial activity and community events. Mr. Westfall elaborated further on the history of the project to date, which includes a Giant Eagle grocery store and Home Depot as anchors plus small shops designed at a pedestrian scale. Future plans for the

Towne Center include residential cluster development on surrounding property.

Next on the agenda was the “First and Main” project in Hudson, Ohio. This is a commercial project located behind [west of] the existing historic com-mercial area along S.R. 91. Tom King, Economic Development Director for the City of Hudson, explained that the intent of this project was to expand the exist-ing commercial area for Hudson and to complement rather than detract from the viability of the adjacent historic public square commercial activity. A state-of-the-art city Library became one of the anchors for “First and Main” as well as a Heinen’s grocery store. The design and scale of both of these anchors comple-ment the surrounding commercial and residential structures.

The group then headed north with a quick drive through Legacy Village in Lyndhurst, Ohio on the way to the redevelopment of Cedar Center at the southwest corner of Warrensville Center Road and Cedar Road in University

Heights. Peter Rubin, President and CEO of the Coral Company, and devel-oper for the Cedar Center project, met with the group amidst the construction. Mr. Rubin provided the group with in-sight into the economics behind a major redevelopment project, and he stressed the importance of community support. A Whole Foods market is the anchor for the Cedar Center project, which will combine other retail and office uses. Residential development was a part of the original vision for Cedar Center, but the prices/rents that would be necessary were not viable for the area and the resi-dential component was eliminated.

Shaker Square, within the city of Cleveland, was the next stop and the lunch destination for the tour. The Coral Company had recently bought this com-mercial center that is on the National Historic Register. Redevelopment for this area will include the addition of a high-rise condominium building as well as enhancement of the common areas.

Ohio City and Tremont, both tran-sitional neighborhoods within central Cleveland, were the final destinations for the mobile workshop. Both of these neighborhoods are experiencing a great deal of redevelopment and new infill development. Joe Mazzola of the Ohio City Near West Development Corpora-tion joined the tour and pointed out that there are three principal commer-cial districts within Ohio City: Historic Market Square anchored by the West Side Market, a permanent year-round market at the corner of W. 25th Street and Lorain Avenue; Detroit Avenue; and the Lorain Avenue corridor. The Ohio City Near West Development Corporation’s involvement in these dis-tricts includes serving as co-developer for renovation of the Fries and Schuele Building just off Loraine Avenue on W. 25th, a storefront renovation program and tenant recruitment. Residential renovations and new infill development

Hudson Community Development Director Tom King describes the First & Main project.


and bicyclists, and reconvened after the walk to brainstorm possible im-provements.

“Think big,” encouraged Mark Plotz, one of the two NCBW presenters. “What improvements would you like to see implemented to enhance mobility as well as quality of life in your community?”

Participants offered numerous ideas for improvements and built upon others’ ideas. The resulting sugges-tions ran the gamut from the relatively simple, such as fixing and widening sidewalks and installing pedestrian-activated crosswalks, to more complex projects, such as reducing a four-lane, two-way road to a three-lane road with a middle turn lane, dedicated bike lane and landscaped buffer areas separating pedestrian and road traffic. Participants sketched potential projects on an aerial map, and identified three top priorities they would like the community to ad-dress in the near future.

NOACA Senior Planner Sally Hanley noted, “It’s gratifying to see com-munities looking for ways to promote walking and biking, both healthier alter-natives to driving a car. The workshop participants were enthusiastic and are ready to take an active role in helping implement change.”

NOACA plans to sponsor more Walk-able Communities workshops in spring 2007, when warmer weather returns. For more information about the work-shops or application process, contact Sally Hanley at 216-241-2414, exten-sion 273, or [email protected].

NOACA is the metropolitan planning organization (MPO) for Cuyahoga, Geauga, Lake, Lorain and Medina counties in Northeast Ohio.

Cheryl Onesky is Public Information Specialist at NOACA, and can be reached at 216-241-2414, extension 221, or [email protected].

Walkable Communities Workshop participants in Chardon (Geauga County) brainstormed ideas for a bicycle path to connect two existing segments of the Maple Highlands bike trail as well as entice trail users into Chardon’s business district around the town square.

Walkable CommunitiesContinued from page 1.

are interspersed throughout the neigh-borhood. Mr. Mazzola enthusiastically pointed out the numerous renovations that have, and continue to take place, throughout Ohio City.

Once a steel town neighborhood known for its concentration of architec-turally significant churches, Tremont has become a fashionable location for urban professionals and empty nesters. Many new restaurants, artists’ studios and art galleries have located in the Tremont area. New residential devel-opment—often with great Downtown views—and restoration of existing homes and businesses can be seen throughout the neighborhood. Greg Geisler from Main Street Builders (one of the builders of new residential development in Tremont), guided the group through one of his company’s new townhouse units located in an infill project in the Tremont area.

After a long day, it was then back to Medina with great examples of mixed-use projects, residential and commercial redevelopment, and ideas to take to our local communities.

Susan Hirsch is Deputy Director of the Medina County Department of Planning Services. She can be reached at


Current Zoning Ordinance Limits for Solar and Wind Energy in Central Ohioby David Greene

New demands for cleaner air, lower costs and less depen-dence on foreign energy have

created a market for alternative en-ergy. Solar and wind energy will be in demand for future power needs both commercially and domestically.

We all know the potential benefits of alternative energy, or should we say, “the three Es:”

• Economic: Wind energy is the second largest source of new power after natural gas and is creating jobs for manufacturing, supply and sales.

• Environmental: Solar and wind pro-duce less global warming pollution, better air quality

• Energy: Currently wind power saves .6 billion cubic feet of natural gas and wind resources can supply more than twice our current elec-tricity demand

According to the American Wind En-ergy Association “Small wind systems (rated at 75 kW or below) are used for residential or business applications and are the most cost-competitive home-sized renewable energy technology. It is one of the few renewable energy technologies in which American com-panies lead in technology and world market share. With these advanced high-tech small wind turbines, individ-uals can generate their own electricity and cut their energy bills while helping to protect the environment.” They also state that during the last five years wind energy production has increased from 2,000 megawatts to 10,000 mega-watts. The chances that your home could also be solar increased during

the last five years with more federal tax credits and recent legislation in California and other states.

Federal and State LegislationLegislation introduced by U.S. Rep.

Dennis Cardoza would affirm the right of consumers to install solar systems on their roofs, while making it cheaper for prospective buyers to go solar. The “Empowering America Act of 2006” would extend federal solar investment tax credits for homeowners and busi-ness through 2015. The Bill would also protect solar consumers from restric-tive covenants that block the siting of solar systems on a roof—similar to the current legislative treatment of satellite dishes—and help shield prospective system buyers from exorbitant permit-ting and licensing fees.

Ohio has also been busy creating the Renewable Energy Financial Assistance Program that is one of four loan pro-grams (bank interest rates reduced by half) funded by the Energy Loan Fund (ELF), established by the Ohio Gen-eral Assembly under the state’s 1999 electric restructuring act. Ohio also has a consumer-friendly net metering law. This requires investor-owned utilities to offer a net metering option to customer-generators who own qualifying systems. This means that utilities give you a credit when you generate more power than you use. The State of Ohio has also created an ordinance allowing for solar

access easements, though most local ordinances still need to catch up.

Dealing with ZoningIt’s best to consult local planning

and zoning administrators before get-ting too far with plans for a solar or wind installation. City of Columbus staff recommended that the request be preceded by “preliminary zoning clear-ance review,” which is an official way of saying, “bring in your request and a map of the property.” According to the plans examiner, a solar installation would probably be handled under local code enforcement by your contractor (under the engineered systems section) and comply with the National Electric Code regulations per Article 690 Solar Photovoltaic Systems and Chapter 14 of the Ohio Mechanical Code.

The City of Columbus also states that, “A wind tower as a principal use on residentially zoned property does re-quire a use variance (Council variance) because said use is not permitted in many districts. However, a wind tower as an accessory use to a principal dwell-


ing may be permitted but most certainly is subject to specific development standards…” Notice the distinction between “principal use” (the only use for the property) and “accessory use” (a use that fulfills a need for the house) and the ability to avoid a variance. The distinction is critical for easy success in the hearing process.

Another critical issue is the location of your building, especially if you are within a historic district. Architec-tural review districts may vary in their requirements for materials and appear-ance, but most are very strict. The City of Westerville is a good example. While there is little in the Westerville Zon-ing Code that applies specifically to wind or solar installations, many of the older houses in Westerville are located within the Uptown District which is an architectural review district. Therefore, any applications that affect the exterior appearance of a site or structure are subject to review and approval by the Uptown Review Board.

An approval in the “Uptown District” of Westerville or the German Village Historic District would be very difficult, while other parts of town may be easy. A simple call to the zoning staff can save much trouble and be the first step in the process of alternative energy.

Seeking ApprovalIf your request is simply to get ap-

proval based on building codes (solar energy), then finding the right contrac-tor is the biggest problem, but if you are

looking for approval of a questionable project (wind tower) then you should know what you may be facing. You can get a good idea from the web site of a New York State resident who sought to place a windwill on his rural property (http://www.awea.org/smallwind/tool-box/windzone/). He lists a number of the obections he encountered:

• The windmill (a.k.a. “bird guillo-tine”) would kill many birds.

• The windmill would be a constant noise upsetting the peace of the neighborhood.

• The windmill would lower property values.

• The windmill would ruin the charac-ter of the neighborhood.

• Trespassing children would attempt to climb the windmill’s five inch metal pipe tower and kill them-selves.

• The local power utility already provided electricity. Therefore a windmill was unnecessary.

The applicant was able to discredit all of these arguments with some basic research. He also benefitted from the fact that his town had an ordinance that permitted windmills as a “special use.” Despite this the process took a month and involved weekly meetings and field trips before everyone was convinced.

Experiences like this suggest that the following steps may improve the chances of approval.

• Contact the local zoning staff with your plans so that you understand local ordinances.

• Research local alternative energy experts in your area or use internet sites for background information.

• Find local examples of previous ap-provals for alternative energy uses in your area.

• Look for legislative approvals for alternative energy such as access easements, loan incentives, or ordi-nance descriptions.

• Contact neighbors or neighborhood groups and discuss your project.

• Contact council members or zoning staff about your proposal since they have experience with hearings and know what to avoid.

ConclusionsWith the recent changes in energy

costs and new government incentives, the opportunities should be better than ever to seek alternatives to coal and gas. Ordinances will change but not without demand based on citizen requests. Cur-rently, Central Ohio cities don’t have an alternative energy section in their zoning ordinances, but that does not mean a project will not be approved. Careful work with contractors, suppli-ers, engineers and city zoning staff will save time and money.

David Greene has an undergraduate degree in landscape architecture and a masters degree in city and regional planning from Ohio State University. He is currently working with the Sierra Club and local consultants. He can be reached at [email protected].

Click here for more de-tailed information on Columbus zoning provi-sions.

Follow these links for a wide range of resources and ideas:

Green Energy OhioAmerican Wind Energy AssociationAmerican Solar Energy SocietySolar Energy Industries AssociationSolar Energy NetworkNational Renewable Energy LaboratoryEntrepreneurs for Sustainability

The Ohio Planner’s News �0 November/December 2006 • Vol 56 • No 6

Columbus OH Orlando FL Pasadena CA

www.msidesign.com

Daniel Boron Town Planners, LLC

5743 Lester RoadCincinnati, OH [email protected]

• Community Planning• Development Regulations• In-House Staffing

OhioO p i n i o n

Editor’s Note: In this issue, we intro-duce a new feature, Ohio Opinion. We encourage you to submit your own opinions about current planning topics to [email protected]. The views expressed in this column are the author’s and do not reflect the views of the Ohio Planning Conference.

Property Taking Us By Stormby Neil A. Rubinstein

I’ve just relocated home to Cincin-nati, Ohio following honorable US Army service and an enjoyable

appointment in Florida as a County Planning & Zoning Commissioner. Don’t listen to anyone when they tell you that Florida’s awesome ocean fish-ing and relaxed lifestyle will substitute for the quality family values, conserva-tive government, and economy that we have in Ohio. Be advised, as you read this short editorial takings brief, I am an Urban Planner now working on my JD, and am not authorized yet to pro-vide legal advice, and nothing herein should be construed as legal advice.

Now, other than the obvious public relations benefits for politicians, what are the merits for citizens due to the re-cent Ohio takings legislative reformation efforts? Do current Ohio efforts pro-mulgated by the Task Force on Eminent Domain effectively serve its citizens by balancing takings powers, or do they tip the scales, and if so, in what direction?

The magnitude of anti-takings litigation has been telling people for a very long time that takings reform and improvement of its oversight has been needed desperately. Reforms primarily due to Kelo v New London’s legitimate economic development public purpose interpretation, combined with new para-digms of our transient judiciary, and the many jilted property owners who have finally gotten through somewhat to the powers that be. Perhaps these changes are so overdue because our leaders un-derstand that you never can tell which way a dill pickle is gonna squirt. Ohio legislators are now finally producing a storm of lawmaking activity at the state level in a public attempt to protect Ohio property owners’ rights under the guise of preventing the disproportion-ate continuance of negative effects to property holders. What Ohio is actually doing is seizing control of the takings power previously decentralized by design to protect landowners from other citizens and from excessive government interference. It would be ideal to trust the takings power exclusively to the state in the interest of public welfare to reduce takings litigation under damnus absque injura or damage without legal redress, but its difficult as our property is supposed to be a protective barrier against excessive government inter-

ference. So though reform seems just, it’s still quite concerning, and perhaps more concerning now than ever with the decentralization of power and ceding it centrally by vesting it with the General Assembly. The takings power is a sharp double edged sword in that on one hand the state is supposed to define property rights laws, while on the other hand this leaves property owners substantially open to state infringement of those rights. The tradition to decentralize this power relationship by delegating to the municipal jurisdiction was not such a bad concept after all.

As this planner sees the rules, the best takings reform isn’t the temporary mora-torium Senate Bill #167 because it’s so limited and protects only takings of ‘un-blighted areas’ and soon expires on 31 December 2006. This moratorium was about as useless as a 9mm cartridge in a squirt gun. Nor is it the reworking effort of the states definition of blight. The reworking of the definition unfortunately is about as ambiguous as its precedent, which sadly would likely allow the City of Cincinnati to take up to 90% of the urban area from the riverfront to the ends of its corporation lines if it wanted. With the standard operating stealthiness of most blight studies, which should be conducted with more public participa-

The Ohio Planner’s News �� November/December 2006 • Vol 56 • No 6

tion as granted by our civil rights and due process clauses, it’s understandable that Ohio is now moving to confiscate the dispersed power of Eminent Domain from its municipalities. Ohio’s principal taking reform appears dangerously on the horizon in the form of Ohio’s Joint Resolution 19B of the 126th General Assembly (LSC 126 2249-1) devel-oped in part by the Eminent Domain Task Force. If JR19B is adopted, Ohio General Assembly will have substan-tial centralized control and oversight over municipal takings, in that taking activities shall be governed ubiquitously throughout Ohio by statute.

Citizens generally enjoy their civil rights to obtain and possess property without unreasonable and capricious interference from their elected govern-ment. Recent study and reform efforts in the Ohio legislation suggest our leaders are moving to protect us from private to private takings via takings for economic development purposes, especially with JR19B. Some planners may see this as a threat to their professional work, and it most certainly is, but in the absence of a just history, we must realize that the public welfare is more important than job security, which is one reason why I am a consultant. It is rare when given due process that a blight study could not be opposed on the merits of a deceptive and misleading misrepresentation of neighborhood conditions. Unfortunately, most municipal planning careers depend on satisfaction from their chain of com-mand, which often attempts to fiddle with the market by misuse of the tool of Eminent Domain Authority. As the saying goes: you gotta dance with those that brung ya. I am but just one planner, but I knew intrinsically of the misuse as an undergraduate, and now as a practic-ing professional cautiously applaud these efforts by Ohio’s General Assembly to finally begin an attempt to do the right thing for justice and move toward acting in good faith when it comes to our prop-erty rights. Sadly, without independent review of these forthcoming statutes the centralized takings power will likely end up all too powerfully wicked.

Neil A. Rubinstein is Principal Urban Planner with Stratestar. You can email him at [email protected].


OPC is tracking the following pend-ing bills in the Ohio General Assembly:

House Bill 106: Municipal Ref-erendum Petitions (Sponsor: Rep. Setzer)—This bill would increase the number of signatures needed on a municipal referendum petition, would permit persons who sign a municipal referendum petition to remove their names from that petition within eight days after the petition is filed, and would permit the circulator of a mu-nicipal referendum petition from which names have been removed to amend the statement identifying the number of signatures on the petition. HB 106 is under consideration in the House Elec-tions and Ethics Committee.

House Bill 149: Historic Buildings (Sponsor: Rep. Calvert) and Senate Bill 60: Historic Buildings (Sponsor: Sen. Schuring)—These bills would authorize nonrefundable tax credits for rehabilitating historic buildings. HB 149 was approved by the House and is now under review by the Senate Ways and Means & Economic Development Committee. SB 60 is under consider-ation in the Senate Ways and Means & Economic Development Committee. The OPC has joined other statewide organizations in supporting this legisla-tion.

House Bill 221: County Central Committees / Twp. Zoning Referen-dums (Sponsor: Rep. Wolpert) and Senate Bill 133: County Central Com-mittees / Twp. Zoning Referendums (Sponsor: Sen. Stivers)—Among their provisions, these bills would require a township zoning referendum to be voted on at a special election to be held on the day of the next primary or gen-eral election that occurs at least 75 days after the referendum petition is filed, regardless of whether any election will be held to nominate or elect candidates on that day. HB 221 is under consider-

ation in the House Elections & Ethics Committee. SB 133 is being heard by the Senate State & Local Government & Veterans Affairs Committee.

House Bill 299: Impact Fees (Spon-sor: Rep. Peterson)—This bill would permit counties, townships and school districts to impose development impact fees to help finance the cost of public infrastructure. A local land use plan or capital facilities plan would be required before adoption of an impact fee. HB 299 is being considered by the House Local and Municipal Government & Urban Revitalization Committee.

House Bill 365: Joint Economic Development Districts (Sponsor: Rep. Setzer)—This bill would remove cur-rent limitations on the formation of Joint Economic Development Districts (JEDDs) and extend the ability to cre-ate a JEDD to all municipalities and townships. HB 365 is under consider-ation in the House Local and Municipal Government & Urban Revitalization Committee.

House Bill 404: Urban Homestead Zones (Sponsor: Rep. Wolpert)—This bill would permit the state’s eight largest cities to create “urban homestead zones” in areas within the city’s school district that meet certain criteria indicating a distressed neighborhood. Residents who improve properties in such zones would be eligible for a school choice scholarship for primary and second-ary students, and these zones would be permitted to establish and fund a private security force. HB 404 is being considered by the House Economic De-velopment & Environment Committee.

House Bill 492: Transfer of De-velopment Rights (Sponsor: Rep. Wolpert)—This bill would permit townships, counties, and combina-tions of certain political subdivisions to establish transfer of development rights programs. HB 492 is being considered by the House Local and Municipal Government & Urban Revitalization Committee.

House Bill 56: Townships Remove Junk Vehicles (Sponsor: Rep. C. Evans)—This bill proposes to allow

townships to remove junk motor ve-hicles from public and private property and to borrow money to pay for that removal of junk motor vehicles and for other debris from private property. HB 560 is being considered by the House Local and Municipal Government & Urban Revitalization Committee.

House Bill 566: Airport Zoning (Sponsor: Rep. Redfern)—This bill would apply the Airport Zoning Law to public utility or railroad buildings or structures that create an airport hazard. HB 566 is being reviewed by the House Transportation, Public Safety & Home-land Security Committee.

House Bill 642: Sewage Treatment (Sponsor: Rep. Law)—This bill would establish the Household Sewage Treat-ment System Revolving Loan Program in the Department of Health to provide loans to low- and moderate-income persons for repairs to or upgrades of household sewage treatment systems. HB 642 is being considered by the House Finance & Appropriations Com-mittee.

Senate Joint Resolution 6: Eliminate Eminent Domain by Municipalities (Sponsor: Sen. Coughlin)—This bill would amend the state constitution to prohibit the use of eminent domain by municipalities unless such power is granted by the General Assembly. The bill would require voter approval at a special election in February 2006. This bill may be combined with SB 167 (see below).

Senate Bill 80: Local Government Incentives (Sponsor: Sen. Dann)—This bill calls for financial incentives to encourage municipal corporations, townships, and counties to save money through the consolidation of services, including police and fire services, and expenditure reductions. SB 80 is under consideration in the Senate Finance Committee.

Senate Bill 127: Lake Erie Coastal Management (Sponsor: Sen. Grendell) and House Bill 206: Lake Erie Coastal Management (Sponsor: Rep. Mar-tin)—These bills would revise the law governing coastal management and the

OhioL e g i s l a t i v e U p d a t e


control of erosion along Lake Erie. SB 127 is under consideration in the Sen-ate Environment & Natural Resources Committee. HB 206 is being considered by the House Agriculture & Natural Resources Committee.

Senate Bill 247: State Energy Policy (Sponsor: Sen. Skindell) and Senate Bill 298: State Energy Policy (Spon-sor: Sen. Schuler)—These bills would provide for a state energy policy. SB 247 is more comprehensive, but both include support for clean coal technolo-gy, access to affordable natural gas, and renewable energy and energy efficiency. Both bills are under consideration in the Senate Energy & Public Utilities Committee. SB 298 has had numerous hearings and is likely to see more activ-ity in late 2006 after the election.

Senate Bill 348: Rapid School Growth Assistance (Sponsor: Sen. Sti-vers)—This bill would create the Rapid Enrollment Growth School Facilities Assistance Program. The program would increase the priority of projects in school districts that experience an average increase in formula ADM of at least one hundred students per year for five consecutive years. SB 348 was introduced in July and is awaiting as-signment to a committee.

Senate Bill 366: Telecom Tow-ers (Sponsor: Sen. Hottinger)—This bill proposes to expand township and county zoning authority to telecommu-nications towers located in areas zoned for agricultural use and to modify notice requirements for a proposed tower. SB 366 was introduced in late August and is awaiting assignment to a committee for review.

Newly passed legislation of interest to OPC members:

House Joint Resolution 3: Capital Improvement Bonds (Sponsor: Rep. Law)—This resolution placed on the November 2005 ballot an issue to allow the issuance of general obliga-tion bonds to fund local government public infrastructure capital improve-ments. The issue calls for no more than $120 million in bonds to be issued in a single fiscal year, and no more than $1.2 billion total over ten years. The bill, which extends the Issue 2 bonding authority passed by voters in 1995, was approved by voters in the November 2005 election.

The OPC offered testimony in sup-port of permitting these bond funds to be used for all local transportation infra-structure, especially sidewalks, instead of restricting the funds to roads and bridges. The final bill did NOT include the change supported by OPC.

House Bill 23: Adult Entertain-ment Regulation (Sponsor: Rep. Reidelbach)—This act generally grants townships full authority to exercise all powers of local self-government regard-ing the operation of adult entertainment establishments and to adopt by resolu-tion and enforce within their limits any local police, sanitary, and similar regulations regarding the operation of adult entertainment establishments that are not in conflict with general laws.

House Bill 101: Public Meeting Notice (Sponsor: Rep. Wolpert)—This bill created the Local Government Public Notice Task Force to study local government public notice requirements and to issue a report. The Task Force has until May 2007 to issue a report on its findings.

Senate Bill 167: Statewide Eminent Domain Moratorium and Task Force (Sponsor: Sen. Grendell)—This bill established, until December 31, 2006,

a moratorium on the use of eminent domain by any entity of the state government or any political subdivi-sion of the state to take, without the owner’s consent, private property that is in an unblighted area when the primary purpose for the taking is economic development that will ultimately result in ownership of the property being vested in another private person, and created the Legislative Task Force to Study Eminent Domain and Its Impact on Land Use Planning in the State. The Task Force met in 2006 and issued its final report on August 30. The OPC was represented with an appointment to the Task Force.

Details on legislation can be obtained through the Legislative Resource Center of the OPC web site www.ohioplanning.org (from the home page click on “Legislative” and then “Resource Center”). Please contact Chris Gawronski with your policy suggestions at (614) 233-4166 or [email protected].

James Jennings, Sr. Scholarshipby Robert Craig, AICP

The Ohio Planning Foundation (OPF), a not for profit organiza-tion incorporated to “improve

planning in Ohio by providing informa-tion, research and education,” is pleased to announce the award of a scholarship honoring James Jennings, Sr., OPF founder, former President and long time planning advocate in Ohio.

The OPF Board of Trustees awarded a $500 scholarship to Ms. Antoinette Swanson, Cleveland State University (CSU) graduate student enrolled at the Maxine Goodman Levin College of Urban Affairs on September 8, 2006, to support her research project on Green and Sustainable Development, toward a Master of Urban Planning Design and Development degree.

Antoinette’s advisor, Wendy Kellogg, Ph.D., describes her as “an energetic, creative and dedicated student,” and

“Scholarship” continued on page 14.


Tom Hylton Book and DVD AvailableA limited number of copies of 2006 Ohio-Kentucky-Indiana Regional Planning Conference Keynote Speaker Tom Hylton’s book and DVD Save Our Land, Save Our Towns are still available. Mr. Hylton won a Pulitzer Prize in 1990 as a columnist for his paper The Mercury in Pottstown, Pennsylvania, writing on the changing landscape of Southeastern Pennsylvania, sprawl and smart growth. Mr. Hylton also is a three-time APA journalism award winner and currently serves as president of the non-profit organization Save Our Land, Save Our Towns. Mr. Hylton’s book is an excellent resource that belongs in your planning resource library; the DVD is a good primer for telling the planning story to citizen planners and residents alike.

The book and DVD are available for sale through OPC for $30.00 plus shipping and handling. Supplies are limited. To purchase your copy, contact OPC President Dan Boron at [email protected] or (513) 379-1405.

historic preservation

streetscape design

neighborhood revitalization

urban design

town planning

sustainable design

3 6 3 4 E u c l i d A v e n u e C l e v e l a n d , O h i o 2 1 6 . 8 8 1 . 2 4 4 4 w w w . c i t y a r c h . c o m

C L E V E L A N D WAT E R F R O N T P L A N

notes that the research project will im-mediately benefit CSU faculty, students and professional staff, She recommends that Antoinette “consider publication of the results in professional planning and scholarly journals”.

This is the initial award of the James Jennings, Sr. scholarship program, which is envisioned as an annual

program by the OPF Board of Trustees, open to undergraduate and graduate students enrolled in an Ohio univer-sity in a Planning Accreditation Board (PAB) program.

Robert Craig, AICP is with the Warren County Regional Planning Commission. He can be reached at (513) 695-1223 or [email protected].

ScholarshipContined from page 13.

Planner's News - Ohio Environmental Law Blog

Documents

Transcript of Planner's News - Ohio Environmental Law Blog