Letter: More to commission meeting story than reported
I was extremely disappointed in your interpretation of the Monday Zoning Commission meeting.
I was at that meeting and heard all of the comments that were made. The tone of the meeting was 50/50 for and against the change in wording.
For anyone reading your article, they would most likely think that only the Stark County Zoning Board and GTL Energy were for the change. That was not true! There were a great number of us there in favor of the wording change.
The ways that things have been done by this board have been wrong for the last 26 years because they were only notifying property owners instead of getting signed approval for all zoning changes. This wording change is not just for a specific industrial zone, but for all future zoning change applications. This is a property rights issue and nothing more.
Is it right for one person to be able to shut down any proposed zoning changes before it’s even brought before the zoning board for a public hearing? Absolutely not! We live in a republic society and elect people to represent us. The way the ordinance was written 26 years ago takes away one’s property rights and allows one person to decide what a person can or cannot do on his or her own land without a public hearing.
Another problem I have with your article is that you stated that the Stark County state’s attorney shot down an amendment presented by Mr. Trechock. This also was not true. His proposed changes were given to the secretary of the board, but this was a public meeting for comment only.
The state’s attorney told Mr. Trechock and Robert French of GTL Energy to stick to commenting on the wording change only, and not to comment about the coal beneficiation plant. You need to tell the entire story!
Your coverage of this meeting was overwhelmingly one-sided and did not accurately portray what happened at this meeting. You can, and need, to do a better job.
Steven Finsaas, South Heart