News / Articles

Commission Defers NOACA Comment on Ohio Workforce Mobility Partnership as Farmland Grant Moves Forward

Planning Commission – February 10, 2026

Meeting Details: The Geauga Planning Commission met in Regular Session on February 10, 2026 at 7:30 am at the Geauga County Office Building, 12611 Ravenwood Drive, Chardon, OH 44024.  This meeting was in person with no virtual attendance option.  The agenda is normally available online prior to the meeting. A copy was available at the meeting.  Observer Note: The website presents the minutes and meeting dates, and the agenda is included in that section.

Public Comment Policy:  No formal policy, but in practice, public comment could be permitted at the Chair’s prerogative. However, this does not happen. No public comment is solicited or offered except in cases where an applicant or zoning inspector is present to answer questions regarding an item on the agenda. 

Board Attendance:

Staff Attendance: Linda Crombie, Planning Director, Pamela Irizarry, Administrative Assistant, and Allyson Kobus, Planner II, were present. 

Others Attending: This Observer and three other members of the public were in attendance. 

Minutes - Once approved by the board, the minutes are available online here.  Scroll down until the section on Minutes and Agendas.

Pledge of Allegiance - The meeting opened with the Pledge of Allegiance.

Roll Call - Roll was called. A quorum was present.

Approval of Minutes

• Action: The Commission approved the January 13, 2026 regular meeting minutes.

Approval of Agenda/Addendum

• Action: The agenda as presented in the packet was approved by a unanimous voice vote.

Financial Report and Approval of Expenses

Ms. Irizarry presented a monthly expense breakdown and explained how expenses were being paid from carryover accounts, including funds originating in 2024 and 2025. She also referenced a “2025 financial analysis” included in the packet provided to commission members. Key points included:

• A summary of expenditures and what was paid during the year.

• Transfers between accounts were required to cover overruns in certain lines.

• Overall budget utilization was reported as approximately 99%, with a breakdown of percentages by account.

Motion: Mr. Davis motioned to approve the financial report as submitted.

Action: Motion seconded by Mr. Bergansky and approved by voice vote by all members.

Other Business

A. NOACA (Northeast Ohio Areawide Coordinating Agency) Request for Comment: Ohio Workforce Mobility Partnership

Ms. Crombie summarized correspondence received from NOACA requesting a simple statement of support or non-support for a project described as the “Ohio Workforce Mobility Partnership.” The request was presented as a checkbox-style public comment process with a response deadline in mid-February.

Ms. Crombie recapped that Lake Tran and Geauga Transit had reportedly received a workforce mobility grant previously discussed at a prior meeting. The total project was described as about $2.9 million, intended to:

• Add six new transit drivers,

• Increase drivers’ wages, and

• Expand on-demand, door-to-door transit services (advanced scheduling up to two weeks; same-day service if available), supporting trips for work, training, education, and healthcare.

Commission discussion focused on clarifying scope and implications:

• Service area/corridors: Drivers would operate only between Lake and Geauga Counties and also within Geauga County. Members wanted more information on likely destination corridors (e.g., to hospitals, universities, or specific employment centers), but those details were not prepared for the meeting.

• Duration and sustainability: Mr. Davis questioned whether the $2.9 million was for one year or spread over multiple years, and how expanded staffing would be sustained after the grant period. The discussion included the common concern that grants can fund expansion but leave ongoing operating costs to the agency afterward. Mr. Gorris noted this was a three-year initiative (as stated during discussion), implying the total would be divided across the project term.

• NOACA’s role and the Commission’s prior stance: A significant portion of the discussion examined why the comment request came through NOACA and whether responding would be inconsistent with the Commission’s earlier letter to the County Commissioners (sent in December) questioning whether continued involvement with NOACA is appropriate. Mr. Perfetto expressed concern that endorsing anything routed through NOACA—even if NOACA was not the funding source—could weaken the Commission’s position pending a response from the County Commissioners.

• Funding source clarification: Discussion distinguished the program as an ODOT/state-administered workforce mobility program using state and federal funds, rather than a NOACA-controlled funding program. Mr. Claypool suggested NOACA’s involvement may be procedural (regional coordination/Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) process) rather than financial control.

• Whether to respond: Members generally agreed that the project itself could benefit Geauga County residents, but several felt the Commission should withhold comment until County Commissioners respond to the earlier December letter regarding NOACA.

Ms. Crombie offered to reach out directly to Lake Tran leadership to obtain additional project details and share them with the board.

Motion: Mr. Claypool motioned to provide no response to NOACA’s request for comment at this time.

Action: Motion seconded by Mr. Johnson. Vote carried with one opposition (Mr. Davis). The chair announced the motion passed. Ms. Crombie indicated she would share any additional information gathered from Lake Tran leadership.

Additional context raised during discussion: Mr. Claypool cited a 2013 example where County Commissioners communicated opposition to NOACA involvement beyond roads/bridges, tying the current issue to a longer-running concern about NOACA’s activities outside what members described as its “core mission.” (This was presented as historical background, not as an agenda action item.)

Major Subdivisions to be Reviewed - None

Township Zoning Amendments to be Reviewed - None

No township zoning amendments were presented for this meeting. It was noted that one amendment is expected for the next meeting.

Director’s Report – Ms. Crombie

Ms. Crombie reviewed her Director’s Report covering current work activity, committee participation, and legislative updates.

Key items reported included:

• New building lots: Two new building lots were reported early in the year, both in Auburn Township.

• Land use planning assistance: Progress work on Thompson Township planning tasks was noted, with a desire to complete that work to focus on the farmland preservation plan.

• Revolving Loan Fund committee: Ms. Crombie noted her appointment to a Revolving Loan Fund committee for a two-year term administered through the county’s Community & Economic Development department, used for gap financing tied to job creation/retention and income eligibility requirements. She described expected time commitment as minimal based on past experience.

• House Bill 361 (township zoning timing): Ms. Crombie described HB 361 as proposing significant changes to township zoning and review timelines (including a proposed 30-day action concept for Board of Zoning Appeals variances, and timeframes for amendments). She also reported that a group of county planning directors prepared comments expressing concern that rigid statewide timelines may not reflect local realities.

• Ohio Maple Trail: Ms. Crombie announced maple syrup festival dates (March 7–8 and March 14–15) and indicated brochures were available.

• Commercial construction activity: Ms. Crombie noted a substantial 133,000 sq. ft. warehouse addition in Burton Township.

• Zoning mapping: Ms. Crombie reported completing an updated zoning map for Claridon Township, including an update reflecting Aquilla Village zoning status.

• Solar/wind prohibitions: Ms. Crombie reported that Middlefield Township requested information on prohibiting large-scale solar and wind; she explained county commissioners may designate restricted areas even where a township lacks zoning, and provided information accordingly.

• Legislative tracking – House Bill 640 (septic / site evaluations): Ms. Crombie highlighted HB 640 as potentially significant, describing it as possibly reducing required soil evaluations for new septic systems unless the health department has a good-faith public health/safety concern. She noted the Ohio Legislative Service Commission analysis was not yet available and would be helpful for digesting the bill.

No formal motions were taken under the Director’s Report.

Correspondence

No correspondence was reported.

Old Business

A. Ohio Department of Agriculture Farmland Grant

Ms. Crombie provided an update on the farmland grant application process, which includes a requirement to collect letters of support from jurisdictions and partner organizations. 

• Letters were sent to approximately 40 communities/jurisdictions, including sample language to simplify replies.

• About 10 letters of support had been received to date, with tracking in place for non-responders. Ms. Crombie planned to follow up by phone due to the short timeline and to increase response rates.

• The application deadline was described as the end of the month, and staff were compiling required information, including the list of supporting entities and calculations about farmland/agricultural acreage represented by participating jurisdictions.

• Ms. Crombie discussed budgeting the grant request up to the program limit (~$25,000) with an estimated total near $24,978, covering staff time, possible consultant support, prosecutor review, and public forum materials (maps, displays, mailers, flyers).

Members discussed whether the Planning Commission should formally authorize execution of a Planning Commission support letter and continuation of the grant application work. Mr. Bergansky suggested simplifying the signing process by authorizing only key officers to sign.

Motion: Mr. Bergansky motioned to authorize staff to continue completing and submitting the grant application and to finalize the Planning Commission’s support letter with signatures from Commission officers (chair/vice chair/secretary) as discussed.

Action: Motion seconded by Mr. Davis and approved by voice vote with no dissension.

New Business

A. Draft 2027 Budget Request

Ms. Crombie introduced early discussion for the 2027 budget due to an April submission timeline. Topics included:

• Potential addition of a planner/farmland coordinator position, anticipating recommendations emerging from the farmland preservation plan. Ms Crombie described a preliminary budget estimate reflecting wages and benefits (noting benefit cost variability depending on insurance elections).

• Rationale for role division: a new position could take on lot split reviews and farmland coordination, enabling the current Planner II/GIS role to focus more on land use planning and advanced/interactive mapping for the website.

• Proposed increases for training/seminars/travel (members expressed support for keeping staff current with changing requirements and best practices).

• Replacement/upgrade needs for computing equipment to support GIS and data-heavy workloads.

Members generally agreed the topic was timely for planning purposes but also noted it may be premature to commit budget resources for a position before the farmland plan is completed and specific recommendations are finalized. Ms. Crombie asked whether to begin drafting job descriptions now or wait. Mr. Gorris requested that a list of responsibilities be created in lieu of trying to complete a full job description

Consensus: No vote taken. Members agreed that a preliminary task list/outline could be useful, with continued monthly updates as farmland plan work progresses.

B. Determination of “Injuriously Affect” (ORC 711.24): Canyon Lakes, Phase 15, Sublot 406

Ms. Crombie presented a request related to a plat change in Canyon Lakes (Phase 15, Sublot 406). The homeowner requested relocating a stormwater infiltration berm shown on the plat. As presented:

• The existing berm location was close to the home and bisected the backyard.

• The proposed relocation moved the berm toward a conservation area boundary (still within the lot), reducing backyard disruption while maintaining stormwater functionality.

• Soil & Water personnel indicated they did not expect adverse impacts if grading and swales are constructed to direct water appropriately and avoid runoff onto neighboring properties. They described the berm as a stormwater quality feature designed to infiltrate runoff (including overland flow and downspout discharge) within a target timeframe (described as within roughly 48 hours).

Ms. Crombie explained the Planning Commission’s role under ORC 711.24: to determine whether the change would “injuriously affect” other lots/streets/alleys, which could trigger signature requirements from affected property owners. Members discussed framing the determination cautiously due to the technical nature of drainage.

Motion: Mr. Davis motioned to find that it appears the modification would not injuriously affect other lots within Canyon Lakes Phase 15, allowing preparation of a replat for future review/approval.

Action: Motion was seconded by Mr. Bergansky and approved unanimously by voice vote.

C. 2025 Year End Report

Ms. Crombie reported completion of the 2025 Year End Report (finished the prior day) and described it as consistent with prior-year formats, summarizing workload volumes (plats, easements, lot splits, etc.), new housing starts by jurisdiction, GIS/intern contributions, and farmland plan task force progress. Ms. Crombie asked the commission members for review prior to posting on the website.

Action: No vote taken. The Commission agreed to include the report in the March packet for review and acceptance prior to posting.

Adjournment

The meeting adjourned at 8:41 am following a motion and unanimous vote.

Next meeting: March 10, 2026.

More Information about the Geauga Planning Commission is available online. 

Observer: David Lewis

Editor: Carol Benton

Reviewer: Rooney Moy

Submitted: February 18, 2026

The League of Women Voters of Geauga is a 501(c)(3) nonpartisan political organization that encourages informed and active participation in government, works to increase understanding of major public policy issues, and influences public policy through education and advocacy. They do not support or oppose individual candidates or parties. Learn more about the LWVG at www.lwvgeauga.org.