Pickerington Area Taxpayers Alliance

Does anyone know the results of yesterday's hearings?

By Maverick

pending annexation hearing


The 4/30/02 Annexations Hearing before he Fairfield County Commissioners was actually made up of (3) different annexations.

(1) the Evans, Bates (5.6 acres)
(2) the 8185 Farms, Donley, Smith & Craig (316 acres) South
(3) the Virginia Homes, Dominion, Ebrights, Schotenstein, Sycamore Creek Church (with condo?’s), etc. (362 acres) North.

After an annexation hearing the Commissioners must respond by 90 days, with a decision.

Yesterday?’s hearings went very long indeed. After hearing comments on the first two noted above and closing the proceedings there was insufficient time to completely hear the third annexation. It was however partially heard and has a continuation scheduled for 5/14 (Tuesday) at 2:00 pm.

I?’ll post my comments made during the second and third hearings below, as they are a part of the public record. What comments did you (or would you) and others make?

Annexation Hearing comments 1

4/30/02

To the Fairfield County Commissioners

Regarding (316 & 362) acres annexation hearing

Commissioners,

Thank you for the opportunity to present, what I feel are important issues regarding the annexations before you today.

I understand some of the difficulties before you in this process, having been a ?“veteran?” of prior annexation hearings. One of the sad truths of a prior annexation issue has now been realized. That being the impacts of traffic and safety around the intersections of State Rt. 256 & Rt. 204. Thousands of people are impacted daily and in hindsight they wish that particular annexation process had been considered in more detail.

So to, people are expressing that the annexations before you today be fully and completely considered. In so doing it is very important that you consider the truth of these annexations and the issues surround them, rather than just the proponents hype.

Toward those truths, I would like to enter into the public record a copy of the Minutes from the City of Pickerington from the November meeting where their Council passed these annexations. In those Minutes you?’ll note that I was listed by City officials as being present. I?’m submitting affidavits to the contrary from citizens that know I was not at that meeting. The significance of this that it is often stated the citizenry has an opportunity to present their views before this elected body. The truth is that I was not present, yet City officials indicate I was. The City?’s own Minutes are not correct and if you were to look at the City?’s web site today you?’ll note that they are largely blank for the year 2002, although this is nearly May. Annexation issues are really not a ?“public input?” process in Pickerington and haven?’t been for some time.

Second, I want to make the Commissioner aware of what the public did receive in the way of information in the form of a newspaper article quoting one of the Council members that this annexation was ?“necessary?” in a way of thwarting a possible Columbus annexation. As illustrated on this Pickerington Chamber of Commerce Map there is no possible way for Columbus to be contiguous to these parcels. So again we have an untrue statement used to justify the issue before you today.

Annexation Hearing comments 2

Third, I?’m sure that the Commissioners are well aware of the January article in the Lancaster Eagle Gazette about the ?“potential?” impacts of these annexations to the already existing infrastructure, capacity, and facilities in place related to sewer & water services. As a Fairfield County Utility system user, I have a stake in these annexation issues. I, and thousands like me, did not receive reduced tap fees. I believe it is incorrect to encourage the preferential treatment that is included in this annexation process through the ?“pre?” annexation agreements that Pickerington has worked out with these developers. Fairfield County would be ill advised to negotiate, barter, or honor these agreements since they have been bargained away without the consideration of Fairfield County Utility users or their knowledge. Additionally, the Commissioners need to consider the levels of commitment that Pickerington officials show to their ?“partners?” as indicated by the October letter from the Pickerington Law Director declaring the Canal Winchester / Pickerington Sewer & Water agreement Null & Void. The court case is being heard in he building beside us.

Fourth, Pickerington officials often state how the ?“property owners?” come to the City for annexation. A simple viewing of the ?“pre?” annexation agreements and my own experiences of just yesterday as I was speaking to a concerned area resident demonstrate to the contrary. They had just received a phone call pressuring their consideration to ?“sell out?” as this developer knew he could get zoning to proceed with changing this agricultural land into residential development.

Sunday?’s Dispatch Editorial ?“Curing Myopia?” ?– related to the downsides of growth and today?’s Eagle Gazette ?“Challenge is in managing future growth?” are just two more examples of the challenges that face Fairfield County and you today as you consider these annexations.

In the words of Abraham Lincoln ?– ?“You can fool some of the people some of the time and all of the people some of the time, but you can?’t fool all of the people all of the time.?”

It is time for our County Commissioners to not be fooled in the proceedings here today and act upon the wishes of an ever-increasing number of residents by curbing these annexations being considered.

Thank you for your time.


Sincerely,


Bob Harding