BZA Green Vision Materials March 13, 2012 continued

Ann Wishart — Sat, 30 Mar 2013 05:00:00 GMT

Mr. Fidel asked the board how they wished to proceed. Mr. Yaecker said he had requested this continuance to review the Jan 27, 2012 the Findings of Fact; the board made no comments at this time. Mr. Fidel reviewed the options: approve, deny (that could lead to a court suite/Judgement Entry) or withdrawal of the variance requests. Mr. Gibney said he understood these options.

Mr. Yaecker said he had problems with the lot utilization that surely would impact the neighboring properties: the proposed Ober residential development, a mega-dollar hotel at Panzica’s, concern over outdoor patios at Zeppe’s and the new winery due to open mid April and potential loss of future investments along the corridor. He questioned whether the BZA had the authority to grant this Use Variance whether the courts would uphold this decision when composting/mulching is not a permitted use in the zoning code. He submitted Exhibit A (1/24/12) from George Smerigan (GS) stating the research on the Duncan Factors was well researched and proposed using them as the Findings of Fact.

Mr. Fidel acknowledged that Mr. Smerigan was hired by the township for his opinion and questioned just how much of GS’s answers to use. He asked the board to review their Jan. 27, 2012 Findings of Fact (FF): * board comments added 3/13/12

1) The property is unique: it is environmentally impacted by the EPA mandated test wells with negative economic viability due to the attached stigma and long-standing rumors.

2) The former owner – * Manfredi family - created the present conditions,

3) There have been no written complaints regarding dust and noise during operation – * verbal complaints have been received from Zeppe’s, other neighbors, Mr. Gibney conceded wind-driven odor occurs when piles are turned/open,

4) The Geauga Health Commissioner ascertained “there were no significant public health issues” nor did he foresee any liquid overflow with the recommended bio-swale-disposal,

5) The spirit and intent of zoning cannot be met as Newbury zoning code does not allow composting, * mulching is operated now under a conditional use permit even though not a permitted use in the zoning code. Mr. Yaecker read GS response; Mr. Wong requested “strike out composting”.

6) A Use Variance is the minimum action to afford relief, * yes, a UV is minimum relief but does BZA have enough justification to grant a UV?

7) There are options for permitted uses that are economically viable in the B-1 district. * Mr. Fidel said there is always some use possible for any property but these lots split minimal B-1 and maximum R-1 zoning.

Mr. Fidel asked the board to speak up and called for a motion. Mr. Skomrock Sr. confirmed the option choices; aye, nay or withdraw. Mr. Wong said the BZA was convened on the applicant’s behalf but must consider issues affecting others. Ms. Brezina said her issues were not complicated: 1) the BZA should not adopt the attorney’s (GS) point of view but develop their own FF, 2) she is bothered by the applicant’s expansion onto another’s property without zoning permission, the piles are too high and too close to the road, the prevailing winds blow odors (? objectionable) away from Zeppe’s/Panzica’s and 3) the applicant submitted no plans for expansion in the B-1 district before owning the property. She said she must form her opinions from the applicant’s past actions. She questioned whether the BZA could grant this UV considering possible buffers, plantings, pile height/visibility, long-term decisions: what is vs. what might be – not reality.

Mr. Gibney responded that his prior expansion was an error in judgement, these actions are in the past, that he will correct all present violations and work for the future betterment of the township. He countered that he was operating here before Zeppe’s arrived, could not invest new money till the zoning status was confirmed, that there had not been one confirmed complaint regarding odor in the past 10 years and this hearing dealt with what is not what if.

Mr. Wong explained he had driven by the mulching operation in Hartville and observed no odors but conceded odors could be a problem. The BZA could consider the corridor esthetics but not odors without evidence. Mr. Skomrock Sr. confirmed the BZA had no written complaints but questioned whether the board’s FF were sufficient considering possible litigation and the impact of future business development in Newbury.

Mr. Fidel reiterated his opinion that this hearing should be handled as a conditional use (CU) permit with his specific recommendations: ** with B. Gibney’s comments

1) The applicant should commit to buy the property, ** BG said he was open to this,

2) Discuss mounds on 3 sides with evergreen plantings for visible shielding, noise and wind-driven odor.

3) Tear up old driveway asphalt to confirm to 75 ft. setbacks.

4) Monitor piles, both raw and finished, for 20 ft. max. height and 30 to 40 ft. spacing between piles for fire access ** BG said this was reasonable,

Mr. Wong asked clarification for multiple zoning districts of B-1, R-1 in a Judgement Entry. He disliked the “forever use” of a Judgement Entry in this case. Discussion continued regarding the Impullitti business on Rts. 87 & 44. Ms. Endres confirmed that landscapers were a legal, non-conforming use in the M-1 district. She confirmed the BZA can’t grant a conditional use not permitted in the zoning code. Mr. Fidel countered that a CU is granted to the business but does not stay with the property. Ms. Endres affirmed that each district has its own list of CU permitted uses. Mr. Yaecker quoted from Art. 17: the BZA cannot go beyond the powers granted to it.

Mr. Fidel asked the board for any more comments. Mr. Skomrock, Sr. said the rules made by township residents take away the applicant’s BZA right of appeal leaving only (3) costly court options.

Mr. Fidel asked the board for additional comments or questions. There being no more questions, Mr. Fidel called for a motion:

Chris Yaecker moved to deny (using GS FF) the Use variance as requested; Mary Lee Brezina seconded the motion. Mr. Fidel stated that a yes vote would deny the Use variance as requested.

The roll call vote was as follows:

Chris Yeacker yes

Mary Lee Brezina yes

Bill Skomrock, Sr. no

Tezeon Wong no

Ray Fidel no

The motion did not pass for lack of 3 affirmative votes.

At this time Mr. Fidel allowed Carl Manfredi to speak from the audience. Carl stated that Mr. Gibney is entitled to an answer. He then gave a brief history of the property and the Manfredi family ownership: his parents came from Sicily in 1914 for a better life, were fishermen, became farmers with brother-in-law ( who later started Micelli’s), split off 50 acres to farm with a solid-tired truck in 1918, moved in with 4 kids, no running water or indoor plumbing, no electricity, paved roads or volunteer fire department, made/sold bootleg wine during prohibition, saw the township progress with 4 self-sufficient groceries, 13 taverns and funded fire dept. with the growth/loss of Newbury Industries, Prots Bi-Rite and Great Lakes Cheese ( largest employer in the county), Manfredi’s sold with subsequent tax revenue losses to the township. His former growth philosophy of spending each dollar 20 times within the community has changed to excess vacant land for exurban residential, business services with no grocery store and minimum retail shops. Mr. Ralston asked if he intended to convert the current houses into offices for doctors, dentists, accountants, etc. Carl replied he always envisioned growth/development west to Auburn Rd.

Mr. Wong said he had a problem with a Use Variance that permanently stays with the land instead of restrictions for periodic review of conditions. Discussion continued regarding the Land Use Plan, amending the application and time limit restrictions.

Mr. Fidel asked Mr. Ralston if he were interested in buying the Manfredi property? He replied “if the price was right” commenting that the land could be put to much better use and “mulch piles don’t pay taxes”.

Mr. Gibney stated he is open to future development but the economy now is in a stalemate forcing decisions in-hand vs. what might be, acknowledging business in Newbury has regressed vs. more vibrant Middlefield/Chardon, concluding that some business is better than no business.

John Manfredi asked whether they must go forward or possibly go back because everyone involved wants to work toward the most viable solution: same options – aye, nay or withdraw.

Mr. Fidel asked the board for additional comments or questions. There being no more questions, Mr. Fidel called for a motion:

Mr. Wong moved to approve the Use Variance – there was no second to this motion.

1) The property is unique: it is environmentally impacted by the EPA mandated test wells with negative economic viability due to the attached stigma and long-standing rumors.

2) The former owner created the present conditions,

3) There have been no written complaints regarding dust and noise during operation,

4) The Geauga Health Commissioner ascertained “there were no significant public health issues” nor did he foresee any liquid overflow with the recommended bio-swale-disposal,

5) The spirit and intent of zoning cannot be met as Newbury zoning code does not allow composting,

6) A Use Variance is the minimum action to afford relief,

7) There are options for permitted uses that are economically viable in the B-1 district.

Mary Lee Brezina seconded the motion. Mr. Fidel stated that a yes vote would deny the Use variance as requested.

The roll call vote was as follows:

Chris Yeacker yes

Mary Lee Brezina yes

Bill Skomrock, Sr. no

Tezeon Wong yes

Ray Fidel yes

Mr. Fidel informed the applicant his Use variance request was denied. Mr. Gibney agreed to withdraw his pending Area Variance request.

Mr. Fidel read to the Appellant and audience, “Within 30 days after service of the minutes denying your request, if someone wishes to challenge this decision through the court, he or she may. The challenge could reverse or negate our decision. Mr. Fidel informed the Appellant and the audience that the 30-day period commences with the Appellants’ signing receipt of the signed minutes. They will be mailed registered return receipt to the Appellant. All persons receiving notice of the hearing will receive copies of the minutes.

Mr. Fidel recommended:

1) That Mr. Gibney file an appeal during the 30 day window,

2) that Mr. Gibney be allowed to operate his business during any appeal process,

3) if he should lose his appeal, he be allowed up to one year to remove the piles and restore the property.

Mr. Wong agreed a judge should settle the questions raised during this hearing.

Mr. Fidel adjourned the hearing at 9:25 p.m. As the applicant left, Board members wished him good luck.

Marge Hrabak

Secretary

Signatures of the Newbury Board of Zoning Appeals:

_________________________ ____________________________

Tezeon Wong, Chris Yaecker

_________________________ _________________________

Mary Lee Brezina Bill Skomrock, Sr.

_________________________ __________________________

Ray Fidel, Chairman Marge Hrabak, Sec’y BZA

Date: ____________________

BZA Craggy Gardens LLC Jan. 8 2013

Ann Wishart — Wed, 13 Feb 2013 06:00:00 GMT

The Newbury Township Board of Zoning Appeals public hearing was called to order by Mr. Ray Fidel, Chairman, at 7:30 p.m. on January 8, 2013 with Board members, Bill Skomrock Sr., Chris Yaecker, Ken Blair and Lou Tomsic present

All in attendance who wished to speak for this hearing were duly sworn and asked when testifying to state their name and confirm being sworn in. Ray Fidel read the applicants request:

Lorinda Nawrochi, dba Craggy Gardens LLC, requests a use variance to locate a landscaping business (vs, Art. IV & XVIII, Sec. 4.01A & 18.00- non permitted use in B-1) located at 10635 Kinsman Rd. in the B-1 commercial district.

Mr. Fidel questioned the board regarding this landscaping business applying for a Use Variance that stays with the property, or whether a conditional use that is reviewed every 5 years is more appropriate. Discussion continued between Mike Joyce and the board regarding the BZA’s authority to grant a Use Variance, or a Conditional Use for a non-permitted use that might be considered spot zoning. In summary, the BZA has only two choices; approve or deny. The denial could be challenged in court. The court challenge could result in: an agreed Judgment Entry with the Township Trustees (ordered by the court), a court approval or a court denial.

Mr. Fidel asked the board for comments. Mr. Skomrock Sr. said he sees no problem with the applicants’ request. Mr. Yaecker cited prior examples where the prosecutor disagreed with the BZA’s changing/approving a Conditional Use that could result in problems with a future sale and financing. He advised the applicants not to accept a Conditional Use.

Mr. Fidel asked the applicants to state their case. Mrs. Nawrochi read from a prepared statement offered as Exhibit A. In summary:

a) location: presently Varner’s Auto Body Shop at 10635 Kinsman Rd. with setback & parking variance issues,

b) their purchase agreement is contingent on zoning approval,

c) landscape business background: 26 years as Outdoor Concepts “providing quality landscape services installed by professionals”, 20 years rented (outgrown) space from Chester Rental - now need to expand, they are 13 year Fairmount Rd. Newbury residents, who employ 4 to 15 employees Monday thru Friday occasional Saturdays with 3 trucks for snowplowing starting a t 4 am.

d) neighboring businesses along Rt, 87 identified with similar services to the community as allowed in the B-1 commercial district – there are no retail sales at this location,

e) improved streetscape/landscaping designs illustrated on presented drawings,

f) proposed interior building renovations for offices and equipment storage,

g) outside parking – office & handicapped next to the building, spaces for 15 employees plus 7 trucks and 5 trailers,

h) space for bulk material (mulch, soil, gravel, etc.) & pallet storage in the rear,

i) education, certification & company landscape image – employees wear uniforms, trucks have logos to reflect professionalism.

j) Business plan implementation – an asset to fit in with the changing business climate from neighborhood retail to big-box stores - citing numerous vacant retail locations & the difficulty selling older “auto body” businesses vs. the newest auto-technology requirements.

k) Operations: only office employees on site during the day, employees arrive 6:30 to 8 am - leave 9 am - return by 5 to 6 pm with little activity on site during the day.

Mr. Fidel inquired about the current car dealer lease - it expires on 3/19/13.

Jeff Nawrochi presented easel drawings: the Property Layout showed the proposed building improvements for offices and equipment, acknowledging the current 65 ft. building R-o-W setback vs. the current 75 ft. requirement. He pointed out the physical lot restrictions: a swamp and a creek in the rear making it unusable and a culvert limiting the west side setback. He noted the location of the well and septic at the rear of the building. On the second drawing he showcased the proposed exterior landscaping designs with evergreens in the green setback areas, a new planter-bed at the corner of the building and a stone planting wall as the east boundary.

Mr. Yaecker asked how much of the rear area was usable – Mr. Nawrochi estimated about 150 ft. with the brush cut down and gravel overlay added.

Mr. James Varner asked to speak. He identified James and Charles Varner as owners of the property presenting a brief history: the property was purchased in 1975, now older “body-men” are retiring, reduced business revenue with newer required auto technologies. They tried unsuccessfully to sell for four years with successive lease tenants – latest expires 3/19/13 - tenant is aware of this variance request. Their auto shop equipment is portable and will be sold separately. The trailer goes with the property – Mr. Nawrochi will dispose of it.

Mr. Vic Cizek, a 29 year broker with Realty Net, reviewed the commercial sales of auto related dealerships all with other industry buyers. Older auto body shops are the most restricted due to newer automation equipment requirements – suitable buyers may all need variances.

Mr. Fidel asked the board for comments. Mr. Tomsic asked if there was a cover on the well – yes. Mr. Skomrock Sr. said he had no problems with the application and would favor a R-o-W setback in line with the front of the building. Mr. Blair said he had no questions at this time.

Mr. Yaecker asked whether the well and septic had been checked by the Health Dept. Mr. Nawrochi said the system has been functioning as designed – he offered a copy of the certificate # 1020304 dated 7/26/12. He also indicated any future expansion would take place to the rear of the building now used for exterior material storage.

Mr. Yaecker cited the goals for the improvement of the 87 Corridor that favored Landscape designers not simply “grass cutters”. Mr. Nawrochi said he currently operates out of 750 sq. ft office with parking for 7 trucks plus supplies of gravel and mulch. He displayed his website showing promotional photos, before and after, of previous jobs in various eastern suburbs.

Mrs. Narochi said she had spoken with Glen Quigley who seemed very interested in their project.

Mr. Fidel said the hard part was the Use Variance requirements. Mr. Varner offered “looks like a win-win situation”. Mr. Yaecker recited the previous Judgement Entry process used by Impulletti resulting in a model landscape business model. Mr. Nawrochi agreed “do it right – image is most important”.

Mr. Fidel described the 14 to 17 landscaping companies in Newbury, some here even before zoning. Mr. Yaecker insisted the Judgment Entry was the proper legal way allowing the trustees to negotiate a more comprehensive and permanent agreement. Lou Tomsic said he favored the proposed improvements to the property via the Judgment Entry route. Mr. Skomrock Sr. said he was all for the project, done either way, citing the applicant’s right of appeal. He favored changing the setback to be in line with the building front with material piles no larger than 15 cubic yards. Mr. Blair said he was in favor of granting the variance.

Mr. Yaecker reminded the board that they must first answer the Use Variance questions – the board raised to opposition.

Mr. Fidel called for a motion. Ken Blair moved to grant the use variance as requested; Bill Skomrock, Sr. seconded the motion. The board then answered the questions for written justification presented by the applicants:

a) The conditions are not unique to this lot,

b) The applicants did not create these conditions,

c) The variance would not affect the rights of adjacent owners – many are of “like” businesses,

d) This business use would have no adverse side effects on public health, safety or general welfare,

e) The zoning spirit and intent were debated – the use is not currently permitted but could be an improvement in line with the 87 Corridor goals,

f) There are other options to afford minimum relief: request a zoning variance or a Judgment Entry agreement.

g) There may be other viable commercial uses for this property but the auto-repair facility has been for sale for over 3 years with no interested buyers. There were no neighbors in attendance to voice any objections.

Mr. Fidel stated the BZA has authority to grant a Use Variance. He then read the “conditions for landscapers” allowed in the M-1 district.

Mike Joyce reminded the group they must act on the motion before the board.

Mr. Fidel suggested the board agree to a hearing continuance to allow for due-diligence deliberations. He asked the applicants whether they would agree to re-convening this hearing on Jan. 22, 2013 at 7:30 p.m. here at the Town Hall – they both said “yes”. The board unanimously approved the continuance request.

Mr. Blair asked whether he should withdraw his motion – no - the motion was still open and active for voting at the next continuance hearing.

Mr. Fidel reminded those in attendance that all information has been given at this hearing – there would be no further testimony taken at the Jan. 22, 2013 continuance hearing.

Mr. Fidel adjourned this public hearing at 9:00 p.m.

BZA Craggy Gardens January 22, 2013

Ann Wishart — Wed, 30 Jan 2013 06:00:00 GMT

The Newbury Township Board of Zoning Appeals public hearing was called to order by Mr. Ray Fidel, Chairman, at 7:30 p.m. on January 22, 2013 with Board members, Bill Skomrock Sr., Chris Yaecker, Ken Blair and Lou Tomsic present. Mr. Fidel announced this was a continuance of the Jan 8, 2013 hearing when all testimony had been heard and any new testimony was closed for this hearing.

All in attendance who wished to speak for this hearing were duly sworn and asked when testifying to state their name and confirm being sworn in.

Mr. Fidel said he had been thinking about this request and personally felt that passing a Use Variance would be the best solution for Newbury Township. For 4 years Varners have been unsuccessful in selling this property and “we don’t need another vacant building along the 87 Corridor”. He said he felt the applicants were solid citizens with a 25 year proven record in their successful landscaping business.

He then asked Realtor Vic Cizek whether there were any open industrial sites in the M-1 district for a landscape business to locate in Newbury. He said there were none other than Manfredi’s property that is not zoned M-1. Mr. Fidel said the Nawrochis will improve this property, the board could add conditions but none are needed other than those already in place for landscapers in the M-1 district. The building use would be for office, supplies, equipment and exterior parking. Currently Newbury has seen a different used car dealership there every six months (10 in total) with the present tenant parking cars all over the lot in violation of his conditional use permit. This landscaping business would be a much better choice, eliminating the used car dealers who don’t follow the rules.

Mr. Fidel asked the board for comments. Mr. Skomrock Sr. said he sees nothing wrong with the applicants’ proposal. He would suggest changing the parking setback to line up with the front of the building at 65 ft. from the R-0-W. He had seconded the motion to approve the Use Variance. He said he drives by this property frequently noting that cars are parked everywhere possible if not on top of the building – in total non-compliance with zoning.

Mr. Varner confirmed that the present used car dealer lease expires in March but could be renewed if a sale is not concluded.

Mr. Yaecker said he had spoken to the trustees: Glen Quigley was committed, Jan Blair thinks the Nawrochis would represent a nice improvement – a positive conversation also discussed the Judgment Entry option. It is legal for the BZA to grant a Use Variance but adding conditions seems to vary with each judge’s opinion. It is OK to add conditions to a Conditional Use Permit.

Mr. Yaecker said he likes the Nawrochi’s plan but thinks the trustees should handle it with a Judgment Entry. Discussion continued regarding considering or ignoring enforceable conditions, other scenarios or “the buck stops here”.

Mr. Fidel said he had no intentions of having this case go to court, “get it done now”. He read the email response from the prosecutor confirming the grant-or-deny BZA options on this Use Variance plus clarifying the independent status of the BZA, the trustees and the zoning inspector. Also noted were her comments on conditions on variances vs. conditions on Conditional Use Permits.

Mr. Yaecker said granting this Use Variance could result in having businesses with no regulation vs. expediency rulings. The BZA must represent Newbury in balance with the applicant’s request.

Mr. Skomrock Sr. said trustee Bill Skomrock was never notified; he believes that neither Chris Yaecker, Mike Joyce or Susan Weiland should run the BZA hearing, nor does the NZResolution say the ZI should tell the BZA how to run their meeting. The 5 member BZA appointed board has the right to grant a Use Variance – if any mistakes are made, the trustees could sue them. He said he and others had attended zoning classes where differing judge’s opinions were cited regarding Use variances and conditions on variances. He opinioned that Ray Fidel had done a good job of accepting testimony,

Mike Joyce responded: the BZA acts as a judge in a quasi-legal court hearing, the ZI acts as the prosecutor. Mr. Fidel quoted the Lawyers in Columbus said the ZI should NOT attend BZA hearings.

Lou Tomsic said he sees both sides of the coin, thinks the Nawrochis have a great plan and welcome to the community. He questioned whether this would be considered spot zoning. He agreed that a Judgment Entry adds more complications, uncertainty and costs, about $10,000 in his case. There are merits and drawbacks on both sides.

Mr. Fidel said “this Use Variance is self-sufficient and called for Ms. Hrabak to read the previously entered motion:

Ken Blair moved to grant the use variance as requested; Bill Skomrock, Sr. seconded the motion.

The roll call vote was as follows:

Ken Blair yes

Bill Skomrock, Sr. yes

Lou Tomsic no

Chris Yaecker no

Ray Fidel yes

The request for the Use Variance has been passed.

It was noted that the justification questions had been addressed and answered in the previous hearing.

Mr. Fidel then asked the board to take up the Area Variance for the parking setback. Ms. Hrabak pointed out that the applicants had not submitted a request for an Area Variance. Discussion continued regarding the parking setback at 65 ft in line with the grand fathered building: noted by the BZA board and asked for in the given testimony and plans.

Mr. Fidel stipulated the Use Variance was passed “as requested”. Some board members were unsure whether the parking issue was included.

Mr. Fidel read to the Appellant and audience, “Within 30 days after service of the minutes granting your request, if someone wishes to challenge this decision through the court, he or she may. The challenge could reverse or negate our decision. Mr. Fidel informed the Appellant and the audience that the 30-day period commences with the Appellants’ signing receipt of the signed minutes. They will be mailed registered return receipt to the Appellant. All persons receiving notice of the hearing will receive copies of the minutes. At the time you receive your permit you must also comply with all other requirements of Newbury Township zoning”.

Mr. Fidel adjourned the BZA hearing at 8:10 p.m. As the applicants left, Board members wished them good luck.

_________________________ ____________________________

Ray Fidel, Chairman Chris Yaecker

_________________________ _________________________

Ken Blair Lou Tomsic

_________________________ __________________________

Bill Skomrock, Sr. Marge Hrabak, Sec’y BZA

Date: ____________________

ZC October 24, 2012

Ann Wishart — Wed, 31 Oct 2012 05:00:00 GMT

On October 24, 2012 the Newbury Township Zoning Commission (ZC) held their regular scheduled monthly meeting in the upstairs meeting room of Newbury Town Hall. Carolyn Paschke called the meeting to order at 7:15 p.m. with Jerry Hudak, Judd Douglas, Sue Wagner, Margaret Avalon and new members Edward Delulius and Mike Nelson present.

Judd Douglas moved and Sue Wagner seconded the approval of the September 26, 2012 minutes that passed by unanimous vote.

Carolyn Paschke presented a brief summary of the amendment changes (2012-1) for the ZC previously approved code for wind turbines (WT), solar panels (SP), land-banking (LB) and conditional use (CU) that she had delivered for the trustees’ 9/5/12 meeting.

The board reviewed the Planning Commission’s comments on the proposed 2012-1 amendment and agreed to postpone any public hearing till the PC’s concerns had been resolved.

Ms. Paschke said she felt that Glen Quigley’s email comments regarding “wind farms in residential areas” were blown out of proportion and that he did not fully understand the code as presented.

Sue Wagner and Lou Tomsic had used Auburn’s code as a model for EPA permitted small (<5 mw) WT that the Planning Commission subsequently questioned whether townships had the authority to require fees and bonds for reclaiming roads and decommissioning WT – answers should come from prosecutor’s office. It was also noted that state grant assistance for WT is no longer available reducing new WT applications.

Mike Nelson didn’t understand Glen Quigley’s comments that zoning codes for WT were not needed. Sue Wagner said if WT were permitted they needed some regulations. More discussion on WT should be scheduled for the January Tri-Board meeting where trustees, ZC and BZA members share their concerns and offer suggestions to revise regulations for commonly approved area variance requests and address conditional use violations/corrections in the business district.

The board recommended using the ORC definition for composting and adding “mulch sales” to prohibited uses in the B-1 district. The board concluded that the definitions for Conditional Use and Land Banking should be re-submitted to the Planning Commission.

New items for review should include streamlined parking spaces in NZR 11.06C.

The next ZC meeting is scheduled for November 28, 2012 at 7:00 p.m.

Ms. Paschke adjourned the meeting at 9:15 p.m.

Signatures of the Zoning Commission

__________________________ __________________________

Chairman, Carolyn Paschke Judd Douglas, Vice Chairman

________________________ __________________________

Sue Wagner Jerry Hudak

__________________________ __________________________

Margaret Avalon, 1st alt. Edward Delulius

____________________________ __________________________

Michael Nelson Attest: Marge Hrabak, Sec’y,

__________________________

Date:

BZA Lee Fenrich October 2, 2012

Ann Wishart — Tue, 30 Oct 2012 05:00:00 GMT

The Newbury Township Board of Zoning Appeals public hearing was called to order by Mr. Ray Fidel, Chairman at 7:30 p.m. on October 2, 2012 with Board members, Mary Lee Brezina, Bill Skomrock Sr., Chris Yaecker and alternate Lou Tomsic present. Ms. Endres presented screen views for board review. All in attendance who wished to speak at this hearing were duly sworn and asked when testifying to state their name and confirm being sworn in. Mr. Fidel read the area variance request:

Lee Fenrich requests an area variance for a 36’ x 24’ accessory building 17 ft. from the west side lot line (vs, Art. V, Sec. 5.05 req’d 30 ft. side setback). The property is located at 11971 Music St. in the R-1 district.

Mr. Fidel asked Mr. Fenrich to present his case. He showed the location on the screen of the proposed new rear garage as an extension of the existing driveway citing the 4 to 5 foot slope west to east that will require an 8 course block for the east foundation wall precluding a pole barn design. He said the well is to the east of the present garage. He knows where the survey pins are front and rear but the line slopes downhill without exact interim pins.

Mr. Fidel asked the board for any additional comments or questions.

Mr. Tomsic said he thought the new garage location was the logical place given the topography. Mr. Skomrock Sr. agreed that this was the logical site and the new accessory building would also enhance the property. He asked if the building would have utilities. Mr. Fenrich replied electrical only, no water or sewer. He said he would insulate and sheetrock for indoor storage of his hobby items: autos, signs etc.

Ms. Brezina also agreed this was the logical site for the driveway extension because of the ground drop-off.

Mr. Yaecker asked where the septic field was. Mr. Fenrich replied the tanks are at the rear of the house with the leach field in front of the house. Deed restrictions were clarified as only pertaining to the original construction.

Mr. Fidel then asked for questions or comments from the audience. Mr. and Mrs. Wawzyniak identified themselves as neighbors to the west and stated they had no objections to the placement of the new garage 17 ft. from the property line.

Discussion continued regarding the height and pitch of the new garage – Mr. Fenrich stated it would be similar and no higher than the original attached garage, about 6 to 7 ft. high.

Ms. Endres said she had instructed Mr. Fenrich that the building could not be used for an apartment nor to run a business and the permit was valid for 2 years. He said he would provide any “as-built” construction changes for the zoning file.

There being no more questions, Mr. Fidel called for a motion stating that a yes vote would grant the area variance as requested.

Bill Skomrock Sr. moved to approve the Area Variance as requested, Mary Lee Brezina seconded the motion that passed by unanimous vote.

Chris Yaecker yes

Bill Skomrock, Sr. yes

Lou Tomsic yes

Mary Lee Brezina yes

Ray Fidel yes

Mr. Fidel adjourned the BZA hearing at 7:45 p.m. As the applicants left, Board members wished them good luck.

The board established the Findings of Fact:

1) The lot could yield a reasonable return without the variance however the owner wants this accessory building/detached garage for much needed storage.

2) The variance is substantial but reasonable given the topography restricted east side.

3) The essential character of the neighborhood would not be altered nor would adjoining properties suffer substantial detriment as a result of this variance.

4) The variance would not adversely affect the delivery of government services.

5) The lot owner purchased the property knowing the zoning restrictions.

6) The owner’s predicament could not feasibly be obviated without this variance as the topography restricts the building foundation and extending the existing driveway.

7) The spirit and intent behind the zoning requirement would be observed by granting this variance. The neighbors in attendance had no objections to the new building placement.

Mr. Fidel adjourned the meeting at 7:52.

Marge Hrabak Secretary Signatures of the Newbury Board of Zoning Appeals:

_________________________ ____________________________

Mary Lee Brezina, V. Chairman Bill Skomrock, Sr.

_________________________ ________________________

Chris Yaecker Lou Tomsic, Alt.

_________________________ _________________________

Ray Fidel, Chairman Marge Hrabak, Sec’y BZA

_________________________

Date:

BZA Fenrich October 2, 2012

Ann Wishart — Tue, 30 Oct 2012 05:00:00 GMT

Mr. Fidel asked the board for any additional comments or questions.

Ms. Brezina also agreed this was the logical site for the driveway extension because of the ground drop-off.

Discussion continued regarding the height and pitch of the new garage – Mr. Fenrich stated it would be similar and no higher than the original attached garage, about 6 to 7 ft. high.

There being no more questions, Mr. Fidel called for a motion stating that a yes vote would grant the area variance as requested.

Bill Skomrock Sr. moved to approve the Area Variance as requested, Mary Lee Brezina seconded the motion that passed by unanimous vote.

Chris Yaecker yes

Bill Skomrock, Sr. yes

Lou Tomsic yes

Mary Lee Brezina yes

Ray Fidel yes

Mr. Fidel adjourned the BZA hearing at 7:45 p.m. As the applicants left, Board members wished them good luck.

The board established the Findings of Fact:

1) The lot could yield a reasonable return without the variance however the owner wants this accessory building/detached garage for much needed storage.

2) The variance is substantial but reasonable given the topography restricted east side.

3) The essential character of the neighborhood would not be altered nor would adjoining properties suffer substantial detriment as a result of this variance.

4) The variance would not adversely affect the delivery of government services.

5) The lot owner purchased the property knowing the zoning restrictions.

6) The owner’s predicament could not feasibly be obviated without this variance as the topography restricts the building foundation and extending the existing driveway.

7) The spirit and intent behind the zoning requirement would be observed by granting this variance. The neighbors in attendance had no objections to the new building placement.

Mr. Fidel adjourned the meeting at 7:52.

Marge Hrabak Secretary Signatures of the Newbury Board of Zoning Appeals:

_________________________ ____________________________

Mary Lee Brezina, V. Chairman Bill Skomrock, Sr.

_________________________ ________________________

Chris Yaecker Lou Tomsic, Alt.

_________________________ _________________________

Ray Fidel, Chairman Marge Hrabak, Sec’y BZA

_________________________

Date:

BZA Ho Mita Koda October 16, 2012

Ann Wishart — Tue, 30 Oct 2012 05:00:00 GMT

The Newbury Township Board of Zoning Appeals public hearing was called to order by Mr. Ray Fidel, Chairman at 8:30 p.m. on October 16, 2012 with Board members, Mary Lee Brezina, Bill Skomrock, Sr., and alternates Ken Blair and Lou Tomsic Jr. present. Ms. Endres presented photos for board review. All in attendance who wished to speak at this hearing were duly sworn and asked when testifying to state their name and confirm being sworn in. Mr. Fidel read the area variance request:

Tina Milano, agent for Diabetes Partnership of Cleveland, requests an area variance to construct a 5250 sq. ft. activity pavilion on the 72.31 acre Camp Ho Mita Koda located at 14040 Auburn Rd. in the R-1 district (vs, Art. XIV, Sec. 14.04 B,C,D & F extension of non-conforming uses).

Mr. Fidel asked Ms. Milano to present her case. She said she was the interim CEO and President of the Diabetes Partnership and asked Mr. Ward Dumm trustee to make the presentation. He offered that the camp name Ho Mita Koda meant “welcome my friends” in the Sioux language. On the screen he pointed out the current old steel beam, high roofed activity building with the view of the tennis courts and fencing in the rear. Nearby is a 2 car garage that needs repair. After much discussion concerning the required repairs the camp trustees proposed to replace the pavilion and garage on the same footprint with a structure that will better serve the current needs. He presented the large-scale drawings for the proposed pavilion with a lower roof profile (40 ft down to 28 ft.) enclosing garages, storage areas and 2 new bathroom facilities. The overhead garage doors would provide better air flow when open and protection from the bad weather when closed. They prefer steel roofing but finance limitations may require shingles.

Mr. Fidel asked the board for questions or comments. Mr. Tomsic asked whether there were bathrooms in the present pavilion – Mr. Dumm answered no but two new bathrooms (boys & girls) would tie into the existing sewer plant without any usage increase. They plan to scrap out older equipment and consolidate storage in the new building. On rainy days the old pavilion was not big enough and no – the new building is not large enough for indoor basketball. Mr. Tomsic asked about the age of the old building. Mr. Dumm said Lincoln Electric had donated the structure that was rebuilt on site many years ago.

At this time Mr. Fidel acknowledged latecomer visitors and asked that they be duly sworn in if they intended to speak – which was done.

Mr. Skomrock Sr. said he saw no problem with the pavilion replacement on the same footprint and complimented Mr. Dumm on his presentation of this well-thought-out improvement. Ms. Brezina said she liked the new design incorporating new bathrooms for the kids, storage, doors for all-weather usability and lower lighting to reduce neighborhood glare. Mr. Tomsic agreed the new structure provides better all-around utility. Mr. Blair agreed the new pavilion would improve the area with better design usage.

Mr. Fidel opened the hearing for questions and comments from the audience. Mr. Schuette, northern neighbor on Auburn Rd, said he had no objection as the replacement pavilion used the same footprint. Mr. Dumm pointed out that there would be less sq. ft. coverage on the same pad. Mr. Proudfit, a new lot owner on Fairmount Rd, asked about the septic system. Mr. Dumm said the same kids would either use the new or old bathrooms so there is no usage increase, the plant is inspected every five years and remains well within its capacity. Ms. Kachele who lives on Fairmount Rd. said she hears the noise of the operating septic system but does not notice any smell. Mr. Dumm said he would investigate if the noise could be reduced. Discussion continued regarding the septic system, the discharge location and subsequent treatments.

Ms. Endres asked about any new outdoor lights. Mr. Dumm said there would be none facing Auburn Rd, but there would be one interior safety light.

There being no more questions, Mr. Fidel called for a motion stating that a yes vote would grant the area variance as requested.

Mary Lee Brezina moved to approve the Area Variance as requested; Lou Tomsic Jr. seconded the motion that passed by unanimous vote.

Ken Blair yes

Bill Skomrock, Sr. yes

Lou Tomsic, Jr. yes

Mary Lee Brezina yes

Ray Fidel yes

Mr. Fidel adjourned the BZA hearing at 8:50 p.m. As the applicants left, Board members wished them good luck.

The board established the Findings of Fact:

1) The lot could yield a reasonable return without the variance however the camp needs to replace the old pavilion/garages on the same footprint.

2) The variance is not substantial as it is for a replacement building on a very large lot.

3) The essential character of the neighborhood would not be altered nor would adjoining properties suffer substantial detriment as a result of this variance.

4) The variance would not adversely affect the delivery of government services.

5) The lot owner purchased the property prior to any zoning restrictions.

6) The owner’s predicament could not feasibly be obviated without this variance.

7) The spirit and intent behind the zoning requirement would be observed and substantial justice done by granting the variance for a replacement structure with all-weather, storage and bathroom usability. The neighbors in attendance had their questions/concerns answered and had no objections to this variance.

Mr. Fidel adjourned the meeting at 9:00.

Marge Hrabak Secretary

Signatures of the Newbury Board of Zoning Appeals:

_________________________

Ray Fidel, Chairman

_________________________ ____________________________

Mary Lee Brezina, V. Chairman Bill Skomrock, Sr.

_________________________ _________________________

Ken Blair, Alt. Lou Tomsic, Jr. Alt.

_________________________ _________________________

Date: Marge Hrabak, Sec’y BZA

Newbury BZA Frederick September 4, 2012

Ann Wishart — Sun, 30 Sep 2012 05:00:00 GMT

The Newbury Township Board of Zoning Appeals public hearing was called to order by Mr. Ray Fidel Chairman, at 8:40 p.m. on September 4, 2012 with Board members, Mary Lee Brezina, Bill Skomrock, Sr., Chris Yaecker and alternate Lou Tomsic Jr. present. Ms. Endres posted the site on screen for board review. All in attendance who wished to speak at this hearing were duly sworn and asked when testifying to state their name and confirm being sworn in. Mr. Fidel read the use variance request:

R. Blake Frederick requests a use variance for an indoor shooting range, gunsmithing, firearm services & sales (non-permitted uses), at 12375 Kinsman Rd., #G leased from Newbury Business Park in the M-1 district (vs, Art. IV & XVIII, Sec. 4.01A “any use not specifically listed shall be prohibited” & Sec. 18.00 structure and use must fully comply with NTZR).

Mr. Markowitz introduced himself as attorney representing Blake Frederick requesting a Use Variance for a shooting range business in Bldg “G” that had previously resulted in a Judgment Entry (JE) to another applicant for this location. Mr. Frederick has signed a lease for Bldg “G” with Charles White, owner of Newbury Business Park, who is here tonight.

Mr. Fidel asked Mr. Frederick to present his case. He said he is experienced in the shooting range business as the owner of Sherwin Shooting Sports in Eastlake and wants to expand his shooting range business at Bldg “G” . He said he grew up in Burton and Claridon, was an ’85 graduate, now lives in Novelty, was a United Way Director, served in the Army National Guard, has lots of military experience, installs manual target systems throughout the country as well as retrofits target systems in older buildings. For the past 3 years he has explored options to build a shooting range in Newbury: at the Teague Plaza, then Panzica’a new buildings but neither worked out till he heard about the JE and looked at Bldg “G” that is in an Industrial Park, centrally located away from traffic where noise would not be an issue. The design, length and width of Bldg “G”, are a positive fit for the shooting range. His proposal is somewhat different than Ms. Swartwout’s as he would utilize only one building, there would be no firearm resales, but a shooting range with a small target system manufacturing, assembly and storage area. He is now in a 6700 sq.ft. retail facility for shooting range, gunsmithing and target systems.

Mr. Frederick said that in his business on-line sales dominate, that Great Lakes Outdoor in Middlefield has everything, guns, ammo et al, and he must live with realities. He would have 12 shooting lanes with 2 additional lanes for use with his target systems, not for 30-06 or larger, with granular bullet traps as part of his target system. He could have his business open for operation by year end. In his view, this would be a benefit for the community as well as the county; realistically it is not practical for two shooting ranges in Newbury. His range is the same as outlined in the approved JE, he has a signed lease for this industrial Bldg “G” away from homes and neighbors, that will provide a needed indoor range for the public and law enforcement officers qualification requirements now done outdoors. Currently Bainbridge is the only township with its own indoor range. South Russell expressed an interest in leasing one-day-a-month for their qualification needs.

Mr. Frederick described his proposed straight-thru air handling system as “air in = air out” that makes sense for this area. In winter the air may not be as warm and in summer not quite as cool. Recycling systems are “nice but expensive to operate”. Bldg “G” walls are easy to panelize for sound deadening with acoustic quilts hanging vertically to absorb sound and overhead baffles to deflect shot.

Mr. Fidel asked the board for questions or comments. Mr. Yaecker asked whether this would utilize the same footprint as the previous JE – same footprint, some ventilation changes, acoustic panels to assure no noise can be heard outside, and the range would comply with all applicable codes for Wildlife, OSHA & EPA. Mr. Yaecker questioned were adequate safety measures available in this 1971 building. Mr. Frederick said he will install roll-down, lockable drapes over the firearm displays so they would be secured in position. He will sell ammo at a discount but he can’t compete with Walmart. He also deals in specialty ammo and hard to find parts.

Ms. Swartwout said she was unable to secure financing for a leased facility and now Mr. Frederick wants a shooting range on the same site. Chuck White says he is in the business of leasing buildings in Newbury Business Park and as long as a tenant pays on time, how the tenant finances his build-out is not his problem.

Mr. Skomrock Sr. asked if Mr. White was the owner – Mr. White and his ex-wife are sole owners of Newbury Business Park. Mr. White said the closest neighbor to Bldg “G” was The Cleveland Plain Dealer who work at night with no day-time activity. This is the best store in the block, the building is quite sound-proof now but will be totally sound-proof with the acoustic rebuild. Mr. Yaecker asked if Mr. White had talked to any Bldg “G” neighbors about this new shooting range. Mr. White had not specifically talked to neighbors about the new applicant but responded “everyone knows about Ms. Swartwout’s range and ask when she’s moving in”.

Mr. Skomrock Sr. asked whether Mr. Frederick would be manufacturing the target systems on site – he said yes and knows he would need to apply for a business permit before opening. He will be testing customer’s ammo, especially rifle ammo, with 308 cal allowed but not 30-06, with pressures not known.

Mr. Fidel asked the board for any additional comments or questions. Mr. Tomsic said he had none, Ms. Brezina also had none at this time.

Mr. Fidel opened the discussion for questions from the audience. Mr. David Williamson said he was impressed with Mr. Frederick’s good business presentation but he and his son own adjoining properties and “don’t want gun-slingers walking around next door”. In his opinion, a building built specifically for a shooting range is better than a retrofit building. Mr. Jim Pracker, of 14830 Watt Rd. Novelty, questioned the security at this location and its saferooms. Mr. Frederick reiterated he will not manufacture ammo in Newbury but may test small specialized ammo. He told Mr. Pracker that accidents in Eastlake gunstores were “none of his business”.

Mr. Frederick showed his retrofit plans to the BZA board. Mr. Yaecker said he understands their concerns - that a free-market determines winners and losers in competing businesses but this is not part of the BZA decision making process here tonight. The BZA can only make their decisions on the basis of the NTZR.

Before calling for a motion, the board decided to consider the Findings of Fact on which they would base their decisions.

a) Whether there are conditions that are unique to this lot, and not ordinarily found in the same zoning district – NO - however the same use previously resulted in an approved Judgment Entry.

b) Did the applicant create these conditions – NO.

c) Whether the variance would adversely affect the rights of adjacent property owners –2 adjacent property owners objected to this new Shooting Range facility.

d) Whether the variance would adversely affect the public, health, safety or general welfare – no – 2 adjacent owners expressed safety concerns.

e) Whether the spirit and intent behind the zoning requirement would be observed and substantial justice done by granting the variance – yes - this facility would be useful for the public and for the county as the Sheriff and other law enforcement officials need a central location for certification of officers.

f) Whether the requested variance is the minimum action which would afford relief to the applicant – yes - seeking a zoning amendment to permit these uses is possible but more time consuming and possibly not approved.

g) What other economically viable use of the lot could be made within this zoning district – all other approved uses in the B-1 and M-1 districts.

There being no more questions, Mr. Fidel called for a motion stating that a yes vote would grant the use variance as requested.

Chris Yaecker moved to approve the Use Variance as presented, Mary Lee Brezina seconded the motion with the following role call vote:

Chris Yaecker no

Bill Skomrock, Sr. yes

Lou Tomsic, Jr. yes

Mary Lee Brezina no

Ray Fidel no

The motion was denied.

Mr. Fidel adjourned the BZA hearing at 9:30 p.m. As the applicant left, Board members wished him good luck.

Mr. Fidel adjourned the meeting at 9:40.

Marge Hrabak Secretary

Signatures of the Newbury Board of Zoning Appeals:

_________________________ ____________________________

Mary Lee Brezina, V. Chairman Bill Skomrock, Sr.

_________________________ _________________________

Chris Yaecker Lou Tomsic, Jr. Alt.

_________________________ _________________________

Ray Fidel, Chairman Marge Hrabak, Sec’y BZA

_________________________

Date:

BZA Frederick Sept. 4, 2012

Ann Wishart — Sun, 30 Sep 2012 05:00:00 GMT

Mr. Fidel asked the board for any additional comments or questions. Mr. Tomsic said he had none, Ms. Brezina also had none at this time.

Before calling for a motion, the board decided to consider the Findings of Fact on which they would base their decisions.

a) Whether there are conditions that are unique to this lot, and not ordinarily found in the same zoning district – NO - however the same use previously resulted in an approved Judgment Entry.

b) Did the applicant create these conditions – NO.

c) Whether the variance would adversely affect the rights of adjacent property owners –2 adjacent property owners objected to this new Shooting Range facility.

d) Whether the variance would adversely affect the public, health, safety or general welfare – no – 2 adjacent owners expressed safety concerns.

g) What other economically viable use of the lot could be made within this zoning district – all other approved uses in the B-1 and M-1 districts.

There being no more questions, Mr. Fidel called for a motion stating that a yes vote would grant the use variance as requested.

Chris Yaecker moved to approve the Use Variance as presented, Mary Lee Brezina seconded the motion with the following role call vote:

Chris Yaecker no

Bill Skomrock, Sr. yes

Lou Tomsic, Jr. yes

Mary Lee Brezina no

Ray Fidel no

The motion was denied.

Mr. Fidel adjourned the BZA hearing at 9:30 p.m. As the applicant left, Board members wished him good luck.

Mr. Fidel adjourned the meeting at 9:40.

Marge Hrabak Secretary

Signatures of the Newbury Board of Zoning Appeals:

_________________________ ____________________________

Mary Lee Brezina, V. Chairman Bill Skomrock, Sr.

_________________________ _________________________

Chris Yaecker Lou Tomsic, Jr. Alt.

_________________________ _________________________

Ray Fidel, Chairman Marge Hrabak, Sec’y BZA

_________________________

Date:

BZA Hill Sept. 18, 2012

Ann Wishart — Sun, 30 Sep 2012 05:00:00 GMT

The Newbury Township Board of Zoning Appeals public hearing was called to order by Mr. Ray Fidel, Chairman at 7:35 p.m. on September 18, 2012 with Board members, Mary Lee Brezina, Bill Skomrock Sr., Chris Yaecker and alternate Lou Tomsic Jr. present. Ms. Endres presented screen views for board review. All in attendance who wished to speak at this hearing were duly sworn and asked when testifying to state their name and confirm being sworn in. Mr. Fidel read the area variance request:

Thomas R. Hill requests an area variance to build a 18 ft. x 20 ft. rear home addition in the Restful Lake Subdivision 5 ft. from the side lot line (vs, Art. V & XIV: Sec. 5.05 req’d 16 ft. side line setback & Sec. 14.05 rear addition within original envelope of the house but not closer than 10 feet) located at 14883 Longview Dr. in the R-1 district.

Mr. Fidel asked Mr. Hill to present his case. He said he has been a Restful Lake resident since 1953, always “played by the book” so he is here for a variance for the rear expansion he has wanted for years. The narrow 30 ft. lot lines govern and are beyond his control to change. The expansion would extend the original lines of the house and be no closer to the side lot line. He wants to beautify his home; his living room now is 8ft x 16ft. The rear expansion, raised on posts, would overlook the lake with lots of windows so he can enjoy the surroundings while eating breakfast. He had the property surveyed in ’96 or ’97 and has found the pins. The lot runs on a slight diagonal. He pointed out his site on the screen and commented that all his neighbors get along well and help each other when needed. He has wanted to buy the vacant lot next door but is still negotiating with Mrs. Ortman.

Mr. Fidel asked the board for any additional comments or questions.

Mr. Yaecker asked whether Mr. Hill would be building over the septic field – no. Mr. Skomrock Sr. said the expansion extended the original house footprint and would beautify the house. Ms. Brezina asked whether Mr. Hill had approval from the Restful Lake Assoc. He said he had verbal OK and the approval letter was pending.

There being no more questions, Mr. Fidel called for a motion stating that a yes vote would grant the area variance as requested.

Bill Skomrock Sr. moved to approve the Area Variance as requested Chris Yaecker seconded the motion that passed by unanimous vote.

Chris Yaecker yes

Bill Skomrock, Sr. yes

Lou Tomsic, Jr. yes

Mary Lee Brezina yes

Ray Fidel yes

Mr. Fidel adjourned the BZA hearing at 7:50 p.m. As the applicant left, Board members wished him good luck.

The board established the Findings of Fact:

1) The lot could yield a reasonable return without the variance however the owner needs this expansion for livability and enjoyment.

2) The variance is substantial but Restful Lake lots were platted before zoning.

3) The essential character of the neighborhood would not be altered nor would adjoining properties suffer substantial detriment as a result of this variance for a rear expansion.

4) The variance would not adversely affect the delivery of government services.

5) The lot owner purchased the property without knowing the zoning restrictions.

6) The owner’s predicament could not feasibly be obviated without this variance as typical lake lots are only 30 feet wide.

7) The spirit and intent behind the zoning requirement would be observed by granting this variance. There were no neighbors in attendance to object.

Mr. Fidel adjourned the meeting at 8:00.

Marge Hrabak Secretary Signatures of the Newbury Board of Zoning Appeals:

_________________________ ____________________________

Mary Lee Brezina, V. Chairman Bill Skomrock, Sr.

_________________________ ________________________

Chris Yaecker Lou Tomsic, Jr. Alt.

_________________________ _________________________

Ray Fidel, Chairman Marge Hrabak, Sec’y BZA

_________________________

Date:

BZA Geauga County Housing Coalition Sept. 18, 2012

Ann Wishart — Sun, 30 Sep 2012 05:00:00 GMT

The Newbury Township Board of Zoning Appeals public hearing was called to order by Mr. Ray Fidel, Chairman at 8:30 p.m. on September 18, 2012 with Board members, Mary Lee Brezina, Bill Skomrock Sr., Chris Yaecker and alternate Ken Blair present. Ms. Endres presented screen views for board review. All in attendance who wished to speak at this hearing were duly sworn and asked when testifying to state their name and confirm being sworn in. Mr. Fidel read the area variance request:

Reba Dykes, agent for the Geauga County Housing Coalition, requests an area variance to build a new two story single family home ( 655 Sq. ft. 1st floor & 835 sq.ft. 2nd floor) to replace/demolish a blighted structure on 2 non-conforming back-to-back 40 ft. wide x 100 ft. deep lots in the Kiwanis Lake Subdivision - 8 ft. from the side lot line & 14 ft. from an interior rear lot line (vs, Art. V: Sec. 5.05 req’d 16 ft. side & 30 ft. rear setbacks with minimum: 160 ft. lot width, 16,000 sq.ft. lot total & two-story house 600/900 sq.ft.) located at 14714 Elm Dr & 14713 Westfield Dr. in the R-1 district.

Mr. Fidel asked Ms. Dykes to present her case. She explained that the Geauga County Housing Coalition was a 501C3 tax exempt organization whose purpose was to provide affordable housing for low to moderate income county residents. As President she works with GMHA and senior housing – there are about 16 to 20 active participating members. This is their 1st time working in the Kiwanis Lake Community razing and rebuilding houses. No, they are not like Habitat for Humanity whose clients contribute “sweat equity” to the new house. They are administering a grant, originally given to Ashtabula County, for neighborhood stabilization that allows rehab, demolition and/or property purchase for new homes intended to raise community housing standards. They propose to sell this single house to a qualifying family. They had not met with the Kiwanis Lake Home Owners Assoc. – Ms. Endres indicated the Association never had given approvals in the past.

Mr. Fidel said the existing house should be demolished and the lots sold to adjacent neighbors.

Ms. Endres showed photos of the existing house that was in very bad shape and that had generated numerous past complaints. Mrs. Herwig, the neighbor across the street, said in the past they mowed the grass because they could not contact the owners who left the house a mess with water in the basement. The even circulated a petition to raze this “safety hazard” but that never worked out either. They did bid at Sheriff’s Auction but were outbid by the Housing Coalition.

Mr. Yaecker asked about the septic system. Ms. Dykes submitted a letter from the GC Health District (as Exhibit A) stating they would need authorization from the Ohio EPA for discharge to the ditch from such a small lot with instructions included for the required application. Mr. Tomsic described the type of on-lot aeration system required.

Mr. Fidel stated that the 2 back-to-back lots were not large enough – only half of the square footage required. The original septic system had a tank with an exit to Elm Dr. per Mr. Nicholson who owns lots south of the site. Ms. Brezina said the applicant may be able to get an exemption from the Ohio EPA.

Mr. Skomrock Sr. said the whole county wants to see the structure razed. Ms. Dykes explained that the grant would pay for a new septic system before the old house was razed. The Coalition owns the property now and the grant could support sale of a new house to a qualifying low to moderate income ($74,000/yr) family of 4. Mr. Tomsic clarified that the sale monies would revert back to the county for future reinvestment in other homes for the purpose of increasing and upgrading homes for Geauga County residents. Mr. Skomrock Sr. asked whether there was a dollar limit on the grant – yes – the total grant of $345,000 included the new house (1400 sq.ft. valued at $182,000) erected on the former site of PC’s Bar on Elm St. Ms. Matthews explained that the Coalition administered the grant whose purpose was not necessarily to make a profit on the house sale but to provide upgraded housing for low to moderate income residents. Ms. Brezina asked whether the cost of a new septic system and razing the old structure would be too much – no – it would all be covered by the grant provisions. Ms. Matthews said the coalition normally hires a general contractor who then subcontracts to professionals to perform the actual work. Mr. Skomrock Sr. said he was concerned that the house could fit on those small lots. He asked if there could be no new house built, would the Coalition still raze the old structure – yes – the grant provisions would allow that; could the lots then be sold – yes. Mr. Tomsic said that with the house razed and without a septic system (now discharging to Elm St.), the lots have little value.

Mr. Fidel opened the hearing for questions from the audience. Ms. Herwig questioned whether this would be a single family home – there seemed to be some confusion regarding the county’s involvement for a possible group home. She said she had purchased extra lots on Westfield Dr. which is now a very nice street except for the abandoned derelict house. Mr. Nicholson said he bought adjacent lots for green space and thought that a two story house 8 feet from the property line of a narrow 40 ft. lot was too close and inappropriate for the neighborhood. He was outbid at the Courthouse foreclosure sale and couldn’t understand why the Coalition would buy these two restricted lots.

Ms. Dykes said she was here to request a variance, that she respected the views of the neighbors but was instructed to purchase these lots by the commissioners and that “the old house would go down whether the variance is or is not granted.”

Mr. Skomrock Sr. asked Ms. Dykes to confirm her last statement – which she did. He said razing the old structure was most important and would be good for the neighborhood. Mr. Yaecker concurred with Mr. Fidel that the two 40 ft. back-to-back lots were too small to build on.

Ms. Dykes said the Commssioners considered Elm St. as the gateway to Kiwanis Lake and chose PC’s location and this Elm St. and Westfield site for rebuilding. The neighbors generally favor housing improvements and the Coalition may lose the balance of the grant money if other suitable building lots aren’t found within the time limit.

Mr. Fidel asked the board for any additional comments or questions. Mr. Blair said he agrees with Mr. Fidel there is “not enough room” and thinks the neighbors could buy the lots when available. Mr. Yaecker commended the Coalition whose purpose was not to make a profit but to improve the community.

There being no more questions, Mr. Fidel called for a motion stating that a yes vote would grant the area variance as requested.

Chris Yaecker moved to approve the Area Variance as requested Mary Lee Brezina seconded the motion that was denied by unanimous vote.

Chris Yaecker no

Bill Skomrock, Sr. no

Ken Blair no

Mary Lee Brezina no

Ray Fidel no

Mr. Fidel adjourned the BZA hearing at 9:30 p.m. As the applicants left, Board members wished them good luck.

The board established the Findings of Fact:

1) The lots could not yield a reasonable return without the variance.

2) The variance is substantial; too many variances are needed on these elongated lots.

3) The essential character of the neighborhood would be improved and the adjoining properties would benefit because the applicant agreed to demolish the old structure even if the variance was denied.

4) The variance would not adversely affect the delivery of government services.

5) The lot owner purchased the property knowing the zoning restrictions.

6) The owner’s predicament could not feasibly be obviated without this variance.

7) The spirit and intent behind the zoning requirement would be observed by denying this variance. There were neighbors in attendance who objected to building a two-story house on these narrow lots.

Mr. Fidel adjourned the meeting at 9:40.

Marge Hrabak Secretary Signatures of the Newbury Board of Zoning Appeals:

_________________________ ____________________________

Mary Lee Brezina, V. Chairman Bill Skomrock, Sr.

_________________________ ________________________

Chris Yaecker Ken Blair - Alt.

_________________________ _________________________

Ray Fidel, Chairman Marge Hrabak, Sec’y BZA

_________________________

Date:

ZC September 26, 2012

Ann Wishart — Sun, 30 Sep 2012 05:00:00 GMT

On September 26, 2012 the Newbury Township Zoning Commission (ZC) held their regular scheduled monthly meeting in the upstairs meeting room of Newbury Town Hall. Carolyn Paschke called the meeting to order at 7:10 p.m. with Judd Douglas, Sue Wagner, Margaret Avalon and new members Edward Delulius and Mike Nelson present.

Margaret Avalon moved and Sue Wagner seconded the approval of the August 22, 2012 minutes that passed by unanimous vote.

Carolyn Paschke welcomed the two new ZC members and asked them to introduce themselves. Ed Delulius said he lived on Whitewood Rd. and was a retired firefighter from Highland Heights. Mike Nelson lives on Bell Rd, and also is retired as a 24 year computer administrator. Karen Endres described the history of our computer maintenance and problems thereof; she welcomed assistance from our new members who fill the terms of Alice Munn & Steve Kitko.

Ms. Paschke said she not received any feedback from the trustees on the amendment changes for the ZC previously approved code for wind turbines (WT), solar panels (SP), land-banking (LB) and conditional use (CU) delivered for the trustees’ 9/5/12 meeting.

Margaret Avalon reiterated the definitions for 3 types of mulch: inorganic, passive organic and active organic that the board had previously accepted for the next set of code changes. The board agreed to retain the current restrictions prohibiting composting along the 87 (B-1 zoned) corridor citing the pile-turning-odors as detrimental to the current and future business and commercial developments with the new Sharen & James Winery and plans for a future hotel. Landscapers should remain as a Conditional Use in the M-1 (Ind’l zone) although many are presently located in the B-1 zone.

Judd Douglas said the board should – at the request of the trustees - define “composting” as the EPA Class IV definition: creation of controlled biological decomposition of organic solid waste. Discussion continued regarding the previously submitted ZC code for “landbanking” that was not understood by the trustees and therefore not approved in the last amendment. The board agreed it was time to send these code changes to the Planning Commission.

Carolyn Paschke called for a motion to send ZC Amendment 2012-1 (for WT, SP, LB, CU) to the Planning Commission for review: Judd Douglas moved with Sue Wagner seconding the motion to also include the definitions for mulch and composting, permitted chimneys and outdoor boilers, that passed by unanimous vote:

Judd Douglas yes

Sue Wagner yes

Margaret Avalon yes

Carolyn Paschke yes

The board voted to set October 24, 2012 at 7:30 p.m. as the date for the Zoning Amendment #2012-1 Public Hearing as part of the ZC regular scheduled meeting.

Ongoing Work: Size Limitations for accessory Buildings – now 1280 sq.ft. per lot or 500 sq.ft. per acre whichever is larger – with floor area clarification for single vs. two story square footage, attached vs. detached garages & accessory buildings and maximum overall size. Parking chart/size review, especially for multiple tenant usage, permitted sidewalks within front setbacks and more user-friendly swimming pool setbacks were also postponed as topics for the next meeting. Lot coverage, pervious pavers, for better storm water management as used at the Chester Town Hall, are also considerations for future board review.

NZC compliance with Model Zoning code is an ongoing review basis. Political signs are being posted sooner than the 45 days allowed due to permitted absentee and early voting. Corrections need to be made to the NZC outlines to match previous revisions.

The next ZC meeting is scheduled for October 24, 2012 at 7:00 p.m.

Ms. Paschke adjourned the meeting at 9:00 p.m.

Signatures of the Zoning Commission

__________________________ __________________________

Chairman, Carolyn Paschke Judd Douglas, Vice Chairman

________________________ __________________________

Sue Wagner Jerry Hudak

__________________________ __________________________

Margaret Avalon, 1st alt. Edward Delulius

____________________________ __________________________

Michael Nelson Attest: Marge Hrabak, Sec’y,

__________________________

Date:

Newbury BZA meeting August 21, 2012

Ann Wishart — Thu, 30 Aug 2012 05:00:00 GMT

The Newbury Township Board of Zoning Appeals public hearing was called to order by Mr. Ray Fidel Chairman, at 7:30 p.m. on August 21, 2012 with Board members, Mary Lee Brezina, Bill Skomrock, Sr., Chris Yaecker and alternate Ken Blair present. Ms. Endres presented photos for board review. All in attendance who wished to speak at this hearing were duly sworn and asked when testifying to state their name and confirm being sworn in. Mr. Fidel read the area variance request:

Terry Crislip & Linda Lewicki request an area variance to locate a 10 ft x 12 ft shed 89 ft. from the Whitewood Dr. Right-of-Way and 6 ft. from the east side lot line in the front yard (vs, Art. V, Sec. 5.05 req’d 100 ft. from R-o-W & 30 ft. side setback & Sec. 5.02 C6b disallowing front yard placement). The property is located at 11161 Whitewood Dr. in the R-1 district.

Mr. Fidel asked the applicant to present his case. Mr. Crislip said he had his driveway replaced and added a pad for a shed (paid a shed downpayment) not realizing he needed a permit for the accessory building. Ms. Lewicki said they chose this location for a new shed to house the snow-blower for easier accessibility because the lot slopes away to the rear making it difficult to reach such equipment in their rear accessory building. They had approached the neighbors who had no objections to the site showing the snow-blower on the screen views. The style of the shed would have an overhang with a window with flower-boxes.

Mr. Fidel asked the board for questions or comments. Mr. Blair said he viewed the site and said “ the board had probably approved worse “ in the past. Mr. Skomrock Sr. said the property line shown on the aerial view must be wrong. Neighbors confirmed finding the survey pins showing the correct property lines. Mrs. Bizsak added information that the original lot had been 5 acres that were then split in two. Mr. Skomrock, Sr. cites the topo map dropping off severely making the shed placement the only logical choice (slightly before the line of the house) for the applicant and the neighbood. Ms. Brezina agreed it made more sense to house the equipment in a small shed accessible to the driveway. Mr. Bizsak agreed there was no room to go around the house to access the rear. Mr. Yaecker asked if there was a mortgage or re-finance that would have required a survey? Mrs. Bizsak said they found the survey pins for the lot split.

Mr. Fidel agreed the applicant chose the only logical site given the topo restrictions. He asked for any additional questions from the audience. Mr. Cox, an Auburn Rd, rear neighbor, said he was here because he was unsure of the requested variance limits but had no objections.

Mr. Fidel asked the board for additional comments or questions. There being no more questions, he called for a motion stating that a yes vote would grant the area variance as requested.

Ken Blair moved to approve the Area Variance as requested; Bill Skomrock Sr. seconded the motion that passed by unanimous vote.

Ken Blair yes

Bill Skomrock, Sr. yes

Chris Yaecker yes

Mary Lee Brezina yes

Ray Fidel yes

Mr.Fidel read to the Appellant and audience, “Within 30 days after service of the minutes granting your request, if someone wishes to challenge this decision through the court, he or she may. The challenge could reverse or negate our decision. Mr. Fidel informed the Appellant and the audience that the 30-day period commences with the Appellants’ signing receipt of the signed minutes. They will be mailed registered return receipt to the Appellant. All persons receiving notice of the hearing will receive copies of the minutes. At the time you receive your permit you must also comply with all other requirements of Newbury Township zoning”.

Mr. Fidel adjourned the BZA hearing at 7:45 p.m. As the applicants left, Board members wished them good luck.

The board established the Findings of Fact:

1) The lot could yield a reasonable return without the variance however the owner needs this variance to place the shed for winter equipment access on this topo-restricted lot.

2) The variance on the east is substantial but not for the front setback.

3) The essential character of the neighborhood would not be altered nor would adjoining properties suffer substantial detriment as a result of this variance.

4) The variance would not adversely affect the delivery of government services.

5) The lot owner purchased the property without knowledge of the zoning restriction.

6) The owner’s predicament could not feasibly be obviated without this variance as it is the only logical location for the shed.

7) The spirit and intent behind the zoning requirement would be observed and substantial justice done by granting the variance. There were no neighbors in attendance to object to this variance.

Mr. Fidel adjourned the meeting at 7:55.

Marge Hrabak Secretary

Signatures of the Newbury Board of Zoning Appeals:

_________________________ ____________________________

Ray Fidel, Chairman Chris Yaecker

_________________________ _________________________

Ken Blair, Alt. Mary Lee Brezina

_________________________ __________________________

Bill Skomrock, Sr. Marge Hrabak, Sec’y BZA

Date: ____________________

BZA Crislip & Lewicki Aug. 21, 2012

Ann Wishart — Thu, 30 Aug 2012 05:00:00 GMT

Mr. Fidel asked the board for additional comments or questions. There being no more questions, he called for a motion stating that a yes vote would grant the area variance as requested.

Ken Blair moved to approve the Area Variance as requested; Bill Skomrock Sr. seconded the motion that passed by unanimous vote.

Ken Blair yes

Bill Skomrock, Sr. yes

Chris Yaecker yes

Mary Lee Brezina yes

Ray Fidel yes

Mr.Fidel read to the Appellant and audience, “Within 30 days after service of the minutes granting your request, if someone wishes to challenge this decision through the court, he or she may. The challenge could reverse or negate our decision. Mr. Fidel informed the Appellant and the audience that the 30-day period commences with the Appellants’ signing receipt of the signed minutes. They will be mailed registered return receipt to the Appellant. All persons receiving notice of the hearing will receive copies of the minutes. At the time you receive your permit you must also comply with all other requirements of Newbury Township zoning”.

Mr. Fidel adjourned the BZA hearing at 7:45 p.m. As the applicants left, Board members wished them good luck.

The board established the Findings of Fact:

1) The lot could yield a reasonable return without the variance however the owner needs this variance to place the shed for winter equipment access on this topo-restricted lot.

2) The variance on the east is substantial but not for the front setback.

3) The essential character of the neighborhood would not be altered nor would adjoining properties suffer substantial detriment as a result of this variance.

4) The variance would not adversely affect the delivery of government services.

5) The lot owner purchased the property without knowledge of the zoning restriction.

6) The owner’s predicament could not feasibly be obviated without this variance as it is the only logical location for the shed.

7) The spirit and intent behind the zoning requirement would be observed and substantial justice done by granting the variance. There were no neighbors in attendance to object to this variance.

Mr. Fidel adjourned the meeting at 7:55.

Marge Hrabak Secretary

Signatures of the Newbury Board of Zoning Appeals:

_________________________ ____________________________

Ray Fidel, Chairman Chris Yaecker

_________________________ _________________________

Ken Blair, Alt. Mary Lee Brezina

_________________________ __________________________

Bill Skomrock, Sr. Marge Hrabak, Sec’y BZA

Date: ____________________

BZA Ho Mita Koda Camp August 28, 2012

Ann Wishart — Thu, 30 Aug 2012 05:00:00 GMT

The Newbury Township Board of Zoning Appeals public hearing was called to order by Ms.Mary Lee Brezina, Vice Chairman, at 7:30 p.m. on August 28, 2012 with Board members, Bill Skomrock, Sr., and alternates Ken Blair and Lou Tomsic Jr. present. Ms. Endres presented photos for board review. All in attendance who wished to speak at this hearing were duly sworn and asked when testifying to state their name and confirm being sworn in. s. Brezina read the area variance request:

Tina Milano, agent for Diabetes Partnership of Cleveland, requests an area variance for a 960 sq. ft. memorial tree house at Camp Ho Mita Koda located at 14040 Auburn Rd. in the R-1 district (vs, Art. XIV, Sec. 14.04 B,C,D & F extension of non-conforming uses).

Ms. Milano asked board member Ward Dumm to present the variance request. Mr. Dumm pointed out the present location of the camp buildings on the screen and indicated the fire ring that would be the site of the memorial tree house structure, left of the boy’s cabin with walkway access to adjacent buildings. The proposed site is remote, at least 1000 feet from any camp boundary, so there are no setback issues. The building would be a pole barn construction with the elevated second floor a look-out to the south and west camp views. There will be a lift installed for handicap accessibility.

Ms. Brezina asked about the building use: as a look-out for campers’ observation activity center that could also be used for sleep-overs. There will be swings under the second floor for use in rainy weather.

Ms. Brezina asked the board for questions or comments. Mr. Skomrock Sr. asked about the building utilities: Electricity would be buried cable but there would be no water or heat as the shower/bathrooms are very close by. Vehicles are not permitted on the walkway while camp is in session but the walkway, about 200 feet from the gravel road, can be used for emergency access per fire regulations. Mr. Dumm said they have a golf cart to access the walkway and other remote areas. He said he will contact the Newbury Fire Dept. (Doug Zimperman or Ken Fagan) for adequate rescue squad access to the tree house.

Mr. Tomsic asked about Building Permits – Mr. Dumm confirmed permits have been obtained.

Ms. Brezina opened the discussions to the audience. Mr. Ronald Schuette, a neighbor on Auburn Rd., noticed lights were on and questioned night-time lighting. Mr. Dumm replied there would not be any flood lights at the tree house site. There is a care-taker on site during the winter months when the camp is closed down.

Mrs. Merlyn Schuette questioned how a fire would be controlled specifically during such a dry year as this. Mr. Skomrock Sr. assured all that the Fire Dept. is well equipped to handle off-road sites. Mr. Dumm said the camp staff cleans up leaves and debris in the spring and fall plus adequate pumper water is available from their lake and pool.

Ms. Brezina asked the board for additional comments or questions.

There being no more questions, she called for a motion stating that a yes vote would grant the area variance as requested.

Ken Blair moved to approve the Area Variance as requested; Bill Skomrock, Sr. seconded the motion that passed by unanimous vote.

Ken Blair yes

Bill Skomrock, Sr. yes

Lou Tomsic, Jr. yes

Mary Lee Brezina yes

Ms. Brezina adjourned the BZA hearing at 7:50 p.m. As the applicants left, Board members wished them good luck.

The board established the Findings of Fact:

1) The lot could yield a reasonable return without the variance however the owner needs this variance to enrich the camper experience

2) The variance is not substantial to add a building to the middle of existing camp facilities.

3) The essential character of the neighborhood would not be altered nor would adjoining properties suffer substantial detriment as a result of this variance.

4) The variance would not adversely affect the delivery of government services.

5) The lot owner purchased the property before zoning restrictions existed.

6) The owner’s predicament could not feasibly be obviated without this variance.

7) The spirit and intent behind the zoning requirement would be observed as the variance merely adds a memorial tree house to an existing permitted/non-conforming camp. There were no neighbors in attendance to object to this variance.

Ms. Brezina adjourned the meeting at 7:55.

Marge Hrabak Secretary

Signatures of the Newbury Board of Zoning Appeals:

_________________________ ____________________________

Mary Lee Brezina, V. Chairman Bill Skomrock, Sr.

_________________________ _________________________

Ken Blair, Alt. Lou Tomsic, Jr. Alt.

_________________________ __________________________

Marge Hrabak, Sec’y BZA

Date: ____________________

ZC August 22, 2012

Ann Wishart — Thu, 30 Aug 2012 05:00:00 GMT

On August 22, 2012 the Newbury Township Zoning Commission (ZC) held their regular scheduled monthly meeting in the upstairs meeting room of Newbury Town Hall. Carolyn Paschke called the meeting to order at 7:20 p.m. with Jerry Hudak, Margaret Avalon and Steve Kitko present.

Ms. Paschke delayed signing of the minutes till Mr. Kitko arrived to complete a quarum.

Steve Kitko moved and Jerry Hudak seconded the approval of the June 27, 2012 minutes that passed by unanimous vote.

Carolyn Paschke yes

Jerry Hudak yes

Steve Kitko yes

Carolyn Paschke said she delivered a copy of the ZC previously approved code for wind turbines (WT), solar panels (SP), land-banking (LB) and conditional use (CU) to the trustees’ 9/5/12 meeting for their review/comments and subsequent approval. The board agreed to give the trustees one more chance to review these ZC changes at their 9/19/12 meeting before sending it to the Planning Commission.

Margaret Avalon defined 3 types of mulch: inorganic, passive organic and active organic that was typed in for the next set of code changes. The board agreed the goal should be to define composting as a process and mulch as an end product and not be “too technical” for better consumer understanding.

Discussion continued regarding Outdoor Boilers (OB) - whether restrictions were needed at this time because there have been so few complaints: none have not been in writing. Most complaints result from residual smoke due to natural atmospheric inversion. It was suggested OB be permitted only in the residential district conforming to R-1 setbacks. OB zoning discussion shall be continued at the next meeting.

Size Limits for accessory Buildings – now 1280 sq.ft. per lot or 500 sq.ft. per acre whichever is larger. Ms Paschke suggested a maximum size of 10,000 sq.ft. but tabled the discussion for more input from Ms. Endres. Parking chart/size review, especially for multiple tenant usage, was also postponed as topics for the next meeting. NZC compliance with Model Zoning code is an ongoing review basis.

The board decided to skip the regular July meeting; with the next ZC meeting scheduled for September 26, 2012 at 7:00 p.m.

Ms. Paschke adjourned the meeting at 8:10 p.m.

Signatures of the Zoning Commission

__________________________ __________________________

Chairman, Carolyn Paschke Judd Douglas, Vice Chairman

________________________ __________________________

Sue Wagner Jerry Hudak

__________________________ __________________________

Margaret Avalon, 1st alt. Steve Kitko

____________________________ __________________________

Date Attest: Marge Hrabak, Sec’y,

BZA January 31, 2012 Sanders

Ann Wishart — Mon, 06 Aug 2012 05:00:00 GMT

The Newbury Township Board of Zoning Appeals public hearing was called to order by Mr. Tezeon Wong, acting Chairman, at 7:32 p.m. on January 31, 2012 with Board members, Chris Yeacker and alternates Ken Blair and Lou Tomsic present. Ms. Endres presented photos for board review. All in attendance who wished to speak at this hearing were duly sworn and asked when testifying to state their name and confirm being sworn in. Mr. Wong read the area variance request:
Martin M. Sanders requests an area variance to build a 1200 sq.ft. accessory building 15 ft. from the east side lot line (vs. Art. V, Sec. 505 req’d 30 ft.) at 11084 Bell Rd.
Mr. Wong asked the applicant to present his case. Mr. Sanders said that if he had to observe the 30 ft, side setback the building would be close to the middle of this narrow lot and encroach wetlands and the leech field and septic system. He had to install a new septic system that took up most of the back yard after he purchased the property. He needs this new storage building for his ’67 firebird (now stored at this fathers) and motorcycles and other recreational items. Only his wife parks in the present garage. He pointed out the leech field/septic areas on the screen.
Mr. Tomsic asked if the swampland ever dried up. Mr. Sanders said heavy rains drain to the (unbuildable) wetlands shared by the neighbors. He outlined the position of the floodplain and the driveway leading to the new steel building (Claridon Barns) constructed on a concrete slab floor. The steel building is less expensive than a pole building. He said he previously had to waterproof his basement. The steel building would have electric service and possibly a woodburner.
Mr. Yeacker explained that the building would not be in a flood zone as Newbury has no riparian setback rules. Mr. Wong asked if the building could be moved to a 20 ft. setback – Mr. Sanders said that would be too close to the leech field that must not be disturbed. Mr. Wong asked the board if they had any questions; there being none he opened the questions to the audience.
Mr. Ament, a neighbor across the street, asked why a building can’t be constructed over a leech field. Mr. Tomsic said the field works by evaporation so nothing can be built over it. Mr. Sanders said the steel building would be 24’ x 20’ x 16’ high. Mr. Ament asked why couldn’t the building be built next to the existing garage. Ms. Endres explained that garage was built last year and does not appear in the 2010 aerials. It is approximately 100 ft. from the road; nothing can be built in the front yard.
Discussion continued regarding the sketch showing the metal roof construction, life span, 20 yr warranty, size/location of garage & man doors, etc.
Mr. Wong said that the board should consider the narrow lot, the 100 year flood zone, the location of septic system and wetlands and asked the board to follow recommended procedure to establish the Findings of Fact prior to any motion.
1) The lot could yield a reasonable return without the variance however the owner needs additional storage, the location of which is severely restricted by septic/leech field system and wetlands.
2) The variance is substantial but restricted by topography/wetlands – no neighbor on this side is present at this hearing.
3) The essential character of the neighborhood would not be altered nor would adjoining properties suffer substantial detriment as a result of this variance – there are no encumbrances to the rear or side.
4) The variance would not adversely affect the delivery of government services.
5) The lot owner purchased the property without knowledge of the zoning restriction. He was required to replace the septic/leech field system after purchase.
6) The owner’s predicament could not feasibly be obviated without this variance as the back yard was the only replacement field area on this narrow 2.04 acre lot further restricted by wetlands severely limiting the location for the storage building.
7) The spirit and intent behind the zoning requirement would be observed and substantial justice done by granting the variance.
Ms. Endres confirmed that the Health Dept. determines the type of septic system. Mr. Tomsic explained the on-lot disposal if there is space and soils compatibility leaving aeration systems for smaller off-lot discharge.
Mr. Wong asked the board for additional comments or questions. There being no more questions, Mr. Wong called for a motion stating that a yes vote would grant the area variance as requested.
Ken Blair moved to grant Mr. Sanders variance as requested for the accessory building side setback; Chris Yeacker seconded the motion.

Ken Blair yes
Tezeon Wong yes
Chris Yeacker yes
Lou Tomsic yes

Mr. Wong informed the applicant his area variance was granted.

Mr. Wong read to the Appellant and audience, “Within 30 days after service of the minutes granting your request, if someone wishes to challenge this decision through the court, he or she may. The challenge could reverse or negate our decision. Mr. Wong informed the Appellant and the audience that the 30-day period commences with the Appellants’ signing receipt of the signed minutes. They will be mailed registered return receipt to the Appellant. All persons receiving notice of the hearing will receive copies of the minutes. At the time you receive your permit you must also comply with all other requirements of Newbury Township zoning”.
Mr. Wong adjourned the BZA hearing at 8:03 p.m. As the applicant left, Board members wished him good luck.

Marge Hrabak
Secretary

BZA February 21, 2012 Borror

Ann Wishart — Mon, 06 Aug 2012 05:00:00 GMT

The Newbury Township Board of Zoning Appeals public hearing was called to order by Ms. Mary Lee Brezina, acting Chairman, at 7:30 p.m. on February 21, 2012 with Board members, Bill Skomrock, Sr., Chris Yaecker and alternates Ken Blair and Lou Tomsic present. Ms. Endres presented photos for board review. All in attendance who wished to speak at this hearing were duly sworn and asked when testifying to state their name and confirm being sworn in. Ms. Brezina read the area variance request:
Ivan Borror requests an area variance to construct an 805 sq.ft. addition to an existing non-conforming house at 11214 Music St. that is 47 ft. from the Music St. right-of-way (vs, Art. V, Sec. 5.05 req’d 100 ft.) The in-line addition will connect the house to the garage with living space, mud-room and a rest room that will be a 77% increase in original house size (vs. Art. XIV, Art. 14.05B1a req’d max.40%).
Ms. Brezina asked the applicant to present his case. Mr. Borror said he wished to add living space by connecting the old house (built 1846) addition to the detached garage. The design would be in keeping with the present old farm house look with exposed beams.
Ms. Brezina asked the board members if they had any comments or questions. Mr. Skomrock, Sr. asked how large the lot was – 5.2 acres. He said he sees no problem with the proposed addition. Mr. Yaecker asked the location of the septic system. Mr. Borror said he would install a new system with a leach field in the rear of the garage area. Mr. Blair and Mr. Tomsic said they had no questions or objections to this addition.
Ms. Endres said she could have approved the application except for the greater than 40% size of the addition.
On the screen Mr. Borror pointed out the layout of the addition; the living area, Mudroom, laundry and half bath. He is using propane now and intends to augment heating with a wood burner.
Mr. Yaecker said the addition looks good and will be a nice improvement. Mr. Borror reiterated that he would maintain the old farm house look.
Ms. Brezina asked if there were any questions from the audience. There being none, she called for a motion stating that a yes vote would approve the variance.
Chris Yaecker moved to accept the variance as requested; Ken Blair seconded the motion
Chris Yaecker yes
Ken Blair yes
Bill Skomrock, Sr. yes
Lou Tomsic yes
Mary Lee Brezina yes
Ms. Brezina informed the applicant his area variance was granted.

Ms. Brezina read to the Appellant and audience, “Within 30 days after service of the minutes granting your request, if someone wishes to challenge this decision through the court, he or she may. The challenge could reverse or negate our decision. Mr. Wong informed the Appellant and the audience that the 30-day period commences with the Appellants’ signing receipt of the signed minutes. They will be mailed registered return receipt to the Appellant. All persons receiving notice of the hearing will receive copies of the minutes. At the time you receive your permit you must also comply with all other requirements of Newbury Township zoning”.
Ms. Brezina adjourned the BZA hearing at 7:45 p.m. As the applicant left, Board members wished him good luck.
The board established the Findings of Fact:
1) The lot could yield a reasonable return without the variance however the owner needs additional living space and amenities to update this 1846 house.
2) The variance is substantial but there were no objections from the audience.
3) The essential character of the neighborhood would not be altered nor would adjoining properties suffer substantial detriment as a result of this variance – the addition would be an improvement to the house and neighborhood.
4) The variance would not adversely affect the delivery of government services.
5) The lot owner purchased the property without knowledge of the zoning restriction. He will replace the septic/leech field system to the rear of the addition.
6) The owner’s predicament could not feasibly be obviated without this over 40% addition size variance to this small 1846 house.
7) The spirit and intent behind the zoning requirement would be observed and substantial justice done by granting the variance. There were no neighbors attending this hearing.
Ms. Endres updated the board on details of future BZA hearings. Discussion continued regarding on-going problems on several commercial properties.
Ms. Brezina adjourned the meeting at 8:15.

Marge Hrabak
Secretary

ZC June 27, 2012

Ann Wishart — Sat, 30 Jun 2012 05:00:00 GMT

On June 27, 2012 the Newbury Township Zoning Commission (ZC) held their regular scheduled monthly meeting in the upstairs meeting room of Newbury Town Hall. Carolyn Paschke called the meeting to order at 7:20 p.m. with Jerry Hudak, Judd Douglas, Sue Wagner, and Steve Kitko present.

Sue Wagner moved and Jerry Hudak seconded the approval of the May 23, 2012 minutes that passed by unanimous vote.

Carolyn Paschke yes

Jerry Hudak yes

Judd Douglas yes

Sue Wagner yes

Steve Kitko yes

Steve Kitko reviewed the definition of “mulch”. Sue Wagner separated mulch into 3 categories: inorganic, passive organic and active organic. Steve said he like the EPA Class IV: “cured compost” definition, agreed that active mulch provides nutrients to enhance the soil. The goal should be to define composting as a process and mulch as an end product and not be “too technical” for consumer understanding.

Judd Douglas asked whether outdoor boilers (OB) should be defined per present model zoning. Some questioned whether restrictions were needed. Most complaints result from residual smoke due to natural atmospheric inversion. He suggested OB be permitted only in the residential district conforming to R-1 setbacks. Final wording shall be addressed at the next meeting.

Size Limits for accessory Buildings and Parking chart review were also postponed as topics for the next meeting.

Members who attended the Northeast Ohio Zoning Seminar on June 22, 2012 reviewed the topic highlights for ZC further discussion.

The board decided to skip the regular July meeting; with the next ZC meeting scheduled for August 22, 2012 at 7:00 p.m.

Ms. Paschke adjourned the meeting at 8:50 p.m.

Signatures of the Zoning Commission

__________________________ __________________________

Chairman, Carolyn Paschke Judd Douglas, Vice Chairman

________________________ __________________________

Sue Wagner Jerry Hudak

__________________________ __________________________

Margaret Avalon, 1st alt. Steve Kitko

____________________________ __________________________

Date Attest: Marge Hrabak, Sec’y,

ZC May 23, 2012

Ann Wishart — Wed, 30 May 2012 05:00:00 GMT

On May 23, 2012 the Newbury Township Zoning Commission (ZC) held their regular scheduled monthly meeting in the upstairs meeting room of Newbury Town Hall. Carolyn Paschke called the meeting to order at 7:10 p.m. with Jerry Hudak, Judd Douglas, Sue Wagner, Steve Kitko and alternate Margaret Avalon present.

Jerry Hudak moved and Sue Wagner seconded the approval of the amended minutes that passed by unanimous* vote.

Carolyn Paschke said she delivered a copy of the previously approved wind turbine (WT) code to the trustees for their review/comments and subsequent approval. Jerry Hudak suggested sending the WT code plus the previously omitted (from the 2011-1 amendment) landbanking code. Sue Wagner moved and Judd Douglas seconded the motion that passed by unanimous* vote.

Wind Turbines would be the first item included in the Alternate Energy section 24.00. Steve Kitko moved to make changes (per the Planning Commission review) for property line setbacks for small wind turbines at 1.1 (had been 1.5) times the turbine height between 55 and 155 feet for a second review by the Planning Commission. The 1.5 times the height as the minimum WT separation had previously been confused with the 1.1 setback. The motion passed by unanimous* vote.

Jerry Hudak moved and Steve Kitko seconded the motion to send approved Solar Panel (SP) code and the revised definition of Conditional Use to the trustees for their review and/or comments. The motion passed by unanimous* vote.

Unanimous* votes as follows:

Carolyn Paschke yes

Jerry Hudak yes

Judd Douglas yes

Sue Wagner yes

Steve Kitko yes

Margaret Avalon yes

Discussion continued regarding the various definitions for mulch: 1) inorganic, 2) passive inorganic and 3) active organic – cured compost that combines with the soil. Sue Wagner will coordinate these topics and email definitions to the board members.

Members were reminded of the June 13, 2012 deadline to register for the Northeast Ohio Zoning Seminar on June 22, 2012.

The next ZC meeting will be June 27, 2012 at 7:00 p.m.

Ms. Paschke adjourned the meeting at 8:30 p.m.

Signatures of the Zoning Commission

__________________________ __________________________

Chairman, Carolyn Paschke Judd Douglas, Vice Chairman

________________________ __________________________

Sue Wagner Jerry Hudak

__________________________ __________________________

Margaret Avalon, 1st alt. Steve Kitko

____________________________ __________________________

Date Attest: Marge Hrabak, Sec’y,

Zoning commissioner April 25, 2012

Ann Wishart — Mon, 30 Apr 2012 05:00:00 GMT

On April 25, 2012 the Newbury Township Zoning Commission (ZC) held their regular scheduled monthly meeting in the upstairs meeting room of Newbury Town Hall. Carolyn Paschke called the meeting to order at 7:12 p.m. with Jerry Hudak, Judd Douglas, Sue Wagner and alternates Steve Kitko and Margaret Avalon present.
Sue Wagner moved and Judd Douglas seconded the approval of the minutes that passed by unanimous vote.
Ms. Paschke attended the April 4. 2012 Trustee meeting for guidance on how best to protect the township with the proposed Alternate Energy zoning proposals for wind and solar installations regarding bonds for roads, de-commissioning structures, etc. The trustees agreed it would be best for them to review the proposals prior to sending the amendments to the planning Commission. Ms. Pasche distributed copies of the revised Wind Turbine code for their information. The Trustees suggested including the “land banking” definition with the next revision; Glen Quigley misunderstood the first definition submitted.
Ms. Hrabak suggested revising the WT setback ratio from 1.5 to 1.1 per industry seminar (attended by several of the ZC members) recommendation. Mr. Hudak suggested the members review the WT code and come prepared to vote at the next meeting. Ms. Endres suggested changing/correcting several definitions and identified pages 57 & 70 format updates.
Ms. Paschke summarized the items for the next amendment: land-banking and conditional use definitions, solar and wind turbine codes to be reviewed by the trustees prior to submission to the Planning Commission. Any trustee questions or comments should be reviewed during the next ZC session. Ms. Avalon questioned the fees for alternate energy applications: Ms. Endres said that today it would fall under the “other” category with $25 for R-1 and $ 50 for all other districts. A fair fee would need to be established to cover township costs. She suggested adding solar panels (SP) before wind turbines (WT) for format under the Alternate Energy section.
Mr. Kitko addressed mulch as being 3 types: inorganic (rocks, sand, re-cyclables), inert (bark, twigs) and active – to promote plant growth (cured compost). These “mulch” definitions should be added as separate from “composting”. Ms. Wagner felt there was more to be done prior to accepting final definitions.
Ms. Endres asked the ZC to consider placing limits on the size of accessory buildings, currently attached garages are at maximum 50% of the house size and detached accessory buildings are a maximum of 500 sq.ft. per acre or 1280 sq.ft per lot whichever is bigger and clarify minimum lot frontage as 200 ft. and rear (flag) lot as 60 ft.. In the discussion of lot splits, Mr. Hudak said he felt it wrong that the minimum 60 ft. rear lot access strip was not included in the minimum 3 acre lot requirement.
Mr. Douglas distributed the Model Zoning requirements for wood boilers that would be taken up at the Next ZC meeting May 23, 2012 at 7:00 p.m.
Ms. Paschke adjourned the meeting at 8:45 p.m.
Signatures of the Zoning Commission

BZA March 13, 2012 Green Vision

Ann Wishart — Fri, 30 Mar 2012 05:00:00 GMT

The Newbury Township Board of Zoning Appeals continuances of the 1/24/12 and 1/27/12 public hearing for a Use Variance for Green Vision Materials (GVM) was called to order by Mr. Ray Fidel, Chairman, at 7:30 p.m. on March 13, 2012 with Board members, Mary Lee Brezina, Tezeon Wong, Bill Skomrock Sr. and Chris Yaecker present. Mr. Fidel said testimony was completed 1/24/12 and no further testimony would be taken here. All in the audience who wished to speak were sworn in and asked to state their name when responding.
Mr. Fidel asked the board how they wished to proceed. Mr. Yaecker said he had requested this continuance to review the Jan 27, 2012 the Findings of Fact; the board made no comments at this time. Mr. Fidel reviewed the options: approve, deny (that could lead to a court suite/Judgement Entry) or withdrawal of the variance requests. Mr. Gibney said he understood these options.
Mr. Yaecker said he had problems with the lot utilization that surely would impact the neighboring properties: the proposed Ober residential development, a mega-dollar hotel at Panzica’s, concern over outdoor patios at Zeppe’s and the new winery due to open mid April and potential loss of future investments along the corridor. He questioned whether the BZA had the authority to grant this Use Variance whether the courts would uphold this decision when composting/mulching is not a permitted use in the zoning code. He submitted Exhibit A (1/24/12) from George Smerigan (GS) stating the research on the Duncan Factors was well researched and proposed using them as the Findings of Fact.
Mr. Fidel acknowledged that Mr. Smerigan was hired by the township for his opinion and questioned just how much of GS’s answers to use. He asked the board to review their Jan. 27, 2012 Findings of Fact (FF): * board comments added 3/13/12
1) The property is unique: it is environmentally impacted by the EPA mandated test wells with negative economic viability due to the attached stigma and long-standing rumors.
2) The former owner – * Manfredi family - created the present conditions,
3) There have been no written complaints regarding dust and noise during operation – * verbal complaints have been received from Zeppe’s, other neighbors, Mr. Gibney conceded wind-driven odor occurs when piles are turned/open,
4) The Geauga Health Commissioner ascertained “there were no significant public health issues” nor did he foresee any liquid overflow with the recommended bio-swale-disposal,
5) The spirit and intent of zoning cannot be met as Newbury zoning code does not allow composting, * mulching is operated now under a conditional use permit even though not a permitted use in the zoning code. Mr. Yaecker read GS response; Mr. Wong requested “strike out composting”.
6) A Use Variance is the minimum action to afford relief, * yes, a UV is minimum relief but does BZA have enough justification to grant a UV?
7) There are options for permitted uses that are economically viable in the B-1 district. * Mr. Fidel said there is always some use possible for any property but these lots split minimal B-1 and maximum R-1 zoning.

Mr. Fidel reiterated his opinion that this hearing should be handled as a conditional use (CU) permit with his specific recommendations: ** with B. Gibney’s comments
1) The applicant should commit to buy the property, ** BG said he was open to this,
2) Discuss mounds on 3 sides with evergreen plantings for visible shielding, noise and wind-driven odor.
3) Tear up old driveway asphalt to confirm to 75 ft. setbacks.
4) Monitor piles, both raw and finished, for 20 ft. max. height and 30 to 40 ft. spacing between piles for fire access ** BG said this was reasonable,

Mr. Fidel asked the board for any more comments. Mr. Skomrock, Sr. said the rules made by township residents take away the applicant’s BZA right of appeal leaving only (3) costly court options.

Mr. Fidel asked the board for additional comments or questions. There being no more questions, Mr. Fidel called for a motion:
Chris Yaecker moved to deny (using GS FF) the Use variance as requested; Mary Lee Brezina seconded the motion. Mr. Fidel stated that a yes vote would deny the Use variance as requested.
The roll call vote was as follows:

Chris Yeacker yes
Mary Lee Brezina yes
Bill Skomrock, Sr. no
Tezeon Wong no
Ray Fidel no

The motion did not pass for lack of 3 affirmative votes.

Mr. Wong agreed that Mr. Gibney’s business impacted others in the community but also stated that no court ever denied a current use vs. a future possible use. Mr. Gibney stated his current use is legally doable with compliance required by EPA and health department standards. Mr. Yaecker stated the BZA are not planners and must use the “Vision Plan” as an umbrella.
John Manfredi asked whether they must go forward or possibly go back because everyone involved wants to work toward the most viable solution: same options – aye, nay or withdraw.

Mr. Fidel asked the board for additional comments or questions. There being no more questions, Mr. Fidel called for a motion:
Mr. Wong moved to approve the Use Variance – there was no second to this motion.

Chris Yaecker moved to rescind his original motion to deny (that did not pass for lack of 3 affirmative votes) and replace it with this new motion to deny the Use Variance request as presented, using the Jan 27, 2012 BZA Findings of Fact;
1) The property is unique: it is environmentally impacted by the EPA mandated test wells with negative economic viability due to the attached stigma and long-standing rumors.
2) The former owner created the present conditions,
3) There have been no written complaints regarding dust and noise during operation,
4) The Geauga Health Commissioner ascertained “there were no significant public health issues” nor did he foresee any liquid overflow with the recommended bio-swale-disposal,
5) The spirit and intent of zoning cannot be met as Newbury zoning code does not allow composting,
6) A Use Variance is the minimum action to afford relief,
7) There are options for permitted uses that are economically viable in the B-1 district.
Mary Lee Brezina seconded the motion. Mr. Fidel stated that a yes vote would deny the Use variance as requested.
The roll call vote was as follows:

Chris Yeacker yes
Mary Lee Brezina yes
Bill Skomrock, Sr. no
Tezeon Wong yes
Ray Fidel yes

Mr. Fidel informed the applicant his Use variance request was denied. Mr. Gibney agreed to withdraw his pending Area Variance request.

Mr. Fidel recommended:
1) That Mr. Gibney file an appeal during the 30 day window,
2) that Mr. Gibney be allowed to operate his business during any appeal process,
3) if he should lose his appeal, he be allowed up to one year to remove the piles and restore the property.
Mr. Wong agreed a judge should settle the questions raised during this hearing.

Mr. Fidel adjourned the hearing at 9:25 p.m. As the applicant left, Board members wished him good luck.

Marge Hrabak
Secretary

Zoning Commission March 28, 2012

Ann Wishart — Fri, 30 Mar 2012 05:00:00 GMT

On March 28, 2012 the Newbury Township Zoning Commission (ZC) held their regular scheduled monthly meeting in the upstairs meeting room of Newbury Town Hall. Carolyn Paschke called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. with Judd Douglas, Sue Wagner and alternates Steve Kitko and Margaret Avalon present. She welcomed the visiting high school students.
Sue Wagner moved and Steve Kitko seconded the amended minutes that passed by unanimous vote.
Ms. Paschke said she had requested to present a review of the proposed Wind Turbine (WT) code at the April 4th Trustee’s Meeting. She explained to the student attendees that the ZC had been working on this code for about 2 years but wanted input from the trustees prior to the final code amendment. Discussion continued regarding current status of WT Model Zoning.
Mr. Quigley asked the ZC for a definition of “mulching/composting” vs. the EPA Class IV regulations and specific differences for the scientific, agricultural and commercial/manufacturing processes. Ms. Paschke also asked for a definition of a Mulch Pile.
Mr. Quigley questioned whether the ZC made “land-banking” mandatory and the number of spaces per the parking chart. Ms. Endres replied that 40% LB was allowed at the developers’ option with future paving at the discretion of the Zoning Inspector. Mr. Kitko clarified that LB spaces could remain as green space as the number of parking spaces is hard to define till building uses are known. The 2011-1 Zoning Amendment was finalized without LB and the allowance for signs every 350 ft. for same-use larger parcels (per Kent study citing “over-signage”). Ms. Paschke said the sign provision could reduce the number of BZA sign applications.
Mr. Kitko asked Mr. Quigley 1) for the definition of Conditional Use (CU) – the ORC vs. code, 2) continued support of business particularly the 17 landscapers in Newbury and 3) how Ray Fidel said that testimony was complete after the 1/27/12 BZA continuance hearing but allowed 2 hours of extra discussion at the 3/13/12 final BZA meeting.
Mr. Quigley said townships can regulate “small” WT, less than 5 mega-watt that could serve 1400 homes, by setting setbacks and reasonable heights of 150 ft. Ms. Endres said WT could fall within the property setbacks. Mr. Quigley asked for a copy of the WT proposed code. Mr. Kitko said the county does not address fee structures (set by trustees) for engineering studies, road bond protection and WT decommissioning. Ms. Wagner said bonds were recommended as WT had never been done before. Discussion continued regarding the Sperry Rd. tower, new uses, co-locations for cell phones vs. more towers. Ms. Endres referenced state control of oil/gas drilling, needed bonds for township road maintenance – all proposed under new drilling regulations. Mr. Quigley referenced a NY township that banned drilling and survived the first court appeal. It was noted with over $10,000 per acre signing bonus and 19% royalty, the Appalachia poverty areas cannot refuse the dollars offered.
Ms. Wagner distributed notes on Solar Panels (SP) for the board to review and be prepared to vote on at the next ZC meeting. She also distributed copies of the EPA Class IV composting regulations. Mr. Douglas gave a brief history of local landscapers who brought materials from their job sites, to be mulched/stored on site for future job (off-site) use vs. compost/mulch commercial operations for bulk sales to the public. Mr. Kitko said problems arise with the height and size of the piles, that mulch is the finished composted “product” and recommends piles under 35 ft. height with spacing between piles. Ms. Endres said cities and counties may have their own composting facilities. She described water pollution from a Haskins Road composting site.
Mr. Kitko clarified that Mr. Quigley is speaking for himself, not all the trustees. Other landscapers have kept composting piles on a limited scale without problems. He said Newbury needs regulations for landscapers’ storage of mulch per the EPA Class IV permit definition as “cured compost”. Ms. Paschke asked Ms. Wagner, Mr. Douglas and Mr. Kitko to resolve the issue.
A new item suggested for the next amendment – redefine Conditional Use.
“Conditional use” means a specifically defined use listed within the Newbury Zoning Resolution that requires the township board of zoning appeals approval and compliance by the applicant to the conditions indicated within the Newbury Zoning Resolution subject to all provisions of Article X of this resolution.
Steve Kitko moved to approve the CU definition as read, Judd Douglas seconded the motion that passed by unanimous vote.
Steve Kitko yes
Judd Douglas yes
Sue Wagner yes
Margaret Avalon yes
Carolyn Paschke yes

Ms. Endres recommended the trustees appoint Mr. Kitko as a regular board member to fill the vacancy left by Alice Munn and move Ms. Avalon to 1st alternate position leaving a 2nd alternate position to be filled.
Mr. Douglas said he would report on outdoor boilers model zoning at the next meeting.
It was agreed to wrap up the alternate energy topics at the next meeting scheduled for Apr. 25, 2012 at 7:00 p.m.
Ms. Paschke adjourned the meeting at 8:45 p.m.

ZC March 28, 2012

Ann Wishart — Fri, 30 Mar 2012 05:00:00 GMT

Sue Wagner moved and Steve Kitko seconded the amended minutes that passed by unanimous vote.

Ms. Paschke said she had requested to present a review of the proposed Wind Turbine (WT) code at the April 4th Trustee’s Meeting. She explained to the student attendees that the ZC had been working on this code for about 2 years but wanted input from the trustees prior to the final code amendment. Discussion continued regarding current status of WT Model Zoning.

Mr. Quigley asked the ZC for a definition of “mulching/composting” vs. the EPA Class IV regulations and specific differences for the scientific, agricultural and commercial/manufacturing processes. Ms. Paschke also asked for a definition of a Mulch Pile.

Mr. Quigley questioned whether the ZC made “land-banking” mandatory and the number of spaces per the parking chart. Ms. Endres replied that 40% LB was allowed at the developers’ option with future paving at the discretion of the Zoning Inspector. Mr. Kitko clarified that LB spaces could remain as green space as the number of parking spaces is hard to define till building uses are known. The 2011-1 Zoning Amendment was finalized without LB and the allowance for signs every 350 ft. for same-use larger parcels (per Kent study citing “over-signage”). Ms. Paschke said the sign provision could reduce the number of BZA sign applications.

Mr. Kitko asked Mr. Quigley 1) for the definition of Conditional Use (CU) – the ORC vs. code, 2) continued support of business particularly the 17 landscapers in Newbury and 3) how Ray Fidel said that testimony was complete after the 1/27/12 BZA continuance hearing but allowed 2 hours of extra discussion at the 3/13/12 final BZA meeting.

Mr. Quigley said townships can regulate “small” WT, less than 5 mega-watt that could serve 1400 homes, by setting setbacks and reasonable heights of 150 ft. Ms. Endres said WT could fall within the property setbacks. Mr. Quigley asked for a copy of the WT proposed code. Mr. Kitko said the county does not address fee structures (set by trustees) for engineering studies, road bond protection and WT decommissioning. Ms. Wagner said bonds were recommended as WT had never been done before. Discussion continued regarding the Sperry Rd. tower, new uses, co-locations for cell phones vs. more towers. Ms. Endres referenced state control of oil/gas drilling, needed bonds for township road maintenance – all proposed under new drilling regulations. Mr. Quigley referenced a NY township that banned drilling and survived the first court appeal. It was noted with over $10,000 per acre signing bonus and 19% royalty, the Appalachia poverty areas cannot refuse the dollars offered.

Ms. Wagner distributed notes on Solar Panels (SP) for the board to review and be prepared to vote on at the next ZC meeting. She also distributed copies of the EPA Class IV composting regulations. Mr. Douglas gave a brief history of local landscapers who brought materials from their job sites, to be mulched/stored on site for future job (off-site) use vs. compost/mulch commercial operations for bulk sales to the public. Mr. Kitko said problems arise with the height and size of the piles, that mulch is the finished composted “product” and recommends piles under 35 ft. height with spacing between piles. Ms. Endres said cities and counties may have their own composting facilities. She described water pollution from a Haskins Road composting site.

Mr. Kitko clarified that Mr. Quigley is speaking for himself, not all the trustees. Other landscapers have kept composting piles on a limited scale without problems. He said Newbury needs regulations for landscapers’ storage of mulch per the EPA Class IV permit definition as “cured compost”. Ms. Paschke asked Ms. Wagner, Mr. Douglas and Mr. Kitko to resolve the issue.

A new item suggested for the next amendment – redefine Conditional Use.

“Conditional use” means a specifically defined use listed within the Newbury Zoning Resolution that requires the township board of zoning appeals approval and compliance by the applicant to the conditions indicated within the Newbury Zoning Resolution subject to all provisions of Article X of this resolution.

Steve Kitko moved to approve the CU definition as read, Judd Douglas seconded the motion that passed by unanimous vote.

Steve Kitko yes

Judd Douglas yes

Sue Wagner yes

Margaret Avalon yes

Carolyn Paschke yes

Mr. Douglas said he would report on outdoor boilers model zoning at the next meeting.

It was agreed to wrap up the alternate energy topics at the next meeting scheduled for Apr. 25, 2012 at 7:00 p.m.

Ms. Paschke adjourned the meeting at 8:45 p.m.

Signatures of the Zoning Commission

__________________________ __________________________

Chairman, Carolyn Paschke Judd Douglas, Vice Chairman

________________________ __________________________

Sue Wagner Jerry Hudak

__________________________ __________________________

Steve Kitko, 1st alt.

____________________________ __________________________

Margaret Avalon, 2nd alt. Attest: Marge Hrabak, Sec’y, Date:

ZC November 5, 2011

Ann Wishart — Mon, 05 Mar 2012 06:00:00 GMT

On November 5, 2011 the Newbury Township Zoning Commission (ZC) held their rescheduled October monthly meeting in the upstairs meeting room of Newbury Town Hall. Carolyn Paschke called the meeting to order at 9:05 a.m. with Lou Tomsic, Judd Douglas, Jerry Hudak, Alice Munn and alternates Sue Wagner & Steve Kitko present. Steve Kitko asked to approve the minutes of the 9-28-11 meeting as amended – the minutes were duly signed by unanimous vote.

David Dietrich, after review of our proposed wind turbine (WT) amendment, advised the NZC to hold off enacting any WT code till the Auburn court case is settled. Carolyn Paschke asked the board to consider enacting only the previously approved topics concerning signs, land bank parking and expansion of trades for permits in the next amendment 2011-1. Alice Munn moved and Judd Douglas seconded the motion to submit the proposed amendment topics for Planning Commission review; the motion passed by unanimous vote.

Carolyn Paschke opened the discussion on WT questions. Mr. Kitko stated the Auburn case was specifically commercial – selling energy back to the grid – not per the agricultural exemption nor permitted in a residential zone. Ms. Endres said the WT was permitted with height limitations. Mr. Tomsic said the Auburn Trustees refused to adopt their WT code.

Carolyn Paschke reaffirmed that the intent of the NZC for WT was pro-active, that the ZC should complete the code language, circulate the WT code to the trustees and the prosecutor’s office and consider revisions as suggested. Discussion continued regarding bonding, insurance, road damage and whose responsibility these were. The chairman proposed completing the WT code, a ZC member presenting it at a future trustee meeting for discussion/questions but not including WT in the 2011-1 amendment.

The board then turned to solar panels (SP), the next alternate energy topic. Discussion continued regarding safety from falling broken panels, requiring laminated safety glass, whether the 35 foot height restriction was applicable for stand-alone structures, limiting the size of solar arrays, active or passive installations etc. Mr. Hudak asked if installers come to the zoning inspector; Ms. Endres says she issued exemptions as energy attachments. The board agreed to encourage solar use and possibly follow the model zoning (MZ) model.

Mr. Kitko explained the photo-voltaic process – changing light to electrons, mirrors to concentrate array light to a central source, with variable voltage during the daylight hours and changing the height limit to 15 feet as “taller isn’t better”. Mr. Kitko affirmed that sale-back price to the utility was 7 cents for solar vs. 2 cents for wind energy. Ms. Endres asked about primary vs. secondary uses, conditional vs. permitted, and 20% lot coverage as appropriate.

The board continued the SP review; covers don’t make sense,SP should meet UL Nat’l Electric Code, 100 mph should be max. wind speed, fencing is not required and other modifications.

Ms. Wagner asked how it is known if a solar panel is or isn’t working and decommissioning regulations. Discussion continued whether to use Munson’s code or MZ. Mr. Kitko said he liked the definitions in MZ including “glare”. Mr. Douglas suggested using A 1 thru 9 from MZ. Discussion continued regarding permitted, primary, accessory etc.

Ms. Paschke asked if the board would consider using MZ with additions from the Munson SP code? The board agreed, code should be typed up for NZC consideration at the next meeting.

The next ZC meeting will be held November 30, 2011 at 7:00 p.m. There will be no December ZC meeting.

Ms. Paschke adjourned the meeting at 10:30 a.m.

ZC September 28, 2011

Ann Wishart — Mon, 05 Mar 2012 06:00:00 GMT

On September 28, 2011 the Newbury Township Zoning Commission (ZC) held their regular monthly meeting in the upstairs meeting room of Newbury Town Hall. Carolyn Paschke called the meeting to order at 7:05 p.m. with Judd Douglas, Jerry Hudak, Alice Munn and alternates Sue Wagner & Steve Kitco present. The minutes of the 8-24-11 meeting were approved and duly signed.

Carolyn Paschke said there were no other items to consider and asked the board to continue to review/revise the new alternate energy wind turbines (WT) topic – Art. XXIV, Sec 24.05E stating that prime use is conditional, considering PC comments. Sec. 24.06 is out as it duplicates Sec.18.00.

Trustees should adopt new fee schedules for wind turbine application and decommissioning. The cost is not a zoning enforceable item. Supplemental documentation already exists in the zoning application form. The question was raised: do wind turbines need building dept. applications? Warning signs should be 2 x 3 ft, same as temporary signs with 2” high letters. Remove “flags” and add knox box.

Change the maximum height to the turbine plus blades, not just the tower height, eliminate “noise” as unenforceable, add keys for the electrical connection box - should be available for safety.

The ZC board considered the Planning Commission comments on merits, rejected some but kept others for safety reasons. Multiple towers would be the same as 24.05(2). The question of bonding and insurance (to protect the twp.) requires input from the prosecutor’s office and our trustees. Road use/damage must also be addressed by township, county and state. The zoning inspector should provide a WT summary for review by the sheriff’s office. Inquiries and complaints should go to the responsible party: owner, operator and/or business entity. What is the distinction between stop producing electricity vs. abandoning the WT?

Carolyn agreed to type up these changes for discussion with Susan Weiland prior to our next meeting. The next topic to be considered under alternate energy will be solar and woodburners.
The next ZC meeting will be held November 5, 2011 at 9:00 a.m.
Ms. Paschke adjourned the meeting at 8:55 p.m.

ZC August 24, 2011

Ann Wishart — Mon, 05 Mar 2012 06:00:00 GMT

On August 24, 2011 the Newbury Township Zoning Commission (ZC) held their regular monthly meeting in the upstairs meeting room of Newbury Town Hall. Carolyn Paschke called the meeting to order at 7:15 p.m. with Lou Tomsic, Judd Douglas, Jerry Hudak with alternate Steve Kitko present. Judd Douglas moved & Steve Kitko seconded the motion to approve the minutes of the 7-27-11 meeting that passed unanimously and then was duly signed.

Carolyn Paschke said there were no other items to consider and asked the board to continue to review/revise the new alternate energy wind turbines topic – Art. XXIV, Sec. 24.04 and the Planning Commission comments regarding the proposed NZ changes.

Carolyn Paschke and the board worked through the wind turbine code, item by item, but had not completed the review as of 8:50 p.m. The board agreed to finish the code at the next meeting.

Karen Endres briefed the board on items for consideration in the next amendment: 1) allowing different side setbacks for primary and auxiliary buildings - 15 ft. setback if auxiliary building is less than 600 sq.ft.; 2) solar & woodburners as alternate energy and 3) a frank discussion on the “composting” topic for a future meeting.

Judd Douglas suggested sending email copies to the Planning Commission for a second review of the completed Wind Turbine code and also sending the Wind Turbine code to the Newbury Trustees for their comments.

The next ZC meeting will be held September 28, 2011.

Ms. Paschke adjourned the meeting at 8:55 p.m.

Zoning commission February 22, 2012

Ann Wishart — Tue, 28 Feb 2012 06:00:00 GMT

On February 22, 2012 the Newbury Township Zoning Commission (ZC) held their regular scheduled monthly meeting in the upstairs meeting room of Newbury Town Hall. Carolyn Paschke called the meeting to order at 7:10 p.m. with Jerry Hudak, Alice Munn, Judd Douglas, Sue Wagner and alternates Steve Kitko and Margaret Avalon present. She welcomed the visiting high school students.

Jerry Hudak suggested revising the sequence order to let the trustees comment on proposed changes prior to sending the amendment to the Planning Commission. Alice Munn moved and Jerry Hudak seconded the amended minutes that passed by unanimous vote.
Ms. Paschke reviewed the changes made by the trustees to amendment 2011-1: approved were definition of applicant, dual signs on corner buildings and specific permitted trades added, disapproved were land banking and 350 ft. sign spacing.
Glen Quigley asked whether land banking (LB) was paved over at Panzica’s or done with initial development. Ms. Endres said she would verify the Panzica land banking status. Mr. Kitko said the intent (and county recommendation) was to maintain the green space as long as possible until additional parking was actually needed. Mr. Quigley added that Middlefield Bank required perimeter parking. Mr. Kitko said land banking allows for parking mixed uses at the developer’s option whereas N code now requires “x” number of parking spaces for each unit that is often costly (un-needed) duplication. Mr. Skomrock asked who is responsible for maintenance of land-banked spaces. Ms. Paschke explained the land banking concept to the students and Panzica’s shopping center approved variance. Mr. Kitko ‘s opinion was that the trustees didn’t approve because they did not completely understand the LB process. Mr. Quigley asked Ms. Endres to verify Panzica’s paved LB spaces stating he was unclear in his objections but asked to continue this LB discussion at the next meeting. The board continued regarding “conditional use” definition, permitted uses, BZA powers, enforceability, etc.
Next topic: Wind turbines (WT) – road and infrastructure damage during installation, fee structures could be imposed by trustee resolution. Mr. Kitko explained the problems with the two turbines erected at the Pond ice rink in Auburn: the distance from the road is within the fall-zone, they are ready to operate upon payment (waiting for grant dollars to primary to installer), 2 miles of rebar in the 5000 psi concrete pad making it non-removable. There was a discrepancy with the specs for the WT pad at Kenston School rendering it inadequate for the 250 ft. tower.
Ms. Paschke outlined the new alternate energy topics as there were none currently in Newbury’s code with one year’s work on WT and now working on solar energy (SE). Ms. Wagner said the NZC for WT is ready to submit to the Planning Commission (PC) – that some WT code is better than none. Mr. Kitko suggested reviewing our code with the PC to explain: bonds for infrastructure damage and decommissioning, fee for engineering study, CEI dual meter/buy back, commercial vs. agricultural, etc. He also agreed it would be wise to discuss the WT & LB code with the trustees at their next meeting for agreement prior to submission to the PC.
Other Updates on ongoing work: Changing Conditional Use (CU) definition to permitted uses in Article X, ZC board vote on CU prior to trustee’s review, discussion on composting – residential vs. commercial, review of BZA powers in Sec. 1701c. Mr. Hudak asked what the difference was between “mulching” at Manfredi’s and what VanNess and others were composting elsewhere? He said these on-going composting operations are needed by the people. Ms. Endres described the special circumstances at the Manfredi property; the EPA monitored wells, the filtration system, objectionable smells and noise among many.
Ms. Wagner and Mr. Hudak both will investigate the restrictions in the currently operating EPA, Class IV composting permit. Mr. Douglas was ready to submit his outdoor boilers report. Ms. Endres pointed out an error to be corrected with the next amendment: page 123, sec. 6.03 should be 6.04, same with sec. 7.03 should be 7.04. She also pointed out a code void covering huge accessory buildings, now restricted to 500 sq. ft. per acre, that could open the door to business operations in a residential zone. She suggested a cap ”not to exceed X sq.ft. per lot”.
It was agreed to wrap up the alternate energy topics at the next meeting scheduled for Mar. 28, 2012 at 7:00 p.m.
Ms. Paschke adjourned the meeting at 8:50 p.m.

BZA Borror February 21, 2012

Ann Wishart — Tue, 28 Feb 2012 06:00:00 GMT

Ivan Borror requests an area variance to construct an 805 sq.ft. addition to an existing non-conforming house at 11214 Music St. that is 47 ft. from the Music St. right-of-way (vs, Art. V, Sec. 5.05 req’d 100 ft.) The in-line addition will connect the house to the garage with living space, mud-room and a rest room that will be a 77% increase in original house size (vs. Art. XIV, Art. 14.05B1a req’d max.40%).

Ms. Brezina asked the applicant to present his case. Mr. Borror said he wished to add living space by connecting the old house (built 1846) addition to the detached garage. The design would be in keeping with the present old farm house look with exposed beams.

Ms. Brezina asked the board members if they had any comments or questions. Mr. Skomrock, Sr. asked how large the lot was – 5.2 acres. He said he sees no problem with the proposed addition. Mr. Yaecker asked the location of the septic system. Mr. Borror said he would install a new system with a leach field in the rear of the garage area. Mr. Blair and Mr. Tomsic said they had no questions or objections to this addition.

Ms. Endres said she could have approved the application except for the greater than 40% size of the addition.

On the screen Mr. Borror pointed out the layout of the addition; the living area, Mudroom, laundry and half bath. He is using propane now and intends to augment heating with a wood burner.

Mr. Yaecker said the addition looks good and will be a nice improvement. Mr. Borror reiterated that he would maintain the old farm house look.

Ms. Brezina asked if there were any questions from the audience. There being none, she called for a motion stating that a yes vote would approve the variance.

Chris Yaecker moved to accept the variance as requested; Ken Blair seconded the motion

Chris Yaecker yes

Ken Blair yes

Bill Skomrock, Sr. yes

Lou Tomsic yes

Mary Lee Brezina yes

Ms. Brezina informed the applicant his area variance was granted.

Ms. Brezina adjourned the BZA hearing at 7:45 p.m. As the applicant left, Board members wished him good luck.

The board established the Findings of Fact:

1) The lot could yield a reasonable return without the variance however the owner needs additional living space and amenities to update this 1846 house.

2) The variance is substantial but there were no objections from the audience.

3) The essential character of the neighborhood would not be altered nor would adjoining properties suffer substantial detriment as a result of this variance – the addition would be an improvement to the house and neighborhood.

4) The variance would not adversely affect the delivery of government services.

5) The lot owner purchased the property without knowledge of the zoning restriction. He will replace the septic/leech field system to the rear of the addition.

6) The owner’s predicament could not feasibly be obviated without this over 40% addition size variance to this small 1846 house.

7) The spirit and intent behind the zoning requirement would be observed and substantial justice done by granting the variance. There were no neighbors attending this hearing.

Ms. Endres updated the board on details of future BZA hearings. Discussion continued regarding on-going problems on several commercial properties.

Ms. Brezina adjourned the meeting at 8:15.

Marge Hrabak

Secretary

Signatures of the Newbury Board of Zoning Appeals:

_________________________ ____________________________

Mary Lee Brezina, Acting Chairman Chris Yaecker

_________________________ _________________________

Ken Blair Lou Tomsic

_________________________ __________________________

Bill Skomrock, Sr. Marge Hrabak, Sec’y BZA

Date: ____________________

BZA January 24, 2012 Green Vision

Ann Wishart — Mon, 30 Jan 2012 06:00:00 GMT

The Newbury Township Board of Zoning Appeals public hearing was called to order by Mr. Ray Fidel, Chairman, at 7:30 p.m. on January 24, 2012 with Board members, Mary Lee Brezina, Tezeon Wong, Bill Skomrock Sr. and Chris Yeacker present. Mr. Fidel outlined the procedures for the BZA hearing: the applicant would present his case, expert testimony would be heard and afterwards all others who wished to speak would be heard.

All in attendance who wished to speak for this hearing were duly sworn and asked when testifying to state their name and confirm being sworn in. Ray Fidel read the applicants request:

Green Vision Materials Inc. requests 1: - a use variance to permit a composting operation of green landscaping waste on leased property (formerly occupied by a trucking company) at 11250 Kinsman Rd. in the B-1 and R-1 zoning districts where composting/material storage, trucks and equipment is not permitted (Art. IV, Sec. 401 A,V,Y) and 2: - area variances with parcel consolidation to correct setbacks; parking lots cross lot lines & are within 25 ft. of side lot lines (Art. VI, Sec. 607B), driveways are within 10 ft. & crossing lot lines of parcels 23-242200, 199400, 127150, 200000 & 199500 (Art. XI, Sec. 11.07C), and non-permitted use within 75 ft of active park lot line (Art. VI, Sec. 507G) and >50% lot coverage on parcel 23-237150.

Beau Gibney, President of Green Vision Materials Inc., (GVM) said he had operated TRC Landscape Service since 1995, starting with 4 employees with the business now grown to 30 employees. The increase in yard waste recycling (consisting of green waste, wood-based materials turned into mulch) at 11220 Kinsman Rd. requires expansion to12250 Kinsman Rd. Mr. Hess clarified that mulch processing was not composting and GVM has an EPA permit to operate at 12250 Kinsman Rd. He stressed that there have been no complaints, no violations on GVM operations. All incoming material – wood chips, logs, leaves, grass clippings - are processed then sold/trucked off-site. NO treated wood, manure, RR ties or trash is accepted. Any water run-off is gravity managed via swales, collection/settling areas. The property is viable for this mulching operation. The property has a prior-use history as a trucking terminal. Lot consolidation would reconfigure the existing driveways. Current zoning limits future development at 12250 – existing EPA test wells, setback violations and buildings. All work done by GVM would be above ground. If the economy improves, the site could sustain other development. For GVM, this is a good site geographically, close to customer base for a growing business. Mr. Gibney wants to stay in Newbury, not infringe on any neighbors as the site has ample space and is over 2000 feet from houses.

Mr. Gibney said his goals are to clean up the property, work with zoning, correct any violations, remove some structures, provide screening and ultimately adding value to Newbury Township. The township and residents would not be charged any fees to dispose of yard wastes. He believes there would be fewer township fire calls if residents yard wastes could be recycled. He intends to add a color dye that is not hazardous – below the level of table salt. The color would be black, there is not enough call for other colors. He would not add dollars to the process without a good return.
He has provided copies of the EPA license, material specs for the dye, wind studies to manage pile-turning odor blown east to Burton-Scott property. He re-emphasized; mulching is not composting – mulch is not broken down to its finest small particles. A biofilter manages the run-off, the soils study indicates any leachade would not permeate the sub-soil.

Mr. Fidel asked whether Mr. Gibney would buy the entire property – he said yes. Would he sell off the existing houses – to be determined later. Mr. Hess then illustrated on the screen, the locations of the Manfredi Terminal building, the mulch piles, test wells, ponds, bioswale that drains to a central collection area with a clay layer 6 feet below the surface and a small creek draining northeast. The dark runoff from putting out a small localized fire drained to the east swale, then was pumped back onto the pile, not into the creek. He also showed the location of TRC Landscape Co., the school ball diamonds and the park. The mulch processing area would straddle the 500 ft. setback line separating B-1 commercial and R-1 residential zoning, with total lot coverage less than half of the property south of the ponds.

Mr. Fidel asked whether all water would flow to the pond. Mr. Gibney said he plans to raise the driveways so there would be no overflow, no harmfull effects, no toxins but not drinkable water. Eventually the water dissipates and no leachade would flow to the rear ponds.

Mr. Wong asked how full does the collection pond get. Mr. Gibney said the level could raise several feet, the area can accept lots of runoff and has never had a spill-over. Mr. Wong asked if he had any back-up power for the pump. Mr. Gibney said the goal was to re-grade a new swale for a gravity drain system. If that isn’t possible, he would supply a generator back-up. The applicant said he had completed his presentation.

Mr. Fidel then called on Mr. George Smerigan, expert witness for the township to respond. Mr. Smerigan distributed his report – Exhibit A - to the board members. He introduced himself as Vice-President of Oxbow Engineering Co., gave a brief background resume testifying as an expert witness in local and federal courts and outlined the critical issues relevant to the Use Variance. He said he believed GVM was a fine operation with a reasonable request but that was not the issue. The applicant must show evidence that an unnecessary hardship exists to meet the standards of a Use Variance. The applicant claims the process is not composting but he has a Class IV EPA composting permit. This operation meets the composting definition of the State of Ohio EPA. He reiterated that NZ code 401B prohibits composting in any district and that anything not listed is prohibited.

He then summarized his analysis and professional opinion on meeting the 7 standards for a Use Variance:
1) The site is environmentally impacted, presents a unique condition limiting its potential for some commercial uses, reducing its market potential but not rendering it unusable for other permitted uses,
2) The owner and previous user created the current environmental conditions,
3) Production of dust and odors when the piles are turned, the potential for ground water contamination and spontaneous combustion adversely impact adjacent land owners.
4) Potential for dust, odors, water contamination, spontaneous combustion all represent potential impacts on public health, safety and welfare.
5) Newbury zoning has specific prohibitions on composting – this use is not consistent with the spirit and intent of the zoning regulations.
6) The applicant presented no evidence to substantiate that a Use Variance is the minimum action to provide relief.
7) The applicant presented no evidence that this site is unusable for economically viable permitted uses. Tenant leases (houses) are now other uses on the site.

Mr. Gibney said “I intend to bring tenants onto the property” but such tenants are not yet specified.
Mr. Smerigan concluded his review by stating: the applicant does not show a unique hardship nor present evidence that the property cannot be used for permitted uses in the B-1 district. In his opinion, the BZA cannot grant the Use Variance, therefore the Area Variance is moot although lot consolidation could negate the setback issues leaving driveways and multiple houses on one lot.

Mr. Fidel asked how long the test wells would be monitored. Mr. Gibney replied he didn’t know as it was done under the previous owner; it could be 10 to 15 years or more, determined by the EPA. Mr. Smerigan agreed that the wells reduce the utility of the parcel. He quoted the Newbury code – maintaining high standards is the intent of the law. In order for the BZA to grant relief, the applicant must show a unique hardship – the BZA can’t amend the code by variance.

Mr. Fidel told Ms. Wieland the BZA can’t grant a variance to a tenant although variance were granted to the former owner. If a tenant business leaves, the variance would remain with the property. Until GVM purchases the property, the BZA can’t grant a Use Variance to a tenant. The property owner was in attendance. Mr. Gibney said he should have been told the tenant restriction beforehand. Ms. Endres said the tenant has standing to apply for a variance with the consent of the owner. Mr. Fidel stated he favored a Conditional Use permit for 5 years – not for a permitted use. Discussion continued regarding options now available to the applicant.

Mr. Fidel then called on Bob Weisdack, Geauga County Health Commissioner to present his information. Mr. Weisdack showed the map he had created to clear up any issues or questions about the prior status of the property. He indicated the 2 ponds in the rear, the location of the test wells and concerns of the Kiwanis Lake Community (KLC). He said x-rays and sonar probes showed no evidence of “rumored” buried tankers, 114 wells in KLC were tested for water quality. He said he was here to reference public health questions, not zoning matters, with his record of inspections for best educated answers. He distributed an Ohio EPA sample of Daily Log of operations plus requirements to meet Class IV Composting – Exhibit B. EPA sets the rules but Geauga Health Dept. does the (unfunded) inspections. Page 2 identifies the acceptable waste stream materials.

Mr. Weisdack pointed to the original site west of the Manfredi property. Hi srecords show that in one year’s inspections there were no violations. KLC called the Geauga Health Dept. (GHD) about the high rate of cancer in their community. The EPA & Ohio Health Dept. tested the water and found no negative impact on the water quality. EPA mandated the test wells and GHD follows up on the inspections. He asked Mr. Gibney whether the houses will be removed – answer no. Concerns about the 3 old septic systems and wells – a potential hole for contaminating the aquifer. To date there have been no violations reported on the housing site.

Mr. Weidack then considered the new (Manfredi) site: the only violation concerned treated/painted material. Upon investigation, no physical evidence was found nor any in the log reports. A reported fire resulted in black material washing into the stream. The EPA mandated appropriate action be taken: a diversion trench was dug and the liquid pumped back onto the property. Mr. Gibney explained the Newbury Fire Dept was called but took no action on the intense smoldering pile whereupon he laid a hose that caused the overflow. The diversion trench contains the leachade and no residual liquid flows off the property. Mr. Weisdack’s suggestion: place a berm behind the trench where the piles drain to the bio-drain area. This should contain the overflow even after a massive downpour. He said the soil permeability rate allows the outfall to the natural recharge area – the liquid moves through the soil and is filtered and purified. I takes about 120 minutes for 1 inch of water dissipation. The clay sub-layer protects the ground water; quite different than if it were sand/gravel with a much higher permeability rate.

Mr. Weisdack said, in his professional opinion, there should be no overflow and no significant public health issues. He asked Mr. Gibney if there is a gated entry – they now have a cable barrier. Discussion continued regarding the vintage area houses ( currently rented), their septic systems, wells, point-of-sale inspections with ownership changes, etc. He had reviewed the MSDS spec sheets and agreed the black coloring agent is non toxic. He cautioned that the piles/chemicals should not be closer than 50 feet diameter from any water well. He said the EPA had issued a Permit To Install (PTI) but that was never done. His major concern was to make sure the leachade is channeled to the bio-swale.

Mr. Skomrock, Sr. asked if the lakes would be affected by the runoff. Mr. Weisdack replied no, any runoff is funneled down the swale to the bio recharge area where it dissipates in 4 to 5 months per monitored/acceptable results. Mr. Yeacker asked about a suspected buried tanker with chemicals inside. Mr. Weisdack said ground sonar found a 15 ft. long item – turned out to be a concrete drainpipe installed per the EPA. He found the site to be surprisingly clean given it’s history. Mr. Gibney asked if there was any reasonable risk to public health – Mr. Weidack replied no. Ms. Brezina asked Mr. Weisdack about nuisances: odors – musty but not overpowering smells that do not carry long distances – in his judgement.

Mr. Fidel then asked for questions from the audience. Mr. Quigley said he was a Newbury trustee but was here as a resident. He asked whether the sanitarians checked the runoff, either the EPA or GHD. Dave Diesel reported the black organic material was not a big problem, the pile runoff swale diverts liquid to the bio-recharge area but no testing for CCA was done. Mr. Quigley questioned whether there indeed was no public health risk given the potential for dust, objectionable odors and spontaneous combustion fires.

Craig Matthews said he was the president of the KLC Homeowners Assoc. whose main concern was for water quality. He opinioned that organic matter was better than what was dumped there previously. Mr. Matthews said that KLC had no problems with the expansion plans of GVM. Discussion continued regarding disposal of septic tank pumping; via 2 treatment plants or lime-stabilized for land application. Mr. Wiesdack concluded his presentation and said he was always available to answer questions at 440-279-1903 or his pager at 216-982-4789.

Douglas Ralston, Ralston Instruments of Cross Creek Pkwy, asked if the land was suitable for growing – yes, the rear was all woods and environmentally safe to walk. He said there were other viable uses for the land as it was next to Newbury Schools and Oberland Park. Griffin Ralston asked about the soils permeability and questioned whether engineering expertise is required for evaluation. Mr. Quigley said there was a recorded covenant (agreement) with the EPA that outlined restrictions. Mr. Weisdack said he has access to the EPA data and the public health information but has no knowledge of any covenant. He said he deals with soils on a daily basis. Mr. Quigley said “ the EPA may be interested in visiting the site “…regarding the covenant. He also asked about signs, color and chemical changes that are not permitted. Mr. Wong reminded him this was not part of Mr. Weisdack’s report. Mr. Fidel said this was the last call to question Mr. Weisdack.

Chip Hess asked to clear up the confusion over composting vs. mulching. Mulching as done by GVM is NOT COMPOSTING. Yes, GVM has an EPA permit for composting because the EPA does not issue a separate permit for mulching; the Class IV permit is the least impact for green waste disposal so mulching is lumped in with composting.
To review the Duncan Factors presented by GVM:
a) This lot is unique with a troubled history, with residual monitored wells but is favorable for GVM use,
b) The unique conditions were there prior to GVM utilization of the site,
c) Bob Weisdack and the Kiwanis Lake Assoc agree there are no risks to the neighbors,
d) No adverse side effects,
e) GVM needs a Use Variance to expand operations or they must locate elsewhere,
f) GVM beliefs a Use Variance is the minimum action to afford relief,
g) Given the numerous vacant lots in the township, Newbury should encourage growing businesses to expand their current Conditional Use operation at 11220 Kinsman Rd.

Ms. Endres explained the zoning history of TRC Landscaping that grew from start in 1996 to 2002 and required an Area Variance to construct a new front building and allow processing of yard waste on a smaller scale with conditions that the piles remain in the rear, screened behind a fence.

Mr. Yeacker said the property is compromised by the stigma attached, by rumor or site history, real or imagined, with existing long-term monitored test wells. The EPA released the property after investigation “with no further action required”. He cited the Rt. 87 Corridor Vision: clean-up the rear area, maintain the semi-forested green area as a natural rear buffer and update the frontage and older buildings for improved curb appeal. It’s too early to tell, GVM is not the owner yet but the “Vision” is in their and the townships best interests as they have been doing business here since 1995. Mr. Wong reminded the board that composting is not permitted. If mulching is not composting, he offers a Conditional Use Permit as GVM is a tenant, not an owner.

Mr. Fidel asked about grass clippings – Mr. Gibney said they are mixed in with chips and shipped out as mulch particles. Mr. Gibney said there is a big difference between GVM processing and the former Sweet Peet composting operation. He said he was open to any agreement, amended wording or screening required. He said he wants to work with Newbury Twp; if there were any threat to the public, he would not be here. He has a model processing operation at 11220 Kinsman and decades of successful history.

Ms. Endres said the difference between compost and mulch is not defined, therefore not permitted. Ms. Brezina said that Sweet Peet was on a 3 acre lot, this 49+ acre site is much bigger but that is not the only criteria. What about the houses and the zoned B-1, R-1 lot split? Mr. Fidel asked about the height of the piles. Mr. Gibney said if he has room to expand the height of the piles can be lower; an advantage as he will lose less material from compression. Mr. Fidel asked about multiple drive use. Mr. Gibney said there would be one entrance and one exit with gates closed at night.

Mr. Fidel asked Ms. Endres to read to definition of a Conditional Use from the NZM.
“Conditional Use” means a use within a zoning district other than a permitted use requiring approval by the township board of zoning appeals and the issuance of a conditional zoning certificate.

Susan Wieland said the applicant could withdraw and reapply. Ms. Endres advised not to apply for a non-permitted use; to be legal it must be a permitted use. She suggested this would be an issue for the Zoning Commission (ZC). Mr. Fidel asked the ZC to look at these issues; Mr. Kitko, a ZC member in attendance, replied that the code could be amended by landowner request, cited the negative impact of the Sweet Peet hearings and residents appearing before the board for discussions on composting. At this time the ZC is completing work on two alternate energy topics. If asked by the lessee to consider mulch vs. compost, the ZC would be forced to act on this request. The primary ZC concerns were overflow containment to protect ground water and spontaneous combustion fires, the reasons for the code exclusion of composting.

Mr. Fidel asked if the definition for the Conditional Use can be revised. Mr. Skomrock, Sr. said “all have the right of appeal”. Mr. Gibney reminded all that Ms. Endres, not he, wrote “composting” in the denial. Mr. Smerigan said if a Use Variance is approved the aggrieved party has no standing to appeal. Mr. Fidel stated that in his over 40 years on the BZA, he has never granted a variance to a tenant. Mr. Smerigan cautioned that the BZA must deny the request, then appeal or go to the zoning amendment route. Mr. Wong questioned which was the best route.

Mr. Fidel’s opinion was that this was the perfect site for GVM. He questioned whether yard waste disposal is an agricultural problem – Mr. Smerigan replied no - per prior litigation.

Les Ober, an adjacent resident/property owner in the B-1, R-1 district, asked if Mr. Gibney lived on the site – answer not yet. He said he was a dairy farmer but the EPA shut him down because of the cow-manure runoff. The noise of the chipper and wind carried smells do affect neighbors. There’s been talk of clean-up of the Rt. 87 corridor. He asks trustees to stick to the plan, Rt. 87 is not a place for this type of operation.

Dave Paulitath of Burton-Scott, a next-door neighbor to the east, said whether it was trucking or mulching, as a commercial operation owner, the noise and/or smells were not objectionable. Mr. Kitko sees this as a reasonable operation that has an expansion EPA permit but GVM expanded their operation without zoning approval.

Douglas Ralston commended Mr. Smerigan on his expert presentation, that composting vs. mulching is against Newbury zoning code. This is the BZA responsibility, not the owners.

Griffin Ralston read his concerns from a prepared statement: who is responsible for clean-up, pesticide/herbicide runoff, potential lake contamination, granting the Use Variance would establish precedence to allow composting. As a small business owner he recommends GVM locate elsewhere.
John Manfredi, the present owner, acknowledged the site has 3 houses and offices with one of the 4 septic systems installed in 2006 and that the trucking operation ceased in April 09. In August 09 TRC had signed a lease with letter of intent to purchase the property. He expressed his willingness to work with the BZA and township and asked to be at the table to resolve any contingencies.

Mike Mobley said he runs the mulch grinder for TRC and spends time beforehand removing any dangerous or prohibited “stuff” from the final product. He sees an increase of customers to this business corridor and believes GVM will improve the property “better than it is now”.

Glen Quigley asked how the property is compromised when the wells are not in the mulching area and why it can’t be used for another permitted use.

Ms. Brezina stated that the property straddles two zoning districts, the buyer may be unwilling to purchase if this case should end in court. She believes Newbury Township created this hardship by not allowing this operation anywhere.

Bob Jefferson said the hardship was created by the current economic conditions.

Chip Hess asked for options if GVM buys the property.

Tom Sloe said the BZA should pass the Use Variance, this is a viable business and good for Newbury.

Susan Wieland reminded the board to apply the Duncan factors before voting to approve or deny.

Mr. Yeacker agreed many good opinions were heard but the BZA must apply the Duncan factors on facts, not opinions and must consider the Rt. 87 Corridor plan. Mr. Wong said the BZA represents the applicant and all the township residents and wants to see successful businesses remain. Mr. Yeacker said that if the BZA votes for approval, the township may lose in court.

Discussion continued whether zoning provides for mulching in the township, any viable legal options, possible conditions that must be relevant, continuance vs. withdrawal, etc. Ms. Endres acknowledged that GVM did not specify “composting” in their application.

Tezeon Wong moved for a continuance of this hearing to Friday January 28th at 6:30 p.m., to allow the BZA time to complete their deliberations; Chris Yeacker seconded the motion that passed by unanimous vote.

Mr. Fidel announced that all testimony was complete and no further testimony would be taken.
He adjourned this public hearing at 10:30 p.m.

Archive

BZA Green Vision Materials March 13, 2012 continued

BZA Craggy Gardens LLC Jan. 8 2013

BZA Craggy Gardens January 22, 2013

ZC October 24, 2012

BZA Lee Fenrich October 2, 2012

BZA Fenrich October 2, 2012

BZA Ho Mita Koda October 16, 2012

Newbury BZA Frederick September 4, 2012

BZA Frederick Sept. 4, 2012

BZA Hill Sept. 18, 2012

BZA Geauga County Housing Coalition Sept. 18, 2012

ZC September 26, 2012

Newbury BZA meeting August 21, 2012

BZA Crislip & Lewicki Aug. 21, 2012

BZA Ho Mita Koda Camp August 28, 2012

ZC August 22, 2012

BZA January 31, 2012 Sanders

BZA February 21, 2012 Borror

ZC June 27, 2012

ZC May 23, 2012

Zoning commissioner April 25, 2012

BZA March 13, 2012 Green Vision

Zoning Commission March 28, 2012

ZC March 28, 2012

ZC November 5, 2011

ZC September 28, 2011

ZC August 24, 2011

Zoning commission February 22, 2012

BZA Borror February 21, 2012

BZA January 24, 2012 Green Vision