MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS HELD MONDAY, MARCH 14, 2005, AT 7:00 P.M.
IN THE TOWN HALL MEETING ROOM
Chairman Richard Makowski called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. Roll was called by the secretary with all
Board members present: Mrs.
Cotman, Mr. Ziganti, Mr.
Makowski, Mr. Swartz, Mr.
Skully.
Continuation of the Application for a Conditional Use Permit
2001-1 – Richard Onorato Word of Grace Church requests a Conditional Use Permit
to operate a church at 9021 Mayfield Road,
Chester Township.
Thirty-two people sworn in by Chairman Makowski.
Mr. Makowski explained that
this application began in 2001. The last meeting was held on November 22, 2004. This evening the Board will hear some of the
additional information that the Board felt was necessary to request along with
any further information. A conditional Use Permit Application is a
little different than a request for a variance. It is not a requirement that the applicant
establish either unnecessary hardship or practical difficulty.
Chairman Makowski asked Lorrie Sass, Attorney, to present a
summary at this time of what has transpired since the last meeting in November,
2004.
Lorrie Sass, Attorney, said she will give a brief
summarization along with introducing of all personnel associated with the
church including persons hired for this project. Senior Pastor Michael LoPresti, Rick Onorato,
Project Architect Bob Myers, Project Engineer Kevin Noble, Landscape Architect
Mark Golumbus.
Sheryl Hopkins, church day care consultant is also present. Ms. Sass
explained the book which was put together stating the property now consists of
35.52 acres on the south side of Mayfield
Road in the R-3A district. No problems were found by the Police Chief
Joseph Orosz or Fire Inspector Rob Gerlosky. All parking space requirements are adequate
and meet the requirements of the Zoning Resolution. There are no plans for signage at this time. At the conclusion of the November hearing,
this Board requested 19 additional items. Word of Grace has gathered all of the
additional evidence. The church has incurred a substantial cost in
coming up with the items.
Pastor LoPresti explained that the Church’s purpose is to
serve the community and not to create or leave any hard feelings with the
community.
Copies provided are:
copies of the new legal description which is now one parcel of property;
narrative of the day care proposal. Sheryl Hopkins read the narrative for the day
care pre school. Forty-four children would be the starting number
and could increase to 88 children within five years.
BZA
3-14-05
Ms. Sass explained all
sections of the Zoning Resolution in Section 6 which pertains to churches as a
conditional use. (See Cross Reference of Conditions by Witness
attached to the minutes).
Mrs. Cotman asked if the
design of the waste water treatment plant was calculated considering a full
capacity number of children in the day care?
Ms. Hopkins said 88
children is the maximum.
The narrative of the lighting scheme and specifics of the
proposed light fixtures explained.
Architect Joe Myers presented the plans marked Exhibit A3,
which is the photo of the lighting plan.
Tim McClusky, Vincent Dr. How long will the lights be left on?
Mr. Myers said only
security lights will be left on. The whole parking lot will not be lit 24 hours per day.
Mrs. Cotman questioned the
location of the driveway on Mayfield Road.
Ms. Sass said the site plan
will address that issue.
Mr. McClusky asked when
will the lights go off?
Pastor LoPresti replied, when all activities can be
concluded for the day, the lot will have security lights left on. A time frame include any activities which are
held on Wednesday evenings, also.
Mr. Makowski asked if there
are any indications of which lights on the property are security lights?
Mr. Myers replied, no.
Mrs. Cotman asked what the
lumens are for the lighting?
Mr. Myers said he can’t
comment.
Mrs. Cotman noted that 2500
lumens is the number permitted per the Zoning Resolution without full cut off
light fixtures.
Mr. Myers said they could
achieve that.
BZA
3-14-05
Mr. Swartz asked that the
security lights be identified at this time.
Mr. Myers said one is in
the front of the building and one is in the main center or main entrances and
would be shielded towards the rear of the property.
Ms. Sass said the building
plans are Exhibit 2. Mr. Myers
said the dimensions of the building are 154 x 115 feet with a few appendages in
the front.
The total square footage is 18,250.
Mr. Noble said the front
yard setback is 200 feet; the minimum side yard setback is 259 feet; minimum
rear yard setback is 1,105 feet. The height of the church is 28 feet 11 inches.
Kevin Noble, Project Engineer, explained the location of the
two existing wells on the site plan. Phase II of the project has been deleted;
only Phase I is shown.
Ms. Sass said there will be
no business operations; only church related uses.
As far as green spaces, Ms.
Sass said they are at 87% green space and do meet that particular requirement.
Ms. Sass referenced the
swimming pool on the property; it is a grandfathered pool; in fact, the first
to be located in Chester Township. The existing blue house on the property will
be used for a residence and storage facility.
Pastor LoPresti added that the house will be used as a
dwelling.
Ms. Sass said the
dimensions of the building will be 269 feet to the west and the setback to the
east is 372 feet.
Landscape Design Architect Mark Golumbus explained the
landscape design to the Board, even though this was not a requirement which the
church needed to provide. Plant materials to be used will include 21
white pines which have been planted and another seven, 21 feet in height, will
be planted into the wooded area Seven 15
foot maples will also be added. The dense natural wooded area which exists to
the rear of the property will be left in place.
Kevin Noble said the driveway had to be changed 50 feet east
per ODOT.
ODOT gave no specific reason for the relation recommendation.
BZA
3-14-05
Fire Inspector Gerlosky said he is satisfied with the
relocation of the pond. It was requested by the Fire Dept.
because the lift from the pond in the previous location would be too high.
They would request that the drawings be
provided to the Fire Dept., also.
Chairman Makowski invited the members of the audience to
come to the front of the Meeting Room to view the revised site plan and revised
grading plan.
Catherine Cook, Wyandot. They are concerned with storm water run off
coming down to Wyandot. How controlled is the water going to be? Will there be run off from the parking lot?
Mr. Noble said they will
use six inch high curbing to control run off. All of the water will go back into a
retention pond. There will be a control as to the amount of
water that will be going out of the area. They are working with Geauga Soil and Water
to make the water control better.
Attorney Sass said Carmella Shale of Geauga Soil and Water
will not be back until the middle of April and has been receiving all
information via e-mail which has been included the packet which the Board has
in front of them this evening. As far as storm water maintenance, the U.S.
Army Corps of Engineer’s have given their approval. Soil and Water Conservation District has made
revisions to the document. They want someone to maintain the plans. Geauga Soil and Water has asked them to get a
permit which is permit #39. The typical time frame it takes for Soil and
Water to sign off is 32 days.
Mr. Makowski made reference
to items e-mailed to Ms. Shale which were also
to Kevin Noble. Comments on the plan review were received
from Carmella Shale from Geauga Soil and Water.
Plan Review dated 2-17-05
read by Chairman Makowski which is Exhibit #8.
Ms. Sass said in mid-April,
Geauga Soil and Water will issue their approval.
Mrs. Cotman referenced the
capacity of the pond meeting the requirements of the Soil and Water District. Have the calculations been submitted to that
Department?
Mr. Noble said there were
no comments on the calculations and they were accepted.
BZA
3-14-05
Mrs. Cotman said this Board
needs to have documentation or testimony that it is okay.
Ms. Sass said once Carmella
Shale is back, their (GSWD) approval will be given.
Mrs. Cotman said when there
is construction on a site where you are increasing the storm water run off,
there are regulations that need to be met.
Mr. Noble replied, those
calculations have been met and approved by Geauga
County.
Ms. Sass said the only
items that need to be addressed are the problem areas which have been
delineated and have been rectified.
Mr. Makowski said erosion
plan approval is needed.
Mr. Noble said Sheets C702,
C200 and C300 have storm water management design on them.
Ms. Cook, Wyandot. She is concerned with the water underneath
the ground.
Will they be drilling wells?
Mr. Makowski said there was
very detailed information about the wells given at the November BZA meeting. It will not affect your wells. There was testimony from Dr.
Eckstein from Kent State
testifying to this subject.
Ms. Sass referenced the
specific lot coverage on the site plan.
Mr. Noble referred to C100;
there is over 87% green space which they will provide.
Ms. Sass added that there
are necessary hydrants on the site plan.
Mr. Noble said on revised
C-500, there is a stand pipe shown.
Mrs. Cotman noted that on
C-500 dated 12-24-04 there
is a hydrant located on the plan near the northeast corner of the pond and
identified as a dry hydrant which is different than the plans they have
presented tonight. It is a 6 inch water main shown from the
hydrant into the pond.
Mr. Noble said the Fire
Dept. has required that it be located near the
spillway of the pond and it has been relocated and approved by the Chester Fire
Dept.
BZA
3-14-05
Fire Inspector Gerlosky said they relocated it to a deeper
depth of the pond, and the Fire Dept. is
satisfied with those standards from a fire safety aspect.
Mrs. Cotman asked what the
depth of the water is above the new location of the pipe?
Mr. Noble said the pipe is
8 feet below water level.
Ms. Sass said they did
receive the complete detail of the proposed septic system which was forwarded
to the Township.
Mr. Noble said the date of
the approved letter is listed on the plans in front of the Board.
Mr. Swartz read the letter
from OEPA regarding the Well Site for Well #1.
Mrs. Cotman referenced page
C-602 dated 12-17-04, the
water balance calculation. The Board did not see the waste water
generated from the 88 child pre school as part of the waste water flow.
Mr. Noble said to look at
the peak hours which is on Sunday. The EPA allows you to take the worst case day
with additional capacity calculated in.
Mrs. Cotman asked if there
has been an amended permit to show that you can handle the additional 88 children?
Ms. Sass said all the
approvals have to come in line. The additional approval letters are to be
submitted to the Zoning Inspector after the approval is given by this Board.
Pastor LoPresiti said the system is designed in the maximum
capacity that is required.
Mr. Noble said the worst
case scenario is on Sunday with extra capacity.
Mrs. Cotman said the point
is there was an approval from Ohio EPA that omitted the fact that it is a day
care and pre-school at the location. That is all we are asking.
BZA
3-14-05
Attorney Sass entered the following exhibits into the
record: Exhibit 1 – revised Site Plan
dated 2-25-05 (C-100 through C-800); Exhibit 2 – Building Plans with a revised
date 11-2004; Exhibit 3a – Lighting Plan dated 3-14-05; Exhibit 3 –
accompanying photographs; Exhibit 4 – Landscape Plan received 3-14-05; Exhibit
5 – Traffic Impact stamped 10-2002, which is contained in the folder; Exhibit 6
– OEPA approval correspondence dated 7-2003, which is contained in the folder;
Exhibit 7 – OEPA approval correspondence regarding water dated 1-2005; Exhibit
8 – May 14, 2002, hydrologic study, which is contained in the folder; Exhibit
10 – Information packet.
Ms. Sass moved to have the
introduction of all the exhibits entered into the record.
Ms. Sass asked the Pastor
to address the time frame perimeters as far as the church.
Pastor LoPresti said in terms of consideration of time parameters,
they are currently in a facility where they have a 12 month lease with Mayfield
Village left on their time there
with nine months left on their time there. They may get a three to four month extension. Time at this point is extremely important. They are asking for the Board’s consideration
in terms of their planning and ground breaking.
Mr. Makowski said assuming
a permit is granted, do you have a rough time table for construction?
Rick Onorato responded, ten to 12 months.
Mr. Makowski opened the
discussion to the Board about the materials and application presented to the
Board.
Mrs. Cotman asked if there
were a fire to the rear of the building, the grade at that point to the access
road drops significantly and the road is about 100 feet away. Is there a road or place where fire trucks
could be used to reach?
Mr. Gerloski replied, yes. Access doors shown on the building plan would
accommodate that as well.
Mrs. Cotman asked about the
height of the building. Can equipment reach the building for fire
protection? What is the elevation at the
highest peak?
Joe Myers said the height at the highest peak is 28 feet 11
inches, and 12’6” from the finished floor.
BZA
3-14-05
Discussion of the traffic impact study presented during
testimony in November.
Mr. Makowski referenced the
day care child care. Do you have any response
or position on the proposed use?
Mr. Swartz asked how does
the day care differ?
Pastor LoPresti said because they are functioning as a
nonprofit, they are allowed to offer those services. It falls under the umbrella of nonprofit and
will follow under the religious content.
Sheryl Hopkins said they teach children about God and that
Jesus loves us. They will be a religious classroom. There are separate classrooms for all age
groups.
Mrs. Cotman asked if any
part of any of the buildings would be used for business or non-church related
activities?
Pastor LoPresti replied, no.
Mr. Ziganti said the
relocated house will be used as a dwelling for a caretaker? Is that permitted by the Zoning Resolution?
Mike Joyce, Zoning Inspector, said it would be considered as
typical and normal use of the property.
Mrs. Cotman noted that the
regulations require a minimum front setback of 200 feet. The existing white house is in that space. There is a parking lot proposed in that space. There are several existing sheds shown within
that space and a frame garage and a swimming pool in that space.
Ms. Sass said they reviewed
this with the Zoning Inspector.
Mike Joyce, Zoning Inspector, said they are grandfathered. Part of the Resolution is to protect the
character of the township, and they are part of the history of Chester
Township.
Ms. Sass added that the
house is in the National Registry. The house was constructed in 1846.
BZA
3-14-05
Mrs. Cotman said she does
not view that as a nonconforming structure.
Mr. Makowski said the plans
submitted show the setback of the house at 39 feet 8 inches from the road.
Zoning Inspector Joyce said it is a nonconforming structure
in that area.
Mr. Makowski asked if the
white house will be enlarged?
Pastor LoPresti replied, no.
Mrs. Cotman asked about the
parking lot near the house.
The Zoning Inspector said those are existing parking spaces.
Ms. Sass said when we were
here in September, we did raise a question about the requests from this Board. If this was a matter of concern at that time,
it should have been raised at that time. She asked the Board to defer to the review
of the Zoning Inspector.
Mrs. Cotman referenced page
C-800 and a question about the site plan that was submitted. What is the site distance for the extra drive?
Mr. Makowski said ODOT has
reviewed the site plans and recommended the location of the drives.
Mr. Noble said the plans
were sent to ODOT, and they did have this to review.
Mrs. Cotman asked about the
storm water retention basin, on page C-300 dated 12-17-04. Explain the purpose of the six inch pipe that
is identified as the low flow drain that is in the stand pipe and shown with a
drain valve marked open.
Mr. Noble said it is
something Geauga County
wants to see.
It is a maintenance drain and the plans are incorrect. The valve should be shown as locked close.
Mrs. Cotman said after this
is complete, the normal water level will be 1,167.25.
Mr. Noble said that is
correct.
BZA
3-14-05
Al Fotrella, 12620 Chesterfield. He has been a resident for five years. Prior to moving to Chester,
they lived in Cleveland. They have been members of the church for five
years and the reason is because of the people of the church. He asks that the township move forward with
this request.
The church will continue to serve the people of the community.
Joe Konieczy, Sperry Road. He and his wife have been in Chester
for over 20 years. This is a good thing for the community. He cannot think of any better thing to
enhance the community. If they meet all of the requirements, that is
all that maters.
Ms. Burba, Tattersoll has
lived here for 28 years and is the Youth Director at Word of Grace Church. They
have had an opportunity to rescue the kids in this community already through
their Youth Program.
Ms. Konieczy, Sperry
Road, said as a graduate of W.
G., there was not anything really close for
the youth of this community. This will provide a great opportunity for
kids in the community and provide a place for kids to reach out to other kids.
Mike Bear, Harold Drive. He has been part of this community (Chester
Twp.) for about 14 years. He has gone to most of the churches in Chester
Township. This church community has opened their arms. There is not a person in this room who would
not help you if you were in need.
Bob Mintus, Cedar Road. He is a resident and participant in the
church.
This church is an enhancement for this community.
Scott Hanson, Prescott. He is on staff with the church. They certainly appreciate the concern of the
residents and they appreciate the concern and diligence of the Board members. They have done all that is within their power
to meet the requirements of the Board. They are here to give to the community, its
children and the elderly.
No more questions raised from the audience.
Mr. Skully asked if the
existing house on the property is considered a nonconforming use.
Mr. Makowski referenced
Article 10.
A change of use is not applicable here; this has been a conforming
residential use.
BZA
3-14-05
Mrs. Cotman said perhaps we
should obtain a legal opinion from the Prosecutor about the house.
Ms. Sass said that this
issue of the house has already been addressed. We believe Word of Grace has complied with
everything this Board has requested.
Mrs. Cotman said one
additional document is the ODOT letter of review and approval of site distance.
Dan Hershman, Bainbridge Twp. There is also an economic impact to the
community in a positive way. The people attending the church do purchase
items from Chester Township.
Joe Weiss, Attorney. He has practiced law for 35 years. There is no question that setback issue is a
known issue.
That building has existed. Construction of the new church has no bearing. The bottom line is it is a nonconforming
building and has absolutely no bearing and that is the law in the State of Ohio. The Zoning Inspector’s interpretation of the
zoning is 100% correct.
Mr. Timperio, Ranch. He has lived here for 50 years. If this building is not going to be removed
or torn down, what are going to do with it?
Just move on.
Zoning Inspector Joyce said that is a legal structure.
_______________
Five minute recess taken at this time.
_______________
Meeting reconvened.
Attorney Sass said she rests the case.
Chairman Makowski said the Board will now review the General
Standards that are applicable for granting of a Conditional Use.
At this time the Board reviewed each section referenced in
the accompanying binder from the attorney for Word of Grace Church.
BZA
3014095
Mrs. Cotman said due to the
late hour of this meeting (11:00 p.m.),
and the fact this Board received 23 pages of new information and a revised site
plan this evening perhaps a continuation to the next BZA meeting should be
considered.
Mrs. Cotman moved to continue
this hearing to a time that is suitable.
Mr. Makowski said he is not
available for another meeting in the next few weeks. Mr. Swartz
said he will be out of town over the next few weeks.
Mr. Makowski asked Ms.
Sass if she wished to continue on with the hearing.
Ms. Sass said it is the
applicants request to continue this hearing this evening with a decision from
the Board.
Mr. Ziganti seconded the
motion.
No discussion. Call vote:
Mrs. Cotman, yes; Mr.
Ziganti, yes; Mr. Makowski, no; Mr.
Swartz, no; Mr. Skully, no. Motion fails.
Findings of Fact: Application
2001-1 Word of Grace church proposal located on approximately 36-plus acres of
land, roughly in the vicinity of Mayfield Road
just west of Vincent Drive. We are acting under authority of Chapter 6 of
the Chester Township Zoning Resolution and all of the standards for general
conditional uses and those specific to proposed church uses. The area is zoned R3A. Among the evidence presented is a proposed
building having a footprint size of 18,000 square feet and surrounding parking
and use of the existing residential structure that is on the property and
movement of a second residential structure to be used for storage and a
possible caretaker’s home. The evidence establishes that the maximum
coverage under this proposal is 13% of the entire lot area. The maximum coverage is the R3A District is
15%.
There has been evidence of a proposal to use the property for child care
and day care for members of the church. We have heard testimony from Ms.
Hopkins of a proposal to initially begin with a maximum attendance of 44 at
this point in time. There has been testimony in the site plan
which indicates a revised location of the main driveway to the site after
consultation with the Ohio Department of Transportation. There was testimony from a Traffic Engineer
relative to the impact on traffic on Mayfield Road
and as far away as the intersection of SR 306.
We have a site plan that depicts site distance from the driveway area on the
property consisting of the easterly drive. We also had received into evidence a letter
from the Chief of the Chester Twp. Police Dept.
and also testimony from the Chester Twp. Fire
Inspector, neither of whom found any negative issues resulting from the
proposal as to ingress and egress to the property or the ability to fight fires
or get public
BZA
3-14-05
safety vehicles into or out of the property. The proposal includes parking area that is
set back from the right-of-way at 200 feet. (Note:
with additional spaces adjacent to the office building.)
The required number for parking spaces under the zoning regulations is 120; the
proposal will include 307 parking spaces. At this point, there is no request for
signage on the property under this application. The proposed church is in a Residential
District.
The Zoning Resolution does allow for church uses in a Residential
District under a Conditional Use Permit. There was testimony from Dr.
Eckstein relative to the proposed water development and usage on the property. There was documentation relative to the
proposal of the Ohio EPA for sanitary sewage treatment facilities. They had issued an approval of the plan
submitted in July of 2004. The initial plan submitted also included a
additional details relative to a sewage disposal facility proposed on the
property as well as the soil erosion control plan submitted to the Geauga
County Soil and Water Conservation District. Dr. Eckstein
had testified that the proposal for the water well on the property is such that
it will not cause negative impact to the water resources on adjoining
properties.
He testified in detail by proposing a certain level of pumping of the
water and that there will be water stored in containers available for use for
over a number of days, and if that plan is utilized, it won’t cause a draw down
on the wells on the adjoining properties. His testimony was that there would be a 500
gallon reservoir to hold water as it is drawn from the well and that would
provide sufficient water to be put for toilet use or regular potable water
drinking use on the property. There has been testimony given by the Fire
Inspector and/or the Police Chief that there is not a negative impact on the
proposal to the community nor has there been anything presented to us that this
proposed use will create additional requirements at public costs for use of
this facility or for impact on public facilities in the area. The testimony from the Traffic Engineer said
they would adequately handle the traffic that would be generated by the number
of members proposed for the church use here. There is a historical structure on the
premises, and there has been testimony that the church plans to maintain that
structure and use it for administrative offices. There have been revisions to the location of
a retention pond to meet the interest of the Soil and Water Conservation
District; again, there has not been evidence that this proposed development and
the use of that retention pond would pose a risk of loss or damage to natural
waterways on the property or that the grading of the property will result in
damage to any adjacent scenic facility. The minimum distance from the church building
itself to an adjoining lot is in excess of 307 feet and any existing
residential structures would be beyond that, so evidence does not indicate
obstruction of light or air to adjacent buildings from this proposed use. There has been evidence given this evening
relative to a landscaping project. In testimony prior to the beginning of
November that there was planting done of white pine trees done along the
easterly edge of the northerly corner of the property abutting residential lots
which
BZA
3-14-05
meets the natural wooded area of the lots to meet the
residential lots on Vincent Drive as well as to install maple trees along the
edge of the parking area and also landscape the main entranceway on to the
property as well as maintain landscaping adjacent to the existing residential
structure and pool structure on the premises. We have a letter from the Ohio EPA relative
to the well usage on the property and the proposed septic system. The testimony is that no part of the building
will be used for business, commercial or non-church related activities other
than the actual worship use of the church and classes related thereto, and the
day care and child care proposal is for members of the church. Testimony is that this proposed church use
will be well within a quarter of a mile of any other church facility. The minimum frontage for a proposed church
use is 250 feet and this church has well in excess of 900 foot frontage along Mayfield
Road. The regulation is that the driveway shall be
located within 300 feet of any intersecting road right-of-way. Testimony is that it will be in excess of 900
feet from the Vincent Drive
right-of-way and well in excess of Barfield Drive. The maximum height for a church facility is a
maximum, for any building in an R3A District, of 35 feet. Testimony is that the maximum height will be
28 feet 11 inches. There is testimony is that there will be
parking well within excess of the minimum number of parking spaces required
under the zoning regulations; the minimum being 120 and the actual parking
spaces being provided will be 507. As far as the buffer zone, from the site plan
and the existing landscaping plan, it would appear that there is an existing
landscaping plan and would appear that there is an existing buffer strip
existing to the east of the house that is extended further south which is in
excess of 60 feet. The buffer area toward the parking lot and
the adjoining property line will be well in excess of 60 feet to the natural
wooded area along the easterly edge and the site plan demonstrates landscaping
from the westerly property line well in excess of 60 feet. The conclusion based on the findings is that
the location, size and intensity of the proposed use will be adequate in
relationship to the overall site of the location. That the proposed road and access of the
means on to the property will be sufficient to accommodate expected vehicular
traffic to the church facility as well as to permit access to fire fighting and
ambulance and other safety vehicles. That the size and proposed parking spaces
meet the regulations under Article 7 of the Zoning Resolution. That the proposed church use and Conditional
Use Permit is consistent and compatible with the overall township regulations
that does suggest that churches are permitted in the Residential District upon
obtaining a Conditional Use Permit. That the proposed church use will not be
hazardous or disturbing to the existing or future neighboring use. That the proposed use will be adequate to be
served by existing public facilities, whether it be road, police or fire
protection.
Regarding drainage facilities, there will be on-site methods to dispose
of refuse, water and sanitary sewage. This proposed church use does not appear to
have any impact on the public schools in the area. The proposed use will not create excessive additional
requirements at public costs for public facilities.
BZA
3-14-05
The proposed use will not
affect the general welfare of Chester
Township.
The
proposed use will not result in destruction, loss or damage of a natural or
scenic feature of major historical importance in Chester
Township. That the proposed use will not obstruct
light, air from adjacent buildings to a greater extent than would result from
regulations described for as residential use regulations.
That the proposed landscaping and buffer
areas around the property is designed in such a way to further the purpose of
the Resolution to meet the buffer requirements to provide physical separation
from the immediate adjoining residential use. That the applicant has shown compliance with
the regulations of the Ohio EPA that the proposed use will not involve a
business, commercial or non-church related activity. That the proposed church will not be located
less than one-quarter of a mile than another place of worship. That the proposed use is more than adequate
to the frontage regulation, and the driveway will provide adequate entrance way
to the facility in a way as to minimize traffic congestion. That the entranceway is not located within
300 feet in intersecting road right-of-way. That the proposal meets minimum side yard
rear yard requirements and that the additional development of the property for
church use with new structures complies with the 200 foot minimum setback from
the Mayfield Road
right-of-way.
That there is existing nonconforming residential structure that will be
incorporated into the church use. That the maximum height of the church will
not exceed the maximum for a building located within a Residential District. That the proposed development will have the
maximum lot area for a residential building. That the parking requirements under Article 7
are complied to by the proposal and the buffer zone requirement.
Exhibit 10 refers to the proceedings of
the meeting held November provides specific detail as well as the exhibits
identified by site plan, building plan, lighting plan that are contained in
Exhibits 1 through 4 submitted this evening.
Mrs. Cotman asked how many
other churches in Chester Township
have two additional dwellings on their site.
Zoning Inspector Mike Joyce replied, he did not know.
Mr. Swartz said he
personally does not see a problem with this.
Discussion ensued by the Board members regarding these two
additional dwellings.
Discussion ensued between Board members regarding landscape
screening.
BZA
3-14-05
Mrs. Cotman would like to
suggest to conclude in the Findings of Fact that factual findings and evidence
was not presented that a caretakers dwelling is a non-church related use.
Mr. Joyce said the
questioning is towards his interpretation.
Mr. Swartz said he agrees
with the Zoning Inspector’s interpretation.
Chairman Makowski also agrees; we have testimony under oath.
Mr. Swartz moved to approve
the Findings of Fact as recited. Mr. Skully
seconded.
Call vote: Mrs.
Cotman, yes; Mr. Ziganti, yes; Mr.
Makowski, yes; Mr. Swartz, yes; Mr.
Skully, yes.
Motion passed.
Mr. Ziganti moved to
approve application 01-2001 for a church use with conditions indicated by the
applicant to supply additional documentation of two revised site plans,
approval letter from the Soil and Water Conservation District for the adequacy
of the size of the storm water retention pond, ODOT’s letter of review and
approval and a duration of initial approval of the permit of one year. Mr. Swartz
seconded.
No discussion. Call vote:
Mr. Ziganti, yes; Mr.
Skully, yes; Mrs. Cotman, no; Mr.
Swartz, yes; Mr. Makowski, yes. Motion passed.
Chairman Makowski announced the request has been granted by
a four to one vote. Upon approval of the minutes at the next
meeting, a letter will be sent by the secretary. Upon presentation of said letter and payment
of the appropriate zoning fee, a Conditional Use Permit will be issued by the
Zoning Inspector.
___________________________
Discussion of the minutes dated 2-14-05. Mr. Swartz
moved to approve the minutes dated 2-14-05
as amended.
No discussion. Call vote:
Mrs. Cotman, yes; Mr.
Ziganti, yes; Mr. Makowski, yes; Mr.
Skully, yes; Mr. Swartz, yes. Motion passed.
___________________________
BZA
3-14-05
There being no further business before the Board, Mr.
Makowski adjourned the meeting at 12:10 a.m.
Respectfully submitted,
___________________________
Approval Date
_____________________________
___________________________
Mary Lou Fende,
Secretary
Richard J. Makowski, Chairman
\mlf