Minutes-03/09/1983

The Tiffin City Council met in special session on March 9, 1983 at the Tiffin Methodist Church in order to discuss the fringe area study. Mayor Pro-tem Voc called the meeting to order at 7:15 p.m. Council-members present were Brown, Spivey, Rohret. Mayor Potter and Councilman Stevens was absent. Also present were Barbara Bechtoldt, Judd TePaske, Ralph Stoffer, John W. Grace. No one spoke during community forum. Motion Spivey second Brown to approve agenda. TePaske distributed study materials which discussed areas and provided options for each area and two maps. The new maps divided the fringe area into different areas of study. Areas one and two are south of town. Areas three, four and five are surrounding Tiffin and extend to the western limits of the study. Areas six and seven are north of town. Area three: Alternative two keeps area zoned as A-1 on a long term basis. The county would discourage non-farm uses. Alternative one would allow some development in area, especially near highway and other residential developments. Subdivision regulations should be enforced by the county. Areas surrounding the creeks would be zoned A 3 flood plain by the county. TePaske pointed out that if residential development is encouraged in the Ludwig area, it could conflict with using areas one and two for industrial uses. Recommendation: The city does not have any interest in annexation of this area and county may make decisions about zoning and subdivision control. Area four: This area is made up of many small land owners and has many natural boundaries. Some good farm land exists between the city and the developed area. Alternative one would provide limited residential development under county subdivision rules. Alternative two would stop residential development. Recommendation: The city does not have an interest in annexation of this area and county may make decisions about zoning and subdivision control. Area five: This area is similar to area three only north of the highway. It has good farm land. Alternative one would keep the area in farm use. Alternative two would provide for a case by case evaluation of non-farm uses. Recommendation: The city does not have an interest in annexation of this area and the county may make decisions about zoning and subdivision control. TePaske pointed out that the two maps present areas six and seven differently. This does change the boundary of area five but would not affect the use of the land in area five. Study map one contains an equal amount of land in six and seven as is in the city now, and also has some drainage problems. TePaske will take city's recommendations back to the county Board of Supervisors and report at next meeting. Areas one and two will be discussed on April 13, 1983 at 7:00 p.m.