2008-10-25 / Editorials & Letters

Trustee responds to 'dog warden'


This is the second time I have written a Beacon Letter to the Editor. At least this time I am not responding to a "phantom writer," but to "Dog Warden Duval". I will overlook his obvious character assassination and diatribe for the time being.

Residents should also know ALL the pertinent facts regarding one topic Duval degrades during his hypocritical politicizing rant. "Why does he abstain from voting on anything? One of the things he has voted on was the five-acre minimum lot size in the AG district - a YES vote," Duval wrote.

Here are facts people also need to know.

First, this issue was only being discussed due to recently enacted health department regulation changes and thus the current 1.6 acre minimum would no longer apply. It was recommended that ALL townships review their zoning regulations and address this issue.

Ohio Revised Code 519.12 outlines the arduous process to amend the township zoning resolution. I'll start with our township zoning commission because they had numerous public meetings on the subject, had input from many residents and eventually unanimously agreed with the Licking County Planning Commission's recommendation for a 5 acre minimum Ag lot size. There were several public hearings and meetings that lead to the lot size consensus. What most do NOT know is that Mr. Duval was/is one of the members of our zoning commission. Why did "Dog Warden" Duval vote YES? What is his point? The "Dog Warden" is one of the five unanimous votes comprising the township zoning board. It is fact that Mr. Duval and members of his family were adamant supporters of the 5-acre decision. Later on, our new "warden" apparently changed his mind, for he wanted his own neighbor to be provided a variance shortly after the amendment went into effect? What's up with that?

So in closing, indeed I voted YES for the consensus of our zoning board, I voted YES to Mr. Duval's recommendation, I voted YES to responsibility! This vote allowed the opportunity to move the decision to the ballot box for all voters to decide. Mr. Duval fails to mention that he is one of the township zoning commission members that voted unanimously for this change? So exactly who is it that has continued to misinform residents about the facts on this issue and others? Distortion and mistruth are not substitutes for facts. Who is it that contrived and mislead Brownsville residents into thinking they could not buy or sell their homes? Who was it that whispered gossip of falsehoods that "grandfathered" lots also needed to be 5 acres? Did anyone question why Trustee VanBuren and Trustee Watkins voted against consensus? They did not provide a means for the decision to go to the ballot box?

Time and space constraints have limited my response. I will gladly address Duval's other distortions. Meanwhile, we can agree on one issue. "I would like to encourage all township residents to come to the meetings to see for yourself what is going on there." The township meeting's audio can always be accessed on-line at www.bowlinggreentownship. com.

I have also taken the time to elaborate on ORC 519.12 and the specific zoning amendment process for our Ag district. The longer 1000+ word document goes into more procedural detail and how the actual voting process went down at the meeting. This is a must read, since it provides more insight into the entire process and what we could have done, had we had two trustees that wanted to deliberate/discuss this first, rather then have a simple up/down (yes/no) vote on the issue at hand. This information can be found on my personal website at www.chorpenning.com

Jeff Chorpenning Bowling Green Township Trustee

Return to top