Jack Jolly?

Here.

Chris Wall.

Here.

Brandon Rickhoff.

Here.

Megan Melchinski?

Here.

Eric Rosweiler?

Here.

Don Muharton?

Here.

Grant Rombeck?

Here.

Lisa Sebecki.

Present.

Mike Pinowski.

Here.

Mr.

Chair, you have a quorum.

A notice of this meeting was posted in the office of the Toledo Luke's County Plan Commission's eighth floor in Lucas County Clerk's office in the lobby of one government center.

Copy the notices available for inspection in our files if anyone would care to do so.

Did you approve two sets of minutes?

The first one's April 22nd.

Motion for approval.

Second.

Motion second to approve the April 22nd.

Minutes, all those in favor say aye.

Aye.

That motion carries.

Now we have June 24.

Motion for approval.

Second.

The motion is second to approve June 24th, 2026 minutes.

All those in favor?

Are there any opposed?

That motion carries the first case, please.

Case number one is Z 34 C th C 38 review and approval of a complete rewrite of the Richville Township in Village of Berkey comprehensive plan staff recommends approval.

Is there anybody here from Richfield?

Uh maybe a representative may come forward.

Doug Ronald addresses 3354 Washburn Road representing Richfield Township.

Do you swear to tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth?

If so, say I do.

I do.

Thank you.

The staff has recommended approval of your plan.

Do you have any questions or comments for us?

No, I do not.

Okay.

Is there anybody else in the tenants that would like to speak on this case?

Move approval.

Second.

Motion to second to approve case Z34-C 38.

All those in favor say aye.

Aye.

Any opposed?

That motion carries unanimously.

Thank you, sir.

You're welcome.

All set.

Uh you could stay right there.

Next case.

Yes.

Case number two is Z34 C 39.

Review and approval complete rewrite of the Richville Township zoning resolution.

Staff recommends approval.

Move to approve.

Second.

Uh three books.

Any comments from the audience?

Any comments from Richville Township?

No.

All said.

All those in favor say aye.

Aye.

Are there any opposed?

That motion carries unanimously.

Now you're all signs.

Thank you.

Welcome.

Next case, please.

Case number three is Z 37 C38.

Request for a tax amendment to add cottage industries and marijuana facilities to the Harding Township zoning resolution.

Staff recommends approval.

Anybody here from Harding?

Yes, ma'am.

Do you give us your name and address for the record?

Sue Tres 1267 Scott Road, zoning inspector for Harding Township.

Okay.

Do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?

If so, say I do.

I do.

Thank you.

The staff has recommended approval of your proposal.

Do you have any questions or comments?

No, I support the staff's recommendation.

Thank you.

Is anybody else in attendance that'd like to speak on this case?

Okay.

Move approval.

Second.

Thank you.

We have a motion of second to approve staff recommendation on Z37-C 38.

All those in favor say aye.

Aye.

Are there any opposed?

That motion carries unanimously and go to Harding Township.

Thank you, ma'am.

Next case.

Case number four, Z22 C 142 request for an amendment of the current off-premise sign, section 12.8 for two electronic messaging signs above ground along U.S.

24, Waterville Township staff recommends disapproval.

Is there anybody here from Waterville?

Anybody else who would like to speak on this case?

Mr.

Parker.

Good morning.

Jerry Parker, one Seagate, Talita, Ohio.

I'm representing Mr.

Bolan and Mr.

Moline, who are owners of the one of the properties that the two billboards are targeted to exist at, be located at.

I've been, as many of you know, I've been doing this land use work for decades, probably in many some people's opinion, too many decades.

But in any event, I won't discuss this concept of visual blight.

I think it's you know it's a term of art, in my opinion, visual blight is in the eye of the beholder.

Uh but in any event, and with respect to the specific specifics of this uh proposal, as you all know, under the Ohio Revised Code 151902, townships cannot prohibit outdoor advertising, outdoor advertising under the code, Ohio code is defined as a business use.

They can put limitations on it, and all those townships that have been cited by the planning commission staff.

But there's if you'll notice there's no restriction on the number of signs you could have in those townships.

Nor I don't believe, do we have a we do in this situation a highway where the signs are going to be located?

U.S.

24 is a major, major highway.

Here, this is a township's proposal.

This is their view of their restrictions on outdoor advertising in accordance with the Ohio Revised Code.

Two signs.

That's it.

A height limitation of 35 feet.

This is what they want.

And if I can suggest to you, and I don't want to be presumptive, I don't think the staff or this planning commission should tell the township you can't do what you want to do in limiting outdoor advertisement.

This is their proposal.

This is their limitations, just like every other township.

And I think in this situation, the township is eager to have this resolution passed because they believe that this outdoor advertising sign, limited to two, and the locations that they're at will benefit the township in many ways.

And as a concluding remark, I drove the Ohio Turnpike, the Pennsylvania Turnpike, and the New Jersey 10 Turnpike just recently.

There must I must have seen a million outdoor advertising signs.

Quite frankly, I never stopped and said, boy, that's ugly.

Many of the many of the signs were informative, amber alerts, accidents, weather reports, there were even spiritual messages.

So my point is simply this.

The township wants this.

This is their restriction on outdoor advertising.

And I think the key is that it's a major highway and it's limited to two signs.

That's it.

Thank you for your attention.

Any questions for Mr.

Parker?

I guess my question is did this come through the township, or did you request it from the township planning commission that has to come to us?

I'm sorry I didn't hear that.

So my understanding did did you propose this to the township, and by law it has to come to us.

They have to forward it to us.

Is that I know that, but the township is the one that passed the resolution forwarding this to you.

But they're required to pass it and pass it on to us.

Is that not correct?

So they're required.

You made the request to the township by law.

They have to forward it on to us because it has to go through the process.

So did this come from the township zoning commission by their own volition, or did it come to the other side of the case of the case?

I have talked, I have talked to I have talked to the trustee.

Trustees on this, two of them.

I've been in communication with them.

He's much very much in favor of this proposal.

Why aren't they not here then?

I can't answer that.

I'm just telling you that's what the situation is, and I've never misrepresented anything to this body or anybody else in 53 years.

I'm not saying that.

Mr.

Parker, that's enough.

Hang on.

Mr.

Padewski, what's the relevance of your question?

I'm just curious.

He stated that this came from the township.

I'm curious.

Well, but there's there's a difference between it.

So the way the law works is that anybody can make a request to change the zoning code and it has to come through us through the process, or did it come because they wanted to do it of their own volition?

Well so why is that relevant?

Because I want it it basically determines who's who's behind bringing this up.

Is it is it a township issue, or is this something that Mr.

Parker and his clients want to bring before us?

Okay, Molly, you're shaking your hand.

Would you like to speak?

Yes, sir.

Uh what happened was Mr.

Parker and his client presented this information to the township.

This was not brought on by the township solely.

So it was presented as an amendment in re in favor and request of the project at hand.

So this was not initiated by the ZI.

This is initiated by the applicant presenting himself to the township.

Okay.

Mr.

Parker, you agree.

Yeah, did anybody attend the zoning commission when this was forwarded?

They voted on it.

And they forwarded to this commission.

They had a serious discussion at the township zoning commission about this proposed resolution, and it was decided to forward it to you, and it was consented to by the zoning commission.

I was at the hearing, testimony was taken, and it's before you.

And I'm here to tell you the trustees that I've talked to are very much in favor of it.

Okay.

Um, so my question, my second question is um, this seems like to be to allow something significantly out of place than what's present in this county.

Um I don't see any other township allowing it along any other freeway.

Why what would make this different and how what would be the impact on the community that it would make?

Once again, the township under the Ohio Revised Code cannot ban outdoor billboard signs.

Those restrictions are there for a reason.

The reason is they're mandated by statute.

This township is imposed would like to see these restrictions opposed on outdoor billboard signs.

Those restrictions, I don't notice any limitation on the number of outdoor billboard signs you can have in in those townships.

Here the limitation is two.

Okay, thank you.

Is there anybody else in the tenants that would like to speak on this case?

Thank you.

Mr.

Chairman, I have a question also.

I understand in staff's recommendation, it says this would be the largest and tallest billboard in Lucas County.

I find that not to be true, unless Toledo is not part of Lucas County.

City of Tleo does not have a sign of this magnitude.

We have stopped putting up billboards, and I checked with the city.

We do not have anything of this magnitude.

So this sign would be higher and taller than anything we have, including the city of Toledo and other municipalities within Lucas County.

We don't have anything this size.

What's the basis for your research?

I actually have done we did this the same thing with Sylvania Township when I had a research for them two years ago.

It was exactly the same issue where they I understand the issue.

What's the basis for your research if this is the tallest sign in Lucas County?

I actually checked the Ohio, the City of Toledo permits as well, and then I checked the county signs as well.

So I actually checked every township and looked at every township code to verify that this is the largest that we have.

And from my perspective, full disclosure, I used to run root outdoor advertising.

I was president of it.

Height limitation in Toledo was 50 feet.

If they all the loan I just passed along 475 is 70 feet.

So everything was consistent throughout Lucas County.

This Waterville one is completely different than the rest of the townships.

When I come to this plan commission, you always ask me to compare to the other townships.

And this one is significantly different than the other 10.

Okay, and then also a question.

I noticed also in Springfield Township, there is a billboard right across the street on Airport Highway.

Um from the Kroger standpoint, somewhere around there, it's a lot larger than 100 square feet.

It's owned by Key Ads.

Is that one owned by the village though?

Is that in the village of Highland in that Springfield Township?

I have no idea for sure.

Holland goes out that far?

Yes, sir.

Okay, thank you.

Okay.

Let's remember this isn't a zoning case.

This is a text amendment that's been requested by the township and suggests that we get it back out to them and let them sort it out and not argue about how big our billboards are in Lucas County.

Okay, Mr.

Chairman, then I will move to approve case.

Z 22 C 142.

I'll second it.

All right, Mr.

Chair.

Is that correct, Mr.

Chow?

That is correct.

We have a motion to Mr.

Chair.

Before we vote, can I ask one more question to Molly?

I apologize, but I has have you done any research into legality of restricting this to just two billboards.

I'm concerned that whether that is a viable limitation on on in this ordinance.

It's viable because I think it can be challenged, and a BCA can uh an applicant can go to the BCA and challenge that and possibly win and have a third or fourth or fifth sign.

Okay, thank you.

I don't think there's any validity to keeping it just a two.

All those in favor say aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Any opposed?

Nay.

Mr.

Pinouski and Mr.

Rayprof for a note.

Yes.

Okay, that motion carries and it'll be now be sent back out to the township.

Any other business, Lisa for us?

Uh no other business.

All right, we're adjourned.