Minutes of the Meeting of the Rootstown Township Zoning Board of Appeals
April 18, 2006

The regular meeting of the ROOTSTOWN ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS was held on Tuesday, April 18, 2006 at 7:00 P.M. at the Rootstown Town Hall.

Those present:
Roy Kelsey, Chairman
Patricia Saillant
Eugene Mills
Alfred Friedl
Troy Cutright
Don Reckner
Deron Boring

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

Those absent:

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

The first item on the agenda was an application for a variance from Section 310.04-E-3 for property located at 5085 Camp Road in a R-1 District (Parcel No. 32-008-00-00-100.010) which does not have the required width at the setback line submitted by:

Richard & Mary Uphold
696 Summit Road
Ravenna, OH 44266

Mr. Kelsey swore in Richard & Mary Uphold, 696 Summit Rd., Ravenna, Ohio, Tim Reedy, 5095 Camp Road, Ravenna, Ohio, and Lesa Lillibridge, P.O. Box 160, Kent, Ohio.

Mrs. Uphold said they purchased the lot about 2 years ago, in February 2004, from Tim Reedy. At that time she was pregnant and expecting a child in July. Since they had 5 years with the bank, they would try to pay down the loan and get in a better equity position before building. They had purchased the lot in hope of building their home. They started interviewing builders and found a great builder and did a lot of planning. When the builder went to obtain a permit for the house from zoning, it was turned down. They had no clue that they would not be able to build on the lot.

Therefore she started to educate herself and that was why she was speaking since she did the majority of the running around. An overview - when Tim Reedy decided to split the lot (6 acres with a house on half of it), he went to the Zoning Inspector who approved it and Portage County Regional Planning (PCRP) stamped deed. She couldn't understand why they couldn't get a permit to build. Looking at the map and the way she understood it, the frontage is there if you follow the road, the 150 feet is there. What Mr. Mahood had explained was you needed a 150 feet at the setback line. But in her opinion the code is a little vague on the 150-foot setback line. She understood it to be you could have a 150 feet at any point. If you look at the package the house would be built 510 feet back from the road. There would be 150 feet there.

In addition to the house being back there, there is a stream that runs through the property. The front part of the lot would be used for a driveway. In the mean time they also got their bank financing in order and locked in their interest rate until April 28th. They would like to go forward.

Mr. Kelsey said there were some questions that the Board members had.

Tim Reedy said he was the one that sold the lot to the Uphold's. When he bought the lot he didn't know anything about split lots. He was not a builder. There was a creek that ran through his property and he thought the land there was unusable. He checked with the Zoning Inspector (ZI - Matt) who went out and looked at the property. The ZI sent him to PCRP and Health Department. They approved and he thought he had a lot that could be built on. He wouldn't have sold the lot if it couldn't be built on.

Mr. Kelsey said there have been changes in the Zoning Resolution. Also PC RP doesn't allow flag lots, which has been incorporated in our resolution. With various ZI's that Rootstown has had, there was a difference of opinions. When Matt did it, he acted in good faith. There is no sure statement anywhere that tells you what the setback is supposed to be. The Board has followed a rule of 70 feet. Mr. Kelsey said there really needed to be some work done on the Resolution pertaining to the setback. PCRP has made some suggestions to remedy it but it still is not remedied but maybe more confusing. Mr. Kelsey quoted the Zoning Resolution where it says it should not deny anyone the privileges of their neighbors. Mr. Kelsey said he asked the Zoning Inspector to give a measurement with the line that was parallel to road front. This would make them asking for a variance of 50 feet. With the stream running through there, it makes it impossible to build at the setback. The Zoning Resolution also says it should not make any property useless.

Mr. Mahood said the Zoning Commission (ZC) has brought forth new ruling that the Trustees will be doing a public hearing on that should straighten out this matter within 2 to 3 months. When you look at this lot with the creek, the only place to build a home is in the rear of the property.

Mr. Kelsey said that PCRP had stamped the lot and agreed with the Zoning Inspector. Mr. Kelsey said that in speaking for hisself, the evidence presented certainly has merit in making the lot buildable.

Ms. Lillibridge said she was the builder. She has lived in the country all her life and has been building in Portage County for 22 years with her own company. She has never run across a situation like this where a lot was deemed buildable and then when she went to pull a zoning permit, she ran into all these problems. There is an East Ohio gas easement and other easements that run through there. Originally it was deemed one way and now that they were proceeding, they ran across these problems. It should have been grandfathered in.

Mr. Kelsey said the Zoning Board of Appeals doesn't have anything to do with decisions made by Zoning Inspector. The only time the Board has an obligation is when an application is made for a variance.

Mr. Friedl said in his opinion there were several issues. He started with a little history. He was involved with the original zoning that went into Rootstown back in the 60's. One issue is the required width of the lot. There was never an issue during the ten, fifteen, twenty years, not one question came up suggesting that this is anything but the width of the lot at the setback line. Otherwise you could have 60-foot lots. The width of the lot is measured at the building setback line; therefore this clearly does not comply. This issue has been argued a number of times since he has been on this Board. The Board had gotten a legal opinion for their attorney who said the lot line was measured at the setback line. The words in the new Zoning code could be easily miss construed. The lot has to be measured at the building line. He referred to definition 95 (chapter 150, page 10) which has not changed. Now comes the second part. What can a citizen do when looking at a lot and trying to decide if it is buildable? You would ask for the advice of the experts/zoning people. Based on that, you went to the PCPC and they stamped their approval. There was a mistake made and it was not theirs but it was ours. As a result, you put a lot of time and money into this and you should not be penalized because of our mistake. This mistake would not serve as precedence for others.

Mr. Reckner said he agreed with everything Mr. Friedl said.

Mr. Mills asked Mr. Reedy, who upheld the buyer, if there were more lots in that area that would fall under the same conditions. Mr. Reedy explained the way the lot was split with a creek on it and where the house would be put. Mr. Reedy said every house in that area sat back from the road and was in the middle of the lot. Mr. Mills said in driving down the street there would be no more lots in that area that the Board would be confronted with a similar option coming up. Mrs. Uphold said most of the houses in that area were in the middle of their lots and there wouldn't be enough frontage to split them. Mr. Mills asked Mr. Mahood if he had any thoughts on that question. Mr. Mahood agreed that he did not see any other lots that could be split. Mr. Mills asked if when they went to Zoning in Feb. 2004 did they make an application for building permit. Mrs. Uphold said she didn't. Ms. Lillibridge said if they had done this process 2 years ago, there would be a house on the lot. Mr. Mills asked Mr. Mahood if there was any information from Matt or PCRP as to the reason for doing this. Mr. Mahood said there was nothing he could find.

Mr. Kelsey said he has really appreciated what Mr. Mahood has done. He has done a tremendous job as Zoning Inspector.

Mr. Cutright said he was concerned about more problems down the road with the possibility of flag lots. Mr. Cutright thought that PCRP had caused this headache. Mrs. Uphold said PCRP entered it that way.

Mr. Kelsey said he was hoping that the new language for setbacks would help the Board. Mr. Kelsey said the setback has to be determined by the distance from the right-of-way back to the 70 feet on each side of the lot.

Mr. Kelsey said in actuality, the application states that they felt that they really didn't need a variance and with the evidence presented it was his personal opinion that they didn't need a variance. The reason being the lot was a lot of record. The Zoning Inspector and PCRP approved the lot.

Mr. Mills said using this situation if PCRP had approved it and Matt had not then they would have needed a variance. That was what should have been done. Mr. Kelsey said if the zoning in Rootstown made a mistake, then that mistake was ours and does not establish precedence.

Mr. Friedl said the applicant followed all the procedures, got approvals, and as a result the Board would grant them the use of that property even though it does not meet the current zoning requirements.

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

Mr. Kelsey reviewed the application.

Resolution ZBA 2006-009. Mr. Friedl made a motion to approve the variance request from Section 310.04-F-2. Mr. Mills seconded it. Comment: Mr. Mills said this was based upon miss leading information and mistakes made by not only our local Zoning Inspector in 2004 and PCRP which created the problem. A vote was taken as follows: Mills - Yes Friedl - Yes Reckner - Yes Cutright - Yes Kelsey - Yes. The motion carried unanimously (5/0).

Resolution ZBA 2006-010. Mr. Mills made a motion to accept the minutes of the March 21, 2006. Mr. Cutright seconded it. The motion carried unanimously (5/0).

David Armentrout addressed the Board. He updated the Board on part-time employees, hospitalization, and how the community was growing.

Mr. Reckner made a motion to adjourn the meeting. Mr. Kelsey adjourned the meeting.

Roy Kelsey, Chairman
ROOTSTOWN ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS

Mary Ann Greer, Secretary BZA
ROOTSTOWN ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS