North Canton Participates in a Manipulation of Its Income Tax Policy to Structure a Contrived Donation That Creates Tax Benefits for Akron Children's Hospital.

Prepared Comments Made to

NORTH CANTON CITY COUNCIL

February 12, 2018 

          I would like to speak to Ordinance No. 10-2018, that is on your legislative agenda tonight. The proposed ordinance is titled as an Industrial and Commercial Occupancy grant Agreement by and between the City of North Canton and Children's Hospital Medical Center of Akron. 

          Sadly, the legislation simply makes North Canton City Government a participant in the manipulation of its income tax policy to structure a contrived donation by Akron Children's Hospital that will take advantage of tax laws that benefit Children's Hospital. 

          And these tax benefits that the hospital will gain, with the active participation of North Canton City officials, will come about on the backs of the Hospital's employees through their payment of North Canton City income taxes.

 

          Is this laundering of tax dollars really needed? 

          City officials always defend their corporate charity by saying the particular entity could choose to locate elsewhere. Not likely this time and I will tell you why.  

In a May 2, 2013, Repository story titled, "Stark facilities team up with Akron Children's Hospital," the story reports that "Aultman … had signed a letter of intent for Akron Children's to operate the inpatient pediatric unit at Aultman. 

That was nearly five years ago.  

The 2013 story goes on to say, "For the last five years, Aultman has collaborated with Akron Children's to operate the inpatient pediatric unit at Aultman."  

Akron Children's Hospital and Aultman Hospital have collaborated for ten years at this North Canton location and your argument is that tax incentives are needed to keep Children's Hospital from building elsewhere.  

I think you as members of City Council and the Held Administration should explain yourselves and say why you are playing musical chairs with North Canton income tax receipts. 

So it is your intention to collect income taxes from the employees of Children's Hospital and then return those income tax dollars back to the Hospital.  And out of the goodness of their corporate profit-motivated heart, Children's Hospital will donate $250,000, a portion of the returned income taxes, toward the upgrade of facilities at Dogwood Park.

 

The $250,000 is and was already the City's tax dollars collected from hospital employees. 

And from this contrived donation of income tax dollars, paid by hospital employees, Children's Hospital can realize tax benefits and garner undeserved PR. 

The moving of income tax dollars from Akron Children's Hospital employees, then to the City's coffers, then returning those same collected tax dollars back to Children's Hospital for them to return those tax dollars back to the City under the guise of a donation reminds me of the those stupid shell games at the carnival. 

If one looks up the definition of "Shell Game" on a site called THE FREE DICTIONARY (found at https://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/shell+game) one would find the following:

1.     A game in which an object is place under one of three cups or shells, which are then moved around. The person playing the game must guess the final location of the object. 

The second definition of the game sums up what is taking place with this legislation.  

2.     By extension, a method of deception that involves hiding or obscuring the truth. 

This legislation is nothing but a play on an old confidence trick by pretending to change things or pretending to change things that will afford tax breaks for Akron Children's Hospital. 

Explain the movement of the money to an adult or even a child and both would look at you and wonder if you are either out of your head or an out and out crook. 

I would urge each of you the next time you are up for re-election to tell voters that this legislation was one of your proudest moments. 

When you perpetrated a fraud using City tax dollars. 

That you engaged in needless legislation to provide tax benefits to a corporation on the backs of the employees of that corporation. 

The nearly $1.0 million secret tax abatement for Northridge; the  recent decision of the Water Board foregoing annexation of a property expected to have 75 healthcare jobs, and now manipulating income tax policy for Akron City Hospital does not bode well for the future of North Canton.    

Thank you,

Chuck Osborne

North Canton's Law Director Usurps Authority of City Council in Rezoning of Fieldcrest!

Prepared Comments Made to

NORTH CANTON CITY COUNCIL

September 25, 2017 

          Five years ago, Mayor Held's Director of Permits and Development, Eric Bowles, authorized the abatement of property taxes for a forty-unit apartment complex on North Main Street called North Ridge Place. The authorization by Mr. Bowles was done behind closed doors and remained secret for nearly three and one-half years. The abatement of property taxes for the investors in North Ridge Place amounted to nearly $1.0 million dollars.  

          I think everyone will agree that Mr. Bowles usurped the authority that City Council gave him by ordinance when he secretly approved the property tax abatement for North Ridge Place.  

          Denials by City officials that they had knowledge of the abatement are laughable, especially from North Canton's Law Director, Tim Fox. 

          Since Mr. Fox became Law Director in September of 2012, two months before Mr. Bowles submitted the North Ridge abatement to the Stark County Auditor's office, Mr. Fox has gained knowledge and control of every aspect of City business and usurped control of everything that transpires in North Canton City government.  

I have no doubt that Mr. Fox provided guidance and support to Mr. Bowles in November of 2012 with regards to the closed-door approval of the North Ridge tax abatement, thus usurping the authority and intent of legislation passed by City Council.

It is unfortunate, but a citizen cannot receive a Public Record from any office in the City without the knowledge and approval of Law Director Tim Fox. 

Law Director Fox has his fingers into every nook and cranny of North Canton City government and nothing happens without his knowledge or his approval. 

A more recent example of Law Director Fox's usurping the authority of City Council is the path that he has chosen to follow in the possible rezoning of the Fieldcrest property. 

Why did Law Director Fox not give City Council an opportunity to choose between having the City hire its own consultant to write the zoning code for Fieldcrest instead of asking the property owner to write the zoning code for the City? 

An independent, unbiased land-use planner hired and paid for by the City and responsible to the City, could have been an option City Council might have chosen. 

But seemingly, that choice was not available as Law Director Tim Fox took that right away from my elected representatives when he failed to allow City Council to make this decision themselves. 

Instead, at last Monday's City Council meeting, Council was reviewing a proposed zoning code written by a consultant hired by the property owner.  

And at the same meeting, North Canton's Law Director became a lobbyist on behalf of this property owner and further, began urging expedited approval of the rezoning. 

Law Director Fox has guided this whole process and for some reason City Council is oblivious to what is going on before their very eyes. 

Mr. Fox is taking from the citizens of North Canton any semblance of representational government. 

Concerns have been raised by citizens that the rezoning of Fieldcrest would be "Spot Zoning" and I concur. Law Director Fox rebutted that assertion last week with his pronouncement that the Fieldcrest property was "unique" thus qualifying the property for a change in zoning from residential to a meaningless zoning classification called "Fieldcrest," which is being pulled out of thin air and does not represent the use truly intended for the property.   

I would like an independent assessment from a land planner regarding whether a rezoning from residential would indeed constitute Spot Zoning.  

Fieldcrest is but a portion of what was once property owned by the Hoover Company. It is surrounded by Auburn Knolls and Monticello, all residential properties, and all cut from the original Hoover Company property. 

These developments are the most expensive residential properties in the City of North Canton.

And now you want to create a commercially zoned property and call it something other than what it truly will become if this rezoning request comes to fruition. 

North Canton City Council must function as representatives of all of its citizens. City Council members must act and think for themselves. 

Please, reclaim for yourselves your role as representatives of the people. Stop letting Law Director Tim Fox usurp your authority in the proposed rezoning of Fieldcrest. 

Thank you,

Chuck Osborne

Resident, City of North Canton  

North Canton's Tax Policies Detrimental to its Schools Now Foretell Calamity for the City!

Prepared Comments Made to

NORTH CANTON CITY COUNCIL

August 14, 2017  

          North Canton was once overly reliant on the Hoover Company thinking that the days of Hoover would last forever. 

With the large numbers of well-paying jobs at the Hoover Company, a minimal income tax for the City was sufficient and provided ample revenue for City operations. 

The loss of Hoover in 2008 should have ushered in an increase in the City's income tax rate but that has not happened.  

Instead, a flawed mindset took hold that by keeping an artificially low income tax rate business would locate in North Canton. 

To augment that flawed mindset, commercial tax abatements were given to businesses over the years to entice them to locate here. They were given freely as good-will gestures, sort of a thank you; as if to say here is a little token of our appreciation simply for locating to the City, often with fewer than a handful of employees.  

The commercial tax abatements that this Council has approved that I have observed since 2003 repeatedly resulted in a loss of revenue for the North Canton City Schools. 

The tax exemption given to North Ridge Place was the wake-up call for the City's School District.

I hope each of you here at City Hall are beginning to see that North Canton's tax policy has not been good for the City or the City's schools and that you have not been good fiduciaries of public tax dollars. 

The artificially low income tax rate that many here on City Council have praised each other for maintaining over several years has resulted in the following: 

1)    Reduced revenue for the City that could have been used for vital infrastructure improvements. 

2)    An opportunity for the North Canton City School District to place their own income tax on the ballot for voters at this fall's November General Election.

Can anyone blame the school district?

For years and years, this Council and this Administration have given away revenue desperately needed by the schools with nary a thought of the financial burdens you were creating for our City schools.

How does it feel to see the North Canton City School District come after a funding source typically utilized by municipalities?

Now the shoe is on the other foot and I am sure you do not like it.

The school income tax of 0.75 % when combined with North Canton's 1.5 % income tax rate will result in a combined income tax rate of 2.25 %.

It is my understanding the school income tax will remain in effect for thirty-four years if the school's ballot issue passes.

What is the likelihood that voters would further increase the City's income tax rate at some point in the future on top of the added school income tax rate?

That presents a calamity for the City of North Canton.

 Does anyone in here believe that this City will need to increase its income tax rate in the next thirty-four years? 

What is the likelihood voters would approve an income tax rate increase for the City when a combined City/School income tax rate is already at 2.25 %?

Not very probable!

The City's long-standing artificially low income tax rate along with the needless commercial tax abatements that have been handed out to businesses for years, have been ill-conceived. 

North Canton, the City schools and its residents now face a "financial perfect-storm."

          All of this as a result of many years of North Canton's failed tax policies! 

Thank you,

Chuck Osborne  

Veracity of Rebuttal Remarks Made by North Canton Law Director Unsupported by Public Records

Prepared Comments Made to

NORTH CANTON CITY COUNCIL

April 24, 2017

 

On February 27, 2017, I highlighted to City Council a multitude of actions which have violated the North Canton’s City Charter. 

The first violation I detailed as a direct violation of the City Charter was the approval of a variance at an August 5, 2015, meeting of the City’s Planning Commission with the City’s Law Director in attendance. 

From the minutes of Council’s February 27, 2017, meeting, Law Director Tim Fox immediately follows up my remarks with a rebuttal stating, “Mr. Osborne stated that the Planning Commission granted a variance for the cell tower. And clearly that did not occur.”

As is clearly described on page 5 and 6 of the minutes of the August 5, 2015, Planning Commission meeting, the Commission did in fact approve a variance for the cell tower.

In fact, the minutes of the Commission reflect the following dialogue: 

Commission Chairman Flechtner states,

“Question[?]. Do we need a third vote for the variance?” 

North Canton’s former Director of Permits and Development Bowles responds stating:

 

“No. You can approve it with it as presented…” 

Chairman Flechtner responds stating,

“So that would be a part of the motion to approve the site plan….”

 

The City of Canton and the Montabella Estates Homeowners Association also were well aware that North Canton’s Planning Commission had approved a variance for the cell tower. Each entity appealed the Planning Commission’s approval citing the fact that North Canton’s Planning Commission exceeded its authority under the City’s Charter when it approved this variance. I include copies of the appeals from each of those appellants. 

On September 22, 2015, an appeal was on the agenda for the meeting of the North Canton Zoning Board of Appeals. 

Prior to the Board’s hearing the appeal, Law Director Tim Fox addressed the Zoning  Board. From page 4 of the attached minutes of the September 22, 2015, meeting of ZBA, Mr. Fox states in part,  

“…The Planning Commission had stated at its meeting regarding a conditional use that it approved of a variance but it’s clear from the City’s Charter and its ordinances only this body, the Zoning and Building Standards Board of Appeals may hear a variance….” 

Mr. Fox clearly and purposely misled this public body as the North Canton Planning Commission did in fact approve a variance for the cell tower at the August 5, 2017, meeting of the Planning Commission. 

I believe this instance to be but a snapshot of the manner in which Mr. Fox handles his position as North Canton’s Law Director. 

I include with my remarks, the various documents I have cited. 

Every member of this Council should cast a critical eye as to the way the current Law Director spins and twists the facts, not only in this instance but often since he has taken on the role as North Canton’s Director of Law. 

If Law Director Tim Fox can find the need to twist and distort the facts in an effort to reign supreme over a citizen as myself, who regularly researches Council proceedings, what is he doing under far less scrutinized circumstances? 

I find Mr. Fox’s veracity to be highly questionable!!  

I ask that City Council end the reign of Law Director Tim Fox.

 

Thank you,

Chuck Osborne

North Canton’s Part-time Elected Officials More Interested in Self Service than in Public Service

Prepared Comments Made to

NORTH CANTON CITY COUNCIL

March 13, 2017 

          On tonight’s agenda for it 3^rd reading is Ordinance No. 6-2017. This legislation provides for automatic pay raises for North Canton’s part-time elected officials as OPERS increases the minimum annual salary required to qualify for 100 percent service credit for pension benefits. 

          City Council will no longer come under scrutiny when their salaries are increased. The citizens of North Canton will no longer be able question the compensation City Council receives as both citizens and Council will be removed from the process.

 

          Ohio, as well as states across the country, needs to eliminate pension eligibility for part-time public employees as pension funds are grossly underfunded.

          The state of Ohio has chosen to eliminate pension eligibility for part-time public officials by raising the minimum salary needed for full service credit, thereby elevating salaries over and above what will be warranted at some point in the future.

          This minimum salary will be further increased over the next few years. The need to increase the monthly salaries of North Canton’s part-time elected officials by $60 is a drop in the bucket as to what will be required in the not too distant future to maintain eligibility for full service credit under OPERS. 

As this minimum salary is increased further and further, most part-time elected officials will ultimately no longer participate in Ohio’s pension program.  

Several years ago, I recall seeing reports in the press that the General Assembly initially discussed raising the minimum monthly salary to as high as $2,000 per month.

This is where this is headed and this Council agenda with this legislation. With the passage of this legislation, North Canton City Council believes they will not have to take responsibility for setting their salary when OPERS increases the minimum salary to salaries far above what is acceptable to the taxpayers of North Canton. 

Possibly this Council is unaware that OPERS does give partial credit for salaries that do not meet the minimum salary for full service credit?

 

This legislation makes one big assumption and that is that North Canton part-time elected officials assume that they will remain in office the minimum required ten years to qualify for a pension. 

This is a pretty arrogant assumption on the part of North Canton’s part-time elected officials.

 

I believe that this legislation violates Section 4.04 of the City’s Charter which states,

        “The Council shall have the power to fix the compensation of its members, and that of the Mayor….”  

It does not say the “General Assembly” or “OPERS.” 

Frankly, I am stunned that Council has the audacity to even propose a raise for

itself and the Mayor. 

First, Council and the Held Administration failed to place a renewal levy on the ballot in a timely fashion and now that failure is going to cost taxpayers close to $15,000 for a Special Election in August. 

Second, Council is in violation of its own ordinance requiring four meetings of Council four Mondays each month.  

I have a spreadsheet detailing the meeting nights of City Council over the last fourteen years. Under the current Law Director and untrained Council Clerk, the lawfully required Council meetings schedule of four Monday night meetings per month is in decline. 

The required four Monday night meetings per month have declined nearly twenty-five percent over the last fourteen years. That downward trend has just come about in the last couple of years. 

North Canton no longer has a major employer across the street. The City is struggling financially. 

Scrap Ordinance No. 6-2017. 

Represent your constituents. 

Show the citizens of North Canton that you are indeed interested in Public Service.  

Thank you,

Chuck Osborne

Habitual Violations of North Canton’s Charter by City Officials is Unnerving, Unacceptable and Unlawful!

Prepared Comments Made to

NORTH CANTON CITY COUNCIL

February 27, 2017 

The habitual violation of North Canton’s Charter by City Officials that has and continues to occur is Unnerving, Unacceptable, and Unlawful. 

Section 3.07(3) of the Charter, titled, Zoning and Building Standards Board of Appeals, states in part,  

“It shall be the duty of the Zoning and Building Standards Board of Appeals to hear and decide appeals for exceptions to and variations in the application of ordinances… in the municipality….”

          If that is unclear, further guidance comes from Chapter 1125.02 (116) of North Canton’s Zoning Code, which defines a variance as, 

 “A grant by the Board of Zonings Appeals….”

This provision has existed in the City Charter since 1963.

          At a meeting of the North Canton Planning Commission on August 5, 2015, the Commission, in violation of the Charter, granted a variance for the construction of a Cell Tower at First Friends Church.

Present at the meeting were all members of the Commission, including City Administrator Mike Grimes, former City Engineer Jim Benekos, former Director of Permits and Development Eric Bowles, and City Council’s Chairperson of Ordinance, Rules, and Claims Committee, Stephanie Werren. 

          Also present at the meeting was North Canton’s legal authority, Law Director Tim Fox.

How could this have been allowed to happen?  

          How could all of these individuals allow the Planning Commission to exceed its authority under the Charter? This was unprecedented in my sixteen years of observations of the actions of North Canton City Government.  

          The decision of the Planning Commission was appealed by parties in opposition to the tower and on September 22, 2015, the appeal was to be heard by the City’s Zoning Board of Appeals. As the Board meeting was about to hear the appeal, Law Director Fox acknowledged that procedural requirements were not followed.

The admission that the Planning Commission had exceeded its authority forced a reapplication of the entire issue before the Planning Commission which took place on December 9, 2015.

          Another violation of North Canton’s Charter derives from requirements in another part of Section 3.07. 

In paragraph (2) titled, Planning Commission, and paragraph (3) titled, Zoning and Building Standards Board of Appeals, the Charter states in part,   

“…a member of Council, selected by Council, shall serve as non-voting members of the commission in an advisory capacity and shall attend all meetings.”

For Planning Commission meetings, City Council’s Chairperson of Economic

Development Committee, Marcia Kiesling, is Council’s selected representative and by Charter is required to attend all meetings of the Planning Commission. 

          Over the last four years, Mrs. Kiesling has attended six of the thirty-six meetings of the Planning Commission. Percentage-wise, Councilwoman Kiesling has been absent for eighty percent of the meetings she is obligated by Charter to attend. 

          For meetings of the Zoning Board of Appeals, City Council’s Chairperson of Ordinance, Rules, and Claims Committee, Stephanie Werren, is Council’s selected representative and by Charter is required to attend all meetings of the Zoning Board of Appeals.

          Over the last four years, Mrs. Werren has attended none of the six meetings of the Zoning Board of Appeals. Percentage-wise, Mrs. Werren has been absent for one hundred percent of the meetings she is obligated by Charter to attend.

          The most recent violation of North Canton’s Charter originates from Section 6.04 which states,

“In January, 1967, and in January of each tenth year thereafter, the Council shall appoint a commission of fifteen (15) electors of the municipality…. Such commission shall review the Municipal Charter, and …recommend to Council such alterations, revisions, and amendments, if any …are desirable….” 

Council has failed to act in accordance with this Charter provision. This failure to act as prescribed hampers the work of the Charter Review Commission and it jeopardizes the success of the Commission’s work. 

Elected and appointed City Officials who cannot comply with North Canton’s City Charter should resign or be replaced. 

Thank you,

Chuck Osborne

September 19, 2016 - North Canton Council of the Whole Meeting

North Canton Residents and anyone Having Interest in the Business of North Canton City Government:

Pasted below is a link to a video of the North Canton Council of the Whole meeting held on September 19, 2016.

https://youtu.be/PKkd3t8Ofrw

Description of Video:

September 19, 2016 – North Canton City Council Committee of the Whole meeting lasted approximately one hour and thirty-five minutes. 

          The video captures pre-meeting activity with the actual Council of the Whole meeting commencing at the 6:30 mark. 

The agenda for the September 19, 2016, meeting can be reviewed at the following link: 

http://northcantonohio.gov/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/September-19-2016-North-Canton-City-Council-Committee-of-the-Whole-Meeting-Agenda.pdf 

          Council President Peters calls the meeting to order at 7:05 p.m. After the Clerk of Council takes attendance, President Peters asks for a motion and a second to excuse Councilmember Stephanie Werren as she did not answer Roll Call. 

          This is Councilmember Stephanie Werren’s third absence this year. Mrs. Werren has also failed to attend meetings of North Canton Council on April 11, 2016, and on June 27, 2016.  

          Lack of attendance of attendance at North Canton City Council meetings by members of Council has no impact on the $600.00 per month they are paid.  

          7:20 Mrs. Kiesling is given the floor to begin discussion of Ordinance No. 52-2016. This is the discussion of the City’s Community Improvement Area (CRA) which has been going on since April of this year. 

          The City’s CRA discussions began earlier this year in April with a proposal to expand the boundaries of the City’s CRA to encompass nearly the entire City. 

          Amid a vehement outcry over several months from City residents, including the City’s former Mayor, Daryl Revoldt, Council backed away from the proposed legislation at a June 13, 2016, meeting and killed the proposed legislation, labeled as Ordinance No. 32-2016.  

          During those discussions earlier this year, in addition to citizen concerns that expansion of the CRA program was very bad for the City, it was discovered that CRA property tax abatements for new construction had been given in direct violation of previous North Canton ordinances. 

          Property tax abatements had only been authorized for remodeling.  

          One of the property tax abatements, for a new residential property, amounted to $30,660. This amount will likely grow higher over the fifteen-year term of the abatement.  

The second property tax abatement was for a forty-unit apartment complex, called North Ridge Place, amounted to $709,549. This amount will likely grow higher also over the twelve-year term of the abatement. 

City officials have acknowledged there are problems with the illegal abatements. 

Mayor Held has vehemently tried to distance himself from the issue. At an August 22, 2016, Council meeting, Mayor Held calls the abatement to North Ridge apartments “STUPID” at the 45:05 mark of the video. 

Mayor Held has a lot to say about the North Ridge Place abatements. Those remarks can be heard and seen on a link to a video of the meeting (between the 38:45 mark and 45:05 mark). 

http://northcantoncityhallvideos.blogspot.com/2016/08/august-22-2016-north-canton-special_29.html 

At a September 12, 2016, meeting of Council, Law Director Tim Fox advises Council that earlier CRA ordinances have not been certified by the Ohio Department of Development and that prior abatements could be deemed invalid.  

The Law Director’s remarks can be seen at the following link between the 49:20 mark and the 52:20 mark of the video. 

http://northcantoncityhallvideos.blogspot.com/2016/09/september-12-2016-north-canton-city.html 

          After Law Director Fox explained the mess that the City of North Canton has created for itself with regard to the City’s CRA, the sad saga continues as Councilmember Kiesling explains in her opening remarks.

          Mrs. Kiesling quickly discovers that the map describing current boundaries of the City’s CRA is totally flawed and she tosses it aside. 

          It should be explained here that Council is attempting to correct an accumulation of errors contained in ordinances passed in 2009 (Ordinance No. 107-2009) and again in 2010 (Ordinance No. 5-2010) with the passage of Ordinance No. 52-2016 under discussion. 

          The problem is that the City’s Law Director has crafted a very convoluted piece of legislation with which to accomplish that end. 

          10:45 Mrs. Kiesling mistakenly states that applicants can still apply for an abatement after the CRA legislation is corrected.

How would that be possible after Council has rescinded the ordinance under which it would have been authorized?

          The CRA discussion continues until the 37:00 mark.  

After the meeting, I suggested to Council President Peters that the City discontinue the CRA program entirely. 

Surprisingly, Mr. Peters was in agreement that the program be dropped entirely.  

Of course, Mr. Peters stated this to me off the record. Will Mr. Peters follow through with that position?

I urge the public to listen to the entire CRA discussion.         

37:50 Law Director Tim Fox speaks to proposed legislation that is entirely out of this world. 

It is Law Director Fox’s proposal that future Public Hearings before the City’s Planning Commission regarding Conditional Use Permits be conducted as an Adjudicatory Hearing. 

What this would entail are the following: 

1)   Any and all comments made by speakers before the Planning Commission would have to be sworn in. 

2)   Anyone contesting the application under consideration or contemplating a lawsuit on the issue before the City’s Planning Commission would be required to also have an attorney present at the meeting.

For over fifty-five years North Canton residents have been able to

attend a North Canton Planning Commission and present their concerns, questions, or opposition on an issue before the Commission. 

          In fact, that is the very purpose of the Public Hearings before the Commission. 

          It is the desire of Law Director Fox to turn the Public Hearing into a legal proceeding at which he alone will preside. 

          In layman’s terms, Law Director Fox wants to be the Ringmaster of a Public Hearing that is turned into a Circus for his own edification. 

          A good example of a Planning Commission meeting where Law Director Tim Fox took control of the meeting and inserted himself into the role, in my opinion, of presiding judge, is the December 9, 2015, Planning Commission meeting. 

A link to that video is below. 

The December 9, 2015 – Planning Commission meeting was about a request for approval to construct a Cell Tower at First Friends Church located in the vicinity of 55^th Street and Market Street. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WzwTH-OqaXs 

          Law Director Fox, in effect, commandeered the entire nearly three hour meeting.  

          The entire discussion on the proposed change to North Canton’s Zoning code to conduct Public Hearings for Conditional Use Permits as Adjudicatory Hearings should be watched closely. 

          Councilmember Doug Foltz is the only member of Council who was highly critical of this proposed amendment to the City’s Zoning Code. 

          Law Director Fox pushes hard for this change for thirty minutes. The discussion on that proposal concludes at 1:21:45.

Sadly, Council sidesteps making a decision on this proposal, choosing instead to pass a resolution sending this issue to the Planning Commission. 

1:21:45 Council President Peters amends the agenda to briefly discuss Ordinance No. 49-2016 that was tabled the previous week. 

This was a proposal to allow residents to utilize up to forty percent of their front yards for parking of automobiles.  

Council agreed to leave Ordinance No. 49-2016 tabled permanently. Regular attendees had vehemently opposed this proposal on two grounds. 

First, it was a very bad idea. 

Second, Council was attempting to amend the City’s Zoning Code without seeking the guidance of the City’s Planning Commission as required by the Zoning Code. 

1:31:00 Council welcomes the City’s new Director of Permits and Inspection. 

1:31:20 Council votes to adjourn the meeting. 

The video continues to run until 1:34:12 capturing post meeting activities. 

Thank you,

Chuck Osborne