Home > Blogs > Mason and Deerfield Township News and Issues > Archives > 2008 > April > 02 > Entry
Deerfield Twp. zoning issues
Residents in Deerfield Twp. have questioned proposed zoning decisions in several cases recently. The township has proposed several zoning changes along the Fields Ertel corridor. Commercial developers have said the changes severely restrict their ability to redevelop existing vacant properties. Residents have complained changes to the residential sector in that area are unnecessary. Township officials wanted to get the changes in place before the year-long moratorium was set to lift in May. With the changes on hold for the moment, the township extended the moratorium another four months. The latest zoning issue involves an administrative appeal filed in the Warren County Common Pleas Court. A group of residents want the court to overturn a Zoning Board of Appeals decision approving the construction of a new Russian Church in the Woodfield subdivision on Columbia Road. I’d like to hear your thoughts on both of these zoning matters. Click here to view the pending Deerfield Twp. Zoning Amendments
Permalink | Comments (2) | Post your comment |
Comments
By Jerrry
April 2, 2008 3:38 PM | Link to this
I think we need to tred carefully with zoning issues, lest we develop another Field’s Ertel situation. I don’t think we can have too many churches in a community, but at the same time, traffic flows are a major concern to me and my wife. She works in Cincinnati, sometimes on weekends, and Sunday morning commutes are absolutely murder. I welcome the church in principle, but there must be a line drawn somewhere before our roads become parking lots.By doug
April 2, 2008 3:40 PM | Link to this
“The township has proposed several zoning changes along the Fields Ertel corridor. Commercial developers have said the changes severely restrict their ability to redevelop existing vacant properties.” First thought I have on this is about the commercial properties — if they’re complaining about the new changes were they already in the works to fix up the vacant buildings? It seems builders and/or developers are always quick to jump on a cause. If they’re being hindered by a proposed law that’s one things… but if they’re protesting a “possible” law for a “possible” project in the future, then they’re in the wrong.