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

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

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

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

Those absent:
Don Reckner

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 310.05-D-1, 13 and Section 310.05-D-2-A for front and side setbacks for property located at 4830 Sundown Trail in a R-2 District submitted by:

Keith Misner, contractor for
Carolyn Schlemmer
P.O. Box 3
Hiram, OH 44234

Mr. Kelsey swore in Carolyn Schlemmer and Keith Misner, 1705 Brady Lake Road, Kent. Mr. Kelsey said the Board had an agreement with the Association since there are no lot lines. Mrs. Schlemmer said they had shown the Association the plans and had their approval. Mr. Misner said they would be going just 7 feet towards the road with a carport. The home would use the entire footprint of the cottage. Out the back 12 feet would be a porch. The carport might be enclosed eventually. They were approved by the Association for an attached garage but decided to go with a carport at this time. They plan to dismantle the cottage and build the house on the footprint.

Mr. Mills said they were leaving the existing house as is and adding a little addition 8 foot to the house. Mrs. Schlemmer said that was not exactly what they were doing. They were taking off the top story completely down to the bottom level. They would be building a whole new second level. Mr. Mills said the plan showed a purposed 8 feet addition. Mr. Misner said that that was right. It was out the rear. Mr. Mills then said they would be adding a carport on one end or the other. Mr. Mills asked what was really the front of the house. Mr. Misner said the front was on Sundown Trail. Mr. Mills questioned the access. Mr. Misner said some of the property owners have gone together and put a rear access road in. Mr. Mills said if they put the garage in now or later, how would they be able to get to the garage. Mr. Misner said they could get to the garage from access road. Mr. Mills asked if the got approval when would they start. Mr. Misner said they would start in September. Mrs. Schlemmer said they would be enjoying the cottage until after Labor Day.

Mrs. Saillant had no questions.

Mr. Friedl had no questions.

Mr. Cutright had no questions.

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

Mr. Kelsey reviewed the application

Resolution ZBA 2006-018. Mr. Mills made a motion to grant the request including the purposed garage as shown on this particular plan and approved by the Association on June 7, 2006 recognizing that this is a lot within the Sandy Lake Association which was an Association registered by the State of Ohio prior to zoning. Therefore, there are no set lot lines. Mr. Cutright seconded it. A vote was taken as follows: Cutright - Yes Friedl - Yes Saillant - Yes Mills - Yes Kelsey - Yes. The motion carried unanimously (5/0).

Second on the agenda was an application for a variance from Section for a 6-foot high fence for property located at 3498 Lynn Road in a R-O District submitted by:

Carla Fitzpatrick
3498 Lynn Road
Ravenna, OH 44266

Mr. Kelsey swore in Carla Fitzpatrick, 3498 Lynn Road. Mrs. Fitzpatrick said she would like to put up a decorative fence in the front yard screening off the road. There were two reasons for doing this. One of the big reasons was safety and to avoid having cars plow into her yard. She has had her mailbox taken out several times. She worries about the safety of her children in the front yard. The other was for privacy. They would like to be able to enjoy their front yard.

Mr. Friedl said the conditions have to be unique to the property they can't be general. The conditions for safety are not unique they are general. Everyone is concerned with it. The regulations permit a 4-foot fence. The fence is 2 feet higher than permitted. The second special condition listed was the property behind them was I76. I76 was behind 30 to 35 homes between there and SR 44. The conditions are just general not special. Everyone could ask for a 6-foot high fence if the Board granted this. The ZBA would be changing zoning. The fence looks good but zoning does not permit it.

Mrs. Saillant had no questions.

Mr. Mills said he was in agreement with Mr. Friedl but at the same time he looked at property. He could partially understand the situation that Mrs. Fitzpatrick was up against. Mr. Mills asked about the property to the west where there were a 16 and an 8-foot fence and what it did for her. Mrs. Fitzpatrick said it was a barrier, which gave them a little more privacy. Mr. Mills asked if this type of fence really added to their feeling of security for the children. Mrs. Fitzpatrick said a car hit the tree last week. Mr. Mills said the fence was very attractive but explain to me the safety factor. Mrs. Fitzpatrick said it was a lot stronger than 4-foot fence. Mr. Mills asked how long the fence had been up. Mrs. Fitzpatrick said it had been there about a month. Mr. Mills asked the Zoning Inspector how the fence was questioned. Mr. Mahood said he saw it on his weekly drive around. Mr. Mills asked Mrs. Fitzpatrick who came up with the idea and what was the logic about putting 16-foot section in and separating it by 4-foot and dropping it back a few feet and putting in an 8 and bringing the staggered look. Mrs. Fitzpatrick said her father owned a landscape company and her mother was a landscape designer and they were trying to do something artistic.

Mr. Cutright asked about the right of way there would be behind the trees. Mr. Cutright said you weren't you suppose to be building anything in the right-of-way. Mr. Black said the right-of-way was 30 feet from the center on each side. Mr. Cutright said if you worried about the safety of the children wouldn't you be better off to move back and go straight. Mrs. Fitzpatrick said she was trying to do something decorative and trying to get privacy in the front.

Mr. Kelsey said the trees were already there and the trees are higher than the fence. Mr. Kelsey said when you put up a decoration its one thing and when you put up a fence it's something else. Mr. Kelsey said if this was a 6-foot fence across the front, then he couldn't see any cause for it to be there. Mr. Kelsey said it was more of a decoration than a fence. If it were impeding people on highway, then that would be one thing.

Mr. Mahood said this one of the instances that makes his job miserable. He feels bad about the situation. He had to act on it.

Mr. Kelsey said when you come to decorations; you're talking about one thing. Mr. Mahood said he read the definition of a fence before he sent the notice out. He wanted to make sure he wasn't making a mistake. Mr. Kelsey said he still sees it as a decoration; there are other decorations higher than it.

Mr. Friedl asked if the fence was 6-feet high. Mrs. Fitzpatrick said it was but the top foot was latice. Mr. Friedl ask about the 2-foot space at the bottom and if it was possible to set it down. Mrs. Fitzpatrick said the fence was actually a foot off the ground.

Mr. Mills said the Board was looking at an odd situation. One could go around the township and find 5 and 6 foot sections that are around a deck or a patio that have never came to see the Zoning Inspector (Z.I.). Mr. Mills said he was not complaining about the Z.I. These situations are all over the township in a decorative environment. This is somewhere between a fence and decorations. Mr. Mills said if this was 16 and 8 and 16 and all tied together, then it might be considered a fence but since it was staggered, it is more of a decoration. At the same time Mrs. Fitzpatrick could have planted shrubbery at 5 feet high and blocked the whole thing off. Five years from now it could be up10 feet tall and you can't see a darn thing and there is not a darn thing the township could do with that since it is not a fence. This is not a continual fence but a decoration.

Mr. Fried said he would like the Board members to convince him that the fence was permitted. However, the zoning regulations are quite clear that a fence is still a fence even if it is a decoration. He read the definition for FENCE as it appears in our zoning code: "FENCE: Any structure composed of wood, iron, steel, masonry, stone or other material and erected...to enclose, secure,....(or) decorate...all or any part of any premises.

Resolution ZBA 2006-019. Mrs. Saillant made a motion to grant the variance request from Section 310.09-J-1 as decorative landscaping. Mr. Mills seconded it. A vote was taken as follows: Mills - Yes Saillant - Yes Cutright - No Friedl - No Kelsey - Yes. The motion passed by a vote of 3/2.

Resolution ZBA 2006-020. Mr. Friedl made a motion to accept the minutes of the May 19, 2006 with the following changes: Page 3, fourth paragraph "it" should be "if", page 4, paragraph 3, "unanimously that they compared" should be "unanimous in comparing", after district insert "the use", last paragraph the sentence starting with Mr. Friedl should read " Mr. Friedl said that you could not separate those sections", page 5, paragraph 2 after 450.02 it should read "it relates to nonconforming use of buildings", and last paragraph "than" should be "then" . Mr. Mills seconded it. The motion carried unanimously (5/0).

Resolution ZBA 2006-021. Mr. Friedl made a motion to accept the minutes of the June 20, 2006 with the following changes: page 1, paragraph 3 "of" should be "for", and page 3, paragraph one "possibility" should be "possibly". Mr. Mills seconded it. The motion carried unanimously (5/0).

Mr. Mills commented about last month's meeting. He was not there but he would not have voted in favor of the last request under any conditions because of going back to many, many years ago in our legal battle with that particular property with the various tactics that have been attempted to be pulled upon this Board and the Zoning Inspectors through the years. Had he been there he could not have supported it because of being the only one on the Board with past knowledge of various things that went on. On the first subject, he commented to a fellow Board member regarding it. As chairman and a member of this committee, back in 1987, they granted a variance on Cook Road with a lot of thought and care and understanding at the time, and might have had some justifications for feeling but poor justification for granting variances. He publicly admitted for the failure of granting a variance or supporting a variance of that nature and he deeply regrets it and apologized to one Board member that was affected by that poor decision on his behalf for voting for it. Not all variances are the same, Board members should think long and hard on variances since they go with the land forever.

Mr. Kelsey said he had talked long and hard with the county Prosecutor about it and he had a copy of the resolution of that particular time. He said the Board really didn't have a choice. It's there and there is nothing the Board could do about it.

Resolution ZBA 2006-022. Mr. Friedl made a motion to accept the minutes of the April 18, 2006 with the following change, page 3, paragraph 3 "live" should be "life". Mr. Mills seconded it. The motion carried unanimously (5/0).

Mr. Cutright made motion to adjourn the meeting. Mrs. Saillant seconded it.

Mr. Kelsey adjourned the meeting.

Roy Kelsey, Chairman
ROOTSTOWN ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS

Mary Ann Greer, Secretary BZA
ROOTSTOWN ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS