Minutes of the Meeting of the Rootstown Township Zoning Commission
April 21, 2008

The Rootstown Township Zoning Commission met in regular session on Monday, April 21, 2008, at 7:00 p.m. at the Rootstown Town Hall.

Present:
Paul Galido
Richard Petro
Rob Swauger
Helen Vari
Ann Marie Mullenix, alternate
Karen Henry, voting alternate

Absent:
Bob Baumgardner

Also present:
Jim Mahood, Zoning Inspector
Van-Note Black, Asst. Zoning Inspector
Judy Adamson, secretary

Chair, Paul Galido, called the meeting to order. Everyone stood to recite the Pledge of Allegiance.

Helen Vari made a motion to approve the March 17, 2008 Zoning Commission meeting minutes as presented. Rich Petro seconded the motion and all ayes were heard.

Mr. Galido explained to the group his response to the trustees requesting more information on the reasons the outdoor furnace regulation amendment restricted use in some zoning districts. Mr. Mahood shared information from current outdoor furnace owners’ frustration on whether they’d be grandfathered from making costly adaptations to follow regulations passed by the trustees. Due to the fact that the Environmental Protection Agency has not adopted final regulations the township trustees may wish to provide information to current owners with something to ease their fears.

Chairperson, Paul Galido, took a poll of the zoning commission members on their thoughts to send to the trustees a recommendation on whether to include a grandfather clause for current owners. Rob Swauger feels they should be grandfathered and the districts for which they are conditionally permitted were considered at length before making the recommendation to the trustees and they are the districts best suited for this township. The smokestack height which was modified by the trustees was discussed again. They could potentially be 40’ high, depending upon neighboring structure heights, according to the zoning inspector. Jim feels the outdoor furnaces should be recorded, requiring a permit for non-conforming use for accessory. If the EPA asks for more stringent regulations, that would supercede the township regulations. Rich Petro was concerned about un-acceptable fuels being burned. The majority felt that grandfathering current units would be fair and they should be required to get a permit. Since the units were installed prior to any specific township regulations, they could be in conflict with the EPA rules.

Mr. Galido thinks the zoning commission should provide the trustees with a follow-up letter having them consider grandfathering current outdoor furnaces yet require a non-conforming accessory use permit with the fees waived due to the unique circumstances. The zoning inspectors are aware of the existing outdoor furnaces.

Rob Swauger made a motion to recommend the trustees grandfather current outdoor furnace owners; however require a permit with the fee for non-conformance waived. Helen Vari seconded the motion and the vote was as follows: Henry, YES; Vari, YES; Swauger, YES; Petro, YES, Galido, YES.

Zoning Inspector Jim Mahood briefed the group on the trustees recent decision to vote not to accept Portage County Regional Planning Commission’s potential rate increase for the services to the township. It remains to be seen if this will change any of the procedures which we currently follow when sending proposed amendments there for input and recommendations. Other townships have not definitely decided if they will accept the increase at this time. The general consensus of the zoning commission is to continue the current procedures until told to do differently.

The zoning commission members were reminded the deadline for registering for the May 9th zoning seminar in Akron is tomorrow and Jim Mahood will turn the names in as a group so the township fiscal officer can pay the registration fees in advance. They group can meet at the zoning office to carpool.

Chapter 320 – Planned Residential Development Regulations – the ongoing review was next, beginning at 320.07 – Open Space Requirements. The previous sections have already been reviewed and amended. The secretary reminded everyone how the draft copies included potentially suggested wording from several months ago when Bob Harris attended a work session. The formal motions from the March meeting will be incorporated as proposed amendments to be submitted at the same time to finish up this chapter.

To keep the open space wording consistent, the draft pages, which had the word, restricted included, it will be removed when preceding the term ‘open space’. Each line item was read, discussed, and considered for inclusion or deletion.

The following two motions at the March 2008 meeting shown below will be forwarded to the Portage County Regional Planning Commission and the township’s legal counsel, Chris Meduri for adoption in the Planned Residential Development Regulations: Section 320 – Planned Residential Development - 320.06 – Development Standards.

Helen Vari made a motion to add “front and rear” to Main Wall and “side” to End Wall in 320.06 B 1 & 2. Rich Petro seconded the motion and the voting was as follows: Vari, YES; Petro, YES; Mullenix, YES; Henry, YES; and Galido, YES. Passed 5/0

The Minimum Standards in Schedule 320.06 was next. Setback from existing street right of way (number 1) needs to be clarified by adding the words “including state highways”. Also in the schedule, number 4 -- the distance between buildings for end wall to end wall in R-1, R-2, and R-V which would be changed to 20 feet, 15 feet, and 15 feet respectively. To complete the chart, it was agreed that the (a) & (b) footnote was not needed also – including removing the actual superscript characters.

Helen Vari made a motion for the proposed amendment to Schedule 320.06 as noted above. Karen Henry seconded the motion and the vote was as follows: Mullenix, YES; Henry, YES; Petro, YES, Vari, YES; and Galido, YES. Passed 5/0

Helen Vari made a motion and Rob Swauger seconded the motion to forward proposed amendments to Regional Planning and Chris Meduri with voting as follows: Henry, YES; Vari, YES; Swauger, YES; Petro, YES, Galido, YES - to amend 320.07 OPEN SPACE REQUIREMENTS – as voted upon in March as well as to add “f” under number 2 and “c” under 3; i.e., – Land area devoted to the following shall not be included as meeting the open space requirement; i.e., 2f. Permanent bodies of water, wetlands and floodplains should comprise no more than twenty (20) percent of totals required open space area … Areas designated for open space purposes may be: 3c. Arranged to create isolated groupings of dwelling units and/or the buildings containing the dwelling units as opposed to an uninterrupted row of dwelling units and/or the buildings containing the dwelling units fronting along a roadway… and, add #5a., b., & c. under A. Design Criteria: including the Schedule 320.07A.5.a as follows (in bold) as well as 6 a., b., and c. :

5. An open space buffer zone shall be created along the frontage of existing roads and abutting parcels:

  1. Restricted open space buffers along existing roads.
    An open space buffer shall be preserved on existing roads fronting or abutting the parcel to be developed. The open space buffer depth shall be in accordance with the specifications of Schedule 320.07.A.5.a.

    Schedule 320.07.A.5.a
     O-CR-1R-2R-V
    1. Minimum open space buffers along an existing roadway.60 ft.60 ft.30 ft.20 ft.
    2. Maximum open space buffers along an existing roadway.25025012060

    Each parcel shall be judged on its own merits based on the following criteria.

    1. A PRD subdivision development that includes plans for allowing natural or manmade features, such as trees or hills alongside the roadways to further shield the view of the development from the existing roadway will be allowed a shallower buffer (see Figure320.07.A.5.a)

    2. A PRD subdivision development that includes plans for unobstructed views from the existing roadway will be required to have a deeper buffer in order to minimize the perceived density of site improvements buffer (see Figure320.07.A.5.a).

    The developer is permitted to make use of an open space buffer with a greater depth. The depth of an open space buffer shall be established early in the plan review process.

  2. Open space buffers along the perimeter of abutting neighboring parcels.
    An open space buffer shall be designed on the perimeter of the project having no frontage on an existing road. The minimum buffer width shall be in accordance with Schedule 320.07.A.5.b for the corresponding zoning district.

    Schedule 320.07.A.5.b
     O-CR-1R-2R-V
    1. Open space buffers along the perimeter of abutting neighboring parcels.60 ft.60 ft.30 ft.20 ft.

  3. Individual buildings shall not infringe into either of the frontage or perimeter open space buffer areas.

6. The Creation of Common Open Space

  1. In the event a portion of the open space is to be held in private ownership, each development is required to set aside a minimum amount of open space that shall be dedicated for public use or reserved for the common use of all property owners or tenants within the proposed development as common open space. The amount of open space that is to be devoted for common open space shall be in compliance with the Portage County Subdivision Regulations, but in no case shall the amount of land devoted to common open space be less than 1/8 (12.5%) of the required open space area. Additionally, the land area devoted to common open space shall be suitable for both passive and active recreation and be easily accessible to all of the PRD’s residents. Additionally, the land area necessary to meet the minimum requirements of this section shall not be comprised of wetlands and floodplains. However, permanent bodies of water should comprise no more than twenty (20) percent of total required common open space area. The Zoning Commission may increase this amount up to 30% depending upon the feature's utility as a recreational or open space asset.

  2. In addition to the requirements of Section 320.07.A.6.a, all land that is to be used for sewage service, storm water management, and/or water supply facilities for the proposed PRD development shall be located entirely within the common open space areas. Where such facilities are located, easements satisfactory to the appropriate agency/entity shall be established to require and enable maintenance of such facilities by the appropriate parties.

  3. Once the minimum common open space land area requirements of Section 320.07.A.6.a have been satisfied additional land area, such as described in Sections 320.07.A.6.a and 320.07.A.6.b, as well as all of or any portion of the open space, including but not limited to wetlands, steep slopes and floodplains, may be designated as common open space.

4. Private Ownership of Restricted Open Space:

The Zoning Commission may allow restricted open space to be retained by the applicant or other private entity subject to all standards and criteria for restricted open space herein including its preclusion from being developed.

5. Ownership of the Common Open Space:

The area dedicated as common open space shall forever be accessible for use by all the residents and their guests. Any transfer of ownership of the common open space shall be only to an Association as described in Sections 320.07.C.2 or dedicated to the public. Transfer of ownership to anyone other than an Association or other approved public entity shall be approved by the Zoning Commission and must be consistent with the intent of these regulations.

Returning to the next sections of this chapter the group decided there were no changes or additions needed in 320.08 & 320.09. Then, on to 320.10 – Standards and Criteria for Common Areas – it was decided to add the words “open space” after the word “common” in the title and the opening statement. Also in 320.10B the words “after proper notice” need to be stricken in two places. Bob Harris had suggested this potential change when he attended the work session several months back, and the zoning commission members concurred. Karen Henry made a motion to make a proposed amendment in Section 320.10 – STANDARDS AND CRITERIA FOR COMMON AREAS as noted above. Rich Petro seconded the motion and vote was as follows: Swauger, YES; Vari, YES; Henry, YES; Petro, YES; Galido, YES.

For completing the Planned Residential Development section of the Zoning Resolution the proposed amendments voted on at the March 2008 meeting will be included with this month’s proposed amendments. Rich Petro made a motion to forward it to Regional Planning and Chris Meduri for 320.06, 320.07, and 320.10. Vote as follows: Swauger, YES; Vari, YES; Henry, YES; Petro, YES; and Galido, YES.

The next regularly scheduled zoning commission meeting is May 19, 2008.

Rob Swauger made a motion to adjourn. Rich Petro seconded the motion and all ayes were heard.

_____________________________
Paul Galido, Chair

Judy Adamson, secretary