CONCORD TOWNSHIP BOARD OF ZONING APPEALSLAKE COUNTY, OHIOREGULAR MEETING

Concord Town Hall7229 Ravenna Road

Concord, Ohio 44077

October 12, 20167:00 p.m.

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

Board of Zoning Appeals members present:

Ivan Valentic, ChairmanChris Jarrell, Vice Chairwoman Francis Sweeney, Jr.Brandon DynesBlair Hamilton

Also Present:

Heather Freeman, Planner/Assistant Zoning InspectorStephanie Landgraph, Esq., Legal Counsel

Melton Reporting11668 Girdled Road

Concord, Ohio 44077(440) 946-1350

1 7:00 p.m.

2 CHAIRMAN VALENTIC: Good evening. The Board of

3 Zoning Appeals meeting for Wednesday, October 12, 2016, is now

4 in session. I would like to introduce my Board. To my left is

5 Skip Sweeney and Brandon Dynes. I am Ivan Valentic. To my

6 right is Chris Jarrell and Blair Hamilton. To our far right is

7 Heather Freeman, our Township Zoning Inspector.

8 Under the advice of our counsel, we ask that anyone

9 speaking tonight must be sworn in. If you plan on speaking,

10 please stand and raise your right hand. Okay. Everyone ready?

11 (Whereupon, the speakers were sworn en masse.)

12 CHAIRMAN VALENTIC: Thank you. Please be seated.

13 Tonight when representing your case or commenting, please come

14 to the microphone, state your name and address and confirm that

15 you've been sworn in for the record.

16 Heather, have all the legal notices been provided in

17 a timely manner?

18 MS. FREEMAN: Yes, they have.

19 CHAIRMAN VALENTIC: Thank you.

20 Tonight we have three appeals. A three-vote majority

21 is required to either approve or deny the appeal. If a request

22 is denied, you have the right to file an appeal, and Heather

23 can help you with that if that's the case.

24 Tonight we've been asked -- We have three appeals.

25 Appeal Number 0916-1081 is third on the agenda. We've been --

26 There has been a request to move that up to the first item on

27 the agenda. I do not have any objection. I am going to ask

28 the Board or anyone else that is filing an appeal tonight if

29 they have an objection of being bumped down one spot in the, in

30 the appeal process. Okay. Note for the record I don't hear

2

1 any objections to changing the order of the appeal process.

2 So with that being said -- Thank you, everybody.

3 First on the agenda will be Appeal Number 0916-1081, Mr. Ted

4 Calkins is requesting a variance for the property located at

5 6717 Williams Road and being Permanent Parcel Number

6 08-A-006-0-00-008-0 to build an addition onto an existing

7 building with a 46 foot front building setback in lieu of the

8 minimum 50 foot setback, as set forth in Section 15.04(B),

9 Table 15.04-1 of the Zoning Resolution.

10 Mr. Calkins, can you please come up.

11 MR. CALKINS: My name is Ted Calkins, 6717 Williams

12 Road.

13 CHAIRMAN VALENTIC: And you've been sworn in?

14 MR. CALKINS: Yes.

15 CHAIRMAN VALENTIC: Thank you. The floor is yours.

16 Please present the case.

17 MR. CALKINS: I would like to build an attached

18 garage and a room addition, the garage being in the front-most

19 part of the addition, and it will be four feet closer to the

20 road than the ordinance has set forth. This is to avoid

21 building and having to tear down large trees in the back part

22 of the property that are desirable to make the property better.

23 MS. RIOLA: Can I speak? And it's also because, see,

24 what we were originally --

25 CHAIRMAN VALENTIC: And you've been sworn in, ma'am?

26 MS. RIOLA: Yes. I'm sorry. I'm Doreen Riola. The

27 original plan -- This is my son and my daughter-in-law -- or my

28 daughter-in-law and my son-in-law had bought --

29 MR. CALKINS: Your daughter.

30 MS. RIOLA: My daughter and my son-in-law -- sorry,

3

1 guys -- they bought the house with an in-law suite on it.

2 Okay? My original plan was to take and put a great room on it

3 and I was going to just push it off the side, which wouldn't

4 have anything to do with, you know -- it would be completely in

5 compliance. Well, we found out that's where the septic tank

6 was, so we couldn't do it there.

7 Can't do it -- The front of the house is actually on

8 the driveway side and then the back of the house is where the

9 trees are and all, so this was the only place possible to put

10 it. And since it was a great room, I wanted to go, like, four

11 more feet and that's why we're asking.

12 CHAIRMAN VALENTIC: Does anyone on the Board have any

13 questions? I do not have any at this time.

14 MR. DYNES: No.

15 CHAIRMAN VALENTIC: Skip, do you have any questions?

16 MR. SWEENEY: Em-em.

17 MR. HAMILTON: No questions.

18 CHAIRMAN VALENTIC: Okay. Thank you. Please be

19 seated.

20 Is there anyone speaking -- else speaking for or

21 against this appeal that would like to come up? Okay. If

22 there's no further questions, the public hearing for Variance

23 Number 0916-1081 is now closed to the public. I will entertain

24 a motion to approve Variance Number 0916-1081.

25 MS. JARRELL: So moved.

26 MR. DYNES: Second.

27 CHAIRMAN VALENTIC: The approval of Variance Number

28 0916-1081 has been moved and seconded. It's open for

29 discussion on the Board. Does anybody have anything?

30 MR. HAMILTON: No.

4

1 CHAIRMAN VALENTIC: It makes sense to me. They

2 really don't have any other place to go. And it's only four

3 feet, so --

4 Okay. The question is on the approval of Variance

5 Appeal Number 0916-1081. A yes vote is for the approval of the

6 variance, a no vote denies it. Heather, please call the vote.

7 MS. FREEMAN: Ms. Jarrell?

8 MS. JARRELL: Yes.

9 MS. FREEMAN: Mr. Sweeney?

10 MR. SWEENEY: Yes.

11 MS. FREEMAN: Mr. Hamilton?

12 MR. HAMILTON: Yes.

13 MS. FREEMAN: Mr. Dynes?

14 MR. DYNES: Yes.

15 MS. FREEMAN: And Mr. Valentic?

16 CHAIRMAN VALENTIC: Yes. The ayes have it. Your

17 appeal has been approved.

18 MR. CALKINS: Thank you.

19 MS. RIOLA: Thank you.

20 CHAIRMAN VALENTIC: If you wish to see -- If you are

21 leaving, please see Heather before you leave. Thank you.

22 Next on the agenda is Appeal Number 0916-1079,

23 Mr. John York is requesting a variance for the property located

24 at 6148 Althea Drive and being Permanent Parcel Number

25 08-A-032-K-00-028-0 to build a detached garage which exceeds

26 the maximum number allowable for accessory buildings, as set

27 forth in Section 15.03(A), Table 15.03-1. A second variance is

28 requested to locate the accessory building with a one foot --

29 41 foot front yard setback in lieu of the 50, the minimum 50

30 foot front yard setback, as set forth in Section 15.04(B),

5

1 Table 15.04-1 of the Zoning Resolution.

2 Mr. York, please come up and present your case.

3 MR. YORK: Yes, I would like to get a variance so I

4 can --

5 CHAIRMAN VALENTIC: Excuse me. Just for the -- for

6 our process, state your name and address and confirm that

7 you've been sworn.

8 MR. YORK: John York, 6148 Althea Drive, Concord,

9 Ohio.

10 CHAIRMAN VALENTIC: And you've been sworn in, sir,

11 correct? You've been sworn?

12 MR. STALKER: Yes.

13 MR. YORK: Yes.

14 CHAIRMAN VALENTIC: All right. Thank you. Go ahead.

15 I'm sorry.

16 MR. YORK: Okay. I would like to get a variance so I

17 can build a garage large enough to put my stuff in? And the

18 building that's on the property now is quite small. I have

19 some pictures here, if I can show them to you.

20 CHAIRMAN VALENTIC: Sure. You can hand them to Blair

21 and we can pass them around.

22 MR. YORK: The first one is the house from the

23 street. That's the corner of the property and you can't even

24 see the shed back there. This is a picture of the shed itself.

25 It shows that it's, you know, with the architecture, like, of

26 the house. And the new building would be right here and the

27 same shape and roof and color and everything as the house.

28 MS. JARRELL: Mr. York, perhaps you can explain to

29 the Board why it doesn't make sense to add onto the existing

30 structure, accessory structure.

6

1 MR. YORK: Because there's leach lines out in the

2 back and the septic tank at the end and there is just no place

3 to expand.

4 MR. STALKER: I wish we could have. It would have

5 been a lot easier.

6 MR. YORK: Yeah.

7 CHAIRMAN VALENTIC: And the existing garage looks,

8 from the picture, it's a one-car garage, so it's pretty small.

9 MR. YORK: Yeah, it's not even really big enough for

10 one car. It was made for a Volkswagen or something.

11 MR. STALKER: It's just been basically used for a

12 shed.

13 CHAIRMAN VALENTIC: Can you -- Excuse me.

14 MR. STALKER: I'm sorry.

15 CHAIRMAN VALENTIC: Yeah. Could you please state

16 your name and confirm that --

17 MR. STALKER: Greg Stalker. This is my stepfather.

18 CHAIRMAN VALENTIC: Okay. Can you give us your

19 address and confirm that you've been --

20 MR. STALKER: 5075 Turnbury Drive, Madison.

21 CHAIRMAN VALENTIC: And you've been sworn in?

22 MR. STALKER: Yes.

23 CHAIRMAN VALENTIC: Thank you.

24 And then you -- the driveway, are you going to put in

25 a driveway with this new garage as well?

26 MR. YORK: Not right away but eventually.

27 CHAIRMAN VALENTIC: Okay. And I was doing -- I was

28 looking at the square footages. I mean, we do only allow one

29 structure but the total square footage will be below the

30 maximum square footage. And there wasn't room to -- Chris'

7

1 question was, can you expand on the existing garage? No. But

2 this proposed garage, could you have made it much bigger to get

3 -- to maximize the square footage?

4 MR. YORK: No. It would be to close to the property

5 line and there's the septic tank back there.

6 CHAIRMAN VALENTIC: Okay.

7 MR. STALKER: Yeah, everything comes out on that side

8 of the house and the septic tank is, like, right there.

9 CHAIRMAN VALENTIC: Kind of an odd shaped too, lot.

10 MR. YORK: Yes.

11 MR. STALKER: Yeah, because it's a pie shaped lot.

12 He's lived there 50 years and he's never had a garage to use.

13 And he would like to retire and, you know, he's got five

14 toolboxes because he works for the state road department and

15 he's got nowhere to put them, with the lawn equipment and

16 everything else.

17 CHAIRMAN VALENTIC: Understood.

18 MS. JARRELL: And does it make sense to expand the

19 house and attach the garage?

20 MR. STALKER: From a cost factor, it would be hard to

21 because on the end of the house are two bedrooms. You would

22 actually have to cut into a bedroom and you'd lose a bedroom to

23 make a hall to even go over to there.

24 MR. HAMILTON: What about the idea of just offsetting

25 that garage, move it back a little bit and attach it to the

26 house, don't disturb the bedrooms but, you know, to get over

27 some of the requirements?

28 MR. STALKER: Well, to attach it to that side of the

29 house, you have a septic line that runs along that side of the

30 house.

8

1 MR. HAMILTON: Yeah, I can't tell from your drawing

2 how for forward the septic goes.

3 MR. STALKER: It comes out of the front. It would be

4 on the right corner.

5 MR. HAMILTON: So it actually comes forward on the

6 property?

7 MR. STALKER: No. I'm sorry.

8 MR. SWEENEY: Maybe you could show us.

9 MR. STALKER: It comes out right here.

10 MR. HAMILTON: Oh, so that's not where it is here.

11 MR. STALKER: And then it runs here to the tank.

12 MR. HAMILTON: Okay.

13 CHAIRMAN VALENTIC: And then that's the leach field.

14 MR. HAMILTON: Okay.

15 MR. STALKER: And that's the leach field that runs

16 across the back of it.

17 MR. HAMILTON: I gotcha.

18 CHAIRMAN VALENTIC: Can you show?

19 MR. SWEENEY: Yeah, can you show?

20 MR. STALKER: Yeah. The leach line comes out -- or

21 the septic line comes out here in this front, runs back to here

22 where the tank is, and the leach field goes all through here.

23 I mean, it would be great if we could have added onto that with

24 the existing driveway but there is no feasible way to do it.

25 MR. SWEENEY: How did you decide that this was the

26 only place for the structure?

27 MR. STALKER: Well, because, because of the tank, the

28 lines, it's the only space that's big enough to actually try to

29 fit it in.

30 MR. SWEENEY: And it's got to be this size?

9

1 MR. STALKER: That's the size he would like, yeah.

2 MR. SWEENEY: And if you move it, if you move it

3 further --

4 MR. STALKER: Back?

5 MR. SWEENEY: I mean, how close are you to a leach

6 bed?

7 MR. STALKER: The leach lines come out this way. The

8 tank is, like, over on this corner. You could move it back but

9 then you're going to be bringing the sideline, which I think is

10 a 10 foot.

11 MR. SWEENEY: Right. So what you are saying is it's

12 as far back as it can go?

13 MR. STALKER: Right. I mean, there is a tree here

14 now as it is that we're probably going to have to take down to

15 fit it in there.

16 MR. SWEENEY: But, theoretically, it could be reduced

17 in size.

18 MR. STALKER: If you wanted to make it smaller.

19 MR. YORK: I don't really want to make it any smaller

20 because then it defeats the purpose of even having it.

21 MR. SWEENEY: It's 28 by 26?

22 MR. YORK: Yes.

23 MR. STALKER: Yeah, what is it, 26 wide by 28 deep.

24 That way, he could put his toolboxes in here and still get his

25 truck that he puts in the fairgrounds since 1992 because he has

26 no place to store it.

27 MR. SWEENEY: Yeah.

28 MR. STALKER: And it would give him somewhere where

29 he can tinker, you know, when he retires.

30 MR. SWEENEY: Yeah, I see. I see now. I mean, you

10

1 did as good a job as you could.

2 MR. STALKER: Yeah.

3 MR. SWEENEY: For what you, what you need.

4 MR. YORK: Right.

5 MR. SWEENEY: All right. I see the one corner, the

6 one corner is compliant.

7 MR. STALKER: Yes.

8 MR. SWEENEY: So you've got -- So there is, there is

9 a 10-foot offset?

10 MR. STALKER: Yeah, on the side.

11 MR. SWEENEY: Wow, for a loss of -- And I suppose if

12 you turned --

13 MR. STALKER: It's not going to --

14 MR. SWEENEY: -- to reduce it, it would, what, look

15 different or not fit?

16 MR. STALKER: The aesthetics of it is not going to

17 look right.

18 MR. SWEENEY: It's not going to --

19 MR. STALKER: We are trying to keep it uniform as

20 much as we can.

21 MR. SWEENEY: Right.

22 MR. STALKER: I already set it back, I think, three

23 or four feet from the front edge of the house --

24 MR. SWEENEY: Right.

25 MR. STALKER: -- to try to get it in compliance.

26 CHAIRMAN VALENTIC: Closer.

27 MR. SWEENEY: So you thought, you thought this

28 through.

29 MR. STALKER: Yeah.

30 MR. SWEENEY: It sounds like it.

11

1 MR. STALKER: Yeah.

2 MR. SWEENEY: All right. Thank you.

3 MR. STALKER: Thank you.

4 CHAIRMAN VALENTIC: Stay up there, guys, just for a

5 minute. I want to make sure we don't have any other questions.

6 Does the Board, are you guys all good? Blair?

7 MR. HAMILTON: I'm all right, yeah.

8 MR. DYNES: I don't have anything.

9 CHAIRMAN VALENTIC: Okay. Thank you. You can be

10 seated.

11 MR. YORK: Thank you.

12 MR. STALKER: Thank you.

13 CHAIRMAN VALENTIC: Is here anyone else here that's

14 speaking for or against this appeal? Okay. If there's no

15 further questions, the public hearing for Variance Number

16 0916-1079 is now closed to the public. I will entertain a

17 motion to approve Variance Number 0916-1079.

18 MR. HAMILTON: So moved.

19 MS. JARRELL: Second.

20 CHAIRMAN VALENTIC: Okay. The approval of Variance

21 Number 0916-1079 has been moved and seconded. It is open for

22 discussion on the Board. Who would like to start, if anyone

23 has anything to say?

24 MS. JARRELL: I just -- I don't know how they could

25 expand without infringing on the side yard requirement without

26 going into the leach field, you know, the septic area. I

27 just --

28 CHAIRMAN VALENTIC: The nine feet, I think, is that

29 right, that's the -- but it's just one corner. It's not the

30 whole front of the building.

12

1 MR. DYNES: Right.

2 MR. SWEENEY: And it's not, it's not nine feet all

3 the way across. It goes nine, then eight, then seven, then

4 eventually it's -- it goes the other way.

5 CHAIRMAN VALENTIC: Yeah. Okay. Anything else from

6 the Board? No. Good, very good.

7 The question is on the approval of Variance

8 Number 0916-1079. A yes vote is for the approval, a no vote

9 denies it. Heather, please call the vote.

10 MS. FREEMAN: Mr. Hamilton?

11 MR. HAMILTON: Yes.

12 MS. FREEMAN: Mr. Sweeney?

13 MR. SWEENEY: Yes.

14 MS. FREEMAN: Mr. Dynes?

15 MR. DYNES: Yes.

16 MS. FREEMAN: Ms. Jarrell?

17 MS. JARRELL: Yes.

18 MS. FREEMAN: And Mr. Valentic?

19 CHAIRMAN VALENTIC: Yes. The ayes have it. Your

20 appeal has been approved. Thank you.

21 MR. YORK: Thank you.

22 MR. STALKER: Thank you.

23 MR. SWEENEY: Good luck.

24 MR. STALKER: Thank you.

25 CHAIRMAN VALENTIC: Again, if you are leaving, please

26 see Heather before you leave.

27 Okay. The last appeal on our agenda is Appeal

28 Number 0916-1080, Mr. George Davis, of Probuilt Homes LLC, is

29 requesting a variance for Sublot 38, located on 10240 Karaboo

30 Trail and being Permanent Parcel Number 08-A-023-E-00-038-0, to

13

1 clear, grade, fill, and add a concrete sidewalk within the

2 riparian setback, which is in violation of Section 17.07 of the

3 Zoning Resolution.

4 Good evening.

5 MR. DAVIS: Good evening. George Davis, Probuilt

6 Homes, P. O. Box 384, Mentor, Ohio.

7 CHAIRMAN VALENTIC: And you've been sworn in, sir?

8 MR. DAVIS: Yes.

9 CHAIRMAN VALENTIC: Thank you.

10 MR. DAVIS: Thank you for your time this evening. So

11 this variance or this variance request comes out of the

12 recently passed legislation in Concord regarding the

13 institution of riparian setbacks on all existing streams. The

14 first, the first and real hardship here is this lot was

15 previously platted many years ago with Phase 2 of Mountainside

16 Farms when this legislation didn't exist. So the streets were

17 laid out and, in some cases, there are streams in the front

18 yards. It's not possible to reformat that subdivision now

19 based on what was passed in late July.

20 That creates an extreme hardship because, in a

21 neighborhood of that caliber, everyone expects and wants and

22 desires to have a manicured front yard. The legislation that

23 is passed would not allow you to do any clearing, would not

24 allow you to do any grading or filling in the riparian. That's

25 just not practical. It would have an extreme negative value,

26 negative value consequence on the neighboring properties for

27 that reason.

28 This lot, in particular, has even another hardship,

29 in that, the depth of the stream or the height of the steam is

30 approximately 10 feet lower than the finished grade of the

14

1 house based on the fact that this is going back into the hill

2 that's there. That, in order to make it work at all, would

3 require you to move the house extremely far back, which again

4 would have a negative consequence on the property owners to the

5 rear because there are two homeowners that their side yards

6 sort of abut the rear yard of this.

7 Also, it doesn't allow for the practical consequence

8 of having a pool, a deck of any sort, size and magnitude or,

9 you know, a rear yard of any size and magnitude when you talk

10 about a home that would be five or six hundred thousand

11 dollars.

12 So, obviously, it's just not salable to adhere to all

13 the requirements of that riparian in this case.

14 I would call your attention to some photos that I

15 submitted that show a very similar stream on Daisy Hill where

16 all those homes were completed, you know, prior to this

17 legislation. And, you know, you can see there is a stream bed,

18 you know, running through the front yards of that stream.

19 CHAIRMAN VALENTIC: Do we have photos?

20 MS. JARRELL: Where is this picture?

21 MS. FREEMAN: There weren't any photos submitted.

22 MR. DAVIS: There weren't any photos in the packets?

23 MS. JARRELL: No.

24 MR. DAVIS: I apologize. I have them right here.

25 The first is an aerial of Daisy Hill that shows -- The light

26 colored line going down through it is the stream bed and then I

27 have a, sort of, a side view showing the stream going up the

28 hill. I apologize. My staff must not have included these.

29 CHAIRMAN VALENTIC: For the record, let's make a note

30 that these images were provided as part of the appeal.

15

1 MS. FREEMAN: Okay.

2 MS. JARRELL: That's a stream?

3 MR. HAMILTON: That's what they showing here.

4 MS. JARRELL: Oh, right, right, right.

5 MR. DAVIS: I would really classify these as creeks.

6 Stream, to me, imply a large body of water.

7 MS. JARRELL: Mr. Davis, maybe you can --

8 MR. DAVIS: Oh, yeah, I was going to go over these.

9 MS. JARRELL: Okay, perfect.

10 MR. DAVIS: I was waiting until everybody looked at

11 the pictures.

12 MS. JARRELL: Perfect.

13 MR. DAVIS: So the rest of our packet, I provided

14 three site plans. The first one was our original submittal,

15 which is how we would have built this house prior to that

16 legislation that was passed in July. The house would be set at

17 the 50 foot setback and we would clear the riparian in the

18 front yard and we would raise the grade in the riparian so that

19 we could create a yard somewhat similar to what you see on

20 Daisy Hill where we're making it mowable and then, sort of,

21 steepening the banks, channelizing -- I think would be a good

22 word -- the creek. That, that one is the original submittal

23 plan.

24 The conforming plan shows what we would have to do to

25 put -- And this is a sold home, I should say. We have a client

26 and this is the home that would be placed on the lot. The

27 second one I gave you is called a conforming plan that shows

28 where the house would have to be to meet the -- to bring the

29 house out of the riparian, out of the 25 feet, but then also to

30 put it far enough back so that I don't do any grading in the

16

1 riparian, meaning that I've got to make up that 10 foot of

2 difference before I hit the 25 feet.

3 That plan is just not practical or salable. It may

4 be buildable according to your zoning text but not salable,

5 meaning no one is going to spend or no one that I know -- and I

6 do this every day -- no one is going to spend 500, 600 thousand

7 to have a 40 foot rear yard. You just can't get what is

8 typical, you know, in that caliber of subdivision into that

9 back yard.

10 Plus, because of the grade of this yard, you would

11 have a six foot embankment at the back because we would have to

12 drastically cut that hill. So you would look out your back

13 door at a six-foot dirt wall, which again makes the lot

14 unsalable.

15 The third plan is what I call the proposed variance

16 plan. I would say this is the compromise. I had a meeting on

17 site with Heather and Bruce from the Zoning Department and Chad

18 Edgar from Soil and Water and, you know, we talked through it

19 and I think this is about as, about as fair of a compromise as

20 could be reached. We moved the house itself out of the 25 foot

21 riparian, so the house itself is now 60 or so feet back, still

22 provides a large enough rear yard but we have to clear the

23 trees in the front yard. It's just, it's just not practical

24 where we have utility crossings for gas, electric, phone,

25 cable, sewer and water, we've got a driveway and I have to

26 raise the grade, you know, in order to make somewhat of a yard

27 without a 10 foot dropoff.

28 Second of all, we softened the grade so I am not

29 channelizing the stream. I am not trying to make the front

30 yard almost flat and then have a channel for the stream. We

17

1 are gradually grading it back. It's about two to one. I am

2 sure Chad is going to speak. Maybe it's not quite two to one

3 but we tried to spread it out as much as we could so it was

4 gradual.

5 And then the sidewalk, you know, the side, you know

6 -- In a house of this caliber, again, people would expect to

7 have a front door and a sidewalk, and so the sidewalk is in

8 the, is in the riparian.

9 So I have tried to do everything possible where,

10 where we don't negatively affect the property values and can

11 try to meet the -- I don't want to say the spirit of the

12 riparian but try to do what we can to stay out of it. Again,

13 we are just in a corner because these are previously platted

14 lots.

15 CHAIRMAN VALENTIC: Understood. So I get the

16 sequence of how maybe all this gets put together, the lot was

17 platted some time ago. A riparian code was passed in July of

18 this year. And when did the sale of the lot occur? Was

19 that --

20 MR. DAVIS: I think the deposit was prior. I want to

21 say they -- And this process, it's a custom home, right? So

22 they pay a deposit, they enter into a contract on the lot and

23 then we design the house. So sometime in July, early July, I

24 would say.

25 CHAIRMAN VALENTIC: Okay.

26 MR. DAVIS: We didn't, we didn't try to submit until

27 after the ordinance was passed.

28 CHAIRMAN VALENTIC: And one of the things that comes

29 up is the 100-year flood elevation. Do you know the 100-year

30 or even any of the other flood elevations in through that area,

18

1 the 10, the 25 or the 50?

2 MR. DAVIS: I can let my engineer speak to that.

3 CHAIRMAN VALENTIC: Sure.

4 MR. DAVIS: He is going to testify next.

5 CHAIRMAN VALENTIC: Okay.

6 MR. DAVIS: And I would like to make one other

7 statement. Before this was passed, we could go to the high

8 water mark of the stream.

9 CHAIRMAN VALENTIC: Yes.

10 MR. DAVIS: I will let him testify what the high

11 water mark means as far as the Army Corps' floodplain line.

12 But, you know, the riparian is not related to the floodplain

13 elevation. It is not related to a 100-year floodplain.

14 CHAIRMAN VALENTIC: Does anyone else have any other

15 questions?

16 MS. JARRELL: So really the grade, the grade of the

17 lot, riparian issues set aside, the grade of the lot is

18 prohibiting you from complying.

19 MR. DAVIS: Well, I would say, first of all, the fact

20 that the riparians did not exist when this lot was platted is

21 the premier hardship because the, the street would have been in

22 a different location. The entire subdivision would have been

23 laid out differently if the riparian existed at the time of

24 platting. Okay?

25 But putting that aside, yes, the change in grade, the

26 fact that we are building back up the hillside, it's an extreme

27 hardship to have that riparian there because of that 10-foot

28 height difference, approximately 10 feet.

29 CHAIRMAN VALENTIC: Okay. Do you want to have your

30 engineer come up?

19

1 MR. DAVIS: Yes.

2 MR. GUTOSKEY: Good evening. I'm Joe Gutoskey,

3 Gutoskey & Associates, 10135 Gottschalk Parkway, Chagrin Falls,

4 Ohio 44023. I have been sworn in.

5 Some history: I started working on this project in

6 2001 and at that time, when we laid out the streets and the

7 lots, we worked with the current requirements back then as far

8 as wetlands, streams, you know, working with the Army Corps.

9 And Daisy Hill, actually, when we originally laid it out, went

10 straight up off of Karaboo. But because of the streams and

11 that, we had to -- You know how it goes. It kind of has that

12 jog in it and comes around. And there were some other things

13 we did in there, too, to work with the regulations at that

14 time.

15 On the lots where we had, like, driveways crossing

16 streams, we put in three-sided culverts so that we kept, like,

17 an open bottom on the culvert so that the microorganisms,

18 animals, wildlife, whatever, they like that natural bottom of

19 soil versus a pipe. So we did that in there. I am trying to

20 think. I think there is four or five actual bridges that we

21 built in there that have open bottoms on them versus putting in

22 culverts.

23 So we worked with, you know, the environmental

24 regulations that were in effect at that time. And to go with

25 what George said, if we were designing it now and we had the

26 riparian, we would have moved the road a little bit, we would

27 have worked the lots a little bit differently. So it makes it

28 hard on this lot. And there are some other ones in there, too,

29 that this is probably going to come up on, too, where we are

30 going to need variances to the riparian.

20

1 CHAIRMAN VALENTIC: Is the culvert already installed

2 on the driveway?

3 MR. GUTOSKEY: Yes, yeah. All the, all the lots

4 in -- even in Phase 5, we did it. There are three-sided

5 culverts. They're already all in.

6 CHAIRMAN VALENTIC: Okay. And could you --

7 MS. JARRELL: I have the original plat and these are

8 all three-sided culverts there.

9 CHAIRMAN VALENTIC: Could you explain the flood

10 elevations then through there?

11 MR. GUTOSKEY: I wish I would have brought that

12 information. I don't have that. I am really not sure. I

13 know, based on the FEMA, there is no 100-year floodplain in

14 there. I know we did work on the lake in there to -- I don't

15 know if you were aware. We had, after all those floods we

16 had -- When was it?

17 MR. DYNES: '06.

18 MR. GUTOSKEY: Was it '06, '08? I think it was '06.

19 We ended up getting the dam for the lake declassified by ODNR

20 by doing some filling and reducing the volume of water behind

21 there and we actually created probably two or three hundred

22 feet of streams through there by lowering the lake level and

23 filling it in. But I am trying to remember. There's like -- I

24 believe there is four different tributaries that feed into that

25 lake and this is one of them. There is two or three to the

26 west of this. I think this takes all the water from -- that

27 comes in off of Daisy Hill, and down and then there is a storm

28 sewer that outlets just past this lot that brings the remainder

29 of the drainage coming out of Phase 3 to the lake there.

30 But as far as elevations, I don't have that

21

1 information with me.

2 CHAIRMAN VALENTIC: Okay. And maybe explain for the

3 Board the ordinary high water mark and what you -- because all

4 the work, I assume, is going to be above the ordinary high

5 water mark because you don't have an Army Corps permit for --

6 MR. GUTOSKEY: Yes.

7 CHAIRMAN VALENTIC: And you are not anticipating any

8 impacts to the stream.

9 MR. GUTOSKEY: No, just for the utility crossings.

10 CHAIRMAN VALENTIC: Okay.

11 MR. GUTOSKEY: Which we have to get across. And

12 those are handled by a nationwide permit through the Corps.

13 CHAIRMAN VALENTIC: Okay.

14 MR. GUTOSKEY: There is two different numbers. I am

15 not sure which one it would be.

16 CHAIRMAN VALENTIC: Okay. So just -- Can you then

17 explain what's going to happen with the finished product from,

18 you know, to the ordinary high water mark and what's expected

19 below that because I think that's different than what's at

20 Daisy, I would imagine.

21 MR. DAVIS: What do you mean, different than what's

22 at Daisy?

23 CHAIRMAN VALENTIC: Because I would think they went

24 down past the ordinary high water mark. It looks like there is

25 turf.

26 MR. DAVIS: Yeah, the homeowners may have afterwards.

27 CHAIRMAN VALENTIC: Yes.

28 MR. DAVIS: As the developer, as the builder, you

29 know -- He represents the developer, I'm the builder, then we

30 have the homeowner. As the builder, we stake the high water

22

1 mark and we will stay out of the high water mark and we

2 instruct the homeowners not to go into the high water mark

3 other than, I believe, you can clear debris out of there,

4 meaning that dead branches, anything that might impede the flow

5 of the stream.

6 CHAIRMAN VALENTIC: So it would be turf all the way

7 down to the ordinary high water mark?

8 MR. DAVIS: Yeah, it would be a front yard.

9 CHAIRMAN VALENTIC: Okay. We were given a plan from

10 Chad at Soil and Water which is pretty similar to -- we will

11 call it your variance plan.

12 MR. DAVIS: Yeah. Chad actually gave me that plan

13 and then -- at that meeting we had. And Chad is here tonight.

14 I think he can speak.

15 CHAIRMAN VALENTIC: Yeah.

16 MR. DAVIS: But I don't want to put words in his

17 mouth. But he gave me his plan and then I forwarded that to my

18 engineer and they drew up the plan that we had. So they should

19 be very similar.

20 CHAIRMAN VALENTIC: Okay. So you have seen this?

21 MR. DAVIS: Yes.

22 CHAIRMAN VALENTIC: Yeah. The only thing I see

23 that's different in maybe Chad's plan is that we have the

24 channel and you're trying not to channelize the stream, which I

25 get. But we also, with the channel, we get a floodplain, some

26 areas that's going to flood. Here we don't know, in the ten

27 year, hundred year where it's going to flood at this point but

28 it's going to get out of that stream channel at some point,

29 right? And what --

30 MR. GUTOSKEY: Maybe. But, see, I think, because of

23

1 the depth of that, I don't think it's going to come out of

2 there. I don't think it's going to come out of that channel

3 just because of the depth and the width of the stream.

4 CHAIRMAN VALENTIC: Okay. That's your opinion.

5 MR. DAVIS: The comment I would say on that is, if

6 the Army Corps believed that it would have, they would have put

7 restrictions on that. This is a -- I mean, there is very

8 little water in there. This is -- There is not much there at

9 all.

10 MS. JARRELL: I've got the original -- excuse me.

11 MR. DAVIS: Yes.

12 MS. JARRELL: I have the original plat and help me to

13 understand this. Do you get the Army Corps permit when this is

14 approved? What comes first?

15 MR. GUTOSKEY: We, in order to do the development, we

16 have to get the Army Corps permit just going through --

17 MS. JARRELL: So you had that before everybody is

18 signing off on this plat, right?

19 MR. GUTOSKEY: Yeah, because we -- because the County

20 Planning Commission requires that.

21 MS. JARRELL: Okay. So what's indicated on this plat

22 right over this parcel is that there are ephemeral streams,

23 which -- I looked it up in the dictionary -- are transitory and

24 brief, and then there are intermittent streams. Those are the

25 ones that are on this parcel. There are no wetlands. So --

26 And I got out of the car and I look down there. There is only

27 some water dripping down there. I mean, we haven't had a great

28 deal of rain but there is not a lot of action there.

29 And I just don't think that the Corps would have,

30 they just indicated, wouldn't have approved it, you know,

24

1 unless this was the case. If it was anything more than, you

2 know, a small, tiny stream, we would have wetlands and we

3 wouldn't be here discussing this because there is no way they

4 could be developing on it.

5 MR. DAVIS: There are some wetlands in that

6 subdivision that are denoted.

7 MS. JARRELL: Well, yeah, in the parcel across the

8 street. I imagine you are going to be back when you have sold

9 that one.

10 MR. DAVIS: Uh-huh.

11 MS. FREEMAN: Excuse me, Mr. Chairman.

12 CHAIRMAN VALENTIC: Yes.

13 MS. FREEMAN: I just want to make sure you put into

14 the record that --

15 CHAIRMAN VALENTIC: Thank you.

16 MS. FREEMAN: -- there was a letter received from

17 Chad, of Soil and Water, addressed to the Board of Zoning

18 Appeals, dated October 5th. I printed up a couple copies of

19 that just in case.

20 CHAIRMAN VALENTIC: Yeah. So -- yeah. Thank you,

21 Heather, for reminding me.

22 MS. FREEMAN: There is the letter.

23 CHAIRMAN VALENTIC: So the letter of October 5, 2016,

24 from Soil and Water Conservation District and the map that's

25 attached with it will become part of our record for this appeal

26 process.

27 And I have just maybe another question just to follow

28 up. And one thing I did -- I noticed the difference in the

29 plan that Chad provided, or Soil and Water provided, is that

30 there is less fill in that area adjacent to the stream. I

25

1 think there is some benefit to that. I mean, he's pulled some

2 of those contours back. He is not showing any filling on the

3 north side of that stream. I think that gives it some capacity

4 in that area, when water does flow in or out of the banks. You

5 know, I am not here to determine that. It doesn't mean that

6 you can't turf that area and make it a lawn but it does reduce

7 some of the fill within that riparian zone.

8 I mean, the intent of the code or our zoning is to

9 try to protect our streams and waterways. So knowing that you

10 guys are coming in after the code has already been passed, I am

11 trying to find a way -- and I think you guys are, too -- find a

12 way to get to something that we all can agree to works. And I

13 honestly believe you are doing that because we have seen three

14 different versions from you.

15 MR. DAVIS: Right.

16 CHAIRMAN VALENTIC: You have gone out to the site to

17 meet with our team.

18 MR. DAVIS: Right.

19 CHAIRMAN VALENTIC: So we are, at this point, having

20 a little bit of discussion and throwing around some other

21 maybe --

22 MR. DAVIS: Right.

23 CHAIRMAN VALENTIC: -- additions or revisions to the

24 plan.

25 MR. DAVIS: So here's my comments on that. We need

26 more space in front of the garage before the grading starts.

27 We have to put a 42 inch wide sidewalk there. You can't put

28 the sidewalk right against the house, you know. Again, in

29 this, in this caliber of neighborhood, people are expecting to

30 have a little bit of landscaping, so I need a little more space

26

1 in front of that garage to get the front walkway in.

2 Number two, we are trying to make that yard be as

3 presentable as possible. So, like, that grade immediately

4 falls off right at the street. And so I feel strongly that we

5 do need to do a little bit of grading on that other side of the

6 street to soften that, you know, so it's not quite so fast

7 coming off of there.

8 And I would say this. I strongly disagree with the

9 statement that we're coming in after legislation was passed.

10 Again, I want to say this was a platted subdivision, platted

11 under the codes at the time. I understand what, what the

12 Township is trying to do. There's a lot of streams in Concord

13 on undeveloped land. I get that. You want to put the

14 riparians on it. I strongly disagree with putting riparians on

15 existing half acre lots that were in a platted subdivision that

16 were laid out with the stream regulations at the time.

17 The Army Corps does not require a riparian on this

18 stream. This is, you know, a requirement that you guys are

19 instituting above and beyond that. And I will say, again, I

20 think it's an extreme hardship on that lot to impose that after

21 it was designed to not have that riparian. So, like, I think

22 that's what we're missing. That was -- I feel strongly on

23 that. I am not trying to upset anybody but I feel that, you

24 know, it was, it was unfair, you know, because we, you know,

25 the streets would have been laid out different, the lots would

26 have been laid out different if that rule had been in effect.

27 CHAIRMAN VALENTIC: Did you guys -- I know one of the

28 home are -- because I drove through there and looked at them --

29 one of them had a wall to help create the lawn area and get a

30 flat space through there. Is that something you guys looked

27

1 at, putting in, putting in a wall to get that larger front yard

2 and those softer slopes that you are looking at?

3 MR. DAVIS: It would be a ten-foot wall in this case.

4 CHAIRMAN VALENTIC: I mean, you don't have to pick up

5 the whole grade of the wall but did you look at -- The question

6 is, did you look at putting in a three-foot high wall or

7 something so that you could still slope back at a general

8 grade?

9 MR. DAVIS: The customer doesn't want that. The

10 people aren't going to want that. I don't know how else to

11 explain this. If you can imagine that folks want a useable

12 front yard, you know, this is, this is what is expected in a

13 half a million to 600 thousand dollar house. So if we're going

14 to have, you know, a low land, you know, a land that's ten feet

15 lower and then step a wall up and then step another wall, that

16 has an extreme negative effect. It's expensive and you'd

17 probably spend $50,000 on that wall. So what do we want? You

18 know, do we want to put a $200,000 house in there, put a --

19 have a $200,000 in Mountainside amongst $600,000 houses? Or do

20 we want to have a $600,000 house in Mountainside, you know,

21 with what is salable.

22 You know, there is a big difference between buildable

23 and salable, right? And, you know, when Mountainside was put

24 in, it was designed to be an executive, premier neighborhood,

25 not a starter home neighborhood. If I was building $200,000 --

26 And no disrespect to the $200,000 buyer. But if I was building

27 a $200,000 home in Concord Township, maybe I could get away

28 with that but not -- The market dictates that a six, five, six

29 hundred thousand dollar buyer is not going to except that.

30 MR. GUTOSKEY: That house, obviously, is the

28

1 character of that neighborhood, too.

2 MR. DAVIS: Correct.

3 CHAIRMAN VALENTIC: Anyone else have any questions?

4 MS. JARRELL: So with what you're, what you're

5 proposing to do in handling the clearing, perhaps, you could

6 speak to, you know, how that's going to affect erosion control.

7 Is it going to have a detrimental effect on it or what do you

8 think there?

9 MR. DAVIS: The yard will, the yard will be seeded

10 just like the yards on Daisy Hill so, you know, grasses. Well,

11 I don't want to speak to soil and water issues because Soil and

12 Water Department is here. But, you know, grass inhibits

13 erosion. So the fact that that would be a grass front yard,

14 there would not be erosion.

15 I mean, I can agree -- I don't know if I would agree

16 here or I would agree with Chad on his permit with Soil and

17 Water but I can agree to mat and stabilize that instantly, you

18 know, if that's, if that's something that you guys are

19 concerned about, you know, during construction, I mean. But

20 once the client moves in, they will put a yard in there.

21 CHAIRMAN VALENTIC: Do you guys have any questions on

22 that?

23 MR. DYNES: I don't currently, no.

24 CHAIRMAN VALENTIC: Blair, do you have anything else?

25 MR. HAMILTON: Nothing.

26 MR. GUTOSKEY: I just have a couple things I just

27 want to put into the record. Okay. The existing lot is of

28 record. The plat was recorded in 2005 -- I am sorry -- yeah,

29 2005. The variance will not be detrimental to the public

30 welfare nor injurious to the property or improvements in the

29

1 area. The variance will be minimal that will afford relief to

2 the riparian setback requirement. There will be no adverse

3 affect on the delivery of governmental services. The parcel

4 predates the riparian setback requirement. The parcel was

5 originally designed without this setback requirement in mind.

6 And the other -- There is no other way to build out the lot and

7 maintain the character of the neighborhood.

8 As George said, if we followed riparian and didn't do

9 anything there, the house that you would have to sell in there

10 would be below the values within the neighborhood, and it would

11 deprive the developer and builder to utilize the lot as

12 originally designed. That's all I have.

13 CHAIRMAN VALENTIC: And I just, you know -- We also

14 have a couple different points in Section 17.08(B). If the

15 Board hasn't looked at those points as well, please take a look

16 at those and that helps determine if, you know, that impacts

17 the riparian or not.

18 If there is -- Chad, do you want to come up and just

19 talk about, you know, your thoughts and your letter in regards

20 to this appeal?

21 MR. EDGAR: Sure, thank you. Chad Edgar, with the

22 Lake County Soil and Water, 125 East Erie Street in

23 Painesville. And I have been sworn in.

24 I certainly agree with George and Joe that there

25 probably is a hardship here with the fact that the grading

26 scheme was developed before the enactment of the riparian

27 setbacks and it would have been laid out differently, and

28 that's the case in other phases in that same subdivision. So

29 really, kind of, in my opinion, comes down to how the variance

30 gets handled in terms of getting him a product that works for

30

1 him and you still, kind of, stay true to the nature of the

2 setback.

3 So I want to clear something up first, though, in

4 terms of floodplains and Corps regulations. The Army Corps of

5 Engineers does not regulate floodplains. They strictly

6 regulate the discharge of fill below the ordinary high water

7 mark in waters of the United States.

8 Floodplain fill is handled by the local floodplain

9 administrator, which would be George Hadden in this. There is

10 no map Zone A down there, which would be on the flood risk map

11 published by FEMA, but there is a floodplain down there. All

12 streams flood. They flood at a two-year elevation, a five,

13 ten, 50, 100 year, 500 year. There isn't a mapped one but they

14 do have elevations tied to them that there could be some

15 modeling done to figure out what those various stages could be,

16 both pre-construction and post-construction based on different

17 fill scenarios. So the Corps wouldn't regulate that, so just

18 be clear on that.

19 So after our meetings, we developed some comments,

20 both Dan Donaldson and I in the office, in reading the zoning

21 code, looking at the original plan, looking at the variance

22 plan, the compliance plan, to try and, again, fit in something

23 that was salable that still met the intent of the riparian

24 setbacks, and that was the map that I provided.

25 And that was a different revision, George, that you

26 didn't have that was done after you submitted the other

27 drawing.

28 MR. DAVIS: Oh.

29 MR. EDGAR: So it's very similar.

30 MR. DAVIS: Okay.

31

1 MR. EDGAR: But, basically, what I did was I took the

2 grading from the side yard, along the driveway and the front

3 yard from that original submittal. The rear yard grading and

4 the house was moved back just a couple of feet more. And then

5 grade out from the front, leaving the same distance from the

6 front of the house to that first contour line, 942 or 943 -- I

7 don't remember what the exact contour was -- and then grading

8 out from there. You could get the house at 60 feet and have

9 zero encroachment in the riparian setback but you would have a

10 a very steep grade out. It wouldn't necessarily be safe, it

11 wouldn't be salable, wouldn't be aesthetically appealing. You

12 could grade it out at five to one and it would be very safe and

13 very appealing but then you are right into the ordinary high

14 water mark.

15 So I tried come up with something that was in

16 between, two to one, maybe, or two and a half to one -- there

17 are notes in there -- but trying to keep the grading that was

18 submitted to the Township as close as possible and not encroach

19 into that riparian setback as much as possible. That would

20 help give that stream some floodplain area and allow it to

21 flood out in that bottom area, realizing that it would probably

22 be turf or grass instead of native vegetation in order to get

23 the aesthetic that they're looking for. Not a perfect scenario

24 But my thought, my opinion would be that having grass and less

25 fill would be a more desirable scenario. When he cuts the

26 driveway in, when he cuts those utilities, a lot of that native

27 vegetation is going to die anyways. So he is going to have

28 some issues with maintaining what's in there.

29 So he could cultivate that, pull the stumps out, put

30 some topsoil in there, maintaining the existing grade on that

32

1 north side of the steams and still plant a lawn is probably an

2 acceptable thing in my opinion.

3 What's the other pressing points that I wanted to --

4 MR. DYNES: Chad, let me just ask you. Just give us

5 your opinion. What's your opinion on this? As a whole, what

6 are your feelings? I am not trying to dumb it down here. But

7 after hearing George and hearing everybody else and now you are

8 talking to us and you've put some things together and you've

9 heard the questions up here, give us your opinion.

10 MR. EDGAR: Okay. Well, that's a tough one because

11 this is setting the standard.

12 MR. DYNES: I know. That's why I am asking.

13 MR. EDGAR: It's your first appeal for a variance in

14 the riparian setback. So I have never sat on a zoning board.

15 I don't do zoning. I'm a scientist. So, you know --

16 MR. DYNES: And a couple of us are lawyers and

17 realtors, so we have no idea. That's why I am asking.

18 MR. EDGAR: So, so I guess, you know, again, I agree

19 that there is probably a hardship. I think getting some

20 grading into that area now is probably, you know, not ideal but

21 acceptable in this scenario because of the timing of the

22 grading scheme for that phase of the subdivision and the

23 enactment of the riparian setbacks. It just wasn't envisioned.

24 But how do we, how do we do that in a manner that

25 still holds true to the goals of that riparian setback as much

26 as possible? So my opinion would be, if you need to grade out

27 some area in the front yard to make it more appealing, more

28 salable, that could be done. And then it just becomes a matter

29 of how much and where that makes everybody comfortable with

30 what we've got.

33

1 I think the original submittal that they sent didn't

2 have any grading in the front, so that should still be -- I am

3 sorry -- on the north side of the stream. So that was

4 acceptable then, I would assume that would be acceptable now.

5 It's just, how do we get the front of the house graded out?

6 Lots of ways to do that and still be comfortable with it.

7 So my opinion would be to allow some. Do I think the

8 variance plan is acceptable? I don't. My opinion would be I

9 don't agree with that. But I think something in between the

10 original submittal and the variance plan would be workable.

11 MR. DYNES: Thank you.

12 MR. EDGAR: You are welcome.

13 CHAIRMAN VALENTIC: Does anyone have any questions,

14 any further questions for Chad before he steps away?

15 MR. SWEENEY: Yes. I am trying to get a sense of

16 where the house, ideally, where they just want to put it as

17 opposed to where you would like to see it. How -- What are we

18 talking about in terms of distance here between, between the

19 best case scenario and the worst case scenario for the builder?

20 MR. EDGAR: Well, I think --

21 MR. SWEENEY: How much? What are we talking about

22 here?

23 MR. EDGAR: I think worst case scenario is you put it

24 at the rear yard setback. For George's, you know, opinion is

25 that you would put it at the rear yard setback. That's 40 feet

26 from the rear property line.

27 MR. SWEENEY: So we are talking dragging the house

28 back 20 feet further than they wanted to, right?

29 MR. DAVIS: I think it's at 54 right now.

30 CHAIRMAN VALENTIC: It's at 61 from the rear.

34

1 MR. EDGAR: I thought it -- okay. Maybe that's what

2 the rear yard is.

3 MR. SWEENEY: So dragging it 20 foot further back is

4 what you're --

5 MR. EDGAR: It would be, I think, moving it back 12

6 additional, 12 to 13 feet back from, I think, what the variance

7 plan to the rear yard.

8 CHAIRMAN VALENTIC: But that's the ideal condition,

9 right, Chad? Is that what you are saying?

10 MR. EDGAR: Yeah, about 10 to 12 feet. That would

11 be, that would be --

12 MR. SWEENEY: What I want, what could he have done

13 without coming here today, and what it is that you want to see?

14 CHAIRMAN VALENTIC: He could have done his plan, his

15 conforming plan. --

16 MS. JARRELL: Conforming plan.

17 CHAIRMAN VALENTIC: -- and he wouldn't have been

18 here. But what he is saying, this isn't salable.

19 MR. SWEENEY: All right. Between the conforming plan

20 and where you want it, how many feet are we talking here?

21 MR. EDGAR: One.

22 CHAIRMAN VALENTIC: Yeah. I think Chad's plan only

23 shifts -- I was looking at doing it -- I think Chad's plan, I

24 think you put in maybe in your email -- only shifted the house

25 back one foot based on what --

26 MR. DAVIS: It's the variance. You are looking at

27 the wrong plan.

28 CHAIRMAN VALENTIC: -- from what they had shown.

29 MR. SWEENEY: Right.

30 CHAIRMAN VALENTIC: The difference that we're

35

1 missing, so we're all clear, is Chad has, Chad's, the Soil and

2 Water plan does not show any grading on this side and it's

3 tightened up the grading on this side so the area along the

4 stream -- and, again, it goes back to what Chad said -- has a

5 floodplain, more of a floodplain than what the variance plan

6 shows.

7 If I had read this variance plan correctly, it

8 appears that you're filling right up, they're filling that

9 slope all the way down to that, so there is some degree of fill

10 all the way down. A section through here maybe would have

11 helped tell the story a little bit to understand the grades.

12 MR. SWEENEY: Yeah. I'm having difficulty picturing

13 it.

14 CHAIRMAN VALENTIC: Yeah. Somebody --

15 MR. EDGAR: There is one section through there from

16 the, from the house. I didn't put the section line on there.

17 MR. GUTOSKEY: You could see the section on this

18 plan.

19 MR. SWEENEY: Yeah, I am looking at this.

20 CHAIRMAN VALENTIC: Yeah.

21 MR. EDGAR: But that section goes, basically, from

22 the corner of the garage -- I didn't put the section line on

23 there -- that's bad on my part -- from here and meets the

24 corner of the driveway here. That's where that section line

25 is, it shows here.

26 MR. SWEENEY: All right. Well, there is no

27 foundation underneath the garage, correct?

28 MR. EDGAR: Yeah, I guess I did put a basement on

29 there. So I was assuming that was house and put a basement on

30 there.

36

1 MR. SWEENEY: Where does the foundation begin?

2 MR. EDGAR: How far down?

3 MR. GUTOSKEY: Well, there is foundation around the

4 garage.

5 MR. DAVIS: The foundation --

6 MR. EDGAR: You just have --

7 MR. SWEENEY: Well, there is foundation there,

8 correct, but there is no basement underneath the garage.

9 MR. DAVIS: Yeah, no, foundation.

10 MR. SWEENEY: So we're talking about --

11 MR. DAVIS: This is -- Chad actually did do that

12 section for you, you know.

13 MR. SWEENEY: Yeah.

14 MR. DAVIS: This is my original submittal. I don't

15 know which one is Chad's. Option --

16 CHAIRMAN VALENTIC: Three, Chad, is yours?

17 MR. DAVIS: This is what I was proposing or what you

18 were?

19 MR. EDGAR: That's the variance plan in the middle.

20 MR. DAVIS: Right.

21 MR. EDGAR: And then this is what I am showing by

22 moving it back one foot and just tightening up the contours a

23 little bit more.

24 MR. DAVIS: Right, yeah, exactly.

25 MR. SWEENEY: So are you okay with his plan?

26 MR. DAVIS: Not entirely.

27 MS. JARRELL: Why?

28 MR. DAVIS: Because it doesn't get the client --

29 MR. SWEENEY: It's pretty close.

30 MR. DAVIS: Actually, what it does is, the client

37

1 they have -- This is all really flat in here, really low. So

2 their yard, you know, they don't have this flat area here. The

3 sidewalk would be right at the edge.

4 MR. SWEENEY: Yeah. How many feet are we talking

5 here?

6 MR. DAVIS: This top part here?

7 MR. SWEENEY: Yeah.

8 MR. DAVIS: I think that's maybe four feet, probably,

9 at the top. But what we're talking about, it's point where he

10 is grading to down below.

11 MR. SWEENEY: Sure.

12 MR. DAVIS: You know, so this is flat and then you

13 have a gradual line. He is less flat, gradual.

14 MR. SWEENEY: Do they have kids?

15 MR. DAVIS: Huh?

16 MR. SWEENEY: Do they have -- I do not know if it's

17 relevant but --

18 MR. DAVIS: You know, do they have kids?

19 MR. SWEENEY: That doesn't matter.

20 MR. DAVIS: I would say they're in their late teens

21 or adult years.

22 CHAIRMAN VALENTIC: No one is playing in that area

23 anyway.

24 MR. SWEENEY: Right.

25 MR. DAVIS: And then on this side, again, I was just

26 trying to make it a little more level to this. I mean, if

27 you've been out to the site and see the little bit of the water

28 that's in there, there is plenty of room here for the, you

29 know, in that flood for it to do that.

30 MR. SWEENEY: Yeah. I am not worried about that.

38

1 MR. DAVIS: As far as the house goes, Chad's plan and

2 my plan are within one foot of each other on the house, my

3 variance plan, the one that we're asking for. What you guys

4 were asking is, how different is Chad's or my plan from the

5 conforming. That's 21 feet.

6 MR. SWEENEY: Well, I am just trying to get, where

7 would you guys -- Where can you guys agree?

8 MR. DAVIS: I think we agree on the placement of the

9 house, right?

10 CHAIRMAN VALENTIC: Yeah.

11 MR. DAVIS: The placement of the house, we agree on.

12 MS. JARRELL: But the grading.

13 MR. SWEENEY: All right. Then let me shift gears for

14 a second.

15 MR. DAVIS: All right.

16 MR. SWEENEY: Your buyer, they were under contract

17 before the change?

18 MR. DAVIS: Yeah. So here is what I explained to my

19 buyer. I said, "Hey, we have a stream there. We can't grade

20 into the stream, the high -- the bank, high water mark,

21 whatever you want to call it. We stake that. And then we will

22 create a gradual yard from there to the area where your

23 sidewalk starts." That's how we explain it to the buyers

24 because it always comes up. They're like, "Hey, what's going

25 to happen here? There's a creek in the front yard."

26 MR. SWEENEY: And then the change came in.

27 MR. DAVIS: And then the change came in.

28 MR. SWEENEY: Then you had to go back and explain to

29 them?

30 MR. DAVIS: And then I said, "Hey, we've got a

39

1 problem here," because we submitted at 50 feet, right? And I

2 said, "Hey, we've got a problem here."

3 It's not good -- You know, I want to make sure. You

4 know, we are coming back for other variances because these

5 other lots, we're going to run into the same issue. I just,

6 you know, I really wish the Township might have approached the

7 developer or I and said, "Hey, what about some of these

8 things?" and we could have tried to work through this in the

9 work sessions. Nobody reads the -- you know, I get, I get the

10 news on the internet and the internet doesn't have the legal

11 notices anymore.

12 MR. SWEENEY: Does your -- does the contract allow --

13 I mean, I don't want to stir anything up here.

14 MR. DAVIS: The clients wants out of the contract if

15 we -- They don't want to move the house any farther back.

16 MR. SWEENEY: That's what I was going to ask you.

17 MR. DAVIS: You know, they want out of the contract.

18 I would --

19 MR. SWEENEY: Can they get out of it?

20 MR. DAVIS: Yeah, of course, I would let them out in

21 a heartbeat.

22 MR. SWEENEY: But that's not good.

23 MR. DAVIS: No, it's not. It's not good for the

24 values in Mountainside. I'll say this. I'll go on the record.

25 MS. JARRELL: It doesn't solve the issue.

26 MR. DAVIS: Yeah. I'll go on the record. This lot

27 and the five on Burgundy, I cannot sell half a million, half a

28 million dollar to $600,000 houses with the riparian. So like,

29 if we can't somehow get some sort of a compromise, then I am

30 going to go to Larry and ask out of our deal and then these

40

1 lots are going to sit until some cost-cutter wants to come in

2 and build 200 or 300 thousand dollar houses in there. And then

3 you'll have every resident in Mountainside in here all mad.

4 And by the way, I am building my personal house in Mountainside

5 right now. So, you know, I want to see that my property value

6 stays high, right?

7 MR. SWEENEY: You're claiming a hardship because

8 all -- your understanding completely changed for all these

9 lots.

10 MR. DAVIS: Exactly.

11 MR. SWEENEY: And your understanding was totally

12 different than before the change in the setback.

13 MR. DAVIS: What we could do until that legislation

14 passed was dramatically different than what we can do now.

15 MS. JARRELL: The plat was signed in '04.

16 CHAIRMAN VALENTIC: But let's be clear. The variance

17 plan, we are blowing out -- I mean, this is way past what the

18 zoning code. You're, you're violating almost -- not violating,

19 I'm sorry -- but it's changing almost every condition in the,

20 in our code. I mean, if you go through that table I mentioned

21 earlier, it's changing almost every condition.

22 So we're definitely working with you and

23 understanding that we've got to change almost every condition

24 to make this lot salable to you. I think what we're discussing

25 here is just a little bit of fill on one side of the creek or

26 the other at this point.

27 MR. DAVIS: Well, how about -- I have a solution for

28 that. Chad said that George Hadden is the guy in charge of

29 floodplains. If we could agree here to exempt this lot from

30 the riparian, right, and then allow George Hadden and Chad, in

41

1 their expertise as those entities, to decide exactly what the

2 fill is but you allow the fill, you allow the clearing. We

3 have actually taken --

4 CHAIRMAN VALENTIC: Allow the sidewalk.

5 MR. DAVIS: But you allow the sidewalk. And then let

6 George Hadden and I and the engineer and Chad finalize these

7 things. The lines really, I mean, you know, if they move a

8 little bit here or there, I don't think that's a problem.

9 CHAIRMAN VALENTIC: And I agree with you with that.

10 MR. DAVIS: George Hadden would know the flood

11 elevations.

12 CHAIRMAN VALENTIC: Because when I'm looking at this,

13 I mean, the variance plan versus what Chad is showing, if this

14 scale is close, we were talking about two feet here.

15 MR. DAVIS: But here is what I am concerned about.

16 That, that -- This site plan imagines that everything is

17 perfect. If you went out there, there is rocks, there is low

18 spots, there is high spots. Did you guys walk back there to

19 the stream? It's not smooth. So I do have to do a little bit

20 of grading on that other side of the stream because, no matter

21 what, I've got to get a blade on that and smooth it out.

22 CHAIRMAN VALENTIC: No one is disagreeing with

23 grading. It's the filling of that floodplain area.

24 MR. DAVIS: But what I am saying is, you know, if

25 there's high and low spots there and I go in and I bulldoze

26 that side of the stream to even that out, I have effectively

27 filled those low spots. So I just would -- I would be very

28 hesitant to say I am okay with the variance saying no fill on

29 the, on the street side of the stream because, you know, to

30 even it out so you can have a grass, I am going -- You know

42

1 what I mean? Even though it shows uniform lines here, there

2 is, like potholes, you know. It's just a natural.

3 CHAIRMAN VALENTIC: Sure. It's a natural area.

4 MR. DAVIS: Exactly.

5 CHAIRMAN VALENTIC: Understood.

6 MR. DAVIS: So I've got to go like that.

7 CHAIRMAN VALENTIC: So with maybe the, you know, the

8 condition -- I am going to throw this out there and let Chad

9 and you and the Board -- maybe the condition will be that we

10 can come in, grade, remove the trees that you need to have

11 removed there, stay out of the ordinary high water mark, but

12 there is going to be an attempt to try to create and maintain

13 some floodplain -- maybe we can even pick a dimension here --

14 on either side of the stream so we are not filling on top, all

15 the way up to that ordinary high water mark. We are keeping

16 some kind of floodplain and we'll let you guys work that out

17 because, like you said -- and I don't disagree -- it is going

18 to come out to maybe some time out in the field or maybe after

19 things get cleared and set. But I think that's the hang-up.

20 MR. DAVIS: I think Chad and I and George Hadden can

21 do that in the field. You know what I mean? If you guys were

22 willing to put -- I don't know how that language would go in

23 your variance but --

24 CHAIRMAN VALENTIC: We could make it a condition as

25 part of our approval.

26 MR. EDGAR: George --

27 CHAIRMAN VALENTIC: Go ahead, Chad.

28 MR. EDGAR: That might be problematic in the fact

29 that George's regulatory authority only deals with Zone A,

30 which isn't mapped.

43

1 CHAIRMAN VALENTIC: Yeah.

2 MR. EDGAR: So what you're asking is what stage of

3 floodplain has to be maintained down there in order to make

4 this stable.

5 CHAIRMAN VALENTIC: And we're never going to get to

6 that point.

7 MR. EDGAR: Is that the two and a half? Is it the

8 five? Is it the ten? Is it the 20? Where is that line drawn?

9 And what effect does that have upstream and downstream? So

10 that's going to involve some pretty hefty hydraulic modeling to

11 determine where all of those are on not only on this lot but,

12 if you are setting the stage, it should be upstream and

13 downstream. George doesn't have time to do that. We don't

14 have the software to do that. I don't know if that's something

15 that he's willing to have Barrington or Joe go through the

16 steps to do but that would be problematic to do.

17 I think you would need to set a standard and say, we

18 are going to do it on the Q25 and that's, that's where it's

19 going to be, no fill in there, and then you figure out where

20 that is. And you need to base that Q25 on some, you know,

21 other than just going, "Well, just take that one and throw it

22 on the paper and that's what we're going to use."

23 MR. GUTOSKEY: Well, Chad, either that or it's, like,

24 the storm sewers in there are designed on a three-year storm

25 and the culverts on the -- under the road are either a 10 or

26 25. I am not sure. I would have to look back and see what we

27 did but we do have the counts for that culvert that's just down

28 the street.

29 MR. EDGAR: If it was 25, that would probably be

30 because they're going to take that --

44

1 MR. GUTOSKEY: It may be a 25.

2 MR. EDGAR: That would back everything up. So that

3 would seem like a reasonable, if that's what it is, draw your

4 line in the sand there for this case. But I think just saying,

5 say, "Well, we'll just -- We will just figure it out," I know

6 George does not have the legal authority to do that. We don't

7 have the resources to do that in our office.

8 MS. JARRELL: I don't feel comfortable with that at

9 all. I don't feel comfortable, frankly, with understanding a

10 lot of this stuff. I don't feel comfortable with -- I mean, we

11 have the Duncan Factors and I think we are probably okay with

12 that. We've got a plat that was approved a long time ago. And

13 now we're looking at these requirements and it seems like we're

14 looking at them exclusively, which I don't necessarily agree

15 with. Maybe we should have this conversation after we, you

16 know, move forward in the proceedings here.

17 But, you know, I think we're really making this way

18 more complicated than it needs to be right now. The Army Corps

19 has given their permit. We have a plat that has been approved.

20 It's not -- It's already determined that this is not even a

21 wetland here. And we're trying to come up with a compromise.

22 And I don't have the expertise, personally speaking just for

23 myself, to understand what all this engineering stuff even

24 means.

25 So how do -- How do we determine that? How do we set

26 precedent in going forward? You know, it's an issue. But I

27 don't think that this Board has the expertise to figure out

28 exactly what is best, but I think that we can go over these

29 items that are in the Resolution and determine that they're

30 not -- that they are complying with most of it, the vast

45

1 majority of it except for maybe the concrete.

2 But this is a development and, you know, we might as

3 well start taking properties by eminent domain if we are going

4 to start dictating something that has already been approved by

5 the County, by the Trustees, by the Army Corps, and now we are

6 coming in and telling them that they can't do it.

7 MR. GUTOSKEY: I under -- I feel your pain because I

8 am on the Bainbridge Board of Zoning Appeals and we've had

9 riparians since, like, 2002 or something like that. And it's

10 tough and it's just -- it's a parcel by parcel. That's all you

11 can do is look at it parcel by parcel. I don't think you

12 really set --

13 MS. JARRELL: I think we're coming up with a good

14 compromise.

15 MR. GUTOSKEY: I don't think you really set any

16 precedent because it's always -- it's parcel by parcel, you

17 know.

18 And another thing, just to add something else, if you

19 push the house back further, then you are adding more concrete

20 and more impervious area. So it's kind of, like, you are

21 trying to limit, you know, the impervious areas in the

22 watershed but then, if we have to push the house back another

23 20 feet, then we're adding another 20 feet of concrete and

24 impervious area in the watershed. So it's a balancing act and

25 I feel your pain, I really do. I've been there.

26 CHAIRMAN VALENTIC: And I think we're close to --

27 Everyone is on the same page, Chris. I really -- It sounds

28 like we are. I am just trying to find a way where we can get

29 into agreement with -- on how to resolve that. That's --

30 MS. JARRELL: I think we, I think we are very close.

46

1 MR. DAVIS: You know, I will just make one last

2 comment that I have, is that this -- You know, the legislation

3 could have said "except previously platted subdivision lots."

4 MS. JARRELL: Grandfather clause, absolutely.

5 MR. DAVIS: In fact, one of the Trustees, when I

6 called them, thought that they had done that. They hadn't. So

7 there was, at least, some discussion about that and, you know,

8 it could have been. Because it's not, you know -- The intent

9 of this is you have a natural stream that runs into a bigger

10 natural stream that runs into a bigger natural stream and

11 creates downstream problems.

12 This minor creek, ephemeral streams, intermittent

13 streams, it runs to a detention basin and it sits in the

14 detention basin and then goes into the next stream. So this

15 water is controlled because it's in a subdivision that has the

16 detention basin.

17 So I would just, you know, I guess I would ask if we

18 could maybe agree on if there is a way that we could approve my

19 variance plan with the stipulation that, on the street side of

20 the stream, we would only do smoothing grading, which I think

21 is almost --

22 MR. GUTOSKEY: Yeah. Basically, what he is saying

23 is, you know, when a tree falls in the woods, it makes a hole

24 here and it has a pile of dirt here. And as things rot out,

25 you end up with a pile of dirt and a hole next to it. So it's,

26 kind of, like, that's what we run into on these sites.

27 MR. DAVIS: So if on that street side, if I just

28 did --

29 CHAIRMAN VALENTIC: Smoothing.

30 MR. DAVIS: -- smoothing grading where I just filled

47

1 in the low spots but kept the contours, and then go with my

2 contours which give a little more sidewalk space on the -- I

3 don't know.

4 CHAIRMAN VALENTIC: South side.

5 MR. DAVIS: South side, south side, yeah. On the

6 north side, I would only do smoothing grading. On the south

7 side, I would grade to our variance plan, clear in the riparian

8 and then sidewalk in the riparian. Maybe that's an acceptable

9 compromise.

10 MR. EDGAR: Slide the bar here one way or the other.

11 What's that saying? You never make all the people happy all

12 the time.

13 CHAIRMAN VALENTIC: Is the Board all set with the

14 questions? Got any further questions?

15 MR. DYNES: No.

16 CHAIRMAN VALENTIC: Okay.

17 MR. DYNES: I have got a couple hundred.

18 MR. SWEENEY: I was going to say, are you sure about

19 that?

20 MS. JARRELL: I can't wait.

21 CHAIRMAN VALENTIC: Okay. Is there anyone else here

22 speaking for or against the appeal that would like to come up?

23 MR. SIERADSKI: I'd like to speak but I am not for or

24 against. I'm for compromise. I'm Ed Sieradski, 7984 Daisy

25 Hill, so I'm up the street. My, my only concern is --

26 Everybody is talking trickle. I was there in 2006 when we had

27 that great rain. When it rains, it floods. And there is more

28 houses up there now. There is less space for water to soak in.

29 My biggest concern is flooding.

30 I understand all the concerns he has but that is the

48

1 lowest place. The lot right next to it, Lot 39, has got

2 similar type issues. So whatever is decided or compromised, I

3 mean, my concern is, you know, what happens if you start

4 backing that up? Are we, are we going to restrict the flow of

5 water? That's my only concern.

6 CHAIRMAN VALENTIC: Okay.

7 MR. DAVIS: Can I respond to that?

8 MR. SIERADSKI: Yeah. Oh --

9 CHAIRMAN VALENTIC: Yeah, you can.

10 MR. DAVIS: I appreciate his concern. I will say

11 this, the subdivision was designed to have all the lots be like

12 his. His house and lot are in total violation of the riparian.

13 So he has steepened his bank. He has channelize the stream.

14 His house is within the riparian.

15 MS. JARRELL: What lot is it?

16 MR. SIERADSKI: Lot 40.

17 MR. DAVIS: Yeah. So --

18 CHAIRMAN VALENTIC: Where is that on our --

19 MR. DAVIS: So to now say, hey, because he did what

20 you were allowed to do, now we're not allowed to do what he did

21 doesn't sound fair to me.

22 CHAIRMAN VALENTIC: Thank you.

23 Okay. If there's no further questions, the public

24 hearing for -- I lost all my paperwork -- Variance Number

25 0916-1080 is now closed to the public. I will entertain a

26 motion to approve Variance Number 0916-1080, with the

27 contingent, sounds like, that Mr. Davis had said, that on the

28 north side there wouldn't be filling. It would be -- there

29 would be some filling to smooth the grade. Is that the correct

30 term?

49

1 MR. DAVIS: Yeah, smoothing fill only.

2 CHAIRMAN VALENTIC: Smoothing fill only.

3 MR. DAVIS: Smoothing grading. What would, Chad,

4 what would be a good verbiage for that, smoothing grading?

5 CHAIRMAN VALENTIC: Smooth grading to fill low spots.

6 MS. FREEMAN: At the current contour, right?

7 MR. DAVIS: At the current contour, yeah.

8 CHAIRMAN VALENTIC: At the current contours.

9 MS. FREEMAN: What do you mean, existing? Like, as

10 in right now?

11 MR. DAVIS: Smoothing grading only, leave the current

12 contours.

13 MS. FREEMAN: Like existing?

14 MR. GUTOSKEY: Just so he could, like, plant a lawn

15 and be able to mow.

16 MS. FREEMAN: George, I am sorry. Can you just

17 clarify. As the contour as they exist now or --

18 MR. DAVIS: As they exist now.

19 MS. FREEMAN: Not on the variance plan.

20 MR. DAVIS: No. On Chad's plan. Chad didn't touch

21 the -- You didn't touch the grades on the --

22 MR. GUTOSKEY: In other words, north of the street --

23 MS. FREEMAN: Right.

24 MR. DAVIS: Yeah.

25 MR. GUTOSKEY: -- the contours would remain except

26 for what needs to be done for the driveway. And, basically, it

27 would just be smoothing and grading so that you could plant a

28 lawn and be able to maintain it.

29 MS. FREEMAN: But no filling, right?

30 MR. DAVIS: Well, only like, you know, if a tree fell

50

1 over, there's that little hole.

2 MS. FREEMAN: Filling solely to smooth to the current

3 contour.

4 MR. DAVIS: Filling solely to smooth on the north

5 side.

6 CHAIRMAN VALENTIC: On the south side, you will

7 continue -- You will fill and grade down to the ordinary high

8 water mark?

9 MR. DAVIS: Yeah.

10 CHAIRMAN VALENTIC: Chad's plan pulled, the Soil and

11 Water District plan pulled that back a little bit. You want to

12 maintain what's on the variance plan, correct?

13 MR. DAVIS: Correct, because I need that distance for

14 the sidewalk.

15 CHAIRMAN VALENTIC: Okay. I just want to make sure

16 we all understand what's going to be approved.

17 Okay. That's part of the approval, if anyone wants

18 to move.

19 MR. DYNES: So moved.

20 MR. HAMILTON: Second.

21 CHAIRMAN VALENTIC: Okay. The variance appeal

22 0916-1080 has been moved and seconded by the Board. It is open

23 for discussion. We will start with Blair.

24 MR. HAMILTON: I agree with the exception at the end.

25 If we can maintain the grade on that, on that street side, not

26 fill, pretty much be in compliance with what the County Soil

27 and Water had recommended, I think that's probably the best

28 compromise for this property.

29 CHAIRMAN VALENTIC: Yeah.

30 MS. JARRELL: So you are okay with --

51

1 CHAIRMAN VALENTIC: You're okay with --

2 MS. JARRELL: With this?

3 CHAIRMAN VALENTIC: -- this?

4 MR. HAMILTON: Nothing here and then the exception to

5 this --

6 CHAIRMAN VALENTIC: And then this is all pushing this

7 way and then this is all going to push that way more.

8 MS. JARRELL: Uh-huh.

9 CHAIRMAN VALENTIC: Skip, do you have anything?

10 MR. SWEENEY: Well, I think it's pretty clear that

11 this is, this is a serious hardship. I mean, you know, we've

12 got a builder here that's given one set of parameters, sells

13 the property based on that. And then, all of the sudden, they

14 change the rules midstream. I consider that an extreme

15 hardship.

16 I think, I think that this is a perfect example of a

17 grandfather situation, even if it wasn't a hardship. And I

18 don't think that we would be setting any sort of a dangerous

19 precedent by granting, frankly, any, any one of these proposals

20 because of the situation I just discussed. This is not going

21 to happen -- People who are watching out there, I don't think

22 that anyone is going to come in here and say, "Well, because of

23 this -- Well, look what did you on this." We've got a totally

24 -- This is a totally unique situation here, I think. I don't

25 think it's a problem. Maybe I am just over simplifying it.

26 And you know what? We all survived the 2006 500-year

27 rains. I don't think there wasn't much -- There was rivers

28 coming out of my back yard but we all survived. So --

29 MR. DYNES: I tend to agree with Skip. And I talked

30 to a couple of Trustees and some others because I had some

52

1 definite concerns and I wanted to get a little background. So

2 I think we all probably -- I don't want to speak for everybody

3 -- agree on that point, that it's an issue.

4 The next points, I think we beat them up pretty good

5 ad nauseam. And we might all have a different opinion in the

6 room. I like what Blair had to say. I don't want to belabor

7 the point any longer. I think Skip and Blair both, pretty

8 much, summarized most of my thoughts.

9 You have a different background and experience, so --

10 CHAIRMAN VALENTIC: No. I think the developer and

11 builder have come in wanting to work with the Township and with

12 Soil and Water. They have really worked hard to come up with a

13 plan that tries to meet the zoning but knowing that they're

14 never going to meet that zoning code, and I think the Board is

15 working with them to try to do so. And I don't think anyone

16 disagrees that there is a hardship here, that it was zoned --

17 there was different zoning in place than what's here now. So I

18 think we're -- I feel like we're in a good place where we have,

19 kind of, worked through something.

20 I just want to just add that part of the reason we

21 have this riparian setback is because we just keep hearing

22 about issues in the township with flooding.

23 MS. JARRELL: Agreed.

24 CHAIRMAN VALENTIC: And I know the builders leaves

25 and the developer leaves but Heather and Bruce and the Trustees

26 are going to get calls. And someone's opinion of a trickle of

27 water versus flooding is different. It varies. So we've got

28 to just keep that in mind. And it is going to be a case-by-

29 case basis because each lot is going to be a little bit

30 different. So we'll just, you know, keep plugging away at

53

1 this.

2 MS. JARRELL: I think it was a good process. We've

3 got all of these parties involved and talked through it and I

4 echo everybody's sentiments. I think there is a good

5 compromise here and, you know, we have all got to live

6 together.

7 CHAIRMAN VALENTIC: All right. The question is on

8 the approval of Variance Number 0916-1080. A yes vote is for

9 the approval of the variance, a no vote denies the variance,

10 based on the conditions we discussed with the grading on the

11 north side and the variance plan that was provided, that there

12 would be smooth grade fill to fill low areas and follow the

13 existing contours on the north side.

14 Heather, please call the votes.

15 MS. FREEMAN: Ms. Jarrell?

16 MS. JARRELL: Yes.

17 MS. FREEMAN: Mr. Dynes?

18 MR. DYNES: Yes.

19 MS. FREEMAN: Mr. Sweeney?

20 MR. SWEENEY: Yes.

21 MS. FREEMAN: Mr. Hamilton?

22 MR. HAMILTON: Yes.

23 MS. FREEMAN: Mr. Valentic?

24 CHAIRMAN VALENTIC: Yes.

25 MS. FREEMAN: It passed.

26 CHAIRMAN VALENTIC: The ayes have it. Your appeal

27 has been approved. See Heather if you plan on leaving.

28 Next on the agenda is approval of minutes. I'll call

29 for a motion to approve the minutes from September 14, 2016.

30 MR. SWEENEY: So moved.

54

1 CHAIRMAN VALENTIC: Second, anyone?

2 MS. JARRELL: Second.

3 CHAIRMAN VALENTIC: A motion to approve the minutes

4 from September - -

5 MR. DYNES: I have to abstain.

6 CHAIRMAN VALENTIC: That's okay. We will let you do

7 that this time.

8 MR. DYNES: I wasn't here. I just wanted to get that

9 in there.

10 CHAIRMAN VALENTIC: A motion approving the minutes

11 dated September 14, 2016, has been seconded. Is there any

12 additions or deletions, anyone? Okay. The question is

13 approval of the minutes from September 14, 2016. A yes vote

14 approves the minutes, a no vote does not. All in favor of

15 approving the minutes, say "yes." Opposed?

16 MR. DYNES: Abstain.

17 (Four aye votes, no nay votes, one abstention.)

18 CHAIRMAN VALENTIC: Okay. The minutes have been

19 approved for September 14, 2016. The meeting for October 12,

20 2016, for Board of Zoning Appeals is now closed. Thank you,

21 everybody.

22 (Whereupon, the meeting was adjourned at 8:22 p.m.)

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

55

1 STATE OF OHIO ) ) CERTIFICATE

2 COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA )

3 I, Melinda A. Melton, Registered Professional Reporter, a notary public within and for the State of Ohio,

4 duly commissioned and qualified, do hereby certify that, to the best of my ability, the foregoing proceeding was reduced

5 by me to stenotype shorthand, subsequently transcribed into typewritten manuscript; and that the foregoing is a true and

6 accurate transcript of said proceedings so taken as aforesaid.

7I do further certify that this proceeding took

8 place at the time and place as specified in the foregoing caption and was completed without adjournment.

9I do further certify that I am not a friend,

10 relative, or counsel for any party or otherwise interested in the outcome of these proceedings.

11IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and

12 affixed my seal of office this 31st day of October 2016.

13

14 _________________________________Melinda A. Melton

15 Registered Professional Reporter

16 Notary Public within and for theState of Ohio

17My Commission Expires:

18 February 4, 2018

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

56