LAFAYETTE TOWNSHIP ZONING COMMISSION
Special Meeting for General Business
6357 Lafayette Road, Medina, Ohio
May 12, 2008 @ 7:00 p.m.
Chair Karen Schoonover called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. Roll call indicated five members of the Zoning
Commission were present: Karen Schoonover, Dianne Wenslow, Sherri Meinke, Russ Green and Mike Biskup. Peggy
Folk (alternate) and Dave Hollish (alternate) were also present.
Others who were present included: Zoning Inspector Alliss Strogin, Tony Wenslow (5750 Chippewa Road), Mike Cavey
(5588 Wedgewood Road), Ray Hanley (5588 Wedgewood Road), Dave Lewis (Wadsworth), Jason Brenner
(Wadsworth), Attorney Ted Lesiak (Medina), Gerrie & Bruce Hotton (6918 Ryan Road), Lisa Takach (6822 Ryan Road)
and Daryl & Nanci Shanley (6896 Ryan Road).
Old Business
Chair Schoonover - We are here today to focus on the working copy of the zoning resolution for an overlay district for
the Golf Community PUD. Not everyone on the Board was able to be at the comprehensive plan meeting that Bob
Arnold had on Thursday the 8th but some of the information regarding the comp plan I wanted to talk about. Rural
character was brought up and we reviewed that. We talked about open space. We talked about controlled growth that
respects and enhances the local character. I have a copy of the draft here. It has not been adopted. Currently the
comp plan committee is going over that and we are getting it ready for adoption, changing things on that draft.
Discussion on 309.04 Minimum Area for GCPUD Overlay District
Chair Schoonover – I have a question in just glancing over the draft that Mr. Lesiak has typed up with what we have
discussed so far – 309.04. Is that how the board understood that to be? Does everyone on the Board remember our
discussion about this? What do you remember from our conversation about that previously?
(Board members reviewed the draft copy and the copy from Attorney Lesiak.)
Meinke - Yes, Dianne and I were just pointing it out. We talked about contiguous and touching and this is where there
might be something in there that wouldn’t be included so that’s why it looks like it was taken out to be contiguous. It can
be contiguous. But they had discussed it with us about why it would all have to be contiguous.
Biskup - That’s when I think the topic came up about the bike trail line and that it divided everything – that a certain
parcel of property goes from here to here and it has the bike trail in between.
Meinke – Yes, and then it wouldn’t be contiguous.
Biskup – It wouldn’t be contiguous even though that’s a good thing for the township and everybody to have that bike trail
going through there.
Chair Schoonover – Okay.
Zoning Inspector Strogin - Contiguous means to start out with it all being one parcel versus little pieces and parts
everywhere. I don’t think the bike trail would divide it. It’s usually contiguous to start with under one ownership until you
start slicing it up to do things. Start out with 50 and you carve out the pieces for whatever, the housing and whatever
else needs to be there but you start with a blank sheet of one parcel.
Attorney Lesiak – It is just saying that it should not be divided into segments by other than streets, parks and rights-of-
way. So it is contiguous acreage but we are saying that the park district divides that but it is not counted as divided.
The park owns that bike trail; it’s an actual parcel of land. It’s not an easement or anything else so that would make it
non contiguous.
Chair Schoonover – I guess that is the problem currently because you are looking at this as an area that we have
already defined on the application. And we go back and forth in between looking at this particular parcel to looking
beyond in the future. I guess I need some direction from the Board because I was just focusing on this particular parcel.
Should we be focusing on a much larger area?
Zoning Inspector Strogin - Have you decided on doing the 109 acres or the whole golf course, I think that is what you
have to decide on first. Once you make that decision then you start making these other decisions.
Chair Schoonover – From my perception, I was going by the application. I was looking at 109 acres and the language
that fits that. But the more I think about it I think that we are here to preserve the golf course and to go ahead and allow
whoever owns that golf course the flexibility to do things, we need to go ahead and probably include the whole golf
course in that. What is the Board’s perception of what we were working on?
Biskup – The application was for the 109 so that is originally where we were as far as my thought process but the last
time everybody talked about bringing in the whole acreage and everything with that, we were all over the place last
meeting.
Wenslow - I think we need to be looking further ahead. I think if we are doing part we should realistically look at the rest
of the golf course.
Chair Schoonover – Because then what the language is supposed to do is preserve the golf course.
Wenslow - Exactly, that’s my thought.
Chair Schoonover – Okay, Mr. Lesiak, we need to look at this not just as something that Mr. Cavey is developing but the
land, the land for the township. So we can go ahead and make the overlay district over the whole golf course. Whether
or not you apply to use the whole thing that’s your choice, if we go that route. That being said, I think Dianne is right
that we need to consider it that way unless someone has a reason that we should not.
Chair Schoonover - Where did we leave off last time?
Attorney Lesiak – I think there are two things; one is obviously the density (309.05 A.), if you bring in the whole golf
course, and then on page 2 is where the permanent parcel numbers come in (309.02 B.). Then you go to 309.08
Development & Site Planning Standards.
Discussion on Section 309.05 A. Density Requirements
Zoning Inspector Strogin - You are looking at approximately 100 units. So the concession that you want to give a
developer for being green is to give him the same density of 100 units but allow him to cluster them together or group
them together to keep the utilities and everything close. If you have the density of 1-unit/2 acres it gives them 100
units. If you put 1-unit/1 acre then you have a density of 200 units. Stan Scheetz was throwing 1.5 around which means
you would have 150 units. So that’s your decision. He is entitled to 100, 102, 103 depending on the configuration if you
leave the density of 1 unit/2 acres - they still have their 100 units but they have the benefit of being able to put them on
one-quarter or one-third acre lots versus two acre lots.
Chair Schoonover – I would like to get some feedback from the Board.
Biskup - When I first thought about it I was thinking 100 houses in there is a lot but after I sat down and tried to digest it
some more and tried to look at it and kind of think of the whole area, if you have 200 acres and with the golf course
there could be 100 houses over the whole area. I would much rather see something in a tight area than see 100
houses spread over everywhere.
Hollish – I agree somewhat with Mike. If they have 200 acres, keep the back 100 acres basically golf course and the
front 100 for his housing.
Chair Schoonover - Actually the back half is not currently able to be sewered and watered so that would not be able to
be developed at this time.
Cavey – I wanted to go back into the history here a little bit here because I don’t think everybody understands what has
happened. This was the Demond property set for 60 building units approved already – everybody understands that,
right?
Chair Schoonover - Right, Lafayette Transitional District.
Cavey – We have an additional 20 acres over here that we just got put into that same district. This was all going to be
one PUD. This was going to be in the Transitional District, everything would be in one PUD. Now on this side of the
street (north of SR162), we were saying in our plan originally, we said we will only build 51 houses here, not the 60 plus
the 20, we’ll build 51, keep this green space, our acreage pretty much goes to green space – I guess we were assuming
our PUD had an X number of lots to be used and the remainder of those lots would be available for over here (south
side of SR162). At the present time this is all that we can put in without taking away golf course. We have no plans –
there is nothing available, no sewer or water or nothing that we can possibly develop. All we are asking is for the future
that we can have the density that we thought we had and we do have over here (LTTD). We can take and build all
these houses over here. I mean that has all been approved. We can eliminate all this green space and put all houses
along here I suppose. What we thought if we go back into here, keeping green space and condensing the housing
exactly like what we are talking about and that everybody agrees is in the best interest of the community. We have no
other designs but I have other plans because County Planning wants to see if we sold the property and we disappeared
what would somebody else do. This is some architect’s idea of what they might do but when you look at this you will see
that it doesn’t work without somebody procuring more land. It does do what County Planning wants and it gets the road
going through all the way to Lake Road. We were told that we would be able to move these segments within our
property, the green space, as this land takes in a different sewer district and you’ve got the stream there and would
have to be accessed from Ryan Road if that was ever done. We talked to Leathermen’s down here and there’s no way
you can bring a road up through there. It just isn’t feasible as there are too many wetlands. And the yardage in the
holes wouldn’t be the way they are now. It works for County Planning but it doesn’t work for the golf course.
Chair Schoonover – I guess what is so hard for us to do our job, as well as for you in your planning, is that there’s got to
be an easier way. It seems like every time we sit down at the table something has morphed a change or maybe it’s just
my perception of it.
Cavey – I think we are not asking for any more lots than what we probably assumed we had with what we had here pretty
much. Again that’s where we are 20 some lots below, 28 or 29 lots below what we are allowed. And Stan’s route comes
out to about the same.
Zoning Inspector Strogin – Where do you come up with 150 – that’s using the 1.5 – that hasn’t been determined yet.
They always bring up the worse case scenario when in reality that is nowhere near what they are going to do. They said
they would have to buy some extra acreage to put the second 50 units in and maintain the 27 holes. If you use the
density of 1-unit/2 acres, which is 100 units, nobody is telling them they have to put 100 in, they are saying at some time
if you feel like it you could put in the 100. This 50 is what you had and then down the road if you do get more land to
move golf course holes, then fine you have the other 50 to put in.
Cavey –But you are asking me to give up 30 some units.
Zoning Inspector Strogin - Where do you get the 30 units?
Cavey – On the north side. We have the plan for that right now in that piece of land.
Zoning Inspector Strogin - There is the density. Nobody says that you should get all 80 or 100 units or whatever the
density is on that piece of property. It says under the best possible circumstances they could get in as many as they
can up to that figure.
Cavey – But you are changing that figure down to 100 for me versus when we came for the whole thing. We said, here
we are giving up the acreage on the north side - we are giving up 30 units, we only want 150 on the south side. You put
the two together which, when we first applied, the two were together.
Chair Schoonover - How many units did you want when the two were together?
Cavey – Exactly what is right here – 150.
Chair Schoonover - Because that number was never brought up. What we heard was 50.
Cavey – What you heard was the 109 over here, which was supposed to be in the Transitional District, which would
have given us the 109.
Chair Schoonover - But the units of development that were talked about verbally, not read in the language, was
whatever was on the Transitional side plus the 50 units. Even if you read the application that’s what the application
said, 50 units.
Cavey – But we weren’t giving up forever what we asked for. We were only talking about the 109 acres plus the north
side acreage. We were never talking about the 200 acres. We were talking about 109 acres to go into the same
Transitional District, which with the 60 plus the 20 acres that we had plus the 109 acres that was on the south side, you
add it up - we said 150 for everything or would be 109 on the south side in the segment that we were asking to be put
into the Transitional District.
Zoning Inspector Strogin – But the trustees turned that down so there is no point in saying that.
Attorney Lesiak - It wasn’t turned down, it was tabled.
Zoning Inspector Strogin - But it would have been turned down.
Chair Schoonover - We don’t know that. All of this was with the understanding that the primary development on the
south side of Wedgewood Road would be a cluster home development of no more than 50 units on the parcel consisting
of approximately 109 acres with over 60% of the area dedicated to golf course related open space and the balance of
the golf course being placed in the PUD of the Lafayette Township Transitional District with the understanding that a
minimum of 40% of all the land within it would remain in open space and no more than 60 units would be placed on the
parcel containing 60 acres.
Attorney Lesiak – I think the question is, you are looking at an application for Transitional District and 109 acres would
give them about 103 lots. We are talking about something completely different now.
Chair Schoonover - That’s what we are trying to figure out because we were talking about doing an overlay district on
just the 109 and it’s my perception that things have changed every time we meet. You are talking about 109 and last
time we were talking about 150 – it’s confusing.
Cavey – It’s 109. We were never talking about our other 100 acres, which is allowed one house per every two acres.
We were never discussing it. That isn’t in our applications so that got drummed in, not by us but by discussions, and
that changes the total because that is another 50 units that we would be allowed.
Shanley – I’ve missed some meetings but the last meeting that I did attend it was Mr. Scheetz who threw out the idea of
including the entire golf course in order to get the number of units they were asking for.
Cavey – Why was it brought up?
Shanley – As a way to work with this Board and with this township to get to the number of units that you were wanting.
Cavey – Not to get to the number of units but to get to where we were going to lock in some green space here to make
sure certain areas would remain open space and we agreed that we would include the whole parcel if that is how we
were going to have to make this work for everybody. We only wanted the 109, well away from the back of the golf
course.
Takach – I think the reason this came up was at that meeting originally we were talking about the one leg cul-de-sac with
the 50 units. Then Stan brought up something more and that was the second leg and then you all were discussing how
you felt about the density so eventually Stan brought up well why don’t we incorporate all 200 acres and then we have
100 units, you’re still having that original 1 unit/2 acres, and I think more people were nodding their heads at that.
Wenslow – I thought we were at 109, now I don’t know where we are at.
Zoning Inspector Strogin - I think part of the problem is that it came in as a whole. The trustees choose to divide it and
they said we will give you the Transitional stuff on the north and in so many words they said it’s not going to happen on
the south, come up with a better plan. The north is a done deal in the Transitional District to do whatever it allows and
you don’t carry over excess density from one to the other – that is not how that works. So now you are looking at the
south side and again what kind of density are you dealing with over there. He was going with 109 units or 1 unit/acre.
But if you encompass the whole thing you sure don’t want to stay with 1 unit per acre because then there would be a
potential of 200 homes. So again you want to just look to the south - 100 units, 50 now and 50 maybe later if he gets
more land to move the golf course holes around. He doesn’t have 150; he doesn’t have the carry over from the other
side. So if you want to stick with the 100 units that the land is entitled to approximately, then you stay with the density of
1-unit/2 acres.
Chair Schoonover – But if he wants only the 109 acres?
Zoning Inspector Strogin - If that is what he wants, that will only give him 50 and he’ll have to come back down the road
later to get the other 50. Personally I think that is not maybe the wisest decision. I would go with the 200 – get my 100
units and lock in the 50 I know I can put in and when and if the time presents itself that I can get extra land and move
some golf holes around I can get my other 50 and it’s a done deal.
Chair Schoonover - Okay, Board - comments.
Wenslow - So on the south side there is going to be - there is 109 acres that we are looking at with the ratio of 1 house
per 1 acre or 1 house per 1.5 acres or 1 per 2 acres.
Cavey – The County Planning spec is for the future because they are asking us to stub streets this way or this way and
extend this over here, etc. so I just tried to do what they are asking but again you can’t do that and have an 18 hole golf
course.
Wenslow – And the main objective of this is homes overlooking the golf course.
Chair Schoonover - That’s what I thought it was.
Cavey – I think that is part of what it is. It’s part of the economic package that we are trying to expand the business and
create more jobs also. Obviously the value of the property, the value of the business, is dependent what you can put
out there. Well housing also adds to the value because that gives me 100 customers that I’m going to have around me
right now and instantly we become a full year around operation instead of a seasonal operation. Now that is our plan for
the 100. I have no plans for anything else. It doesn’t work for us but I don’t want to lose for the future of the golf course
business, whatever the future of Lafayette Township is, I just don’t feel that I should be penalized and have to give up
that value.
Zoning Inspector Strogin – If you have 100 units available to you now and they give you 100 units, how could you lose?
Cavey – I guess what I thought was with water and sewer being brought up by us and having that in the land across the
street in the density that we knew we had, again we were looking at the whole, part of the reason we are paying a
premium for Demond’s property is for density. When you buy property with density you pay more for it.
Zoning Inspector Strogin - That’s on the north side, right?
Cavey – Yes.
Zoning Inspector Strogin - You haven’t lost that.
Attorney Lesiak - Basically you are right, that’s still there. What you could do is remove all the golf course to build
housing there.
Chair Schoonover - What is confusing to me is that first we started off with preserving the golf course and now every
time we get together what really it comes down to is money, density and the number of houses.
Folk – This spec is for County Planning to stub your streets, correct?
Cavey – Correct. The other thing is that if we had an area that could float. I have no plans for more development so I
can care less. We can put it right here and say here’s an area that will float – it’s density. Then that area floats.
Chair Schoonover – Let’s hear what Russ has to say because he was checking on this.
Green – I talked to Mr. Russell at the County Planning Department and he would like very much to see something that
says the possibility of all these things might happen but it is strictly a preliminary plan that could at a later time, two or
five years or somewhere down the road, this plan is no longer valid, they would reapply and the street could come out
some other way.
Cavey – Well that’s great because at the last meeting we were afraid that whatever we drew was permanent.
Zoning Inspector Strogin – It’s not.
Brenner – We specifically asked once it was open space on the plat it could not be moved. Russell’s right – that plan
right there we can do a million different plans and until it is platted, it’s not set in stone. We can move that road six
different ways and as long as we meet the open space requirement but once it is recorded as block A on this subdivision
record plat, it’s done. Once I record Phase I acreage as open space, it cannot be moved.
Zoning Inspector Strogin – But you usually don’t record that until you are through with the final. I’ve seen two, four or
five plans before they get to a final.
Green – I understand what he is saying and I understood what Mr. Russell said. In the preliminary stages it keeps things
somewhat organized but it could be changed.
Brenner - But on the final record plat, it cannot change.
Folk – I want to see a golf course here. I want when I drive by to keep what they perceive to be a rural atmosphere of
the township and I would rather see 100 houses on 100 acres than 100 houses on 200 acres spread out all over
creation. I would rather see them together. I would rather see bike trails there. I want to see green space. I think an
acre in our society is a lot to take care of and I would rather see 100 houses grouped together and maintained and not
be so visible from the road. We just talked about that in the comprehensive plan where you maintain the facade.
Wenslow - I have reiterated many times about trying to maintain the area of where the golf club is and you want to
maintain that because this is Lafayette Township. I know we want to develop but I just somehow want to see rural and I
sort of agree with Peggy that I would rather see the homes all together to maintain the lovely facade of the country club
because it is always very nice and the golf course is very appealing.
Zoning Inspector Strogin – I just want to say one thing - those 100 houses that they want approved are not on acre lots.
They will be on quarter acre lots or so. Whatever density you end up giving them, they are looking at putting them on
one-quarter or one-third acre lots whether it be 100, 150 or 200.
Biskup – If you want one on 109, it’s 109 less roads and all that so it’s about 102 but if you encompass the whole 200-
acre golf course at 1:5 you have the potential 150 less some for roads.
Attorney Lesiak – At 1 unit/1.5 acre you could have approximately 150 homes on the 200 acres.
Wenslow – You state that one-acre is a lot of property in this day and age. This is rural. There aren’t very many people
who would have one acre.
Folk – You mean they have more?
Wenslow – Absolutely.
Attorney Lesiak - But the people who want to come out here don’t want that one-acre, they want less.
Cavey – The comprehensive plan doesn’t want it either. The north side property is one-third of an acre so it’s 60 acres
- that’s about 20 acres in housing, some roads and the rest is green space. On the south side those are about one-
quarter acre lots.
Folk – I guess what I was saying is I can’t imagine people coming out here and taking care of a big lot.
Cavey - They don’t want to in the developments.
Attorney Lesiak - He wants to condense them in one area but he wants a 200 golf course so it can get him to 150 homes.
Cavey – And pretty much two-thirds of it is going to remain green space, even with that.
Chair Schoonover – I would personally rather see the 1 to 1 ½ acre and incorporate the whole - to go ahead and
preserve that open space – that’s what I would rather see because my fear would be that if we do the 1 unit/1 acre on
only the 109, they still have another 100 acres that once sewer and water is available they can come back and want
another 109 so I guess that would be my concern.
Takach – When you are saying looking into the future that is definitely something you have to look at because sewer is
coming - it is just down the road.
Hollish - I would like to make a comment that 20-25 years from now this could all change if someone else owns this golf
course and they come to the planning commission and say this is what they want to do, things could change, I don’t care
how much you try to set this in stone.
Zoning Inspector Strogin - The D & C’s (declarations and covenants) would tie the golf course up for 99 years – it could
not be developed. If you take the whole golf course at whatever the density you choose, it locks in it for 99 years.
Cavey – What Stan was proposing at 1 ½ was basically giving us back what we thought we had originally when we first
filed the plan with the density on the north side – the north side and the 109. I’ve got no problem tying up the whole 200
acres because I agree that we should – that’s in the best interest of the community too – it really is, so I’ve got no
problem doing that. I have a problem doing it with 100. The compromise we said last time would be - listen we could put
another 20 on the north side and another 10, that was the only thing we were talking about - we’ll throw in the other 100
acres, give us those 30 some lots that we had and give the whole density at 1 ½ and I think it ends up being 135 - I don’t
think it goes to 150.
Chair Schoonover - Works for me.
Wenslow - I would much rather do that.
Meinke – Yes.
Biskup – 200 acres total, 1 unit/1 ½ acre makes 150 potential units and those would be on the south side and the
remainder of that would be open space. I don’t have a problem with that but the problem is that extra floating 40 acres
out there that’s just down the road so if we go 150 total or 1 to 1.5 acres, it seems to work for us and it seems to work for
you.
Cavey – Okay, we’re not trying to cram a lot of stuff in there.
Chair Schoonover - Okay, 1 unit per 1 ½ acres incorporating the whole 200 acres of the golf course but obviously they
would only put the houses on the area where sewer and water would be available at this time.
Cavey – Initially we are going to put the 48 in or whatever it is – that hasn’t changed.
The Board continued the review of the draft language with the following summation.
Review of Draft Amendment to Zoning Resolution of Lafayette Township – Section 309 Overlay District for Golf
Community PUD (review of proposed text – continuation from 5/6/08 meeting).
After discussion and review of the notes by A.P. Thorne and Attorney Scheetz and consideration of all discussion from
the audience and Board, the following revisions were made:
(page 3) Section 309.04 Minimum Area for GCPUD Overlay District – REVISE TO READ: The GCPUD shall have a
minimum area of not less than fifty (50) contiguous acres. All land within the GCPUD Overlay District shall not be
divided into segments by (1) a limited access highway or (2) any track of land other than streets, parks, or rights-of-way
for pipelines or transmission lines not owned by the developer of the GCPUD.
(page 3) Section 309.05 A. Density Requirements – REVISE TO READ: The maximum density of dwelling units for the
GCPUD Overlay District shall in no case be greater than
one unit per one and one-half acres (1 unit/1 ½ acres). Building lots shall be developed with a degree of flexibility in
order to effectively utilize the natural topography and landscape. No rear lots are permitted. The placement of driveway
curb cuts into arterial or collector streets is discouraged.
(page 7) Section 309.08 Development and Site Planning Standards – okay with the following changes:
- Section 309.08 A. 3. a. – REVISE TO READ: Single-family dwelling – 8,400 sq. ft. and REMOVE 3.b.
- Section 309.08 A. 4. a. – REVISE TO READ: Single-family dwelling – 70 continuous feet
- Section 309.08 A. 5. a. – REVISE TO READ: Single-family dwelling – 70 continuous feet
- Section 309.08 A. 6. – REVISE TO READ: The minimum lot frontage requirements shall be 50 continuous feet in
cul-de-sac bulbs, measured along the arc of the setback line
- Section 309.08 A. 7 – REVISE TO READ: A structure shall not be built on lots off the cul-de-sac bulb until the lot
width reaches 70 feet.
(page 7) Section 309.08 B. Perimeter Building Regulations – okay with the following changes:
- 309.08 B. 1. – REVISE TO READ: The minimum setback from an existing road right-of-way shall be 75 feet,
mounded and landscaped.
(page 7) Section 309.08 C. Interior Building Setback/Spacing Regulations – okay with the following changes:
- Section 309.08 C. 1. - REVISE TO READ: Minimum setback from interior street, dedicated or private, shall be 55
feet, except that uncovered porches or steps may be 45 feet from the street centerline.
- Section 309.08 C. 2. – REVISE TO READ: All State and U. S. routes must be 75 feet, excluding uncovered
porches and steps.
- Section 309.08 C. 3. – REVISE TO READ: Minimum Side Yard Width – 7 ½ feet but in no case shall two units be
less than 20 feet apart.
- Section 309.08 C. 5 – REVISE TO READ: The minimum distance between buildings shall be 20 feet unless
sprinklers are provided and then the separation between buildings can be reduced to 15 feet.
(page 8) Section 309.09 B. Site Plans Required – CHANGE Item 1 to Item 2 and CHANGE Item 2 to Item 1. Also INSERT
the word ‘Subdivision’ in the new Item 1 so the 1st line would READ: Review of a Preliminary Subdivision Site Plan
and/or Final Subdivision Site Plan shall be conducted in compliance with the following:
(page 8) Section 309.09 C. Site Plan Approval – REVISE TO READ: Subdivision Site Plan Approval.
(page 8) Section 309.09 C. 1. – REVISE TO READ: Preliminary Subdivision Site Plan Submission Requirements
(page 9) Section 309.09 C. 1. e. – ADD the word ‘Subdivision’ after the 4th word so the 1st line would READ: Approval
of the Preliminary Subdivision Site Plan …
(page 9) Section 309.09 C. 1. f. - REVISE TO READ: Following Preliminary Subdivision Site Plan approval and Golf
Community Planned Unit Development (GCPUD) Overlay District designation, the applicant may proceed with
Preliminary Plan (Subdivision) approval, concurrently from the Medina County Planning Commission and from Lafayette
Township.
(page 9) Section 309.09 C. 2. – REVISE TO READ: Final Subdivision Site Plan Submission Requirements
(page 9) Section 309.09 C. 2. a. – REVISE TO READ: The Final Site Plan for each phase of the project must be
submitted within three (3) years of the Preliminary Site Plan approval or the Preliminary Site Plan expires and the
process must begin anew, unless the Lafayette Township Zoning Commission approves a yearly extension.
(page 11) Section 309.09 D. 6. – CHANGE the word ‘Board’ to Lafayette Township Zoning Commission in the 1st line.
(page 12) Section 309.09 G. 3. – ADD the word ‘criteria’ at the end of this sentence (per A.P. Thorne’s suggestion).
(page 13) Section 309.10 A. 3. – REVISE TO READ: Earth Mounds may be used and shall be constructed with plant
material to prevent erosion. Slopes on earth mounds shall be constructed to be easily mowed and maintained.
(page 13) Section 309.10 A. 7 – CHANGE the 1st word to Erosion control instead of the word ‘Stabilization’.
(page 13) Section 309.11 Performance Standards – okay with the following changes: REMOVE Item 3 entirely and then
CHANGE the Item numbers, such as 1, 2, 3 etc. to alphabetical numbers – A. B. C. etc. and then make the following
changes:
- Section 309.11 A. – REVISE TO READ: A. There shall be no storage or handling of hazardous, explosive, or
highly flammable materials, which would cause fire, explosion or safety hazards, except for materials used in the
maintenance of or incidental to golf course operations. All storage shall comply with pertinent EPA regulations.
- Section 309.11 D. (formerly 5.) – REVISE TO READ: D. There shall be no outdoor storage, except for that used in
the maintenance of or incidental to golf course operations.
- Section 309.11 E. (formerly 6) – REVISE TO READ: E. There shall be no off-site release to soil or surface
drainage ways of water borne or liquid pollutants, except as noted in Section 309.02 C. for irrigation purposes.
Chair Schoonover made a motion that the draft text language for Section 309 Overlay District for Golf Community PUD
be submitted to County Planning Commission for review. Sherri Meinke seconded the motion. The vote was
unanimous.
The zoning secretary will make the appropriate revisions and have the draft text language delivered to MCDPS by
Friday, May 16, 2008, in order for it to be on the Planning Commission agenda at their June 4, 2008, meeting.
Announcements
- Lafayette Township Zoning Commission regular meeting is scheduled for Tuesday, June 3, 2008, at 7:00 p.m. at
the township hall.
- The next MCDPS zoning workshop is scheduled for all day Friday, June 6, 2008, at the new Medina County
University Center. Topic is Sustainability and Economic Development.
Adjournment
Upon motion by Karen Schoonover, duly seconded by Mike Biskup, it was unanimous that the meeting be adjourned.
Adjourned at 9:50 p.m.
Marlene L. Oiler, Certified PP, PLS
Lafayette Township Zoning Commission Secretary
(Note: Minutes approved 6/3/08.)