Peters Township council to reconsider zoning amendments
Peters Township will revisit a revised zoning ordinance after it failed to pass earlier this month.
The proposed ordinance carried three amendments to the township zoning code that would have made way for a 250-unit apartment complex proposed by Cincinnati-based real estate developer Al. Neyer.
The firm planned to purchase property at 259 Galley Road for upscale apartments that would range in price from $1,200 to $2,000 a month.
The amendments would have applied specifically to the mixed-use activity center district in southwest Peters Township, which includes Donaldson’s Crossing and Waterdam Plaza.
The ordinance would have eliminated the upper limit of 36 units in an apartment building. It also would have reduced the maximum floor area ratio, the size of a building’s floor area in relation to the size of the parcel of land, from 1 to 0.85, and eliminated the requirement that 50% of required parking spaces for new multi-family developments be covered on three sides.
It failed following a 3-3 vote. Absent from the meeting was council member Matt Rost, who likely would have broken the tie in favor of the ordinance.
Council member Frank Arcuri previously said he did not support the ordinance over concerns of the proposed project’s size and its affect on traffic in the area.
At Monday’s meeting, township manager Paul Lauer asked council if they it would like to revisit the ordinance, which requires sending it back to the planning commission and holding a public hearing.
Chairman Gary Stiegel Jr., who voted against the ordinance, said he did not support bringing the ordinance back up for a vote unless there were “significant changes.”
“I think it’s a very bad precedent to bring an action up for a revote,” Stiegel said.
Other council members disagreed, saying they should have waited for the full council to take the vote. Tom Pirosko, who joined council this year, said he was unaware tabling the vote was an option.
“I think if that item, in fairness, would have been tabled, then we would have full representation of council to make a vote. I did not know at the time that a 3-3 vote didn’t pass. From that standpoint I think it should be revisited,” Pirosko said.
Vice Chairman Frank Kosir Jr. agreed.
“It was a tie. We should bring it up again and break the tie; whether it passes or it fails, it shouldn’t end in a 3-3 vote,” Kosir said.