Pickerington Area Taxpayers Alliance

The Southeast Messenger

By Whitney Wilson Coy

Staff Writer

The controversial Pickerington/Violet Township economic development agreement is one step closer to becoming reality as it passed its second reading at Pickerington City Council?’s Dec. 19 meeting.
Prior to the vote, council heard comments from community members on the matter, both for and against the proposed agreement.
Pickerington resident Tony Barletta was the first to speak out against the agreement, stating that, while he does agree that the city of Pickerington should work with Violet Township, he does not agree with the decision to give the township ?“veto power.?”
Barletta referred to the agreement as ?“a payoff to the township at the city?’s expense,?” and said ?“city money is being used to subsidize the township taxpayers.?”
Citizen Carol Carter spoke about all of the expenses to the city that she feels are associated with the agreement.
?“You need money to make money,?” said Carter as she referenced comments made by Councilman Jeff Fix at a previous meeting regarding the city?’s lack of available funds.
Carter added, ?“If you really are for the citizens of the city of Pickerington, you will listen to what they say.?”
A representative from the Pickerington Area Chamber of Commerce was also in attendance at the meeting and stated, ?“The chamber is 100 percent behind the agreement. The city should be working with the township.?”
Fix was quick to respond to comments about the agreement.
He argued that any cost to the city involving the agreement is completely controllable because, with the agreement, the city has the choice whether or not to participate in any project.
Fix also responded to Carter?’s statements, adding that this agreement provides solutions to concerns expressed to him by community members during his campaigning efforts.
Councilman Ted Hackworth, who is against the proposed agreement, shared his concerns that, within the agreement, the city would be forced to share profits from the current Diley Road expansion project.
?“This agreement will require us to share half of our return on that investment and as far as I can tell, they (Violet Township) haven?’t participated in that development,?” said Hackworth.
The economic development agreement passed its second reading 4-3. Council members Hackworth, Michael Sabatino, and Brian Wisniewski voted against the agreement.
The third and final vote on the proposed Pickerington/Violet Township economic development agreement will be held at council?’s next meeting on Jan. 2.

Fix still telling his stories

Court rules on annexation

Snider-Thornton case sent back to Fairfield County


By Rick Palsgrove

Southeast Editor

On Dec. 13 the Ohio Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Fairfield County Court of Appeals that awards the disputed annexation of the Snider-Thornton properties to Canal Winchester.
Both Canal Winchester and Pickerington had been vying to annex the properties, which are located along Basil-Western Road between Hill Road and Amanda-Northern Road.
The Ohio Supreme Court has sent the case back to the Fairfield County Common Pleas Court for further proceedings.
?“Under the parameters set forth by the (Ohio Supreme) Court in remanding the case back to Fairfield County, we feel the final decision will be favorable toward us,?” said Canal Winchester Mayor Jeff Miller.
The ruling would seem to impact the much debated proposed Pickerington/Violet Township economic development agreement.
Pickerington City Councilman Ted Hackworth said, ?“This decision guts the territory of the proposed economic development agreement. It takes the 127 acre Snider property out of the agreement area. That?’s the biggest parcel in the proposed JEDD (joint economic development district). It looks like it will go to Canal Winchester and we have no way of stopping it. This is a huge decision.?”
Hackworth said the Snider property is east of the Canal Winchester and Violet Township cooperative economic development agreement (CEDA) area.
?“Canal Winchester?’s under no obligation to abide by the CEDA so it (Snider property) could end up developed as residential,?” said Hackworth.
Miller said the areas are zoned planned district which could include residential.
The Snider property is in the Pickerington school district while the Thornton property is in the Canal Winchester school district.
Hackworth said the ruling also could impact the proposed annexation to Pickerington of the 316 acre 8185 Farms property, which has been tabled by Pickerington City Council.
?“If we walk away from that (8185 Farms) Canal Winchester can annex all the way to Allen Road. It would be the final screw in our coffin as far as future growth as most of the developable properties will most likely be in Canal Winchester,?” said Hackworth.
Pickerington City Councilman Jeff Fix said the economic development agreement deals with all the lands in Violet Township, not just the acreage affected by the Ohio Supreme Court ruling.
?“There are a lot of other areas,?” said Fix, noting there are other developable properties in Violet Township.
Background
Little did the late Middleton ?“Mid?” Thornton, and his wife Alyce, know that, when they settled on their 100 acre farm on Basil-Western Road in 1950, that 56 years later their property would become the focus of an intense annexation battle between two municipalities that would finally land in the Ohio Supreme Court.
The annexation battle goes back to 2001-02 when in October of 2001, Alyce Thornton signed a petition to annex to Canal Winchester. However, on Feb. 7, 2002, Thornton withdrew this request and later entered into a pre-annexation agreement with the city of Pickerington.
On March 1, 2002 Canal Winchester filed a petition with the county to annex the Snider property, an annexation petition that also included the Thornton property.
In an interview in March 2002, Thornton said one reason for her change of heart was that she did not feel she was getting enough information from Canal Winchester officials.
Marsha Hall, who was Canal Winchester mayor at the time, maintained that the village followed the normal annexation process.
In the summer of 2002, the Fairfield County Commissioners denied Canal Winchester?’s original petition to annex the Thornton property alone, but approved the Canal Winchester?’s petition to annex the 227 acres of land that included both the Thornton and Snider properties.

Fix continues.

The Thornton property also falls within the cooperative economic development agreement (CEDA) area established along the U. S. Route 33 corridor by Canal Winchester and Violet Township.
Thornton and the city of Pickerington challenged the commissioners?’ finding and took the case to Common Pleas Court, but that court affirmed the county commissioners?’ decision to approve the Canal Winchester annexation.
That decision was then appealed to the county Court of Appeals, which also affirmed Canal Winchester?’s annexation petition.

Jeff, where are they?

You say there are alot of other developable areas in Violet township. I assume you mean commercial. Could you for once be more specific? Most of Violet is zoned residential. Could you please speak to specifics as to how you plan to change them to commercial? And to which property owners you've spoken?

If you don't reply, we can only assume you've turned your back to this web site. It appears you've done the same to those who pay you. We readers eagerly await your response.

By Would like to know