Mrs. Turben asked if court times will be scheduled or do people just show up to play.
Mr. Kopilchack stated that there would be a schedule and players would need to reserve a time before arriving.
Mayor Duncan asked who commissioned the drainage study.
Mr. Kopilchack said that it was required by the City.
Mayor Duncan noted that he would like Pointe Oakwood residents to have the opportunity to review the drainage study. He said that he is not concerned about the noise, but he is concerned about the drainage and that the residents may not have received a notice about the September 4 Planning Commission meeting.
Mr. Stephens agreed and suggested that the application be tabled.
Mr. Jacques explained that city staff knows that the legal advertisement was properly published in the Oakwood Register, and the neighbor letter was prepared and is in the case file but there is no way to prove mailing/receipt of the neighbor letters by ordinary mail, so it should be assumed that the mailing did not go out. He explained that legally, this is not a fatal procedural defect because the neighbors still had an opportunity to appear and be heard before Council made a decision. In other words, it does not compromise the neighbors’ due process rights and does not require starting the process over.
Mr. Stephens asked if there had been any noise complaints regarding the pickleball courts in Oakwood.
Mr. Klopsch said that he was not aware of any complaints.
Mr. Kopilchack asked for clarification on why the application was being tabled.
Mayor Duncan stated that due to a meeting notice not being received, for the drainage study to be reviewed by the neighbors and to investigate the need for a sound mitigation study. He then asked if this should go back to the Planning Commission,
Mr. Stephens said that Council should take time to review, but it does not need to go back to the Planning Commission. He suggested that the application be tabled.
Mrs. Turben and Mrs. Jackson suggested that it go back to the Planning Commission.
Mr. Jacques reiterated that lack of a notice is not a fatal procedural defect and does not require the process to start over at the Planning Commission.
Mayor Duncan said that he believes the application should go back to the Planning Commission so they can hear the people in opposition of the application.
Mr. Stephens agreed.
Mrs. Jackson asked if she needed to restate the motion.
Mr. Jacques said she needed to restate the motion.
Thereupon, it was moved by Mrs. Jackson and seconded by Mrs. Turben that the resolution be denied with the understanding that the applicant will reapply promptly to put the matter back before the Planning Commission.
Upon call of the roll on the question of the motion, the following vote was recorded:
There being four (4) yea votes and no (0) nay votes thereon, said resolution was declared duly denied and it was so ordered.