Published: Friday, November 23, 2007
Canfield trustees to keep PUD rules
Planned Unit Developments were allowed in the
township starting in 2004.
By JEANNE STARMACK
VINDICATOR STAFF WRITER
CANFIELD — Canfield Township trustees have decided to allow a controversial housing development style in the township after all.
The trustees seemed to kill Planned Unit Developments in September, with a vote to no longer allow them in the township.
But they're resurrected as of this week, when trustees changed course and voted to keep the township's PUD regulations as part of the zoning ordinance.
PUDs allow more homes to be built on less land than a traditional single-family development does. They're attractive to young homebuyers and to empty nesters looking to downsize the yardwork.
They've been part of township zoning regulations since 2004, but controversies over individual plans erupted as homeowners balked against having the developments near their properties.
In one case, a group of neighbors on South Turner Road took an approved PUD behind their homes to the November 2006 ballot, getting the approval overturned by voters.
The township's zoning commission also complained about the PUD plans developers were presenting, saying the spirit of the regulations weren't being followed.
Green space, for example, was required. But though the commission envisioned plans with carefully placed oases of green among the housing units, developers brought in plans with green space around perimeters or spliced in where they couldn't build anything.
The commission revised the PUD rules, and those rules were accepted by the trustees in January. The rules increase the percentage of green space required from 20 percent to 30 percent and specify that at least 6,000 square feet of it has to be for recreation. The changes capped the size of a PUD to 15 acres and required deeper setbacks between the PUD boundary and other properties.
While the commission was considering the changes, the township placed a moratorium on the developments — enacted in June 2006 to June 2007, then extended to June 2008.
The moratorium was resurrected Monday as well, said trustee chairman Paul Moracco.
When trustees decided in September to eliminate PUDs, they cited reasons such as the housing slowdown and a glut of PUD lots. They said township residents clearly don't want the developments.
Moracco acknowledged Tuesday, however, that trustees voted without first getting recommendations from the Mahoning County Planning Commission and the township zoning commission. "It had to go to the planning commission first," he said.
The issue was presented to those panels, and they recommended keeping the PUD regulations, he said. The trustees agreed.
Moracco said the panels pointed out that if the township had no PUD regulations, a developer could simply get a variance through the township's zoning appeals board. He said a PUD could be built then with no guidelines.
The public would have no recourse at the ballot on a zoning appeals issue, he said.
He said that despite all the previous controversy about the developments, no one came to a special meeting Monday before the vote.
Friday, November 23, 2007
Planned Unit Developments were allowed in the
township starting in 2004.
By JEANNE STARMACK
VINDICATOR STAFF WRITER
CANFIELD — Canfield Township trustees have decided to allow a controversial housing development style in the township after all.
The trustees seemed to kill Planned Unit Developments in September, with a vote to no longer allow them in the township.
But they're resurrected as of this week, when trustees changed course and voted to keep the township's PUD regulations as part of the zoning ordinance.
PUDs allow more homes to be built on less land than a traditional single-family development does. They're attractive to young homebuyers and to empty nesters looking to downsize the yardwork.
They've been part of township zoning regulations since 2004, but controversies over individual plans erupted as homeowners balked against having the developments near their properties.
In one case, a group of neighbors on South Turner Road took an approved PUD behind their homes to the November 2006 ballot, getting the approval overturned by voters.
The township's zoning commission also complained about the PUD plans developers were presenting, saying the spirit of the regulations weren't being followed.
Green space, for example, was required. But though the commission envisioned plans with carefully placed oases of green among the housing units, developers brought in plans with green space around perimeters or spliced in where they couldn't build anything.
The commission revised the PUD rules, and those rules were accepted by the trustees in January. The rules increase the percentage of green space required from 20 percent to 30 percent and specify that at least 6,000 square feet of it has to be for recreation. The changes capped the size of a PUD to 15 acres and required deeper setbacks between the PUD boundary and other properties.
While the commission was considering the changes, the township placed a moratorium on the developments — enacted in June 2006 to June 2007, then extended to June 2008.
The moratorium was resurrected Monday as well, said trustee chairman Paul Moracco.
When trustees decided in September to eliminate PUDs, they cited reasons such as the housing slowdown and a glut of PUD lots. They said township residents clearly don't want the developments.
Moracco acknowledged Tuesday, however, that trustees voted without first getting recommendations from the Mahoning County Planning Commission and the township zoning commission. "It had to go to the planning commission first," he said.
The issue was presented to those panels, and they recommended keeping the PUD regulations, he said. The trustees agreed.
Moracco said the panels pointed out that if the township had no PUD regulations, a developer could simply get a variance through the township's zoning appeals board. He said a PUD could be built then with no guidelines.
The public would have no recourse at the ballot on a zoning appeals issue, he said.
He said that despite all the previous controversy about the developments, no one came to a special meeting Monday before the vote.
Friday, November 23, 2007
Canfield Township trustees have decided to allow a controversial housing development style in the township after...
More Stories from Tue, Nov 27, 2007
