Minutes of the Meeting of the Rootstown Township Zoning Commission
August 20, 2007

The Rootstown Township Zoning Commission held a public hearing on August 20, 2007, at 7:00 p.m. at the Rootstown Town Hall.

Present:
Bob Baumgardner
Paul Galido
Richard Petro
Helen Vari

Absent:
Robert Swauger
David Ries, alternate

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

Chair, Bob Baumgardner, called the meeting to order. Everyone stood to recite the Pledge of Allegiance.

Zoning Inspector, Jim Mahood, reported that things are still quiet. Permits for sheds, decks, and swimming pools are more plentiful than those for homes lately. He mentioned the Zoning Board of Appeals has decided not to hear privilege cases in the future. This will hopefully eliminate any confusion as to their decisions when a formal application comes before them. Mr. Mahood also reported that last month’s informal request by Mr. Ed Harris for a possible church/business in a C-2 district looks like it will not proceed further. The owner of the property has started building renovations for his approved business.

Helen Vari made a motion to approve the July 16, 2007 Zoning Commission meeting minutes as presented. Paul Galido seconded the motion and all ayes were heard.

Mr. Baumgardner explained that the Trustees’ minutes of July 24, 2007 had an error which he needed to clarify since he spoke to Trustee Dave Armentrout. It mistakenly stated that Rich Petro would be assuming the Zoning Commission chair position due to Dorothy Filing’s resignation. In fact, Mr. Baumgardner, former vice-chair had accepted that position and the trustees appointed Mr. Petro, an alternate, to fill Mrs. Filing’s unexpired term only. Further discussion along those lines followed so there would be a current vice-chair available.

Bob Baumgardner made a motion to appoint Paul Galido and he agreed to be vice-chair through this calendar year, as Bob Baumgardner had agreed to be the chair. Helen Vari seconded the motion and all ayes were heard, with Paul Galido abstaining.

The next item on the agenda was the proposed amendment regarding the definition for family as it pertains to persons living in single-family dwellings or cluster single-family dwellings. The proposed change was suggested to eliminate renting single-family homes to several people so that it would be defensible in court if challenged. The trustees want it clarified to agree with and follow the law. Both Portage County Regional Planning Commission and the prosecuting attorney’s office were asked for their input and recommendations for this proposed amendment.

Much discussion followed regarding who should be living in single-family homes, and how many other un-related individuals should be allowed, etc. Today’s culture of persons living in domestic relationships, those based upon a domestic bond, etc. etc. etc. need to be included without being too restrictive or unconstitutional. A family can typically contain from one to a group of persons related by blood, marriage, or legal adoption. It could also include unrelated persons who are living there as a housekeeping unit. Since some of this could be vague, and it would not be constitutional to make it too restrictive, it’s a sticky wicket. The original problem occurred when a developer stated his homes were to be owned by seniors and it was entered into the minutes as no rentals, but those words were not included as part of the conditional use permit. Thus it left the door open for homes that could not be sold immediately to be rented out to groups of college students who sometimes are not the best neighbors in a senior designated area. It is felt that rentals should be in an area where there are approved rental units, not in single-family dwelling zoning districts. The number of bedrooms in a home has nothing to do with how many people can live in a dwelling. This is not to include a bed & breakfast, lodging house, boarding house, club, fraternity, sorority, hotel, motel, or dormitory.

The wording of the definition for family was brainstormed for quite a bit longer. It was also felt that homeowners association bylaws should somewhat agree with the township zoning resolution as much as possible. Because it was not this case in the aforementioned scenario, the problems began. Zoning Inspector Mahood explained that if township regulations are more restrictive than a homeowners association rules, the township rules are used. The goal would be to have single-family homes occupied by the owners only. Other homeowners who bought their dwelling with the understanding they would be living in a quiet area with the same type of persons are not pleased about the situation.

After much more consideration as to the wording of the definition of family, it was decided to modify the current definition. The assistant county prosecuting attorney, Chris Meduri, suggested the township would be able to make a good faith argument in support of the amended definition, which he approved as to form.

Paul Galido made a motion to modify the definition of family to - FAMILY: One individual, any number of individuals related by blood, adoption, foster or marriage, and no more than two (2) unrelated individuals occupying a dwelling unit and living as a single housekeeping unit, but not including groups occupying a hotel or motel as herein defined. Rich Petro seconded the motion and voting was as follows: Vari, YES; Petro, YES; Galido, YES; Baumgardner, YES – passed 4/0

As an additional related note, the modification of dwelling, attached single-family would need to be included as part of this proposed amendment. The prosecutor’s office and Regional Planning office were asked for input and recommendations. After much discussion, it was decided to limit dwelling units to be used exclusively by one family using the aforementioned newly approved definition which would keep the resolution uniform.

Paul Galido made a motion to modify the definition of dwelling – “attached single-family” (bolded italicized print added) – DWELLING, ATTACHED SINGLE-FAMILY: A dwelling unit designed and used exclusively by one (1) family that is attached to other dwelling units in contiguous side-by-side groupings, which are physically attached to one another by common or adjoining vertical walls without openings extended from the basement floor to the roof, which have individual heating and plumbing systems and separate ground floor entrances. …and DWELLING, CLUSTER SINGLE-FAMILY: A dwelling unit designed and used exclusively by one (1) family and separated from all other dwelling units by open space from ground to sky, which is grouped with other dwelling units in a Planned Residential Development, and which may be located on its own subdivided lot that does not have a front, side and/or rear yard that complies with the standard zoning district regulations. Helen Vari seconded the motion and voting was as follows: Vari, YES; Petro, YES; Galido, YES; Baumgardner, YES – passed 4/0

The unanimously passed proposed amendment will now be forwarded to the trustees for their approval or denial.

Next on the agenda was the ongoing review of the Planned Residential Development section of the zoning resolution. Bob Harris supplied the zoning commission members with another draft for sections of the PRD pertaining to open space requirements and the density formula which have not yet been amended. It was the same as his previous suggested wording changes – some of which have already been amended and incorporated into the resolution; therefore a bit of confusion followed since some new current zoning commission members would not have been in attendance at that time.

Before starting on the density and open space portion of the Chapter, in Section 320.04, Dwelling Types, it was noted the schedule had a redundant footnote. Since the sentence above the schedule explained that P means permitted, it was decided the footnote was not needed.

Helen Vari made a motion to delete the footnote on Schedule 320.04, since it’s redundant. Rich Petro seconded the motion and the vote was as follows: Vari, YES; Galido, YES; Petro, YES; Baumgardner, YES - passed 4/0

This will be added to the future proposed amendment when the other sections of Chapter 320 are also modified.

Again, because the newest members of the zoning commission had not gone over the many drafts in the past, and some of the members who had been were absent, it was not clear how to proceed with Section 320.05. From the suggested wording changes provided by Bob Harris previously, many things had been tentatively changed; therefore it was felt that section needed to be started over again. The density formula which has caused so much discussion was the beginning of another brainstorming session.

Zoning Inspector Mahood explained there is a formula used to calculate density, but it’s not listed as a line item. It’s his job to calculate it, but it was suggested as a line item so as to explain to the public and developers. A density bonus can be given by the zoning commission for meeting certain criteria. The zoning inspector basically gives the minimum and maximum and then the zoning commission reviews the plans for density bonuses they may wish to give.

After a considerable amount of dialogue and comparison of our many previous drafts against the newly received information, which only caused more confusion, it was decided to continue this section at the next regularly scheduled meeting after members could review all the information provided.

The next regularly scheduled meeting is Monday, September 17th, 2007.

A brief discussion about concession stands followed. There are no regulations at the current time; therefore they are not allowed. Temporary, allowed, not allowed, permit required, health department approved, roadside stands, etc. Much to think about.

Rich Petro made a motion to adjourn. Paul Galido seconded the motion and all ayes were heard.

_____________________________
Bob Baumgardner, Chair
Rootstown Township Zoning Commission

Judy Adamson, secretary