The regular meeting of the ROOTSTOWN ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS was held on Tuesday, November 15, 2005 at 7:00 P.M. at the Rootstown Town Hall.
Those present:
Roy Kelsey, Chairman
Eugene Mills
Alfred Friedl
Troy Cutright
Don Reckner
Also in attendance:
Zoning Inspector, Jim Mahood
Assistant Zoning Inspector, Van Black
ZBA Secretary, Mary Ann Greer
Those absent:
Patricia Saillant
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 to have a gravel drive and parking area instead of the required pavement or concrete submitted by:
Timothy & Carol Ralston
4337 Tallmadge Road
Rootstown, OH 44272
Mr. Kelsey swore in Timothy and Carol Ralston, 4337 Tallmadge Road. Mrs. Ralston stated they would like to open a shop in the century old home and still keep it looking like a residential home in the 1800's with a gravel drive and parking area.
Mr. Friedl stated there were some problems with this request. A request for a variance is dependent on a number of things. The very 1st one is absolutely critical and that is, is there a special condition that exists on this property, building, or lot that is not a condition anywhere else in the district. Mr. Friedl said it being a century old home was not unique to that parcel. The Zoning Commission (ZC) sets general conditions. The parking lot is not unique. The ZC holds public hearings and decides whether or not the parking lot ought to be paved. He referred to the zoning codebook. It was mentioned there were other businesses with gravel drives and parking lots but they existed prior to the zoning requirements for paved or concrete drives. Businesses with these conditions would not be punished. They are grandfathered in. Mr. Friedl wished them the best of luck and success with the project. Mr. Friedl stated that if the Board didn't grant the variance it wouldn't take away their right to run their business. Once the business is opened, it must be governed by the business regulations.
Mr. Ralston said their options were to put in a paved driveway or they wouldn't have the business. He said the driveway was suppose to be 20 feet wide and paved or concrete. Mr. Ralston said he didn't even know if this business was going to fly and did not want to a large amount of money opening it up. Mrs. Ralston said if the business did not fly, they would rent it out. Mrs. Ralston said the house was at the entrance to a community development. She said a graveled lot would look more natural. Mr. Friedl said that could be the argument to be made to the ZC. Mrs. Ralston asked if they should have gone to the ZC first. Mr. Friedl said the Board had to follow the regulations.
Mr. Reckner said the problem was the Board's hands were tied by the Zoning regulations. What the Ralston's were really doing was is to keep the residential look of the century home since it was an entrance to a residential neighborhood. But on the other hand the Ralston's were opening up a commercial business there. They wanted the best of both but unfortunately the way the zoning regulations are written, the driveway and parking lot must be paved or concrete. It's not a hardship; they can open up a commercial business there with a paved parking lot. The Board can't set precedence by granting it. Mrs. Ralston stated the driveway was already paved but it wasn't a very good job. Mr. Ralston said if he had to go 20 feet wide, he would have to tear it up. Mr. Ralston remarked that he didn't see why everything had to be written in stone, since every application was different. Mr. Reckner said the Board was required to uphold the zoning resolution.
Mr. Mills stated the other a hardship and not financial one was required to grant a variance. This was usually something unique to the lay of the land. This would let the Board grant a variance. In this particular case, they were changing the use. When the use is changed from a residential home you are in essence dropping off a good bit of that play of the antique home. If the Board were to grant it, they would be doing spot zoning. Then any other home that was in that vicinity could do the same thing. When a home is changed from a residential to a business, then the parties must comply with the same rules and regulations. Possibility the ZC could take it under consideration and give it a different status. This would delay the Ralston's a few months. The ZC has the power to change the zoning book, which the Board of Appeals has to live with and uphold the regulations in it.
Mr. Friedl said people could go to the ZC meeting and talk to them for free. It was a public meeting and open to everyone. Mr. Mahood said if one asks for a zoning amendment change there is a fee but to just discuss a change no. Mr. Mills asked about the cost of getting an amendment change. Mr. Mahood said it was $210.
Mr. Cutright suggested that the Ralston's just "chip and seal" the driveway and parking lot since this would look like gravel.
Mr. Kelsey said the Board of Appeals was a Quasi Judicial Board; which could not make laws. They can just support the laws. When the Board makes a decision the only place it can be changed is for the parties to go to the courts. Mr. Kelsey gave some examples where variances were granted. Zoning is to upgrade. Anyone in the community is allowed to come to the ZC meetings and offer their input.
Mr. Mills asked Mr. Mahood if the Ralston's went with chip and seal would he be comfortable with it. Mr. Mahood said that would be all right.
Mr. Mahood asked the Board about their interpretation of any building (pizza Shop for example) was closed and someone would want to move in would they be required to bring it up to code. Mr. Mills said if it was a commercial use; it would be a commercial use. Mr. Mahood asked if the pizza shop closed and another business went in would that business be required to bring the parking lot up to code. Mr. Kelsey said the business wouldn't have to bring the parking lot up to code because that building had been there long before zoning.
Mr. Ralston said Mr. Seifer had a shop where he sharpened saws in the home for years. Mr. Mills said the Zoning Inspectors never went after him for a permit. Mr. Seifer also said he did not charge for sharpening the saws. Mr. Mahood asked if the businesses in that area closed; and then reopen with a new business, would they be required to bring it up to zoning code. Mr. Kelsey said only if the ownership changed would they be required to bring it up to code. A discussion followed on buildings/commercial.
Mr. Kelsey said if Mr. Ralston were to "chip and seal" the driveway and parking lot, he wouldn't need a variance. Mr. Mahood said he wanted a date in the minutes when the "chip and seal" needed to be done. Mr. Mills said for Mr. Ralston to get his permit that was between the Zoning Inspector and Mr. Ralston. It had nothing to do with the Board. Mr. Kelsey asked Mr. Ralston if he agree to "chip and seal" within one year. Mr. Mills asked Mr. Mahood what was the length of a zoning permit. Mr./ Mahood said there was 1 year for the applicant to act on the permit.
Mr. Kelsey said it was the opinion of the chair that Mr. Ralston doesn't need a variance. The applicant has agreed to meet the requirements of the zoning resolution.
Mr. Friedl said the Board needed to act on the application. Mr. Mills said the applicant always has the right to withdraw. Mr. Mahood said that was right but there would be no refund.
Mr. Mills said Mr. Ralston should never have come to the Board and should have his money back. Mr. Mills said everything must be evaluated on its one on one. Mr. Mahood referred to the variance request in the Industrial Park on SR 44. Mr. Mills suggested that Mr. Ralston take this problem to the ZC. Mr. Mills said that usually takes 3 to 4 months before it gets into the zoning code.
The Board and Mr. Mahood discussed requests going before the ZC. Mr. Ralston asked what should he do next.
Mr. Kelsey asked the audience if there were any questions, comments, or concerns. There were none.
Mr. Kelsey reviewed the application
Resolution ZBA 2005-034. Mr. Mills made a motion to deny the variance request from Section 410.12-A. Mr. Cutright seconded it. A vote was taken as follows: Cutright - Yes Reckner - Yes Friedl - Yes Mills - Yes Kelsey - Yes. The motion carried unanimously (5/0).
Resolution ZBA 2005-035. Mr. Friedl made a motion to accept the minutes of the August 16, 2005 with the following changes: page 5, 4th paragraph where "Mr. Friedl said the" should read "Mr. Friedl said there", page 4, paragraphs 1 and 2 should be replaced with the following "Mr. Friedl said that Mr. Crin's question contrasting the BZA"s action at a previous meeting about an oil well and Mr. Epling's current application depends on the difference between "general conditions" and "special conditions". The oil well concerned a general condition that affected all of Rootstown Township. Such general conditions are the responsibility of the Zoning Commission. (New paragraph) in contrast, Mr. Epling's request is governed by a "special condition" specified in Section 641.07-B-1-a of our zoning code. Special conditions are defined as those "...which are peculiar tot he land or structure involved and which are not applicable generally to other lands or structures in the same zoning district..." Such special conditions are the responsibility of the BZA, and page 6, 1st paragraph, add "existing" after parking for the and also delete "and". Mr. Reckner seconded it. The motion carried unanimously (5/0).
The Board discussed the Zoning resolution book and the need for more clarification.
Mr. Kelsey adjourned the meeting.
Roy Kelsey, Chairman
ROOTSTOWN ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
Mary Ann Greer, Secretary BZA
ROOTSTOWN ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS