MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE CHESTER
TOWNSHIP BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS HELD MONDAY,
FEBRUARY 14, 2005, IN THE TOWN HALL MEETING ROOM AT 7:00 P.M.
Chairman Makowski called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. Board members present: Mrs. Cotman,
Mr. Ziganti, Mr.
Makowski, Mr. Swartz, Mr.
Skully.
Zoning Inspector Mike Joyce was also present.
Procedures of the BZA explained to the audience by the
Chairman
Appeal 2004-16 (continuation) – Mark Dienes requests a
variance to construct an accessory building at 7577 Drury Lane, Chester
Township, but fails to meet the requirements of Section 5.01.03,
Accessory buildings to be located in the rear yard behind the rear building
line of the house, of the Chester Township Zoning Resolution.
Mr. Dienes presented an
updated drawing showing his septic system to the best of his knowledge and
indicated that Mike Tusick from the County Health Dept.
said he was not willing to come out to the property. Mr. Dienes
said he did the best he could.
Two people sworn in by Mr.
Makowski.
Mr. Dienes explained the
possibility of placing the building behind the house. He has a swale along the back of the house
that runs right into the location where the building location was proposed.
Mrs. Cotman asked about the
length of the lines coming out from the distribution boxes?
Mr. Dienes said that Mr.
Tusick said the lines coming north and south on the drawing provided by the
Health Dept. probably do not go that far.
Mr. Ziganti said it almost
looks like the lines may interfere with the proposed location of the accessory
building.
Mr. Dienes said
construction would be north of the lines coming out.
Mrs. Cotman asked what
exactly did he measure on the junction boxes?
Mr. Dienes said the
location of the tanks. His measurement is off the visible part where
the tank is cleaned. The furthest junction box of 100 feet is
closest to the house. The first tank, which is closer to the house,
is 27 feet from the house and 26 feet from the concrete pad. He measured east and west and took no measurements
in the north south direction but stated they are generally in line with the
rear house line.
Mr. Skully asked where the
secondary location for the leech bed is located?
BZA
2-14-05
Mr. Dienes said on the
other side of the house and he then explained photos of the property which he
faxed to the Board this past week. This is the presentation he gave at the last
month’s BZA meeting. The picture was taken from an aerial shot. He also noted the well location on the new
site plan.
Mr. Makowski marked Exhibit
2 which is the drawing Mr. Dienes obtained
from the Health Department. A series of photos presented by Mr.
Dienes are marked Exhibits 3 through 16.
Mrs. Cotman said since Mr.
Dienes proposed the accessory building in the front yard, has consideration
been given of attaching an additional garage to the existing house? He would not need a variance then and would
meet the front setback.
Mr. Dienes said he
considered this in the beginning. They would prefer it to be a stand alone
building because there could be noise due to his work on his historical cars including
welding and hammering, etc.
Mr. Swartz said it would be
a substantial additional construction cost to attach the structure to the house
since the home is brick.
Mr. Dienes said it would
also overpower the house.
Mr. Dienes
added, to locate the accessory building to the other
side of the house would be between $11,000 and $15,000 for an asphalt driveway. It would easily double the budget he was
planning for this project.
Findings of Fact: The
applicant owns a single family property at 7577 Drury
Lane where there is an existing single family
ranch style residence. The proposal is to construct a 30 x 40 foot
free-standing accessory building which complies with the Zoning Resolution in
size and height but the proposed location does not comply with Section 5.01.03
that accessory buildings should be located to the rear of the back line of the
building contained on the premises. The applicant has provided drawings and
information from the County Health Dept. that
depicts the location of the on-site septic system to be situated to the south
and west of the house with leech field lines located on the southwest side. The water well is located behind the house. The distance, according to the drawing, is
approximately 30 feet from the rear of the house. The proposed location for this accessory
building is slightly to the north of the line of the main portion of the house
and to the west of the existing driveway. The applicant has indicated he would remove
some trees in that area but that there would be several remaining that would
screen the proposed accessory building from the view of the property and the
street.
He has considered locating the accessory building to the rear of the
house and other portions of the property but that would involve extending the
BZA
2-14-05
driveway as much as 275 feet in
length from the front of the house at a cost of somewhere between $11,000 and
$15,000.00. In addition to the water well being located
behind the rear of the house, there is also a drainage swale which is depicted
in one of the photographs that is marked on applicant’s Exhibit 1. The applicant has also considered providing
additional storage space or work space for the house by adding to the garage
that comes off the front of the house. The house is a brick home, and an addition
would add a considerable cost to the construction of an accessory building. The purpose for the proposed accessory
building is for storage and maintenance of a classic car collection. There has not been any evidence that
construction of the accessory building at this proposed location would
adversely obstruct the delivery of governmental services to the property. No comments from the public opposing the
construction of this accessory building
The property owner indicates that when he purchased the property he was
unaware of the restrictions of the construction of an accessory building within
the proposed area. It essentially is the applicant’s position
that there is no other feasible method given the additional cost if this could
be constructed to the rear of the residential structure. The structure would also require removal of a
larger number of trees on the property than the number of trees that would be removed
from the proposed location. There is an existing accessory building, 8
feet x 10 feet in size, near the southerly property line to the east of the
house.
The dimensions being proposed for this accessory building would not
exceed the maximum 1,280 square feet for total area of all accessory buildings
on site.
Mr. Skully moved to adopt
the Findings of Fact. Mr. Swartz
seconded.
No discussion. Call vote:
Mrs. Cotman, yes; Mr.
Ziganti, yes; Mr. Makowski, yes; Mr.
Swartz, yes; Mr. Skully, yes. Motion passed.
Mr. Swartz moved to grant a
variance for the construction of the accessory building which would not be
behind the rear building area on this property. Mr. Skully
seconded.
No discussion. Call vote:
Mr. Skully, yes; Mrs.
Cotman, no; Mr. Swartz, yes; Mr.
Ziganti, yes; Mr. Makowski, yes. Motion passed.
Chairman Makowski announced the request has been granted. Upon approval of this evening’s minutes at
the next regular BZA meeting, a letter will be sent by the secretary so stating
the approval.
Upon presentation of said letter and payment of the appropriate zoning
fee, a Zoning Permit will be issued by the Zoning Inspector.
______________________
BZA
2-14-05
Appeal 2004-17 (continuation) – Diane B.
Less for DBL Promotions, Inc. requests a
variance for a modification to an existing sign at 8005 Mayfield Road, Chester
Township, but fails to meet the requirements of Section 9.06.A.2.,
Sign face area has a maximum are of 32 square feet, of the Chester Township
Zoning Resolution.
Five people sworn in by Chairman Makowski.
Mr. Makowski said he did
try to hand deliver a subpoena to the owner of the property but the owner no
longer lives on Laser. Also, he did attempt to contact Mr.
Beg, the other owner of the property, who was out-of-town and did not return
the Chairman’s phone call today when he returned from vacation.
Ms. Lees said the owner of
Fairways did say Rachel from Fairways would be present this evening; however,
she is not present.
Mr. Makowski marked the
site plan Exhibit 1.
Ms. Lees said they used the
center of the white line of the street and the edge of the driveway for the
measurement of the sign. The sign is located 32.5
feet from the white line and 64.5 feet from
the edge of the driveway.
Mr. Makowski marked the
drawing of the sign as Exhibit 2 and asked Ms.
Lees if she had the dimensions of the framework on which the Fairways sign is
located?
Ms. Lees said the
dimensions of the timbers is 4” x 4” and the timbers measure 3.5”
in width for the sign which are inclusive in the dimensions of the sign as
shown on Exhibit 2.
Mr. Makowski noted that the
existing permit allowed for construction to permit a sign at 32 square feet.
The Zoning Inspector said he used the 32 square foot figure
and not the 35 square foot which the owner of the plaza obtained a variance for
in the past.
Rob Stein, Esq., on behalf
of Ms. Lees was present and referenced the
travel speed of 35 MPH when heading east and west on SR 322.
BZA
2-14-05
Ms. Lees said because of
the way the building sits and where the coffee shop and Fairways are located,
there is no visibility for either Fairways or High
Peaks. The other issue to consider is that the
Fairways sign may come down when the Cianci’s act on
the variance which was granted to them. Since she has had her sign on the Fairways
sign, she has had an increase in her business of $145.00
per day and has been continually growing for the past six weeks since the sign
has been up.
However, that still does not put them in the position of bringing some
of the workers back who worked in the coffee shop.
Ms. Lees added that the
bicycle portion of the business is seasonal. The bike clientele bring in people with them
for the bike business. This coffee shop is for the local and Geauga
County people.
A sign is imperative to a business. They are not new to business since Ms.
Lees has approximately 30 years of business experience.
Mr. Makowski asked Ms.
Lees if she has had any further discussion with the landlord concerning his intentions?
Ms. Lees replied, yes. The landlord is not inclined to come before
this Board.
Mr. Makowski asked Ms.
Lees if there was anything documented concerning her relationship with the
Fairways sign?
Ms. Lees said she did ask
them to come to this evening’s meeting. Someone in the audience did say Fairways is
extremely busy right now and apparently could not come to the meeting. She said Fairways came to her and suggested to
piggyback on the Fairways sign.
Mr. Swartz said there has
been publicity to date on this matter. A Letter to the Editor read into record dated December 10th 2004, from
the Board of Trustees by Mr. Swartz. Said letter attached to the minutes.
Mr. Swartz added, how can
the BZA get involved in a landlord/tenant issue?
Ms. Lees said this variance
is based on the original permit and the owners of the Fairways sign knowing
full well that the Fairways sign will come down some day when the owner of the
plaza acts on his approved variance for a monument sign. It is two separate issues.
Mrs. Cotman questioned the
square footage of the proposed sign. The Board needs a diagram of the proposed
sign with the dimensions of the complete sign including supports so we can
calculate the square footage of the sign. There is a discrepancy between the size submitted
with the application and the size shown on Exhibit 2.
BZA
2-14-05
Mrs. Cotman asked the
Zoning Inspector if he had ever measured the Fairways sign. Mr. Joyce
said he had but he could not find the dimensions in his files.
Mr. Joyce, Zoning Inspector,
said the temporary sign which is piggybacked on the Fairways sign is 12 square
feet.
It should not have been added to the Fairways sign but rather been a
free-standing sign of a maximum of 24 square feet, which is permitted and for
which Ms. Lees has received a Zoning Permit.
Ms. Lees said she is asking
a variance for a permanent sign that is 85 inches x 14 inches as opposed to 18
x 96.
The other dimensions are correct on the plan. The visible part of the post dimensions are 3.5
inches wide and seven inches to the bottom to the bottom of the sign for a
total height of 55 inches.
After much discussion it was concluded that the sign plan
submitted as Exhibit 2 was for Ms. Lees
temporary sign and not for the sign that she is requesting the variance for.
Mr. Makowski stressed the
importance of submitting complete package with the zoning applications.
John Gorka, 13015 Caves Road. He understands that the application for the
Fairways sign was given to Fairways. This particular variance is one that is going
to stay piggyback on that sign. How is it possible for someone to request a
variance on someone else’s sign? Don’t
they have to request the variance for their own sign?
_______________
Recess taken at 8:20 p.m. for the
attorney along with two people in the audience and the Zoning Inspector to
measure the sign in front of the Fairways and High Peaks for
the exact dimensions.
_______________
Meeting reconvened at 8:30 p.m.
Ms. Lees said the outside
of the post to the outside of the other post is 103 inches. The sign is seven inches off the ground and the
total height is 55 inches.
Ed Rowe and Rob Stein sworn in by Chairman
Makowski.
Mr. Makowski asked Mr.
Rowe if he took the measurements of the sign?
Mr. Rowe replied, yes, and
verified the dimensions of the Fairways sign.
BZA
2-14-05
Zoning Inspector Mike Joyce also went to the site and
determined that the Fairways sign is too high. The overall figures are 35.01
or 35.02 square feet. The sign is 48 inches high. Zoning action will follow by the Zoning
Inspector.
Mr. Rowe concurs with the
Zoning Inspector and said he did not measure the correct way.
Mr. Makowski marked
applicant’s Exhibit 2 and revised the dimensions to show 35 square feet for the
Fairways sign with an addition for High
Peaks of 14” x 85”. The site plan and dimensions reviewed showing
the existing sign. The Board viewed a video which the applicant
provided this evening.
Ms. Lees said she had no
other information to present. The total sign square footage being asked for
is 8.26 square feet on to the existing sign.
Findings of Fact: Appeal
2004-17 by Diane Lees for DBL Promotions, Inc.
is requesting a variance to add an additional 8.26
square feet of sign identifying her business of High Peaks Coffee to be placed
on the top of the Fairways sign that is located at Chester
Commons commercial center. The site plan indicates the location of the
sign to be 32.5 feet from the center of the
pavement on Mayfield Road
and 64.5 feet from the east edge of the
westerly drive. The dimensions of the proposed sign addition
are 14 inches in height x 85 inches
in width.
Ms. Lees occupies the suite at 8005
Mayfield Road, which faces east. There is no visibility of this business
location from the west side of the building. Testimony has been given that people driving
along Mayfield Road
approaching from the west and driving east, it is not possible to see her
business location until you pass the building. In addition, there are items from the
Playground World on the grass area on display in front of the building which
the applicant indicates blocks the view of drivers coming from the east,
traveling westbound, and that her business location is not visible due to that
obstruction.
Her testimony has been that she has placed a temporary sign on top of
the Fairways sign and since the temporary sign has been placed there, her
business has increased over the period of time that the temporary sign has been
put there.
She has indicated that she has had communication from the landlord who possesses
a variance for a sign for this property and that the landlord does not plan to
put up a sign on which the various tenants of this building can locate their
identification signs. It has been the applicant’s testimony before
the Board that she has permission or consent from the holder of a zoning permit
for the Fairways sign to add her sign to their sign. She did request someone from the Fairways to
be present this evening; however, no one was able to be here from the Fairways
business operation to discuss the relationship between the proposed additional
sign on the Fairways sign. The total sign requested is 43 square feet. Current zoning requirements allow 32 square
feet which is 34% larger sign than the current resolution allows. The appeal in 1994-3 granted a variance to
allow a 35.1 square foot monument sign for
this property.
The dimensions of the square
BZA
2-14-05
footage area are the combination of
the request to add 8.26 square feet to the
existing sign that is located on the Fairways sign of 34.75
square feet.
John Gorka, formerly of the Zoning Commission, posed a question about
the propriety of a party other than the holder of the existing Fairways sign permit
requesting the addition to the sign. There were parties in attendance at the
January meeting indicating their support for the issuance of the variance as
well as at least one party indicating opposition to the granting of a variance. Mr. Swartz
read into the record an article from the December 10, 2004, edition of the Geauga Times Courier which
was a Letter to the Editor from the Board of Trustees. It is the Zoning Inspector’s testimony that
he will take action with the holder of the Fairways permit.
Mr. Swartz moved to approve
the Findings of Fact as stated. Mr. Ziganti
seconded.
No discussion. Call vote:
Mrs. Cotman, yes; Mr.
Ziganti, yes; Mr. Makowski, yes; Mr.
Swartz, yes; Mr. Skully, yes. Motion passed.
Mr. Swartz moved to approve
application 2004-17. Mr. Skully
seconded.
No discussion. Call vote:
Mr. Ziganti, no; Mr.
Swartz, no; Mrs. Cotman, no; Mr.
Skully, no.
Mr. Makowski, no. Motion denied.
Chairman Makowski announced that appeal 2004-17 has been
denied and will be finalized at the next meeting when the minutes are approved. A letter will be sent at that time by the
secretary.
An option is for an appeal to be filed with the County
Appeals Court.
__________________
Discussion of the minutes dated January 10, 2005. Mr. Swartz
moved to approve the minutes dated January
10, 2005, as amended. Mr. Makowski
seconded.
No discussion. Call vote:
Mrs. Cotman, yes; Mr.
Ziganti, yes; Mr. Swartz, yes; Mr.
Skully, yes; Mr. Makowski, yes. Motion passed.
__________________
Discussion ensued regarding the by-laws. Comments have been received by Mrs.
Cotman and the Zoning Inspector which will be taken into consideration with
revisions to be included in the by-laws.
Mr. Swartz moved to table
the discussion of the by-laws until the March meeting. Mr. Skully
seconded.
No discussion. Call vote:
All members in unanimous favor of continuation. Motion passed.
__________________
BZA
2-14-05
Mr. Makowski moved to
adjourn the meeting at 9:15 p.m. Mr. Swartz
seconded.
No discussion. Call vote:
All members in unanimous favor of adjournment. Motion passed.
Respectfully submitted,
___________________________
Approval Date
__________________________ ___________________________
Mary Lou Fende,
Secretary
Richard J. Makowski, Chairman
\mlf