Minutes of the Meeting of the Rootstown Township Zoning Board of Appeals
March 20, 2007

The regular meeting of the ROOTSTOWN ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS was held on Tuesday, March 20, 2007 at 7:00 P.M. at the Rootstown Town Hall.

Those present:
Troy Cutright, Chairman
Eugene Mills
Alfred Friedl
Patricia Saillant
Michael Finan
Darrell Wayt

Those absent:
Deron Boring

Also in attendance:
Zoning Inspector, Jim Mahood
Assistant Zoning Inspector, Van Black
ZBA Secretary, Mary Ann Greer

Mr. Cutright called the meeting order. Mr. Cutright introduced the Board members and explained the evenings' procedures.

The first item on the agenda was reconsideration of an application for a variance from Section 310.04-F-3 for property (vacant land) located on Biltz Road (parcel no. 32-038-00-00-020-001) in order to make the lot buildable based on additional information not previously heard submitted by:

Jeffrey J. & Dawn Blake
4604 Cobblestone Trail
Ravenna, OH 44266

Mr. Cutright swore in Dawn Blake, 4604 Cobblestone Trail. Mrs. Blake said she had done some research. She went to Portage County Regional Planning (PCRP) and found out that as far back as 1894, they were 2 single non-conforming lots with a width of 117 feet. She showed the Board a map showing that on April 11, 1990 when one of the lots was cut in half and added to an existing non-conforming lot.

Mr. Mahood said the reason this was brought back up was that Mrs. Blake received a letter from PCRP. It drew his attention to Section 450.06-B-1 and when he looked at it and read it, he came to a conclusion and he wanted to make sure that he didn't make a wrong decision. He went up to Mr. Meduri's office and asked him to read this section. Mr. Mahood did not give Mr. Meduri any background. Then Mr. Mahood showed him the map that was presented by Mrs. Blake and asked him if that lot would come under this section. Mr. Meduri asked a few questions regarding ownership and where was the house planning to be built. Mr. Mahood said no one was building on the lot. It was to be sold as buildable lot. Mr. Meduri gave Mr. Mahood his opinion and that is why it is here today.

Mr. Mills asked to see proof of your statement that zoning said it was a lot of record in 1894. Mr. Mills said he could not find it recorded as 2 lots in 1894. Mrs. Blake showed the Board the map and the deeds she had. The Board discussed the situation while looking at the map and deeds.

Mr. Mills said the Board could stand by their decision in February and Mrs. Blake could appeal or the Board could table it until information was received that would allow the Board to make another decision based on those facts.

Mr. Friedl read the Section on non-conforming lots. If the lot were under common ownership after 1971; in order to develop it, it would have to be replotted to conform.

Mr. Blake said they had a paper that talked about a single non-conforming lot of record. They meet the area requirements just not the width. Mr. Friedl said there was nothing wrong with the lot except the width. If several lots are owned, you must combine them to meet the requirements. Mrs. Blake said that each lot remained 3 and 1/3 acres prior to 1990. Mr. Friedl asked if both lots were under the ownership of one party. Mrs. Blake said she believed so. Mr. Mills said prior to 1990, it was one lot. Mrs. Blake said they were single lots up until April 11, 1990. Then a portion of one was taken and added to their lot. Mr. Friedl inquired as to how long the front house had been there. Mr. Blake said the last time Mr. Hollaway was there, he said the house had been there since about 1950.

A discussion was held on the two lots being under the ownership of one person. Mr. Mahood said it needed to be summed. The Board needed to know who owned the whole piece in 1990. Mr. Mills said these lots needed to be proven as lots of record prior to zoning in 1970 in order for it to be considered a non-conforming lot. Mr. Friedl said they had to follow the regulations. If the lots were under different ownership (that's the key) then it would comply.

Mr. Cutright said they could purchase some land from the neighbors to make it a buildable lot.

Mr. Meduri said Mr. Mahood had to follow the Board's decision. Mr. Mills said it had to come back to the Board since a legal decision was made even it would be buildable.

Resolution ZBA 2007-007. Mr. Mills made a motion to table the request until proof of new information is presented and studied by the Board. Mrs. Saillant seconded it. Mr. Black said at one time, he didn't know when it was, lots were allowed a 100 feet frontage. Mr. Mills said in his research, he could not find any information since 1970 that lots in the R-1 District were anything but 150 feet frontage. A vote was taken as follows: Saillant - Yes Friedl - Yes Mills - Yes Wayt - Yes Cutright - Yes. The motion carried unanimously (5/0).

Second on the agenda was an application for a variance from Section 310.005-2-A for property located at 2682 Sandy Lake Road (parcel no. 32-044-00-00-022-000) for an addition for the home (lakeside). This is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of substantial property rights. Submitted by:

Nahas Construction Corp.
3067 Endicott Way
Silver Lake, OH 44224

Mr. Cutright swore in Mike Nahas, 3067 Endicott Way. Mr. Nahas said they wanted to put a 16 x 30 addition on the lakeside of the house. It would be the width of the house, which is 16 feet.

Mr. Friedl had no questions.

Mrs. Saillant had no questions.

Mr. Mills inquired as to what was on the lakeside (an imaginary line of 180 feet). The addition would be almost touching it. Mr. Nahas said it was Mr. Dix's aunt's property. Mr. Mills asked how close was her house to that line. Mr. Nahas said the proposed addition would be about 7 feet off that line. The house was about 20 to 22 feet.

Mr. Wayt had no questions.

Mr. Cutright had no questions.

Mr. Cutright asked the audience if there were any questions, comments, or concerns. There were none.

Mr. Cutright reviewed the application

Resolution ZBA 2007-008. Mr. Mills made a motion to approve the variance request based on the information presented to the Board and recognizing that Sandy Lake is an Association that was there prior to zoning, therefore there is no defined lot line from Section 410.12-A. Mr. Friedl seconded it. A vote was taken as follows: Friedl - Yes Saillant - Yes Mills - Yes Wayt - Yes Cutright - Yes. The motion carried unanimously (5/0).

Last on the agenda was an application for variances from Sections 420.06 (A-2), 420.06 (A-3), 420.06 (A-8-c) and 420.07 (C) pertaining to signage for property located at 4300 - 4450 Lynn Road (parcel no. 32-021-00-00-034-006) in a L-2 District submitted by:

Jonathan M. Epling
102 Oak Hill Circle
Rootstown, OH 44272

Mr. Cutright swore in Jonathan Epling, 102 Oak Hill Circle. Mr. Epling said he was requesting several free standing signs for property located on Lynn Road. There were 4 requests. The first one was for the number of free standing signs. The project they were doing, they have four buildings. They want one sign per building to identify the businesses there. There are three entrances off Lynn Road, one at the East Side and one at the West Side and two in the center. On the far east and West Side that is where the signs are that kind of flank the entrances. On the center entrance there would be a large sign, that would bridge over the entrance.

Mr. Friedl said he had checked out the signs and the right-of-way. Many of those signs are actually placed inside the road right-of -way. 6 of the signs are in the right-of-way and one is right on it and two are just off it. One of the problems is that the right-of-way is 60 feet for the west entrance and 40 feet for the east entrance. If you followed the setback the signs would be staggered which is not the intention of zoning. The main concern is they are so close to the road it becomes a hazard. If you would comply by putting the signs at the 10-foot setback, you would be in violation of another part of zoning. You can not put signs in the parking lot. The lay of the land was unique.

Mrs. Saillant had no questions.

Mr. Wayt had no questions.

Mr. Mahood said he went out and took measurements. The 1st entrance sign on the West Side was 26 feet off the centerline and the 3rd was 14 feet off the centerline.

Mr. Friedl explained his list of items that were done on the computer using Excel. The circumstances are very unique. The shape of the land and the change of the right-of-way were unique. Following the zoning setback requirements would make you in violation of another section. Signs can not go on the parking lot. The height of the signs depends on the lay of the land. Signs can go on the front of the buildings. There were three units per building.

Mr. Cutright said he walked up and down the street to see where the signs could be put.

Mr. Mills questioned as to why the signage request was not presented when the buildings were. Mr. Epling said he didn't realize he was in violation until Mr. Mahood called him on the phone and informed him the he was in violation of the setback requirements. It was my own mistake. He knew there were size regulations. Mr. Mills asked when Mr. Epling was notified about being in violation. Mr. Epling said he called late December of 2006 and stopped work on the signs. He should have brought it to the Board in January.

Mr. Mills asked for a clarification as to the one building that is almost finished, is one of 4. Mr. Epling said that was correct. Mr. Mills asked Mr. Epling if he was aware that one of the signs was sitting on top of the Rootstown Water line. Mr. Epling said it wasn't. Mr. Mills said that everything he had found shows that it was sitting on or very close to the water line. If the line ever breaks (water or sewer), and he has to have a back hoe in there and it takes 6 to 10 feet, there is no way they can work around that without destroying it. Who would pay for it? Mr. Epling said it would be on him. Mr. Mills asked if the County was aware that the parking lot was sitting on their line. Mr. Epling said he would assume so. Mr. Mills said there was no way for the Water Company or the County to get in there to work on the lines if there were to be a problem. Mr. Epling explained where the water line was. The water line is only 1 foot below the footers. Mr. Mills asked if the Rootstown Company and the Sanitary Department had approved the plans. Mr. Epling said it was. He had permits.

Mr. Epling said they had done taps for all 4 buildings. They had dug down and exposed the water lines. The sewer (force main) is only like 2 feet deep or whatever. Mr. Mills said on a busy day, people traveling on Lynn, when it would be wet, wouldn't you be concerned that those signs would create a safety hazard. Mr. Epling said he was but he tried to take all those things in to consideration.

Mr. Mahood said he didn't think the sign was the problem, it was the architectural feature where it is being placed. Mr. Mills asked if it was being moved from the pavement. Mr. Mahood maybe he could put an island in the parking lot and put it higher. Mr. Friedl said there could reasonable signs on the buildings (3 per building). Zoning states you can not have freestanding signs for all those businesses. 1 large one is allowed.

Mr. Cutright said his problem with this request was not the number of signs but the safety feature. He referred to the mailboxes. Mailboxes can be put anywhere where the mailman can get to them. Mr. Friedl asked if there were any plans for signs on the front of the buildings. Mr. Epling said they were trying to keep the buildings clean. There would be small signs on the glass doors. He asked the Board if they had any options that he could use instead of the ones presented.

A discussion followed on the possibility of where the signs could be put. Mr. Epling said the signs would be nicely landscaped. There is a need to accommodate each building for signs. Parking spots could not be determined until it was known what type of business would be going in. Parking will be shared. Mr. Mills asked what would be under the building that was up. Mr. Epling said his business would be taking 3 bays for maintenance equipment. Mr. Mills said there were a lot of problems with these signs. Mr. Mills said what would happen if 2 parking spots at each end were given up. This would put the signs away from the water and sewer lines and the edge of the pavement. He suggested moving the arch back to the edge of the sewer line.

Mr. Cutright asked the audience if there were any questions, comments, or concerns. There were none.

Mr. Cutright reviewed the application

Resolution ZBA 2007-009. Mr. Friedl made a motion to approve sign 1 of the variance request. Mr. Cutright seconded it. A vote was taken as follows: Saillant - No Mills - No Friedl - Yes Wayt - No Cutright - No. The motion was denied by a vote of 1/4.

Resolution ZBA 2007-010. Mr. Friedl made a motion to approve sign 2 of the variance request. Mr. Cutright seconded it. A vote was taken as follows: Friedl - Yes Saillant - No Mills - No Wayt - No Cutright - No. The motion was denied by a vote of 1/4.

Resolution ZBA 2007-011. Mr. Friedl made a motion to approve sign 3 of the variance request. Mr. Cutright seconded it. A vote was taken as follows: Mills - No Wayt - No Saillant - No Friedl - No Cutright - No. The motion was denied by a vote of 0/5.

Resolution ZBA 2007-012. Mr. Friedl made a motion to approve sign 4 of the variance request. Mr. Cutright seconded it. A vote was taken as follows: Wayt - No Mills - No Saillant - No Friedl - Yes Cutright - No. The motion was denied by a vote of 1/4.

Resolution ZBA 2007-013. Mr. Friedl made a motion to approve sign 5 of the variance request. Mr. Cutright seconded it. A vote was taken as follows: Saillant - No Friedl - No Mills - No Wayt - No Cutright - No. The motion was denied by a vote of 0/5.

Resolution ZBA 2007-014. Mr. Friedl made a motion to approve sign 6 of the variance request. Mr. Cutright seconded it. A vote was taken as follows: Friedl - No Saillant - No Mills - No Wayt - No Cutright - No. The motion was denied by a vote of 0/5.

Resolution ZBA 2007-015. Mr. Friedl made a motion to approve sign 7 of the variance request. Mr. Cutright seconded it. A vote was taken as follows: Mills - No Saillant - No Friedl - No Wayt - No Cutright - No. The motion was denied by a vote of 0/5.

Resolution ZBA 2007-016. Mr. Friedl made a motion to approve sign 8 of the variance request. Mr. Wayt seconded it. A vote was taken as follows: Wayt - No Mills - No Saillant - No Friedl - Yes Cutright - No. The motion was denied by a vote of 1/4.

Resolution ZBA 2007-017. Mr. Friedl made a motion to approve sign 9 of the variance request. Mr. Wayt seconded it. A vote was taken as follows: Friedl - Yes Saillant - No Mills - No Wayt - No Cutright - No. The motion was denied by a vote of 1/4.

Resolution ZBA 2007-018. Mr. Friedl made a motion to approve the height of the sign 4 (arch) for 17 feet from Section 420.07-C. Mr. Wayt seconded it. A vote was taken as follows: Saillant - No Mills - No Wayt - Yes Friedl - Yes Cutright - No. The motion was denied by a vote of 2/3.

Resolution ZBA 2007-019. Mr. Friedl made a motion to approve the variance request against Section 420.06-A-2 (actual number of freestanding signs). Mr. Cutright seconded it. A vote was taken as follows: Mills - No Saillant - No Wayt - No Friedl - No Cutright - No. The motion was denied by a vote of 0/5.

Resolution ZBA 2007-020. Mr. Friedl made a motion to approve the variance request from Section 420.06-8-C (additional sign area for large lot). Mr. Cutright seconded it. A vote was taken as follows: Saillant - No Friedl - Yes Mills - No Wayt - Yes Cutright - No. The motion was denied by a vote of 2/3.

Mr. Mahood questioned whether or not Mr. Epling could reapply for additional signage before a year lapsed. Mr. Friedl said he could come back to the Board with additional information. Mr. Cutright said the requests were all turned down.

A discussion followed on the signage and if there was chance to pass any of the signs.

Resolution ZBA 2007-021. Mr. Friedl made a motion to remove 3 motions (Resolution ZBA 2007-012, 019 and 020). Mr. Cutright and Mr. Wayt seconded it. A vote was taken as follows: Wayt - Yes Saillant - Yes Mills - Yes Friedl - Yes Cutright - Yes. The motion carried unanimously (5/0).

Resolution ZBA 2007-022. Mr. Friedl made a motion to approve sign 4. Mr. Cutright seconded it. A vote was taken as follows: Saillant - Yes Friedl - Yes Mills - No Wayt - Yes Cutright - Yes. The motion carried a vote of 4/1.

Resolution ZBA 2007-023. Mr. Friedl made a motion to approve variance against Section 420.06-A-8-c (additional area from 75 to 80 square feet). Mr. Cutright seconded it. A vote was taken as follows: Wayt - Yes Mills - Yes Saillant - Yes Friedl - Yes Cutright - Yes. The motion carried unanimously (5/0).

Resolution ZBA 2007-024. Mr. Friedl made a motion to approve the variance against Section 420.07-C (ht. of freestanding signs) of 17 feet. Mr. Cutright seconded it. A vote was taken as follows: Friedl - Yes Saillant - Yes Mills - Yes Wayt - Yes Cutright - Yes. The motion carried unanimously (5/0).

Mr. Epling inquired about the welcome signs (1 & 2 and 8 & 9). Mr. Friedl said they were in the same line. Mr. Epling said if he moved signs 8 and 9 back so they would be comply. Mr. Friedl said he would not have to come before the Board. Mr. Epling said if he moved signs 1 and 2 back 4 feet, they would be in with 8 and 9.

Resolution ZBA 2007-025. Mr. Friedl made a motion to reconsider the motions for signs 1 and 2. Mr. Cutright seconded it. A vote was taken as follows: Friedl - Yes Saillant - Yes Mills - Yes Wayt - Yes Cutright - Yes. The motion carried unanimously (5/0).

Resolution ZBA 2007-026. Mr. Friedl made a motion to approve signs 1 and 2 of the variance request with the condition that they are 30 feet from the centerline. Mr. Cutright seconded it. A vote was taken as follows: Friedl - Yes Saillant - Yes Mills - No Wayt - Yes Cutright - Yes. The motion carried by a vote of 4/1.

Resolution ZBA 2007-027. Mrs. Saillant made a motion that signs 1 and 2 be moved within 90 days from March 20, 2007. Mr. Cutright seconded it. A vote was taken as follows: Mills - No Friedl - Yes Saillant - Yes Wayt - Yes Cutright - Yes. The motion carried by a vote of 4/1.

Resolution ZBA 2007-028. Mr. Friedl made a motion to accept the minutes of the February 20, 2006 with the following correction, page 4, delete Mr. Friedl from paragraph 8. Mrs. Saillant seconded it. The motion carried unanimously (5/0).

There will be a joint meeting with the Trustees, Zoning Commission and Zoning Board of Appeals on March 26th at 6:00 with dinner being catered.

Mr. Cutright adjourned the meeting.

Troy Cutright, Chairman
ROOTSTOWN ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS

Mary Ann Greer, Secretary BZA
ROOTSTOWN ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS