WASHINGTON TOWNSHIP
ZONING COMMISSION MINUTES

June 19, 2007

The Washington Township Zoning Commission met in regular session on June 19, 2007 in the Meeting Room of Washington Township Government Center. Members of the Commission present were Mr. Rogers, Mr. Drain, Mrs. Winwood, Mrs. Zobrist, and Mr. Anderson.

Call to order at 6:00 p.m.

The Pledge of Allegiance was recited.

Mrs. Winwood – Asked that the words “new and changed” be added to her question on Page 4 regarding the submittal of plans.

MOTION – Mr. Rogers moved the minutes of May 22, 2007 be approved with modifications.

Motion seconded by Mrs. Zobrist.

VOTE - Mr. Rogers, yes; Mr. Drain, yes; Mrs. Winwood, yes; Mrs. Zobrist, yes; Mr. Anderson, yes.

There were no cases filed and placed on the agenda.

The Zoning Commission reviewed and discussed the Draft Zoning Resolution Amendments.

Residential Conservation District

Andy Ehrhart , Zoning & GIS Manager – Presented changes in the proposed Residential Conservation zoning district. He stated the legal and staff review was completed and the definitions will be moved from this section to the definitions section. It was indicated that items for discussion are noted in red print on the draft. Mr. Ehrhart stated there were minor items that were removed following discussion with Washington Township Law Director, Bob Surdyk. He indicated those items were mostly cosmetic and redundant in nature.

Page 4 item for discussion regarding perimeter building regulations.

The proposed setback requirement of 75’ from an existing street right-of-way was discussed. The common open area is not typically part of individual lots and therefore can be defined as “open space”. It was agreed to change the title “Perimeter Building Regulations” to “Development Setback. Discussed development setback versus lot setback. The Commission decided the setback requirement would be for the development, unless it abuts another development, giving example of continuing dead end streets from one development into another.

Page 2 correction.

Change “nee” to “need”.

Page 5 item for discussion regarding “Architectural Standards”.

There was discussion of permitting and prohibiting building materials. The resolution should either permit or prohibit, but not both.

Mr. Anderson - Is in favor of identifying permitted building materials with a clause indicating “similar materials considered”.

Mrs. Winwood – Questioned what are some of these materials that “may be allowed/considered”?

Mr. Rogers – Discussed the example of narrow course horizontal boards. Gave example of Washington Trace and the allowance for wood and questioned if the Zoning Commission allowed that material.

It was agreed that permitted materials would be listed with the “similar materials” clause indicating materials to be similar in appearance and performance.

Mr. Anderson – Stated the numbers in the exhibits shown on Page 27 of this section do not have explanations outlined.

Mr. Ehrhart – Indicated the exhibits were part of the Mixed Use district so not all notations are there. This exhibit is simply provided to give “definition” of unit and road types. He stated that additional exhibits will be added and that this is purely for reference as part of the review. They will provide a modified copy with the final draft.

Mr. Drain – Emphasized the Commission is satisfied with Pages 1 through 6 of this section and that staff will complete the exhibits and bring them forward in July.

Article 6 – Agricultural District

Mr. Ehrhart indicated that changes included moving text around and not much content changes. Parts of the general section were moved to each pertinent district article. The uses indicated in red in the Principal Permitted Uses table could change due to the Agricultural exempt status outlined in the Ohio Revised Code. This will be reviewed and appropriate changes made. Text in bold faced type is the proposed changes.

Mr. Anderson – Feels the Special Note 2 requirement of 200’ setback for structures used for animal hospitals is too restrictive. Feels the requirement should be Special Note 4 with a 100’ setback requirement.

Mr. Drain – Stated they are looking for a sufficient buffer between uses where 200’ is more appropriate.

Mrs. Zobrist – Noted that the kennel on Social Row Road has a significant noise factor that might warrant the 200’ separation. Feels that outside activity is a deciding factor.

Mr. Drain – Feels that 200’ is a good distance and if they want less, a request of a variance can be submitted.

Mrs. Zobrist – Feels there is a big difference between hospitals, kennels and the new pet hotels.

Mrs. Winwood – Questioned the radio and/or television transmitter use height restriction.

Mr. Ehrhart – They would have to comply with the height requirements associated with the zoning district. Cell towers are exempt by their status as a public utility.

Mrs. Winwood – Questioned Special Note #3 regarding oil wells. Are these allowed?

Mr. Ehrhart – Indicated that this was carried over from the old code although these types of uses do not usually occur. The height restriction would still apply.

Mrs. Winwood – Feels that a minimum of 5 acres for a church is excessive.

Mr. Ehrhart – Indicated the 5-acre minimum is required due to the amount of space being needed for parking. Churches being build today are significantly larger structures than in the past. Five acres is a standard requirement.

The proposed change on Page 6-2 identifies a limitation on the size of a garage to 720 square feet. This provides for a standard garage size of 24’ x 30’.

The proposed change on Page 6-3 limits playhouse/tree house size to 100 square feet of enclosed area. “Enclosed” means the walls, roof, etc.

Earth mounds along a lot line in an “R” district should not go before the Board of Zoning Appeals. The strikethrough paragraph is proposed to be omitted.

Mr. Drain – Questioned if there is a minimum setback requirement from the side yard for recreational vehicles.

Mr. Ehrhart – Indicated that it is worded such that the side yard setback has to be maintained.

On Page 6-4, staff suggested limited the size of a recreation vehicle that can be stored in a residential district.

Mrs. Zobrist – Suggested a size range of 27’ to 30’ for the length.

A 12’ height was agreed upon as well as a 35’ length. Staff will research this to confirm that it is a reasonable size.

There was discussion regarding screening requirements for recreation vehicles.

Mr. Rogers – Stated that some Homeowners Associations require fence around the recreation vehicles as well as a neutral colored cover on top.

Mr. Drain – Asked about regulations for PODs.

Mr. Ehrhart – Indicated that there are currently no zoning regulations on PODs and that they are considered permanent structures if they are on a site beyond a certain extent of time. There is a general interest in regulating them.

Mr. Drain – Feels they should be regulated as temporary 14 days, 30 days, or whatever is acceptable.

Staff will research and provide input in defining and regulating them as temporary storage units.

Mrs. Winwood – Asked about any existing regulations on dumpsters.

Mr. Ehrhart – indicated that dumpsters are allowed to be on active construction sites.

Mrs. Winwood - Feels there should be a requirement of the dumpster being emptied routinely.

Mr. Ehrhart – Stated that could occur if the dumpsters were there during the construction phase.

Mrs. Winwood – Her examples involved active construction sites. Feels they need to require regular emptying of dumpsters.

The current regulations for the storage of firewood contain a vague point of reference. Staff recommends use of the word “cord” as a reference with six (6) cords allowed to be stored.

Regulations pertaining to tennis courts on Page 6-5 should omit the word “tennis” and use “generic sports court”. Also, in that same section, replace the word “glare” with “no visible light source from adjoining lot line”.

In Section 3, add “utility trailers” to the regulations on overnight parking or storage of vehicles.

On Page 6-6, introduce accessory structure height restrictions of 15’ or height of primary structure, whichever is greater. Eliminate “C.” due to it being redundant. This is included in the use table.

Page 6-9, Section 5 item for discussion regarding entrance gates.

Mr. Anderson – Entrance gates only allow wrought iron construction. Asked to include masonry piers as allowed

Mr. Ehrhart – Stated the gate has to be wrought iron. This only addresses the fencing component. The posts can be whatever desired, so masonry piers currently allowed.

Mr. Drain – Does not feel it is needed to include the building material of the post.

Mrs. Winwood – Stated that the fire department sets the standards for the acceptable gates as part of the review process. Her experience was that gates could not be opened by the fire department and they could not gain access.

Mr. Ehrhart – Noted that the Homeowners’ Association of any given development should consider the installation of Knox box to address access issue.

Mr. Ehrhart – Stated that the accessory uses in Agricultural District have been added to match that of the Residential Districts when the property is to be used for residential purposes.

Article 7

Mr. Ehrhart – Indicated the use districts matrix was expanded to provide information associated with different residential districts.

The Commission was satisfied with the format.

Mr. Anderson – What is a private noncommercial facility?

Mr. Ehrhart – Gave definition and clarification of a private membership club versus public facility.

Mr. Ehrhart – Stated that the accessory uses listed here are almost identical to the ones in the Agricultural District.

On Page 7-2, staff recommends changing the swimming pool restriction for fencing from 5’ to 4’ to match the State Code.

On Page 7-8, Mr. Anderson suggested changing the architectural features to prohibit fire escapes. Typically fire escapes look like an afterthought and are an aesthetic issue.

Mr. Ehrhart – The reason it is not prohibited is because this is a straight zoning district and aesthetics cannot be regulated.

Mr. Anderson – Stated we should eliminate allowance for fire escapes.

Mr. Ehrhart – If it does not project into the required yard then they are still allowable. We could eliminate the restriction but escapes could still be there if in the required yard.

It was agreed by the Commission to remove reference to fire escapes in Section 4, Development Standards.

A home occupation draft amendment was distributed for future discussion.

In other business:

Update on White Oak proposal. The hearing before the Board of Trustees was continued to July 2, 2007.

Mrs. Winwood will not be in attendance at the July 17, 2007 Zoning Commission meeting.

It was noted that the second and final application for the nursing home project at the RG Properties site on SR48 and Social Row Road may come before the Commission in the next few months.

Meeting adjourned. A tape recording of this proceeding is on file in the Zoning Office.

________________________________

Harry Drain, Chairman

Washington Township Zoning Commission