The Rootstown Township Zoning Commission met in regular session on Tuesday, January 21, 2020, at 7:00 p.m. at Rootstown Town Hall. Present: Steve Brown, Chair Absent: Roger Carpenter, Vice Chair Rob Swauger David Conroy DeWayne Knight Rob Nevling, Alternate Patrick Welch, Alternate Also present: Jordan Michael, Secretary Mark Tirpak, Zoning Inspector Joe Paulus, Trustee Audience: See attached list Secretary Jordan Michael called the meeting to order at 7:03 p.m. and asked everyone to stand for the Pledge of Allegiance. Jordan asked for a nomination for chairperson. Roger Carpenter made a motion to nominate Steve Brown as chairperson. Rob Swauger seconded the motion. Steve accepted the nomination. A vote was taken as follows: DeWayne-yes, Rob-yes, Dave-yes, Roger-yes, Steve-yes. The motion was passed 5-0. Jordan asked for a nomination for vice chairperson. Rob made a motion to nominate Roger Carpenter as vice chairperson. Steve seconded the motion. Roger accepted the nomination. A vote was taken as follows: DeWayne-yes, Rob-yes, Dave-yes, Roger-yes, Steve-yes. The motion was passed 5-0. Jordan turned the meeting over to Steve. Roger made a motion to keep the meeting time as the third Tuesday of every month at 7:00. Rob seconded the motion. A vote was taken as follows: DeWayne-yes, Rob-yes, Dave-yes, Roger-yes, Steve-yes. The motion was passed 5-0. Roger made a motion to accept the meeting minutes from last month as written. Rob seconded the motion. All were in favor and the motion was passed 5-0.

Steve opened the public hearing for the final development plan review of UMH Valley Hills. Attorney John Monroe spoke on behalf of UMH OH Valley Hills LLC. Mr. Monroe introduced Jeff Yorick, Vice President of Engineering for UMH Properties, Inc. and Danielle Baza, park manager. Atty. Monroe said this manufactured home community is currently licensed for 247 homes. There is also a 16-dwelling-unit apartment building located at the front of the property. They are seeking a proposed expansion of 69 new homesites and seeking their approval of the final development plan. The use and expansion are permitted by Section 450.03 of the Rootstown Township Zoning Resolution, which allows for the expansion of a prior existing nonconforming use of up to 20 percent of the existing developed property. The entire parcel is approximately 131 acres; the existing developed portion is about 71.5 acres; and the proposed development area is roughly 13.5 acres, leaving open space of about 11.26 acres. They first approached the BZA proposing an expansion of 165 units which was later scaled back, and in August 2018 the BZA denied their request for 156 units. UMH came back with a code-compliant plan and, in December of 2018, sought approval for an expansion with 97 homesites. A number of neighbors came and testified. There were two conditions that the then Zoning Commission placed on the property owner. The first was that a 6-foot-high vinyl chain-link fence be installed along the entire west border of the neighboring Clover Drive, and in particular along the west border of the proposed expansion area. That was agreed to by the property owner. Also there was a request to move seven homes away from Clover Drive. Based on those two conditions, the Zoning Commission approved the development plan. Atty. Monroe said the Department of Commerce regulates the placement of homes within the property, and they have to work with the existing conditions on the site. As the plans got developed, there was a stream located and some pretty significant wetlands. UMH has designed this plan to minimize the disruption of the wetlands. There will have to be some mitigation, but for the most part, the property owner tried to minimize its impact on those wetlands. Now the number of homesites is down to 69, and this is pretty close to final drawings that they expect the various bodies to approve. Atty. Monroe handed out photos of what the newer homes would look like, and of another park that UMH has expanded. It is not the stereotypical trailer; these are modern, well-built homes that can rival or even exceed the quality of stick-built housing. The designs are quite contemporary and have all the modern features that homebuyers are looking for today. A question last time was the ability of the Portage County sanitary system to take the proposed effluent in expansion of the park, and as Mr. Yorick can testify, there is sufficient capacity. However, Portage County has conditioned approval on some improvements to the existing park infrastructure. As parks age, the existing infrastructure and sewer pipes degrade, due to infiltration of rainwater that can contaminate the sewer system. UMH has submitted a plan to the county to replace much of the existing infrastructure of the park, which they think should alleviate if not completely eliminate these problems. They will start in the existing park and work upfield to replace the existing sewer pipes. Based on those improvements, the county has said they can accept these and much more. Rob asked Atty. Monroe if he has a copy of the old proposed plan. Atty. Monroe said yes. Rob said it seems to him that they have put back the houses that were removed off of Clover. Atty. Monroe pointed out the seven homes that were moved and said with the

location of the drainage facility and the wetlands, that is what drives this particular layout. Rob asked what the distance is from the fence at Clover to trailer #62. Atty. Monroe said he believes the Department of Commerce regulates that distance. It is probably 80 to 90 feet. The nearest distance from any home to the property line is 25 feet. DeWayne Knight pointed at a line and asked if it is the back property line of the last house that fronts on Clover. Atty. Monroe said yes. Roger asked what the distance is from Clover to #57. Rob said it is 300 to 400 feet. Steve said they were going through some of their notes and recollections in regards to what they talked about before. He noted the boundaries and what the covering would be between the fence line and the expansion. They had some notes about runoff and the existing sanitary system. Rob said that should be up to the county. Atty. Monroe said there is one current home that would have to be moved in order to extend Scenic Drive.

Rob asked if there is a property boundary on the south. Atty. Monroe said UMH owns a long strip that goes out to Lynn Road. They had talked about a second road there, but everybody seemed to think the best solution is not to have that improved and leave it the way it is to control access. Steve asked for any comments or questions from the audience. Mike Bellar, 4378 Clover Drive, asked if it is possible to see the revised plan. Steve said yes. Joe Gadd of Rootstown said, at the last meeting, there was a good contingent from Clover Drive that was rather vocal about the traffic, damages and litter. He asked if the owner thinks this fence would eliminate 99 percent of the traffic of the increased number of teens and kids who could be doing more damage on Clover Drive. In other words, if this comes up for approval at a Trustee meeting, would the people of Clover Drive be happy with the fence? Secondly, he recalls a conversation from the original proposal that there was some landscaping to insulate the vision from Clover Drive to the homes. He does not know if that has been dropped or should be considered. Roger said that is the case. They were supposed to leave woods between the backs of the trailer housing to the fence, as more of a buffer. Rob said with the new plan, there are still no new homesites closer than 100 feet to the line, so they are still maintaining that 100 feet, and the fence going along the new proposal, because the residents were satisfied with the fence. Atty. Monroe said they had offered to do landscaping or a fence or a combination thereof, and he thinks the consensus was that most of the residents wanted the 6-foot-high, chain-link vinyl-coated fence instead of a vinyl plank, which would be awkward for that distance. If they do not have to cut down trees, they are not going to clear-cut the site. Most of the areas that are not disturbed are probably the more heavily-wooded areas on the site. Also, as he understands it, this is the final approval body and it would not go to the Trustees. The dry basin has now been fully calculated. Rob said it looks like it is about 200 feet wide by 300 feet long, so there is another buffer for Clover. Atty. Monroe said that is a dry bed, not a pond.

Tammy Brode, 4826 Dock Drive, said she lives in Valley Hills and wanted to make sure this is on the record. They did not have flooding issues until a pipe was changed and it was put in smaller. That caused a lot of problems. When she was talking about it on Facebook and trying to get a clear picture of it, she received a phone call from David and him telling her that someone wanted to sue her for talking about the flooding issue. She has talked to the office and let them know what little bit she knows. There are two people who know for sure that a pipe was changed, so she wanted to make sure that is on the record, that they did not have all these problems there, and they are spending tons of money there because the county changed the size of that pipe. Rob asked Ms. Brode if she currently has flooding. Ms. Brode said she does not. She does not know who does, but when it storms, really horrible, we never had any until then. They are totally making sure everything is taken care of. Joe Paulus, 3983 Marsh Creek Lane, asked on the north side if the fence between the property and Clover is going to have a 6-foot fence, and where Clover ends is where there will also be a fence and 100 feet of trees left there. Is that remaining or is that changed? Rob said that is remaining. Steve acknowledged a letter that was received from a resident named Randy Dean in regards to damage on his vacant home. DeWayne said to clarify, Mr. Dean lives on the southeast corner of the new proposed area, along the railroad tracks. Steve asked if it is currently vacant. DeWayne said yes. There is a driveway parallel to the railroad tracks which is the access back to that property. Atty. Monroe said UMH is a publicly-traded corporation and has acquired a number of parks throughout the northeast United States. To his knowledge, they have not sold a park, so it is not a fly-by-night organization trying to flip the property. This is a well-funded, well-run national corporation seeking to invest in this community, and they think there is demand to sell the homesites that will be placed on the lots. As you can see, there is pretty significant infrastructure required to support these 69 homesites. Rob asked if they are still good with the vinyl-coated chain-link fencing. Atty. Monroe said yes. Mr. Yorick asked if they want chain-link or solid fencing. Rob said, from what he can recall, the residents wanted the vinyl-coated chain-link. They thought the vinyl fence people could tear down, and they wanted to stop the kids from shortcutting through. Steve said if there are issues like that, those should be addressed properly at the local level before escalating to the national level, if other residents have that concern. Dave Conroy asked if this is the last time they can add on due to their non-conforming status. Steve said yes and asked Jordan if that was correct. Jordan said yes. Rob made a motion to accept the plans from UMH Properties Inc. for Valley Hills Park, dated December 2, 2019, with the condition of the vinyl-coated chain-link fence at the property boundaries parallel to Clover Drive, the south boundary of the park, and the west boundary of the park that would intersect Clover, being 6-foot-high, vinyl-coated, chain-link, with the 100-foot buffer of wooded area at the Clover Drive area. Roger seconded the

motion. A vote was taken as follows: DeWayne-yes, Rob-yes, Dave-yes, Roger-yes, Steve-yes. The motion was passed 5-0. Steve opened the public hearing for zoning amendment changes at 7:45 p.m. (See end of minutes for proposed zoning amendments.) Steve said they had one conversation earlier in regards to changes to Sections 480.18, 480.19 and 480.20. All they did was drop one section out and moved the others up. Roger asked if we are going to take out "liability" and "location". Steve said the headings will be corrected. Dave asked in 420.06, "Freestanding Billboard", where the 2800 square feet came from on C2. Roger said we already have billboards that size. Dave asked if the previous maximum was 72 square feet, how did someone put a 2800 square foot sign up. Mark said there use to be a billboard definition in our zoning, and somehow over the years it got omitted. The billboards have been up for 40 years. Dave asked if 50 feet in height is for the sign itself. Mark said it is total. Dave asked if this applies to a McDonald's sign off the highway. Mark said that is a pole sign, which is different from a billboard. The state has the setbacks, so whenever you put up a billboard off of a state route, it is governed by them. Dave asked why the maintenance for solar energy systems would be removed. Roger said it would be something that we could not enforce. Dave said we have stipulations for a wind turbine and asked why it is different. Roger said we were not working on the wind sections. Wind energy is a conditional use anyway. Solar has been the biggest thing out there right now, and they keep having to go before the ZBA for approval. We are trying to make it better for the citizens to have what they want to have without going through the ZBA. Steve asked if the audience had any questions. Stan Dannemiller, 5296 Sapphire Lane, said they are exceptionally well-crafted zoning amendments. Rob made a motion to send Zoning Amendment 2019-024, Section 420.06 A and Section 420.06 C; Zoning Amendment 2019-025, Section 310.03 D; Zoning Amendment 2019-026, Section 340.03 D; Zoning Amendment 2019-027, Section 480.15, Section 480.18, Section 480.19 and Section 480.20; and Zoning Amendment 2019-028, Section 450.02 B, to the Trustees for their decision of approving the amendments as written. DeWayne seconded the motion. A vote was taken as follows: DeWayne-yes, Rob-yes, Dave-yes, Roger-yes, Steve-yes. The motion was passed 5-0. Mr. Gadd asked if the park zoning is on new business tonight. Steve said it is a topic of discussion tonight. Mr. Bellar said it was mentioned that the board could not tell someone when to put a roof on their house. If there was a house completely stripped of shingles, with blue tarps over it, the zoning board could not tell them that it needs to be addressed? Roger said there is nothing in the zoning book to tell someone what to do in that aspect. Rob said it depends. If it becomes a nuisance, then the trustees can take action. Mr. Bellar said there is an abandoned house on the corner of Prospect and Clover with the garage door falling off. The

grass is growing up and he did not know if that was a zoning thing. Roger said usually it goes back to the bank, the bank lets it sit, and we have to look at it for that long. Jordan handed out updated copies of the proposed regulations for a Parks and Recreation zoning district. Rob asked if this is for publicly and privately owned. Mark said if you are creating a district, yes. Rob said he feels they would have different amenities. Mark said this is basically designed for Gracie Field and the park, not all over the whole township. We already have rules for the whole township. Right now Gracie Field is R-2, a non-conforming use, so they cannot do anything without going to the ZBA. Part of the park is exempt from zoning, and the other part has to follow the park rules that we already have. Either set rules for the whole area, or exempt the whole area. Steve asked for the specific parcels. Rob asked if there are concessions at Gracie Field currently, if they are regulated by the county health department, and if they have insurance. Roger made a motion to send this proposed Chapter 380 to Regional Planning, the Prosecutor, and the Fire Department for their concerns. DeWayne seconded the motion. A vote was taken as follows: DeWayne-yes, Rob-no, Dave-yes, Roger-yes, Steve-no. The motion was passed 3-2. Mark brought up Section 230.02, "Nuisances Prohibited", and asked what exactly does it prohibit. There are no levels to determine how much of something is considered a nuisance. If someone is going to file a complaint, we need to know where the boundaries are and how we enforce it. Joe said he is going to a forum on nuisances and will see what they come up with. Mark brought up Section 450.02 and 450.03 regarding non-conforming structures and non-conforming uses. It addresses if something is 50% damaged by an act of God, but not whether a person can tear down to the footer and rebuild if it is non-conforming. We took something out in 450.02, but it is still there in 450.03. Joe said his problem is that one is the building and one is the use of the building. This is been a problem for him ever since he got on the Board of Trustees. D says it shall not be reused or reoccupied unless it conforms to the district. If it is a house in a commercial district, they can rebuild it, but they cannot live in it. Mark said we have 50% removed from 450.02, but left it in 450.03. They should probably mirror each other. No action was taken until more research is done. Rob made a motion to adjourn the meeting. Dave seconded the motion. The motion was passed 4-1, with Roger voting no, and the meeting was adjourned at 8:40 p.m. _____________________________________________________ Steve Brown, Chair Rootstown Township Zoning Commission

Zoning Amendment # 2019-024

Section 420.06 A – Freestanding Identification Signs in Residential-Village,

Commercial and Industrial Districts

Section 420.06 A Existing:

A. Freestanding Identification Signs in Residential-Village, Commercial and Industrial Districts. Freestanding identification signs shall be permitted in Residential-Village (R-V), commercial and industrial districts only in compliance with the following requirements.

1. Minimum Building Setback and Lot Width. Freestanding signs are permitted only when the principal building is set back from the street right-of-way a minimum of 25 feet.

2. Maximum Number of Freestanding Signs. One freestanding sign shall be permitted per project or development, except for facilities on corner lots, pursuant to Section 420.06A.7. and bonuses as established for large lots, pursuant to Section 420.06A.8.

3. Minimum Sign Setback From Street. Freestanding identification signs shall be located no closer than 10 feet from the street right-of-way line, or a distance equal to one half the height of the sign, whichever is greater, and shall be placed so as not to obstruct sight lines for vehicles or pedestrians. On corner lots, freestanding signs shall be erected no closer than 50 feet to any intersection except as otherwise permitted in subsection 420.06A.7. below.

4. Minimum Sign Setback From Side Lot Lines. Freestanding signs shall be located no closer than 10 feet from any side lot line, except that when a side lot line coincides with a residential zoning district boundary line, the minimum setback shall be 25 feet.

5. Landscaping. Freestanding signs shall be erected in a landscaped setting and not on sidewalks, drives or in parking lots.

6. Multi-Tenant Facilities. When a freestanding sign is permitted on a site that has more than one tenant, it is the property owner’s responsibility to determine if the sign area shall be devoted to identification of the building(s), the anchor tenant, all tenants, or some combination thereof.

7. Additional Area for Corner Lots. One additional freestanding sign may be permitted for a corner lot provided that:

a. The total lot frontage of both streets is not less than 200 feet;

b. The area of each freestanding identification sign complies with Schedule 420.04D, and the total area of both freestanding signs shall not exceed 175 percent of the maximum area permitted for a single sign;

c. The second freestanding sign is clearly located to provide identification along the secondary street; and

d. The two signs may be aggregated into a single sign at the corner provided that the area of any freestanding sign face shall not exceed 75 square feet.

8. Additional Area for Large Lots. The area and number of freestanding signs on large lots may be increased according to the following:

a. The allowable area of any freestanding sign face may be increased by 1 square feet of area for every 5 linear feet of lot frontage greater than 200 feet.

b. The allowable area pursuant to this section may be distributed to one freestanding sign for each 250 feet of the lot frontage or fraction thereof.

c. Notwithstanding any provision of this section, the area of any freestanding sign shall not exceed 75 square feet.

Section 420.06 A Proposed (shown in bold):

A. Freestanding Identification Signs in Residential-Village, Commercial and Industrial Districts. Freestanding identification signs shall be permitted in Residential-Village (R-V), commercial and industrial districts only in compliance with the following requirements.

1. Minimum Building Setback and Lot Width. Freestanding signs are permitted only when the principal building is set back from the street right-of-way a minimum of 25 feet.

2. Maximum Number of Freestanding Signs. One freestanding sign shall be permitted per project or development, except for facilities on corner lots, pursuant to Section 420.06A.7. and bonuses as established for large lots, pursuant to Section 420.06A.8.

3. Minimum Sign Setback From Street. Freestanding identification signs shall be located no closer than 10 feet from the street right-of-way line, or a distance equal to one half the height of the sign, whichever is greater, and shall be placed so as not to obstruct sight lines for vehicles or pedestrians. On corner lots, freestanding signs shall be erected no closer than 50 feet to any intersection except as otherwise permitted in subsection 420.06A.7. below.

4. Minimum Sign Setback From Side Lot Lines. Freestanding signs shall be located no closer than 10 feet from any side lot line, except that when a side lot line coincides with a residential zoning district boundary line, the minimum setback shall be 25 feet.

5. Landscaping. Freestanding signs shall be erected in a landscaped setting and not on sidewalks, drives or in parking lots.

6. Multi-Tenant Facilities. When a freestanding sign is permitted on a site that has more than one tenant, it is the property owner’s responsibility to determine if the sign area shall be devoted to identification of the building(s), the anchor tenant, all tenants, or some combination thereof.

7. Additional Area for Corner Lots. One additional freestanding sign may be permitted for a corner lot provided that:

a. The total lot frontage of both streets is not less than 200 feet;

b. The area of each freestanding identification sign complies with Schedule 420.04D, and the total area of both freestanding signs shall not exceed 175 percent of the maximum area permitted for a single sign;

c. The second freestanding sign is clearly located to provide identification along the secondary street; and

d. The two signs may be aggregated into a single sign at the corner provided that the area of any freestanding sign face shall not exceed 75 square feet.

8. Additional Area for Large Lots. The area and number of freestanding signs on large lots may be increased according to the following:

a. The allowable area of any freestanding sign face may be increased by 1 square feet of area for every 5 linear feet of lot frontage greater than 200 feet.

b. The allowable area pursuant to this section may be distributed to one freestanding sign for each 250 feet of the lot frontage or fraction thereof.

c. Notwithstanding any provision of this section, the area of any freestanding sign shall not exceed 75 square feet.

Section 420.06 C – Freestanding Billboard

Section 420.06 C Existing:

C. Freestanding Billboard. Freestanding billboard signs are regulated as a business use in Residential-Village (R-V), commercial, and industrial districts and on lands used for agricultural purposes and shall be permitted only in compliance with the following requirements:

1. Not more than one billboard sign shall be erected on a lot.

2. On a vacant lot in a nonresidential district or on land used for agricultural purposes a billboard sign shall not exceed 72 square feet in area and 12 feet in height and shall be located a minimum of 20 feet from the street right-of-way and 25 feet from side and rear property lines.

3. When located on a lot in combination with another business use in a nonresidential district, a billboard sign shall comply with the area, height and setback regulations for accessory freestanding business identification signs set forth in Schedule 420.04D, Schedule 420.07 and Section 420.06. The billboard sign shall take the place of the freestanding identification sign permitted in Section 420.06A2.

Section 420.06 C Proposed (shown in bold):

C. Freestanding Billboard. Freestanding billboard signs billboards are regulated as a business use in Residential-Village (R-V), commercial, and industrial districts and on lands used for agricultural purposes and shall be permitted on land adjacent to state limited-access highways, not to exceed 500 feet from the limited-access fence, and only in compliance with the following requirements:

1. Not more than one billboard sign shall be erected on a lot. A billboard shall not be located less than 500 feet from another billboard, unless it is on the opposite side of the highway.

2. On a vacant lot in a nonresidential district or on land used for agricultural purposes a billboard sign A billboard shall not exceed 72 2800 square feet in area and 12 50 feet in height and shall be located a minimum of 20 feet per state requirements from the street right-of-way and 25 50 feet from side and rear property lines. The area of two billboard faces, when attached at one end, shall not exceed 3000 square feet combined.

3. When located on a lot in combination with another business use in a nonresidential district, a billboard sign shall comply with the area, height and setback regulations for accessory freestanding business identification signs set forth in Schedule 420.04D, Schedule 420.07 and Section 420.06. The billboard sign shall take the place of the freestanding identification sign permitted in Section 420.06A2. A billboard shall not be considered as a business identification sign when located on the same parcel as a commercial business.

4. Billboards shall be single-faced and placed at a viewing angle for the direction of travel pertaining to the side of the highway in which the billboard is located. Two billboard faces may be attached at one end, with a separation at the rear of no more than 15 feet, to accommodate the vision from both directions of traffic.

5. A billboard shall not be located less than 500 feet from an existing residential structure.

6. Billboards may be digital and lit 24 hours a day in compliance with Chapter 440 of the Zoning Resolution. Digital billboards shall have a light sensor that detects ambient light. The brightness of the billboard shall not exceed 0.3 footcandles above ambient light. Digital billboards shall change their text or screen no more than once every 10 seconds.

7. The structure and billboard shall be maintained and in good repair at all times.

Zoning Amendment # 2019-025

Section 310.03 D – Schedule of Permitted Uses, Residential Districts

Section 310.03 D Existing:

O-C

Open Space Conservation

R-1

Single-Family

Residential

R-2

Single-Family

Residential

R-3

Multi-Family

Residential

R-V

Residential

Village

D. Other

1. Offices on lots fronting on Sandy Lake Road or Rt. 44 (north of I-76)

C

2. Congregate care facilities C C C

3. Use of accessory agricultural building for limited commercial uses on lots larger than 25 acres

C C C

4. Soil removal/ extraction C C

5. Gas and oil wells P P P P P

6. Outdoor furnaces C C C

7. Wind/Solar Energy Systems C C C C C

8. Telecommunication towers See Chapter 460

Section 310.03 D Proposed (shown in bold):

O-C

Open Space Conservation

R-1

Single-Family

Residential

R-2

Single-Family

Residential

R-3

Multi-Family

Residential

R-V

Residential

Village

D. Other

1. Offices on lots fronting on Sandy Lake Road or Rt. 44 (north of I-76)

C

2. Congregate care facilities C C C

3. Use of accessory agricultural building for limited commercial uses on lots larger than 25 acres

C C C

4. Soil removal/ extraction C C

5. Gas and oil wells P P P P P

6. Outdoor furnaces C C C

7. Wind/Solar Energy Systems P P P P P

8. Wind energy systems C C C C C

9. Telecommunication towers See Chapter 460

Zoning Amendment # 2019-026

Section 340.03 D – Schedule of Permitted Uses, Lake Districts

Section 340.03 D Existing:

L-D

Lake District

D. Other

1. Offices on lots fronting on Sandy Lake Road or Rt. 44 (north of I-76)

2. Congregate care facilities C

3. Use of accessory agricultural building for limited commercial uses on lots larger than 25 acres

C

4. Soil removal/ extraction

5. Gas and oil wells C

6. Outdoor furnaces

7. Wind energy systems C

8. Solar energy systems C

9. Telecommunication towers See Chapter 460

Section 340.03 D Proposed (shown in bold):

L-D

Lake District

D. Other

1. Offices on lots fronting on Sandy Lake Road or Rt. 44 (north of I-76)

2. Congregate care facilities C

3. Use of accessory agricultural building for limited commercial uses on lots larger than 25 acres

C

4. Soil removal/ extraction

5. Gas and oil wells C

6. Outdoor furnaces

7. Wind energy systems C

8. Solar energy systems P

9. Telecommunication towers See Chapter 460

10. One accessory structure per leased lot on unleased common property, not to exceed 20’ x 28’ per unit. Units may be attached by a common wall to other units.

P

Zoning Amendment # 2019-027 Section 480.15 – Purpose, Solar Energy Systems Section 480.15 Existing: PURPOSE. Small solar systems shall be conditionally permitted in all zoning districts in accordance with the requirements of this section. Section 480.15 Proposed (shown in bold):

PURPOSE. Small solar systems shall be conditionally permitted in all zoning districts in accordance with the requirements of this section.

Section 480.18 – Liability, Solar Energy Systems Section 480.18 Existing: LIABILITY. The property owner shall demonstrate proof of liability insurance to the Zoning Inspector prior to permit issuance. Section 480.18 Proposed (shown in bold): LIABILITY. The property owner shall demonstrate proof of liability insurance to the Zoning Inspector prior to permit issuance. LOCATION. A solar energy system shall meet the same setbacks as accessory uses for the district in which it is located from side and rear property lines, not from structures. Solar energy systems shall not be located in the front yard but may be attached to the front of a structure.

Section 480.19 – Location, Solar Energy Systems Section 480.19 Existing:

A. A solar energy system shall only be located in the rear yard portion of any lot. Exception is when solar energy system is attached to a building the base cannot be viewed from any roadway. Another exception would be for dual-purpose solar collectors. See solar energy dual-purpose definition.

B. It is the property owner’s responsibility to situate any solar collector so that a neighbor’s

trees or buildings any time of the year do not block access to the sun. Section 480.19 Proposed (shown in bold):

A. A solar energy system shall only be located in the rear yard portion of any lot. Exception is when solar energy system is attached to a building the base cannot be viewed from any roadway. Another exception would be for dual-purpose solar collectors. See solar energy dual-purpose definition.

B. It is the property owner’s responsibility to situate any solar collector so that a neighbor’s

trees or buildings any time of the year do not block access to the sun.

Section 480.20 – Maintenance, Solar Energy Systems Section 480.20 Existing: MAINTENANCE. When a system reaches the end of its useful life and can no longer function, the owner of the system shall remove the system within 120 days of the day on which the system last functioned. The owner is solely responsible for removal of the system and all costs, financial or otherwise. Section 480.20 Proposed (shown in bold): MAINTENANCE. When a system reaches the end of its useful life and can no longer function, the owner of the system shall remove the system within 120 days of the day on which the system last functioned. The owner is solely responsible for removal of the system and all costs, financial or otherwise.

Zoning Amendment # 2019-028

Section 450.02 B – Additions, Alterations, and Reconstruction of Nonconforming Buildings or Structures

Section 450.02 B Existing:

B. Additions, Alterations, and Reconstruction. A nonconforming building or structure shall be permitted to be altered, added to or enlarged one time only, provided that the addition conforms to the regulations of the district in which it is located. Any such alteration, addition, enlargement or extension shall not exceed 20 percent of the square footage of the floor area of the building or structure as it existed at the effective date of this Resolution. Where the land contains more than one building or structure, the combined square footage shall be considered.

Section 450.02 B Proposed (shown in bold):

B. Additions, Alterations, and Reconstruction. A nonconforming building or structure shall be permitted to be altered, added to or enlarged one time only, provided that the addition conforms to the regulations of the district in which it is located. Any such alteration, addition, enlargement or extension shall not exceed 20 percent of the square footage of the floor area of the building or structure as it existed at the effective date of this Resolution, unless the proposed addition would eliminate the non-conforming status of the building or structure on the parcel in which it is located. Where the land contains more than one building or structure, the combined square footage shall be considered.