|CATAWBA ISLAND TOWNSHIP LAND USE PLAN
Catawba Island Township developed its latest land use plan in 1996. The anticipated life of the plan was from 1996-2010. It was prepared after the construction of the Catawba-Portage Township sewer project was completed in 1991, but prior to the construction of a public water system within the township, which began in 1996 and was completed in 1999.
Both of these infrastructure improvements, along with the associated development pressure that has resulted since their completion, have necessitated a review of the existing land use plan adopted in 1996. To facilitate this review, the Catawba Island Township Trustees appointed a land use committee to work with the staff of the Ottawa Regional Planning Commission. The committee consisted of the following individuals.
Bill Rofkar, Township Trustee
Pat Cerny, Township Zoning Inspector
Dave Drusbacky, Zoning Commission
Tom Anslow, Board of Zoning Appeals
Bill Vandergiessen, Developer/Businessman
Jim Stouffer, Developer/Businessman
Ross Pfeiffer, Citizen
Teree Lasko, Citizen
The committee met numerous times and analyzed development trends that have occurred over the past nine years. They reviewed the existing land uses, zoning requests, year-round and seasonal population numbers and trends, the existing land use plan's recommendations, and the future land use needs of the community. The end product is the future land use plan map that reflects the committee’s thoughts on where future growth should occur between 2005 and 2015.
The land use committee developed this plan as a guide to help the township trustees control future development within the community. The township trustees should follow the recommendations contained herein, unless compelling evidence supporting a variation from the plan is submitted at public hearings.
Development trends are changing today as they have in the past. Condominiums were the major housing development type in the 1980’s. Single-family residential house lots were the primary choice of development in the 1990’s. The latest trend is the planned unit development concept where various types of housing units are grouped or clustered with significant areas of open space in a pre-planned environment.
The plan was not prepared considering a single type of development option, but rather, it considered all of the possible housing alternatives. The committee spent significant time examining the issue of housing density as that was one of the primary issues being discussed within the community. The committee also felt that the zoning resolution was the primary tool used by the township trustees in enforcing the plan's recommendations. The committee offered suggestions to the local zoning officials on several areas within the zoning resolution that should be reviewed and possibly modified to insure the plan's integrity is met.
The part of Ottawa County now known as Catawba Island Township has had a long, colorful history. The township has served as a home for three distinct groups of people, and provided them with numerous resources for a good life.
The earliest known occupants in historic times of Catawba Island were members of the Erie Indian tribe. In 1654, at the end of a long and bloody war over hunting and trading rights, the Eries were slaughtered by the victorious Iroquois and the tribe ceased to exist.
Over the next century a number of other tribes moved in and out of the island. The Ottawas were probably the most numerous after Pontiac's 1763 conspiracy, settling here when their uprising against English domination was defeated. The name "Ottawa" comes from an Indian word for trader, recalling the fur trade with the French and English.
Many generations of Indians hunted, trapped, and fished along the Lake Erie shoreline but left few obvious traces of their long residence on Catawba Island.
The French were the first Europeans to come to our area. Already settled in eastern Canada, they explored Lake Erie last of all the Great Lakes because of the Indian wars. They came to trade with the Indians for furs, and did build some permanent settlements like the ones at Detroit and Monroe, Michigan. These were trading centers, often with numbers of small farms surrounding them.
The French traders and missionaries were sometimes well-educated men from prominent Montreal and Quebec families, sometimes hardy adventurers
who could neither read nor write. Although interested in converting the Indians to their Catholic religion, they were tolerant of Indian ways and adapted to them with ease. Some of those who settled here brought their wives from Canada, while others married Indian women. Their children and grandchildren hunted, trapped, and fished like the Indians and planted a few crops and apple trees like the Europeans they were. Some of the early French Canadians on Catawba Island were M. LaFleur, M. Poskelle, M. Beban, and M. Gorneau.
After the French and Indian War ended in 1763, North America became English. Englishmen took over the fur trade as they had been trying to do for a long time, and held on to it for a number of years after the American Revolution. The issue of English occupation was not really settled until the end of the War of 1812, although American troops fought with combinations of English and Indians in the various campaigns before Anthony Wayne won the Battle of Fallen Timbers in August of 1794. In the Treaty of Greenville (1795) the Indian Tribes made some concessions to the Americans, but still kept their hunting grounds here. White settlement was forbidden by the treaty except for certain areas which were designated as trade centers. None of these were on Catawba.
During the War of 1812 General Harrison had men stationed on Catawba Island to prevent a possible English invasion, and some of these may have settled down as permanent residents. Most of the American settlers, however, came from Connecticut to take up land given them as compensation for houses and barns burned by the English during the Revolution. In 1792 the State of Connecticut granted about half a million acres of land at the western end of the Connecticut Western Reserve to these people, and the area came to be known at the "Fire Lands".
The "Fire Lands" could not be settled immediately: the claimants or their heirs had to be found, the amount of damage they had suffered verified, the land had to be surveyed, purchased from the Indians (1805), and finally granted to individuals in 1807 by means of a complicated lottery. The western boundary of the Fire Lands passes through the township, as the west boundary of Sections 3 and 4.
Some of the men considered most responsible for the early development of Catawba Island were Eli Moore, Wheeler Porter, Walter and Oscar Bardsley, Clancy Tillotson, and Henry Ellithorp.
In the first half of the nineteenth century this part of Ohio was still the frontier, and the fertile farmland and good climate attracted many settlers. In 1840 Ottawa County was created from townships, in Wood, Sandusky, and Erie Counties, and included the Bass Islands. In 1861 Ottawa County was divided into several townships, and the present Catawba Island Township was named for the variety of grape growing on many acres here.
For many years, fishing in Lake Erie was done by individual families to supplement their own food supply, but in 1840 Henry Ellithorp discovered large quantities of fine white fish near the Bass Islands, and commercial fishing quickly became a profitable industry employing many men. Tons of fish were caught daily and shipped to markets around the country. The fishing industry flourished for more than a century, but went into a swift and nearly final decline in the 1950's.
The reasons for the decline are still being argued: some blame the effects of over-fishing, water pollution, and increasingly strict regulation. There was an invasion of the sea lamprey, Petromyzon marinus, which was able to adjust to living in fresh water over many generations in the St. Lawrence estuary. They gradually spread upstream and came into Lake Erie through the Welland Canal. Once here, the lamprey population increased enormously because the native fish had no instinctive fear of the newcomer. There was also a long period of very hot, still weather late in the summer of 1953, which finally divided the water of the west end of Lake Erie into a warm upper layer and a cooler under-lake. The thermal barrier prevented wave-carried oxygen from reaching the bottom layer. The normal heavy demand for oxygen soon reduced levels at the bottom of the lake to nearly zero parts per million, and although September storms remixed the lake, this low-oxygen condition lasted long enough to kill almost all of the larvae of the mayfly. Not enough were left to permit recovery of the once-incredible population of Hexagenia limbata occulta, a vital part of the Lake Erie food chain. Only a few years later, the commercial catches were drastically reduced. Now very few commercial fishing boats remain active off our shores, but the sport fishing industry continues to grow as fish species return. The great improvements in water quality (assisted by the zebra mussels) have begun to pay off with the number of mayflies increasing.
Grape growing became an important part of Catawba's economy when Nicholas Longworth, of Cincinnati, brought the first Catawba Grape vines here from North Carolina. The first commercial grape business was started in 1860 by Mr. Henry Ellithorp and Mr. H. Newton. Others followed and in 1862 the largest number of vines were owned by P.E. Andrews. In 1871 there were 345 acres of vineyards, and by 1874 there were 600 acres producing grapes. The Catawba Wine Company had a cellar of 130,000 gallon capacity.
The Mon Ami Winery was built in 1871, and has had many owners.
Norman Mantey converted the first floor of the winery to a restaurant, which he called the Mon Ami Champagne Company. Apple and peach orchards were started commercially in the 1870's. Fruit was shipped out by boat and railroad in huge quantities, and Catawba produce enjoyed a fine reputation in the cities. There are still some acres planted to fruit trees, but now the buyers come to the area to make their purchases.
Deposits of limestone were known to early residents but were not exploited until 1850, when Mr. J.R. James, of New York City, established a limestone quarry. The lime kiln which he built to process the stone can still be seen just inside the north entrance to Catawba Cliffs, but the adjoining barrel factory is long gone. There were high hopes for the new town of Ottawa City, located conveniently near the quarry, the limekiln, and the dock. Unfortunately, Mr. James' enterprise never really prospered, perhaps because he started operations before learning that the stone was too impure to make good mortar. He hung on until 1855, when the business was closed down.
Schools were very important to the settlers from Connecticut, and classes were begun in 1839 in the home of Tinker Smith. Eventually there were three schools for the children of Catawba: one was at the corner of Porter and Crogan Streets, one on East Catawba Road at Muggy Road, and one on Cemetery Road near the present township garage. In 1913 these schools were centralized, making the first consolidated school district in Ottawa County and one of the first in Northwestern Ohio. Our school became part of the Port Clinton School District in 1961, and now our 1913 school building (which was enlarged in 1954) is used for the Kindergarten and the first three grades. The children in grades four, five and six go to the Portage School, while older students go to Junior and Senior High Schools in Port Clinton.
Roads were built to make travel easier. In the early years the unpaved East Catawba Road connected with Danbury Township via Muggy Road and over a bridge to Buck Road. A real road along the east side of the island was built and dedicated in 1840, and the present Sand Road was dedicated in 1843. The causeway which carries State Route 53 over the old bed of the Portage River was not built until sometime in the 1890's.
The development of automobiles led to a surge of development in the tourist and recreation industry. In earlier times there were a number of boarding houses and several resort hotels on Catawba: these have now been replaced by motels and campgrounds. Catawba Cliffs was developed in 1921 by the J.H. Bellows Company, but there had been numerous summer cottages here for many years before that. The oldest part of the present Catawba Island Club was built in 1928 by the Catawba Cliffs Beach Club, Inc.
The State of Ohio acquired between seven and eight acres of land on Catawba Island in 1938 to form the Catawba Island Reserve. The agency currently in charge of the area, Ohio Department of Natural Resources, was formed in 1949. In 1963 the Parks and Recreation Division was created and given responsibility for what is now called Catawba Island State Park. The park provides boat launching facilities as well as picnic and parking areas. Another public boat launching facility is owned and operated by the Catawba Island Township Trustees. In 1985 the Catawba Island Park Board was formed to provide additional recreation opportunities.
The water levels of Lake Erie have always moved up and down, and storms and hard winters have caused much erosion since the first homes were built here. Some farms have been allowed to grow up in woods again,
some buildings have disappeared, many buildings have been built, but probably the early residents would have little difficulty recognizing Catawba today. Many links with the past remain, to be studied and treasured by all who come here. This is a unique place, with a rich heritage of Indian, French, English, and American contributions.
GOALS FOR FUTURE DEVELOPMENT
The land use committee felt that a series of goals for the future development of the township should be derived from an overall vision for the community. Recognizing that communities inevitably change over time, it is hoped that this vision statement will assist the various individuals, citizen groups, and government officials in prioritizing their decision-making process when the established goals conflict with each other.
Catawba Island Township will develop as a community that:
- Provides a safe and welcoming environment for its children,
families, the elderly, and visitors;
- Recognizes the diverse demands and needs created by the year
round and seasonal populations;
- Enhances the quality of life through the preservation of the
Township’s natural attributes, and by protecting
environmentally sensitive areas and encouraging open space;
- Encourages creative land use solutions.
Determining goals for a community is complicated by the fact that societies change and goals that were initially agreed upon become outdated. Also, the priorities that helped to determine the vision statement and the goals change over time. Consequently, the importance of the established goals changes and they are subject to revision. The specifics of implementation shall be delegated to the various entities within the Township.
By design, goals are general in nature. Since goals may take on different connotations for various groups of people, the following definition will be used for this report:
A goal is an end or ideal which a community, or a
substantial majority of the community desires to
attain. It is a value to be sought, even though it
may not be perfectly attainable. A goal may be
stated in either abstract or measurable terms.
The land use committee, after preparing the vision statement, identified the following goals to guide the overall development of Catawba Island Township. The order in which the goals are listed does not signify any level of importance or significance.
Goal: Preserve land areas that are unique in their present
state by encouraging and recognizing those features of
the Catawba landscape, natural or manmade, that foster
and maintain the community’s sense of identity and
There are numerous areas on Catawba Island that are unique in their natural state and would provide enjoyment and scenic value to the future generations of the township. Obviously, there are numerous scenic areas along the Lake Erie shoreline. The Lake is one of the greatest natural features for Catawba Island and its health must be protected for future generations to enjoy.
Developers have already protected and enhanced several areas within the township. LeMarin, located on the west side of West Catawba Road, installed an embankment to preserve the marshland and spawning shelves within the harbor for fish breeding purposes. Marsh's Edge, a residential subdivision on the east side of East Catawba Road just north of Muggy Road, preserved and enhanced sixty (60) acres of wetlands within its development. The Catawba Island Club, through its approved planned unit development proposal, has committed to preserving and improving its existing golf course as an open space feature for future generations.
Several additional areas remain in their natural state as a result of the actions of the property owner. The John Braun park area has been set aside for public recreational use by its previous owners through deed restrictions. Mouse Island at the northern end of Catawba Island, though privately owned, remains undeveloped.
Local officials have also acquired specific tracts of land and set them aside as nature areas or public recreation areas. These areas include Heigel Park, the boat launch off East Catawba Road, and the nature preserve off West Catawba Road near the Catawba Cliffs area. As opportunities present themselves, these officials need to continue this effort toward preservation.
Relationships with private groups, such as the Black Swamp Conservancy, also need to be fostered in order to maximize resources available to fund these efforts. Use of financial resources available through the State of Ohio, such as the Clean Ohio fund, are untapped resources that need to be examined. Ultimately, however, it will be a commitment by the township and its residents that will make preservation efforts successful.
In the past, Catawba Island was an area predominantly agricultural in nature. It is still considered one of the best areas in the world for production of fruit. Due to the types of soil, drainage, and climatic conditions, the fruit produced is of excellent quality. Today grapes are of lesser importance than apples and peaches.
Unfortunately, the value of property and the profit margin associated with fruit production has resulted in many parcels of land being removed from production. Through programs funded by the State, property owners can receive payment for agricultural easements used to preserve these unique agricultural lands in perpetuity as working farms. The application process is a competitive one, but it might be one of interest to active orchard owners.
In addition, proposed rezoning requests and developments need to be closely monitored by the local officials. Through the use of creative zoning tools and techniques such as planned unit developments and transfer of development rights, developers can be encouraged to set aside or maintain in the natural state additional areas during the zoning negotiation process.
Goal: Maintain the recreational and commercial facilities needed to
serve the projected population.
There has been a great deal of developmental pressure placed upon township officials to permit the expansion of recreational and commercial facilities. Though township officials agree that future recreational and commercial development is inevitable, they also agree that this development must be controlled. One available developmental control is zoning, and through the proper use of this tool, the township can minimize conflicts between recreational and commercial areas and other land uses.
It is important for the township to provide the goods and services required of a continually evolving seasonal or tourism industry. Clearly, recreational opportunities connected with Lake Erie must occur in close proximity to the Lake. The township also benefits from the employment opportunities generated by these recreational and commercial ventures, though many are seasonal in nature.
Local officials prefer to have the commercial needs of the year-round residents served by facilities in the area of the intersection of State Routes 163 and 53 and in other areas such as Port Clinton. The permanent population of the township cannot, by itself, support these year-round commercial ventures.
Developers also generally place commercial development on Catawba as a low priority item. They might, however, propose small commercial uses such as clubhouses or coffee shops for their residents as a part of their overall residential-commercial dynamic. This type of commercial development can be provided for in the local zoning rules and should be supported by local zoning officials as appropriate.
Goal: Continue to keep like land uses together.
Zoning has its origin in the urban areas of this country where separation of land uses was needed to protect the public health and safety of the residents. Business and industrial uses were separated from residential neighborhoods. Thus, the concept that zoning’s purpose is to keep like land uses together.
The compatibility of land uses is reviewed in the compatibility analysis section of this plan. It is sufficient to state here that as a community grows, compatible or like land uses should be kept together. If the township is able to achieve this goal, the end result will be a more harmonious and aesthetically pleasing environment. However, where it is not possible to separate incompatible land uses, proper design and planning could help mitigate the unpleasing effects.
Township zoning officials must insure that their zoning regulations incorporate creative techniques, such as transfer of development rights or planned unit developments that enable development and preservation to work together for the betterment of the entire community. Efforts have been made recently by the trustees to educate the residents about these types of development. These efforts must be continued. A level of trust must develop between the residents and the trustees relating to the approval process of proposed planned unit developments.
Creating a balance between different classifications as they transition from one to the other by allowing a blended use may be appropriate in some areas. Encouraging responsible development allows for the addition of desirable home sites in a manner that will preserve the existing neighborhoods and keep like land uses together.
Goal: Develop and/or improve transportation facilities to
ensure efficient and safe movement within the township.
This is very important for the future of Catawba Island. The development of, and/or improvements to, the present transportation facilities must have a high priority for local officials. The existing motor vehicle transportation problems occur during the summer months. The roadways and intersections are not designed to handle the heavy weekend traffic flows that occur. This traffic results not only from the new residential and commercial developments on Catawba Island, but also by the users of the ferry service to the Put-in-Bay islands that are located at the northern end of the township.
As development continues and the summer population increases, these problems will only magnify. There are solutions that should be reviewed and discussed with the transportation experts. Improvements to the intersection at State Routes 53 and 163 are needed. Turning lanes off East Catawba Road at West Catawba Road, Cemetery Road, and Schoolhouse Road would assist in traffic flow. In light of the unique seasonal traffic dynamics, flashing traffic lights operated only during the summer months might better control traffic flows. These solutions must be given consideration by ODOT, County, and local officials.
The township should also carefully review each new development proposal and its potential impacts on the existing transportation systems. When it is deemed necessary, developers should be required to financially contribute to intersection upgrades that are necessitated by their developments.
In addition, township officials should attempt to create internal pedestrian and bicycle trails to aid the year-round residents. These internal paths can be incorporated in the development proposals of future residential projects and interconnected to allow pedestrian flow to be separated from vehicle flow.
By striving to meet these goals, the local officials will better control the development of the township. Though many of these observations listed for each goal may initially seem unreachable or unobtainable, they clearly will never be attained without any effort to do so. Local officials need to positively and fairly negotiate with developers as partners in the future development in the township. They cannot go it alone nor prevent development from occurring. The key to the level of success will be cooperation.
The primary purpose of a land use plan is to adequately guide the
future development of Catawba Island Township by determining and
locating the anticipated growth of residential, commercial, and recreational activities. To achieve this objective, existing and future population statistics must be reviewed.
Catawba Island Township has two distinct types of population which
must be analyzed: seasonal and permanent. The permanent population can
be analyzed using census data and projections prepared by State
agencies. Seasonal population, on the other hand, has no single source
or reference and must be analyzed based upon several stated assumptions
and conclusions reached by the committee.
The following table depicts the year-round population for Catawba
Island Township based upon data provided by the U.S. Bureau of the
Census for the period 1960 - 2000.
Year Population % Change
1970 2,882 +62.9
1980 3,402 +18.0
1990 3,148 - 7.5
2000 3,157 -
As evidenced by these numbers, the township experienced a tremendous growth in the 1960's, modest growth during the 1970's, a reduction in permanent population during the 1980's, and a stable population base in the 1990’s. These trends were generally seen at the County level as well, but not to the degree of growth or loss experienced in the township. The County's population numbers are identified below for the same time period.
Year Population % Change
1970 37,099 +5.0
1980 40,076 +8.0
1990 40,029 -0.001
2000 40,985 +2.3
The Ohio Department of Development, after receiving the 2000
census figures, developed population projections for all of the counties in Ohio based upon the changes seen from the Census reports and
in-migration/out-migration patterns. The numbers established for Ottawa
County were as follows.
There were no population projections generated for townships or villages.
If one assumes that the projections from the Department of Development are accurate for Ottawa County and if the previous population trends on Catawba remain constant, little, if any, permanent population increase is projected. Comparing the projections of the Department of Development after the 1990 Census, Catawba Island Township was projected to increase by only 61 persons between 1990 and 2015. The growth of only nine persons between 1990 and 2000 indicates that these projected increases may be accurate. The latest population estimate for Catawba Island is from July 1, 2003 when the population was placed at 3,152.
Some members of the land use committee questioned the accuracy of these projections. The committee decided to compare housing statistics from the 1990 and 2000 Census reports and the category of persons per household to see if a trend could be seen in these categories.
Understanding that the Census Bureau often changes the definitions that they use to define housing units, the land use committee examined housing units statistics and found concerns with the reported numbers. The total number of housing units on Catawba Island in 1980 was identified as 2,875. Of these, 1,508 were identified as year-round housing units and 1,367 were identified as vacant & seasonal housing units. For 1990, there were 3,218 housing units of which 1,294 were year round housing units and 1,924 were vacant and seasonal housing units. This was an increase of 343 total housing units. For 2000, there were a total of 3,293 housing units of which 1,422 were identified as year round housing units and 1,871 were identified as vacant and seasonal housing units. The net increase of housing units for this ten-year period was only 75 total housing units with a decline in the number of seasonal housing units seen. This number seemed in error to the committee members.
An analysis of the number of persons per household was undertaken as well. By comparing 1980, 1990, and 2000 census information, it was determined that the persons per household ratio in 1980 was 2.66, in 1990 the ratio was 2.49 and in 2000 it was 2.21. Clearly, even though there were additional housing units being constructed in the township, the number of individuals residing in these units continued to decline which would explain the stable population numbers seen over the period.
In addition, the pre and post childbearing age population were examined to determine if a trend was evident. The number of the population beyond the childbearing age (45+) was 1,325 in 1980, 1,480 in 1990, and 1,825 in 2000. This reflects an older population unlikely to have children and therefore a lower persons per household number will be seen. Looking at the population within the pre-childbearing ages (<18), this number was 902 in 1980, 614 in 1990, and 570 in 2000. With less individuals entering the childbearing years, the population growth would be reduced, not including any in-migration, if all other factors remain constant. If one assumes the trend of smaller family size continues, this impact might be more dramatic.
The combination of these analyses provided sufficient evidence that, when considering the present population only, the slow projected growth rate was most likely valid. For purposes of this revision to the land use plan, a stable population base was considered.
No one counts the seasonal population. There is no Census data on this topic. There are no projections issued by the State. Everything related to seasonal population numbers is, at best, an educated guess based upon assumptions agreed upon by the estimators.
Seasonal population was projected in the 1986 - 2000 land use plan
based upon specific assumptions relative to marinas, housing units,
campgrounds, and condominiums that were selected by the land use committee at that time. Sources of this data were the licensing permits by the Board of Health and information available from the County Auditor's office. Individual spaces/units were determined for each category and then an assumption based upon persons/space or unit was calculated. The projected seasonal population using this strategy was determined to be between 5,490 and 27,450 individuals.
The land use committee in 1995 reviewed the data base used in the 1986 - 2000 plan and determined that better statistical information existed for several categories due to the sewer project. For instance, marina spaces previously estimated at 3,215 were recalculated based upon sewer billings. Using this information, the 1995 number was 3,111. Similar recalculations occurred for the other categories using these new assumptions.
It was the conclusion of the committee in 1995 that the seasonal population projections previously developed in the 1986 - 2000 plan were slightly higher than the present data would suggest. The committee felt the use of the recreational categories was also less intensive than previously calculated. The committee members felt only 30% of all boats in marinas, 50% of campsites, and 35% of manufactured homes within parks are used on any summer weekend. Using these occupancy rates against the persons/space or unit would certainly impact the seasonal population projections.
The 1995 land use committee understood that the seasonal population was more likely lower than the 5,490 to 27,450 range, but questioned the value of calculating a new range for the seasonal population. The committee looked at the existing capacity of these facilities and felt additional use could occur within these facilities. If this occurs, demand for township services may increase, but it will have limited impact upon future land use demand. No further analysis was undertaken.
The land use committee in 2005 analyzed developments that had occurred within the township between 1996 and 2005. These developments did not significantly impact the seasonal population numbers used in the previous land use plans as it relates to marinas and campgrounds. The use rates for these facilities have not significantly changed either. Concerning the condominiums and housing unit developments, the committee felt there were additional housing units being used by the seasonal population, but that there would be limited benefit in examining the changes from the 2000 census to the present.
Clearly, the present land use committee understood the impact that the seasonal population has on the township’s infrastructure. They opted, however, to use the sources of the existing data and not to generate further analyses concerning the seasonal population for this land use plan revision.
REZONING REQUESTS 1995 - 2005
In order to better understand the rezoning applications being
reviewed by local zoning officials, the land use committee examined
each rezoning application submitted since the 1995 land use plan was
prepared. There were a total of thirty-two rezoning requests during this
period. Twenty-five were approved, four were disapproved, one was
approved and went to referendum where it was disapproved, one approval was
pending a referendum vote in November of 2005 and was subsequently
withdrawn by the applicant, and one is still in the decision-making
process. In addition, there were nine text amendments initiated with
seven approved and two disapproved.
The following listing is a summary of the rezoning requests
processed. The detailed applications are available at either the office
of the zoning inspector or the Ottawa Regional Planning Commission.
“A” to “R-E” – three applications – one approved, one approved with
referendum disapproving it, and one approval subsequently
Svete Family Ltd. – 2003 – referendum - defeated
The Vineyards – 2004 – approved
James Rofkar – 2004 – approved – referendum - withdrawn
“A” to “R-1” – ten applications – nine approved, one pending (Svete)
Robert Gruly – 1997 – approved
Dawson & Keils – 1997 - approved
Salvatore Papasodaro – 2000 – approved
Michelle Kokinda – 2001 – approved
Jeanette Colbert – 2001 – approved
John Bauer – 2002 – approved
Bill Brown – 2002 - approved
Homer Lengacher – 2004 – approved
Svete Family Ltd. – 2005 – pending
James Rofkar – 2005 – approved
“A” to “R-2” – one application - approved
Miller & Keller – 1996 – approved
“A” to “R-3” – one application – approved
Robert Lemon – 2002 – approved
“A” to “R-4” – two applications – both approved
George Walls – 2000 - approved
Lois Hanko – 2001 – approved
“A” to “C-1” – one application – approved
Bonita Carsten – 1998 – approved
“A” to “C-3” – two applications – one approved, one disapproved
Snyder Enterprises – 1996 – approved
James Foard – 2001 – disapproved
“A” to “C-4” – two applications – one approved, one disapproved
Richard Winke – 1999 – approved
Lois Hanko – 2001 – disapproved
“R-1” to “R-2” – one application – disapproved
Scott Keils – 1997 – disapproved
“R-1” to “R-3” – one application – approved
Cat. Cleveland Dev. Corp. – 2002 – approved
“R-1” to “R-6” – one application – disapproved
Scott Keils – 1998 – disapproved
“R-2” to “R-E” – two applications – both approved
Eugenia Davenport – 1999 – approved
Davenport Real Estate Dev. LLC – 2003 – approved
“R-4” to “R-E” – one application – approved
Lost Lake Dev. - 2003 – approved
“R-4” to “C-1” – one application – approved
Mecurio & Roth – 2004 – approved
“C-4” to “R-1” – one application – approved
Richard Hamlin – 2002 – approved
“C-5” to “C-4” – one application - approved
Hidden Harbor Resort – 1997 - approved
“A”, “R-4”, &
“C-3” to “R-E” – one application - approved
Cat Cleveland Dev. Corp. & Midland – 2003 – approved
Clearly the majority, twenty-five of the thirty-two rezoning
requests were residential changes, predominantly from the “A” Low Density
Residential District to a higher density residential district. Only seven
of the applications were for commercial zoning district changes with the
majority of these (five) approved by the township trustees.
The primary issue or concern identified during the public hearings
was density. How much density is too much density and in what areas or
neighborhoods. This was especially true in the requests for the planned
unit development district with the two most recent rezoning requests for
this district placed upon the ballot as a referendum issue. This density
issue must be carefully analyzed by the land use committee as they prepare