BZA May 24 2011 Newbury Twp.

The Newbury Township Board of Zoning Appeals public hearing was called to order by Mr. Ray Fidel, Chairman, at 8:05 p.m. on May 24, 2011 with Board members, Mary Lee Brezina, Bill Skomrock,Sr., Tezeon Wong 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:
Jan Blair, Newbury Twp. Trustee, requests an area variance for site plan approval to allow a 25 ft. setback from the south as side lot line and a 50 ft. setback from the west as rear lot line for future development as part of an industrial subdivision located west of 10729 Kinsman Rd. (vs. Art. VII, Sec. 7.07(B) side & rear lot line definitions transposed).
Mr. Fidel asked the applicant to state her case. Jan Blair described the process finalized previously by the Newbury Trustees (AV02-110118) to transform the landlocked Grange Park into a saleable industrial lot via a land swap with Kinetico for Rt. 87 access for equal acreage. She pointed out the new consolidated lot on the site map noting the topography allowed development only on two high sites. To allow for future development of this and other rear acreages, a new road could “flip” this Grange Park parcel side and rear setbacks for maximum utilization of these developable sites. Their new deed restrictions allow the access driveway to revert back to the Trustees should it be required for a public road.

Mr. Fidel asked the board if this variance for transposed rear and side setbacks was clear – the board understood the situation and had no questions.

Mr. Fidel then asked if there were questions from the audience. Mr. Robert Berger of Cleveland Heights said he owned a 71.62 acres (3 parcels) south of Grange Park and had tried for years to determine just where the 24 foot road easements described in his deeds actually were; one from Rt. 87 and another from the old Burr Rd. off Music St. A surveyor informed him the easement probably went thru Kinetico land continuing the driveway to Grange Park south and along the eastern lot line.

Ms. Blair then showed the site plan for a proposed industrial road access to open up the rear lands including Mr. Berger’s and possible future Kinetico industrial saleable lots. She said the trustees were unsuccessful to finalize the plan because Kinetico was unwilling to accept the plan at this time but may reconsider a future review. In any event she said what the township had done to open access to Grange Park could only be beneficial to Mr. Berger for some future sale. Mr. Berger said he had no objection to this variance. She advised him to contact Mr. Hurley at Kinetico to resolve the question of easement access.

There being no more questions, Mr. Fidel called for a motion stating that a yes vote would grant the variances.
Tezeon Wong moved to accept the variances as requested; Mary Lee Brezina seconded the motion.

A roll-call vote was as follows:
Tezeon Wong yes
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 8:40 p.m.

As the applicant left, Board members wished her 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 but allows more usable land due to the topography restrictions.
2) The variance is not substantial but reasonable considering the topography.
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 aware 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 and would meet setback requirements with a future road development.
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 8:50 p.m.

Marge Hrabak, Secretary