[ back ]
Skeet, trap shooting triggers Newbury lawsuit
(by Joseph Koziol Jr. - November 25, 2009)
Skeet, trap shooting triggers Newbury lawsuit
By JOSEPH KOZIOL JR.
Newbury Township Trustees are looking for a lawsuit to resolve the recreational use of a residential property on Bell Road.
Trustees decided to file the civil suit Nov. 12 in Geauga County Common Pleas Court after working with property owners Peter W. and Ida A. Becker, of Bainbridge. The Beckers own property along Bell Road that is being used as a gathering place for family and friends to participate in skeet and trap shooting and other activities. No commercial activity takes place there.
Township Trustee David Snively said, while the recreational activity with family and friends would not be a problem on the residential parcel, the lack of a single-family home there is.
Township zoning requires that a primary residential dwelling be erected before accessory buildings can be.
Mr. Snively said a tour of the property revealed a "clubhouse" type of building that does not have amenities such as plumbing that would be required for a residence. He said another open structure with a canopy apparently is used as shelter for those shooting skeet. A stand-alone tower, also on the property, is used for releasing the clay pigeons, he said.
No permits had been requested for any of the buildings on the property, Mr. Snively said.
The property is wooded and secluded, and trustees said they were unaware that construction had taken place.
This spring, Zoning Inspector Karen Endres was provided aerial photographs from the county, which revealed the buildings, Mr. Snively said.
Trustees contacted the Beckers, who were unaware that what they had done was improper and were "very cooperative" in attempting to resolve the issue, Mr. Snively said. "They apologized and asked, where do they go from here?"
The Beckers asked for permits for the buildings but had to be turned down by Mrs. Endres, because the property lacks the residence required by zoning, he said. "She had no power to approve it."
Mr. Snively said the couple then considered asking for variances from the township board of zoning appeals but reasoned they were likely to be rejected there as well.
Other than removing the buildings, the couple's last option was to have the township file the lawsuit, he said.
Officials chose to name the board of trustees as plaintiffs in the case, rather than the zoning inspector. Mr. Snively said, if the zoning inspector had brought the suit, the courts only could consider what township zoning requires. Naming trustees as the plaintiff, he said, will allow for negotiations to resolve the issue.
Mr. Snively said, because the property is large and secluded and the activities have not proven to be a nuisance to neighbors, trustees may seek a way to resolve the matter through a compromise.
He said trustees, however, are approaching also could open the door to commercial operations, which trustees would not want in residential areas. "Someone owning a large property could build a series of ATV trails and draw people from five states, and we don't want that," he said.
[ back ]
