BZA May 24 2011 GMHA

The Newbury Township Board of Zoning Appeals public hearing was called to order by Mr. Ray Fidel, Chairman, at 7:30 p.m. on May 24, 2011 with Board members, Mary Lee Brezina, Bill Skomrock,Sr., and Ken Blair (sitting for Glen Quigley) present.

All in attendance for this hearing were duly sworn and asked when testifying to state their name and confirm being sworn in. Ray Fidel read the applicants request:
Dan Geller, agent for GMHA, requests an area variance to build a 51 ft. x 35 ft. playground behind the existing pavilion that would straddle the lot lines between 14561 & 14569 Linda Dr. (vs. Art.V, Sec. 5.05 req’d 100 ft. from R-o-W, 50 ft. rear & 30 ft. side line setback) at property located in the Scranton Woods subdivision. Additional relief is required for expansion of a non-conforming use (vs. Art. XIV, Sec. 14.04 B,C,D & F).
Mr. Fidel asked the applicant to state his case.
Mr. Geller said he would like to install a playground next to the pavilion. He indicated that United Way would be the major funding sponsor with GMHA contributing a little and numerous volunteers contributing to the installation and equipment erection: 20 on 6/23/11, 50 on 6/24/11 and up to 150 expected on 6/25/11 for the dedication and ribbon cutting ceremonies. The media is invited and a picnic will be provided for the residents, snacks and water for the volunteers as well as porta-potties and recycling bins. He expected that Oberland Park and Newbury School would supply the additional parking needed.
Mr. Fidel asked who would be using this playground – the playground is for use of the Scranton Woods residents. Ms. Brezina said she was concerlack of supervision while there. Mr. Skomrock asked who would be monitoring the activities. Mr. Geller said the Geauga County Sheriffs Dept. patrols regularly as well as GMHA personnel on site. Scranton Woods also has a Block Watch that has been working well. He said that a sign would be posted listing hours, kids 2 to 12 yrs, rules, adult supervision, etc. They plan a “naming contest” with details to be finalized later.
Ms. Brezina asked how many children were expected to use the playground – Mr. Geller estimated 20 to 25 residents in that age group. She also asked about the summer school program previously sponsored by Chagrin Falls Park with students and volunteers bussed in. Mr. Geller said the program worked well last year and they expect another session with many college student teacher volunteers.
There being no more questions, Mr. Fidel called for a motion stating that a yes vote would grant the variances.
Ken Blair moved to accept variances as requested; Bill Skomrock Sr. seconded the motion.

A roll-call vote was as follows:
Mary Lee Brezina yes
Ken Blair yes
Bill Skomrock, Sr. yes
Ray Fidel yes

Mr. Fidel informed the applicant his variance requests were granted.

Mr. Fidel read to the Appellant and audience, “Within 30 days after service of the minutes granting your request, if someone wishes to challenge this decision through the court, he or she may. The challenge could reverse or negate our decision. Mr. Fidel informed the Appellant and the audience that the 30-day period commences with the Appellants’ signing receipt of the signed minutes. They will be mailed registered return receipt to the Appellant. All persons receiving notice of the hearing will receive copies of the minutes. At the time you receive your permit you must also comply with all other requirements of Newbury Township zoning”.
Mr. Fidel adjourned the BZA hearing at 7:45 p.m.

As the applicant left, Board members wished them good luck.

Board members resumed their meeting to establish the conclusions of fact:
Based on the following FINDING OF FACTS for the variance requested:

1) The parcel could yield a reasonable return without the variance however GMHA owns both affected parcels.
2) The variance is substantial but reasonable considering the GMHA ownership.
3) The essential character of the neighborhood would not be substantially altered and the adjoining property owners would suffer no detriment as a result of this variance.
4) The variance has no effect on delivery of governmental services.
5) The property owner was unaware of the zoning restrictions at the time of purchase.
6) The owner’s predicament could not be obviated through some method other than the variance as the site adjacent to the pavilion is the best location.
7) The spirit and intent behind the zoning requirement would be observed and substantial justice done by granting the variance. Such other criteria, which the Board believes relates to determining whether the zoning regulation is equitable; there were no adjacent property owners in attendance to object.

Mr. Fidel adjourned the meeting at 7:50 p.m.