Special Meeting for General Business
and Public Hearing for Variance
Jon Overholt (Cycles R’Us),
Chairman Paul Calvo called the meeting to order at
Upon motion by Dave Parker, duly seconded by Andrea
Kacinari, the minutes of the
The following items were received and distributed to the board members:
(1) Zoning
Inspector 2008 Zoning Permits report through
(2) Grassroots Clippings flyer for April 2008.
There was no old business.
Chairman Calvo opened the public hearing relative to the
Application for Zoning Variance submitted by Jon Overholt, c/o Laribee &
Hertrick, LLP requesting a further variance of minimum side yard width, Section
303.3, for property located at
Chairman Calvo read the variance application. The Board reviewed the application along with
the supplemental statements attached to it (Bill Leohr letter dated
Chairman Calvo then read a portion of the proposed Ingress/Egress Easement between William Leohr & Susan Leohr, Grantors, to Jon Overholt, Grantee… Said permanent driveway easement shall be for the Grantee, his heirs and assigns, agents, visitors, licensees and all persons using the same to freely pass by foot or with vehicles for all lawful purposes incident to access to Grantee’s property… Further Grantee may access the driveway for purposes of maintenance and upkeep of Grantee’s buildings and improvements. Neither Grantors nor Grantee shall park on said driveway or in any way inhibit any other party’s ability to use the driveway as ingress and egress. Grantors shall have the right to use the driveway for purposes not inconsistent with Grantee’s full enjoyment of the easement granted.
Chairman Calvo then read a portion of the supplemental statement submitted by Attorney Laribee. Variance Request within general purpose of resolution – Mr. Overholt comes before the Board to correct a minor oversight in the original survey and to ask for a further variance of the setback requirement set forth in Section 303.3. Mr. Overholt respectfully submits that the current location of the lot line (varying between 3.96’ and 5.8’ from the building) is already closer to the existing building than required by the zoning ordinance. The proposed transfer of the strip (only 0.0194 acres) will not be a substantial detriment to the public interest or improvements in the district. Indeed, the parties have made great efforts to satisfy the township in combining the parcels and “cleaning up” lot lines which were objectionable, to the benefit of the township. Further, this variance would be consistent with the intentions of the parties. The entire driveway would be contained entirely in the Leohr parcel. The permanent ingress/egress easement would set forth all obligations and rights of the parties to avoid future disputes regarding use and maintenance. A copy of the proposed permanent ingress/egress easement is enclosed. To deny the variance would cause an unnecessary hardship on the parties and threatens to jeopardize the previous transaction through potential dispute and litigation.
Chairman Calvo – I note that both parties agree to this. The question I have - when I went back through my file relative to the conditional use and the maps that we had, it shows the lot line one-foot away from the building – was this a mistake or what?
Attorney Laribee (representing Jon Overholt) - What happened is we came before the Board for the use and cleaned up all the lot lines and when everything was going to record the surveyor found (through Mr. Leohr) a discrepancy in where the pins were and what the record said. To try to go by the one-foot setoff it would be nonconforming so the engineer/surveyor submitted it so that we would transfer all of the Varner property to Mr. Overholt and they had an agreement that after that went to record they would straighten it up between themselves. The agreement was that Mr. Leohr would own all the driveway – that was the intention all along. It was already submitted for closing when this occurred so there was actually no time for them to come back to try to get re-approval. What you saw at the time of the use application was actually what we are asking for tonight. You saw and basically approved the one-foot setoff.
Chairman Calvo – Another question, this easement goes with the property, correct?
Attorney Laribee – Yes, it runs with the land.
Dave Parker – It’s too bad it happened that way.
Attorney Laribee – Mr. Overholt has gone through a lot trying to clean these things up but we wanted to bring it before the Board and obviously it was another filing fee. Mr. Leohr is set in his mind about this and it was their agreement and that’s why we are continuing to set this straight. We are hopeful that the Board will see that this is basically the last of this big mess and so far it’s been great down there.
Zoning Inspector Alliss Strogin – I find it difficult to believe that of all the people looking at this for almost a year that – but whatever the Board wants to do is fine.
Chairman Calvo – The map I have shows the one-foot from the building.
Zoning Inspector Strogin - The registered surveyor is supposed to send a legal document and that’s what you go by, but obviously for the record he is stating that there was an error.
Mark Overholt (Jon Overholt’s father) – Bill Leohr and I have known each other for over 30 years and we made a handshake agreement and somehow it got confused. Apparently from past zoning when Leohr originally sold the property to Varner Group it was supposed to be the one-foot setoff. At that time things were confused and lot lines ran through buildings and Alliss helped us straighten that out but this got lost in the dust. This property was extremely difficult to close and I think the reason it didn’t sell earlier was because it was so strewed up. My son really went to work straightening it out, spent a whole lot of money trying to get it back to what Leohr thought it was when he sold it to Varner. I’m here tonight merely to say that Bill Leohr and I agreed that we would help straighten this out and we thought we did and somehow it got confused. I think it is a no-harm issue and I would hope this Board grants the request.
Chairman Calvo – It will all be straightened out now?
Attorney Laribee – It should be because this will be the last piece. The person who objected to it was Mr. Leohr himself because he thought he had bargained for the entire driveway and that was the agreement and that’s what the survey should have shown.
Mark Overholt – Did you see Bill Leohr’s letter requesting this too, so it’s not a fight between the parties?
Chairman Calvo – The Board has the letter and I see that both parties agree. It’s just a formality.
Dave Parker made a motion to approve the application for zoning variance as submitted. Jack Blank seconded the motion. The voting was unanimous to approve the variance.
(Note: Attorney Laribee will submit the Mylar to the trustees for their consideration and signing. He will also submit a copy of the Ingress-Egress Easement once it has been signed by all parties and recorded at the Medina County Recorder’s Office.)
Chairman Calvo closed the public hearing.
Zoning Inspector Strogin asked the Board for its
suggestions/comments relative to the nonconforming lots in the
Mark Overholt questioned who controls the boating speed
limit on
BZA meeting to sign minutes is scheduled for
Next BZA regular meeting is scheduled for
Upon motion by Andrea Kacinari, seconded by Jack Blank, it
was unanimously approved that the meeting be adjourned. Meeting adjourned at
Date: __________ Minutes
Approved by:
Paul Calvo _________________________________
Dave Parker _________________________________
Jack Blank _________________________________
Mark Riffle _________________________________
Andrea Kacinari _________________________________
Jack Chester (alternate) _________________________________
Marlene L. Oiler, Certified PP, PLS