Minutes of the Meeting of the Rootstown Township Zoning Board of Appeals
December 18, 2007

The regular meeting of the ROOTSTOWN ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS was held on Tuesday, December 18, 2007 at 7:00 P.M. at the Rootstown Town Hall.

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

Those absent:
Darrell Wayt
Michael Finan

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

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

The first item on the agenda was an application for a variance from Section 350.04 for property located at 4200, 4350, 4400, & 4450 Lynn Road (parcel # 32-021-00-00-034-006) for minimum lot area (to subdivide the lot on which the Rootstown Business Commons project is located and create a unique parcel for each freestanding building) in a C-2 District submitted by:

Jonathan M. Epling
4300 Lynn Road, Suite 201
Ravenna, OH 44266

Mr. Cutright swore in Jonathan Epling, 4300 Lynn Road, Suite 201. Mr. Epling said that their goal was to subdivide the parcel on Lynn Road so that each building would be on its own lot. The original project (Rootstown Business Commons) would have 4 buildings on one lot. They were seeking a variance from the one-acre per lot that was required in that area. The project approved previously would not change.

Mr. Boring had no questions at this time.

Mrs. Saillant had no questions.

Mr. Friedl asked how many buildings exist there now. Mr. Epling replied there was one. Mr. Friedl said the plan called for 4 buildings. The last two buildings if subdivided into separate lots would they still comply with the parking requirements. Originally, there were enough parking spaces.

Mr. Mills said first of all there would be some lose of parking spots by dividing it up. Mr. Mills asked why didn't Mr. Epling request this when he came before the Board and requested four buildings on one parcel. Mr. Epling said that quite honestly he didn't think he would encounter some of the logical problems that arose when they started the building in Phase two. Mr. Mills asked with today's economy, when did he think they would start on Phase 2, 3, and 4. Mr. Epling said that would depend on when Phase one fills up. Mr. Mills said the request on that was greatly reduced from the one acre that is required. They would be looking at acreage of .6, .6, & .7. Mr. Mills said it could have been done up in three parcels.

Mr. Cutright said there would be no parking out back of two of the buildings. Mr. Epling agreed with that. Mr. Mahood read some of the minutes from the meeting of August 16, 2005 and from the motion that was made.

Mr. Cutright asked if Mr. Epling could speculate what would go into the other buildings. Mr. Epling said the buildings would probably be professional offices. This was one reason they couldn't determine how many parking spaces would be needed. Parking spaces would depend on the use of the buildings. Mr. Epling remarked that the accountant's building was considerably less acreage (.3 acres). Mr. Cutright said the accountant's building was limited to two offices. Mr. Cutright said they weren't comparing apples to apples because of the amount that Mr. Epling would be splitting his buildings into verses the accountant building with two offices.

Mr. Boring stated that Arby's was on .6 acres. Mr. Mills asked Mr. Mahood when the zoning in that neighborhood changed and was it before or after Arby's. Mr. Mahood said it was after Arby's went in.

Mr. Mills remarked about the parking spaces that would be with the other buildings. It amounted to about 42 parking spaces for those businesses. Mr. Epling said on Phase four they had parking on the side. This would make 7 more spots. Mr. Cutright questioned the ability of a fire truck to get into each building if they were broken done as individual lots.

Mr. Mills questioned the justification of the variance that was not financially related. Mr. Epling said it was a practical standpoint as to facilitate the building of the future Phases. It is cumbersome to separate the costs, taxes, etc. on each building. It would make it easier to insure each building as it went up since there are different insurance issues for the buildings under construction and the buildings that are finished. It would be easier to get mortgages for the buildings if they were separate.

Mrs. Saillant stated that this should have all been done at the very beginning of the project. Mr. Epling said the project would not change. It would be just easier down the line if the buildings were on separate lots. He had never done a project with multiple buildings on the same lot before.

Mr. Mills asked if all things that Mr. Epling was saying were not financially related. Mr. Epling said it was a matter of practicality. The property has the same amount of value.

Mr. Friedl stated that right now, Phase I has more than 1 acre. If he wanted to that could be subdivided or split up. Mr. Mahood said no only if you created another lot. Mr. Friedl said that was more than 2 acres. Mr. Mahood said the 2 acres could be split.

Resolution ZBA 2007-043. Mr. Mills made a motion to deny the request.

Mr. Friedl commented that this is a unique long parcel constricted by the Interstate. The adjoining parcel is in the same boat. The citizens of Rootstown would whether have that land used than sit idle. If the Board approved it, it would be on the condition that it meets the parking requirements.

Mr. Mills said that this land was there. It was purchased knowing what the requirements were. This could have been done in 3 buildings not 4 in the original planning. It is repeatable up and down. The land on both sides of the street is to be developed and the Board would be opening Pandora's box. It is a man-made problem.

Mr. Friedl said that our zoning permits the Board to look at adjust properties.

Mr. Boring said if you are look area size variances, the nature of the area variance. Mr. Mills said the Board would be doing the Zoning Commission's duties by rezoning it to substandard lots. Mr. Friedl said one of the reasons it was before the Board was that zoning could not contemplate everything.

A discussion on the lot being divided into three parcels instead of four followed. Mr. Friedl said that Phase 1as it is now could be split. The parking spaces were discussed if there were only three buildings. Mr. Cutright said that it might limit Mr. Epling down the road. Mr. Epling said he was trying to make it smooth for the future. If he were to split it into three parcels or he splits Phase I off, when he would build Phase II; he would have the same problems he is having now.

Mr. Cutright seconded the motion. A vote was taken as follows: Friedl - No Saillant - Yes Mills - Yes Boring - No Cutright - Yes. The motion passed by a vote of 3/2.

Resolution ZBA 2007-044. Mr. Friedl made a motion to accept the minutes of the September 18, 2006 with the following corrections, page 2, paragraph 5, "pervious" should be "previous", page 3, paragraph 1 "The setback required by coding" should read "The setback required by code to obtain a CUP is as follows: the tower height plus 25 feet or it they can prove by the design of the structure that it will collapse on itself." page 3, paragraph 2 "Mr. Friedl has it" should be "Mr. Friedl asked", and page 4, 4th line from the bottom should read "The site will". Mr. Cutright seconded. The motion carried unanimously (5/0).

Mr. Mills made a motion to adjourn the meeting. Mr. Friedl seconded it. Mr. Cutright adjourned the meeting.

Troy Cutright, Chairman
ROOTSTOWN ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS

Mary Ann Greer, Secretary BZA
ROOTSTOWN ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS