[ back ]
New zoning code may hammer old lot
(by Joseph Koziol Jr. - August 27, 2009)
New zoning code may hammer old lot
By JOSEPH KOZIOL JR.
Chardon Township Trustee Charles Strazinsky Jr. last week questioned whether zoning variances should be required for building lots approved 50 years ago.
He raised the question after learning of a builder's plans to develop a lot along Crestridge Drive, a neighborhood that was approved for development in 1959. Mr. Strazinsky said he believes asking the builder to pay a $350 zoning fee for the property because it no longer meets the requirements for today's zoning is unfair. "I don't think they should have to go through something that's totally unnecessary," he said.
However, Trustees Michael Brown and Steven Borawski said the variance is necessary, enabling neighbors to have due process in what occurs in their neighborhood.
Mr. Brown said, while he agrees with Mr. Strazinsky's sentiments on the matter, the township's board of zoning appeals was created to handle such situations when lots do not comply with current zoning.
He said a neighbor may have considered a variance to do what the builder now is considering but decided against that action when hearing of the $350 variance fee.
He said the "grandfathering" of the lot means only that the lot remains one that can built upon.
Mr. Brown said the variance fee covers only the costs to the township for holding the hearing and employees' time processing the application. The township does not get a profit from the fee, he said.
Township Zoning Inspector Donald Mohney said the variance is needed, because the builder cannot meet the 50-foot side-yard setback required under zoning for that district.
"No one can," Mr. Strazinsky said.
Mr. Strazinsky said he could understand the need for a variance if the builder was considering something like a deck that would extend into a side yard but not for a new home that meets the old setback requirements.
Mr. Mohney said, in this case, the builder's request would not meet the old zoning requirements. He said 30-foot setbacks were required when the zoning was established for lots there. The builder is asking for a 25-foot setback, he said.
The $350 charge, Mr. Mohney said, is collected and kept by the township, regardless of the outcome of the hearing. If the application is approved, he said, the builder still will have to pay a permit fee on top of the hearing fee.
The $350 fee, Mr. Mohney said, covers the costs of zoning board members, his hours and the secretary's hours with the application, mailings to neighboring residents and advertising the public hearing.
Mr. Mohney said he never tells an applicant not to seek a variance. Instead, he said, he might advise them to reconsider plans to avoid a variance.
Mr. Borawski said if the old zoning was allowed to be accepted as the governing rule, it could create problems. He said a salvage yard on Clark Road still would be permitted to operate because, in the past, the zoning was industrial for that area. Instead, township officials have taken steps to eliminate the salvage yard under the new residential zoning there.
Clark Road resident Thomas Woods said because the property is grandfathered, the township cannot turn down the application.
Robinson Road resident James Schumann said he appreciates the neighboring residents having the opportunity to comment on a change in their neighborhood, even if the variance is going to be approved. He said it gives neighboring residents an opportunity to learn about what is going on.
"The bigger issue is to let the neighbors have their say," Mr. Schumann said.
He said he did not believe the $350 charge is unreasonable and that the applicant should be responsible for the cost, rather than the rest of the taxpayers.
[ back ]
