Bza Meeting - Regular Meeting

the November 17, 2025 Macedonia Planning Commission. Can we get a roll call? Mr. Westbrooks here. Mr. Wallenhurst here. Mr. Roberts here. Miss Musky here. And I believe Mr. Cox is staying until we uh Yeah. find his replacement. All right. Uh first item is approval of the October 20th public hearing meeting minutes. Any comments on those? Pretty extensive. Anyone want to make a motion? Well, I'll move that we approve them as submitted. I'll second. All in favor?

I abstain. That's right. All right. Then the uh minutes for the regular October 20th meeting. Any comments? I'll also move that these approved also as submitted. I'll second. All in favor? I I abstain. Our first agenda item uh sign above proposing signage for 576 East Highland Road. Would you? Yes. Come on up. All right. How are you guys today? Good. How are you? Good. How are you? Good.

Monday. Okay. It's the Highland Auto. All right. Uh, so we've got your sign and picture of it with some dimensions stuff. We've got uh comments from the city planner. Mr. Prince, would you like to go over your comments?

Uh, sure. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My report dated November 8th. The applicant is proposing um to erect a single 4x8 32 ft ground sign at 576 East Highland uh property zone limited industrial. So the um code under 117907B does allow a 40 square foot sign. So from an area perspective it's fine. Um there are some existing signs there. There's uh two ground signs. Actually, when this came up um for uh Highland Auto Body some some number of years ago, the same issue was brought up that there were too many ground signs. So, it's good to see that they're shrinking it down and going to one ground sign. Um I did note in my report there are some other temporary signs um and things that just felt that worth calling out that those should be reviewed um to ensure that they have proper permits in place. But as it relates to the sign itself area is fine. Um but I do note that the uh architecture of the sign is something I think that the planning commission will want to talk about. Um over the last I'd say 5 10 plus years uh the commission has been focused on um amongst other things looking at the architecture of signs. You may remember right across the street um we did a we worked on a sign recently. I gave you some addresses 850 Eastland, 585 East Island, 635 Eastland. In those cases, we try to um reflect a a sign with a a surround that incorporates some of the materials from the building. So, brick or stone or block. Um in this instance, um none of those materials are represented. So, I thought that was something the commission should work with the applicant on. And in additionally, there's no landscaping proposed. That is a requirement to have the the sign in kind of a landscape setting. some sort of year- round

landscaping, whether it's lowline shrubs, boxwoods, or others. And then um when uh during the warmer months, some sort of color added to the to the signage, flowers or otherwise. Um and then the only thing I wasn't sure about the uh in the application states top of sign will be 9 and 1/2 ft tall. Of course, the code limits it to 8 ft. It looks like the the sign maybe the 9 and a half is a foot and a half going underground and the sign is actually only 8 feet from the uh ground elevation, but we want to get confirmation on that because the max is 8 ft tall for a ground sign. Um with that said, those are some of the issues I think the commission should um should work through. Again, the area is acceptable, but feel we should talk about the architecture as well as the landscaping and confirmation of the overall height.

All right, we can do that. Nina, do you have any else? Okay. Um, so, commission, I guess any questions or comments or anything off of what Mr. France had to say. Did did you read their com comments before you came here? I did. Yes. Um, confirmed to some of them.

Yeah. So, as far as the landscaping goes, um, a sign above doesn't do landscaping. So, I will communicate with the customer, say, "Hey, I need your landscape plan to talk to me and get me that." Um, which I can do. There's no problem. I'm sure we can get that. But what I'm saying is like we don't make the landscaping plans. Um, and then as far as the height goes, um, yeah, I just honestly I just copy and pasteed from the artwork because I did the sign over 585. So, we match the height. Now, this one is um it's 60 by um 60 by 96. So on the artwork when you when you say 48, 48 is the width of like the the tenant signs that are on here, but the actual whole sign itself is 60. So it meets that 40 square ft. Um but yes, it was 9 and 1/2 ft if you include inch and a half from ground to bottom of sign and then the 8t of the sign which would make 9 and 1/2 ft. So it is 9 and 1/2 ft from grade above grade.

Yes. So the code limits it to 8 ft. Okay. So it have to be reduced in height or you could try to um get a variance from the boards but the the commission can't change that. That's the code is 8 feet max for for height. Okay. If I do that, I'll just have to go and talk to the customer. Hey, you want me to shrink this sign or do you want me to bear? I I don't know what they want.

Can they bury part of it? That was the suggestion that maybe part of it underground to make it 8 ft rather than that'd be a foot and a half underground. I think that's what he he thought. Maybe that was your thinking. I think it's still not to shrink the sign though. It would put this it would put that basically on the ground to make it comply. Yeah. And if there's 57 takes that bottom spot, you're not there's any sort of that or the address. I was looking at the one for 585. It's according to the documents from it was 7.92T whatever. So it's just under 8t

ground to top of sign. sign. Yeah, it would be from ground to top of sign. I assume if that's how we approved it. What month was that? That was May this year. If Mr. Fron's comments were dated May 31st of 2025, I'm trying to see if there's another document in here that I might have. So, it would have been for the June June meeting. Yeah, June meeting. Yeah, that one. So, our company stolen sign. We did not acquire

What about uh distance from the road? Right now I have that at 17. I was actually gonna ask that question because that seems like with that sign being even if it's eight foot tall I mean 17 feet back is that going to impede upon somebody pulling out and losing visibility and I guess it's probably not but it's something we should probably discuss or think about. I think we don't don't want it to get too close because of what is well it's the distance back from the rightway line that they usually it's 5T okay it's 5t from the rightway I don't know where the rightway sits

it's 35 ft from the center line of the street towards your property I think I remember 30 either 30 35 I'm not sure I think it's 35 there do you know where this is at propo in relationship to the existing sign Yes. So, the existing sign is is right here in my picture. This would be um like just a bit closer to the existing sign. So, I have my my outward post basically right next to the inward post. Okay. And it's and it's out by where the Regency one currently is where you wanted to actually put it.

Yeah. So, we're not even close to it's not by the old Highland, Highland Auto sign. It's closer to the drive. Okay. We're pretty as long as I guess it's at least 5 ft back of the the rightway line. I don't think there's going to be any visibility issues. It's like middle of the building. Okay. Proposing. They should um update the the site plan is um sort of rudimentary. It should update the site plan just to reflect the rightway and location assign. This at least be 5t back from the right.

What is considered the right way? I think what Mr. um Monaco just said, he believes it's 30 or 35 ft. 35 ft from the center of the road in so is the rightway. It's like includes the roads and the utility poles and so it looks like your front yard. Is that what you're asking? What is rightway? Yeah. Yeah. It's I guess it's Yes. It's land's not owned by the building owner. It's owned by the city, right? Highland. Um Yeah, includes the road, utilities, all that kind of stuff. It's set up for that. Looks like front yard. Usually you can tell if there's a line of poles, which there are. Usually the that's close to where the rightway line is at on your side.

Okay. So, I think as long as you're What's that? I don't think you're anywhere near that though. No, I'm just saying that's where the rightway line. Yeah, the rightway. You can see it's probably just behind these poles. You're a good bit back from that pole line. Okay. probably okay. But yeah, the city actually owns some of that grass and everything. So, it appears to me that the two things that would be needed to get this approved, one would be to change the height to get this to a max of 8 ft tall and then you need a landscape plan. Those are two of the three items in in my report.

Yeah. The other the other thing that we are Mr. Francis kind of leads alluding to is is is the materials. If you look at all the newer signs down through there, um they're typically a brick or a brick lookalike. Uh some kind of substantial if you look at Sohar's just up the road or what else are the other ones in there? Um Empire. Empire just across the street. And that's a massive sign. Yeah, I've seen that one.

Um, that's a massive building. um your your newer signs in that stretch. And they typically got a foundation, a some kind of base or at least columns out of out of building the same building material where there's this big block because the building is usually their they're they're brick uh TNT exterior relatively new something like that. Um, I guess to to address the one that you're you're you're probably looking at, which is the one across the street at 585 and what's up there, which looks a lot like yours.

Um, is our general feeling that that's not that's not an approved sign. That's you said you didn't pull any permit. I did not pull the permit. I don't think Chris Coins did either. I don't know who pulled the permit. I don't know that if anybody did that might have just gone. I just find I know there was some discussion about that one because it had the brick monument on the corner. I think when it initially came in front of us the in the proximity to that corner sign that sits there to go on that side street right there.

I know there are some discussions about that because it was going to be conflicting with that in terms of height and such, but I don't remember. I don't remember this coming back.

There's still there's still a little bit of unsure of what necessarily is going on with that, but that's not necessarily the current example of what we're what we're looking for down here. Um, and whether that's actually approved, um, I think we got to do a little more digging. I don't know that it was or permitted to be put up like that. Anything that you see that's still, you know, two posts and a sign between it is probably pretty dated. Uh, you know, older than 10, 15 years probably. Uh, it's down through there. something I think it's a little bit newer something like that which is in the vicinity of where you guys are at. I think that's some something to that effect. It doesn't have to be extremely extensive but something with the building material. Some other locations have used uh a base that's maybe a foot or two tall. They've used brick or some kind of faux brick. We're not crazy about it, but we've approved some of the faux brick around and then put the sign going up above it. Um, something like that, I think, is what the city's, you know, current current desires are for the signs that are going down there. So, that the height and landscaping

and landscaping is is what we'd like to see for the for the next. There's actually nothing even on the web page for June from a planning commission standpoint from all our subs because I was trying to pull up to see if that was there but I'm not finding it. Okay. So, I have to ask the obvious because I know these people are going to ask me. Yeah. So, you're saying a two post sign will get rejected. Yeah. I think that that's Yeah, the two two post like that is not what we're looking for. I think that would Yeah, that's I mean I can't speak for everybody, but I agree. Okay. Screws up the area.

I'm not finding anything from Junior this year when we had her. Okay, I'll talk to the customer then and make whatever changes I need to make. Okay, does anybody else have any other questions or concerns? Maybe we'll just continue this to the I'll make a motion to continue this to the next meeting to um give the applicant chance to address the three items that we discussed. The architecture, the landscaping, and the size. I'll second. Any more discussion? No. All in favor? Thank you.

Thank you. I have all of the memos, but there's no What's that? I don't even

sign room for hand and stone spot. Good. How are you? Bring something else got various questions but you probably don't know sign person. I was curious if this was something that they had planned all on. Do you remember like another tenant being kind of in there or is that Yeah, I think kind of always in there planned.

Yeah, I think this was the real the last kind of small space that they were trying to lease out. Okay, we've got your stuff. Uh Mr. France has some comments. You can go over those.

Sure. Uh my report dated November 8th. So, this is some signage for the hand in stone uh business that's going to uh be located in the Cypriyani retail plaza. Um, obviously we spent a considerable amount of time talking about this plaza uh from the transformation of the architecture of the buildings to the tenants that would be going in there and then ultimately the signage. Um, this being the last one, the tenant frontage for this is just uh slightly over 23 feet. So, we'll have just about 47 square feet. The proposal is um just about 47 square feet. So, they're right there as as far as area goes. Um the sign itself's individual blue and white acrylic internally illuminated LED channel letters. Some of the sign faces in there are face lit. Um some are the LED channel. They 61 doesn't have any other. They all look, I think, relatively the same. Um there is no uh need for a color approval. This plaza, to my knowledge, doesn't have particular colors that it has to maintain. Um and then so all of that, I think, is just fine. Then there's some window signage. There's signage on the entrance door um that's shown um with the hours of operation and the phone number. That signage is um fine. It's just when you look at the graphic on the main wall sign, you'll note on the each of the individual windows panels. Um, and this is not noted in the application with the um with the door sign, but you can see that there's five different signs. Restore, relax, uh, refresh, facials, and massage. And it appears that's like a gray frosted

signage for each one of those panels. Um the code under 117907F4A um limits uh window signage to one sign based on the 25% standard. The door itself that's fine as I had stated. Um but each of those on the windows I don't believe is permissible particularly being frosted. Um, this site is located in the town uh town center district and adjacency to other tenant spaces that don't have those frosted windows. Um, I believe I believe the intent of the town center district is to have full um clear vision glass and not that frosting. So, I think everything as far as the area and such and the color of the individual letters is fine. I think we need to have discussion about the um the signs on each of those panels being and being frosted as well.

All right. I actually emailed you right after that. They actually removed that whole thing from the package. Oh, I don't recall getting an email. Somebody said, "Bring it to the meeting and I got it." Yep. So, they just removed everything. They had decided a long time ago to not do it and they forgot to remove it from their sign package. So, they're not even doing that. They're just sent it right after I sent the memos out. Those were already out when she told Well, I didn't because I told her to

Yeah, but I did. Um, they're just keeping the hours on the door and that's it. They're not doing anything on the outside of the windows. There's some windows on the inside that go into like their office space. They're putting stuff on those windows, but I didn't think that that needed to come for into the board at all. Those are back like in the back kind of. Yeah, like you can see them through the windows, but it's not on the outside windows. There's some on their inside windows that go into like their office space, I guess. I mean, it's not on the window.

Yeah. So, it's how you define it's probably how we define a sign, which um you know, is probably just fine. Um, typically, so a sign can be on the inside of a tenant space as well because what'll happen, not saying they're doing that here, sure, it's probably just fine. It's far enough back, but what happens is you'll often see people will say, "Well, I can't have it on the windows." No problem. And they put it on inside and hang it from the Oh, no. They're hang one of their windows inside. That's Okay. Yeah.

No, I you know we will uh look at all those things before we issue an occupancy permit anyway. So if they were um being in violation like that, they would not get the occupants permit. Any questions from the commission? Seems like a pretty easy one.

Um, guess I'll make a motion to approve, noting that the applicant is removing the frosted uh signs on the front windows from the application. I'll second discussion. You want to make it subject to administrative approval? Yeah, I'll do that. Subject to administrative approval. Yeah, just to confirm that please get that. Do you have Do you have copies? No, I need it.

And Mr. Mr. Chairman, just for my own ears, I believe what I heard you um in the motion and second is that the um frosting on all the panels is being removed as well as the signage. Two separate things. Okay, did you hear me say that? Yes, I did. All right, good. All right. Any more discussion? All in favor? I All right.

Thank you very much. Have a good one. All right, we've got a couple of ordinance things that we've been talking about. Um 51 2025 and 55 2025. I think 55 2025 that was the the RB um issue I think if I got them right.

I think that one we did come to our our conclusion at our last meeting. Um, so I didn't think we were going to do anything and I've heard that council has not approved that anyway, but that's neither here nor here there. But I guess the other one, the 51 2025, um, that's the driveway one we've talked about.

Yeah. Um, there's a couple of things on that that that need to be followed up with, I think, before we get too far into talking again that I I've let go a couple times as I need to reach out to Mr. France to help me uh actually send a formal notification to council that we're kind of taking that on. So, I I still need to do that. Um, I think the other thing, um, looking back at the last meeting is I think we're going to see if the administration could could pull some sample, uh, other communities if they've done anything similar. I think is was what we talked about. Um, and I'm guessing with as busy as they've been and everything with being down staffed, it probably hasn't. So, I was thinking about maybe at this point maybe continuing this one till I can get follow up finally with Mr. France.

We if we determined if um because I I think the message was and you were going to do it in writing, but um was that the planning commission wanted to take this on? We had missed the timets and all that and it's still in ordinance format. So, is this at the council level? Is it is it dead or is it just sitting on

which one? Well, the the the one regarding the recreation vehicles there was kind of withdrawn. So that's a dead this this one here, the garage is the one that you know we still have to discuss. And I guess the main issues here are one is what are we going to do with the driveways? they are going to an existing garage and what are we going to do if a new driveway goes I mean if a new garage goes in backyard and then there's an driver extended to that. So that was the question. I think everybody's pretty much in agreement that, you know, if you have a driveway now and it's gravel and you're going to replace or maybe a point of sale inspection, you would have to, you know, um comply and make it hard surface. Uh the the question what everybody's kind of stumbling in is if you have a structure whether it's large garage or a barn in a backyard and you need to get to it. The question becomes are we still allowing gravel and if we allow graing gravel are we going to kind of uh you know put the gravel between maybe some railroad ties or some something that would contain the gravel from spreading everywhere because this is the problem now. I mean, we all the the driveways that we have now are gravel uh they're getting wider and wider and wider and and we we don't know was up there. There's really I mean if you install a gravel driveway in Macedonia, we can't stop you because we don't even have an ordinance that addresses that. So, you know, we should at least have, you know, some kind of ordinance that addresses that. And and I

mean, whatever, you know, you guys choose, that's what we enforce. But I'd like to at least see, you know, the driveways going to the garage eventually be all hard surface because uh I mean those things that are are are tracking mud in the street when snow plow goes they they pull the gravel in. We have a situation now at the end of Isabel there where you know there's some driveways there and and the snow plow is pushed all the gravel into a retention you know pond back there. So it's causing some issues but again it's up to to you and council to decide what you what you guys want us to enforce.

Could I weigh in a little bit? Go ahead.

I've studied this. I found it interesting, fascinating because of the state law which Ryan's familiar with it. It's conformed to uh uh they have nonconforming uh non-conforming use which are adopted from the state law. The state law creates this board by the way and the state law says uh if you have one of these gravel driveways or any driveway or any surface, you can keep it forever unless you abandon it. And the one thing that bothered me about this ordinance is the word repairs. Uh I my last house for 20 years, we have a a driveway over 100 100 yards long actually between two roads and every three years you repair it. A gravel driveway, it just wears out if people use it. So it's repaired. And the problem is going to be for our uh zoning board under 1173 73.02 have to have a certificate of nonconforming use if somebody has one of these driveways and you change the law, which you change the law now. And so the zoning inspector is going to have to trot out there with a little certificate uh each time the guy repairs his driveway and says, "Well, you're you're nonconforming." I think he'd have to do that. Maybe he would maybe do it once. Uh but I think that's right. As long as you keep the driveway, you're going to keep those driveways forever if they want to keep the driveway.

This is not going to affect any existing driveways. This would only, you know, affect any new drives. We had a house on Valley View. That would be the last house going towards Hudson there on the left hand side. There was a brand new house, right? I think I saw it. There's a brand new house that has a gravel driveway, right? So, this is what we're trying to prevent. I mean, by no means we're going to tell residents, you have to change it. You know, you have to change your driveway from No. what if it's existing it's fine. Now if you were to maybe sell the house and and again it's up to you guys when you want us to enforce it.

It doesn't say that if you sell the house that'd be that'd be an interesting question but you say uh it won't affect existing driveways. The word repair put in there put in your ordinance. If you put repair in there and the guy repairs it like I said every three years you have to repair it. that's now becomes a nonconforming use and somebody has to trot out there with a little certificate saying, you know, you're non-conforming, so if you sell this place, uh, you're going to have to do it. But I don't know about a sale of the house. That's not included in in any of these things. I'm not sure a sale would work that way. I know there's a uh a common please court case in Akran where some homeowner uh I don't know what city he took on but he won of course based on this this law that you can't uh they're grandfathered in. They don't like that word I know but that's what they are. They're grandfathered in and uh you can't do that. So, I I would take out the word repair bothered me on the gravel driveways because everybody has to repair them and the city wouldn't like them unrepaired, I don't think. Uh so, uh I I didn't like I didn't like to see that in that ordinance, the word repair in there. Abandoned is a is the necessary focal point, I think, on on these type of ordinances. Anyway, that's my little speech. I feel like we got two things here. I think we're all mostly in agreement, if not unanimously, on the primary driveway should be paved. It's I think where we start to diverge is is then that secondary driveway to the outbuilding is what we've been discussing for a while. Is there a way to do this at least get the the primary driveway done and work on the other part? Because it comes back to my limitation that I I'm kind of

having trouble sleeping on this is if they're 200 feet from the road, is it become cost prohibitive when they sell the house or how is this word for them to put in 200 feet of concrete? How you going to make somebody do their primary driving? There's three of them on Valley View near Highland. If you go up Valley View Road and unless there are three gravel driveways, they're the primary. You can't make them turn them into concrete. No, we can't. But let's say another house is built next to them. We could if we pass You're right. There's a point there. Am I Am I understand that correctly? Yeah. Yeah.

And then the only other thing I I wouldn't be opposed to looking at. So I thought we were going to get some guidance from uh um the city's legal on on some of the wording on this. But if it was 200 or some large amount, can would we be willing to agree to paving a certain portion of the first 100 feet or something like that? Because then it could become I would think an unreasonable financial burden. Let me know. That may not maybe against the spirit what you're talking about because you make claim that they can start pulling dirt and stuff and snow and all that stuff from the part that isn't paved up by the house and pull it to the street if that's really an issue. I just want to point out that this was drafted by the law director. This is not something that I did. So it came from Maradi,

right? But I'm saying we've expressed or at least some of us have expressed some concerns with this and I guess I was thinking that we're going to get maybe some amended language from from law or council or something. I don't know. I think it's that the commission might have some amended language and I believe the chairman um was is going to pen that email or letter and then ask for it to start here versus at council. Yeah.

So you can provide some of that proposed amended language because as it stands right now this ordinance is sitting at council like on their active agenda and we've long missed the requirement in the code for providing a report and recommendation. So technically it's dead here.

Well, they gave we I asked the council meeting for them to give you additional time and they agreed. It's winter time. I don't think too many people are going to be doing concrete driveways pretty soon. So you know you have plenty of time to you know discuss in order come up with the right decision whatever it may be some emails or something I guess I guess we probably is everybody and I admit I'm probably the the biggest offender of this of not spending enough time on this before the meeting. Um, but I guess if if you know if you you know you like the part about having having a pave driveway for the main main garage, but a secondary one if it's more than some distance, maybe come up with some ideas. Jot that actually down. If you've got some ideas, if you got some ideas, you know, we want to take out repair, you know. Yeah, that's what I would like. put this all together, pass it to the to to Nino, ask him if we can get Mark to incorporate this into the lounge if we whatever several things we kind of

should we send our notes to you. Yeah. No, I think you probably got to bring them because I think we can't do all the a to bring it. Um I'll write up a little something for me. My my little thoughts. Yeah, if you want to put your thoughts and you know, we could whatever ones we decide like right I'm I'm kind of with you on the repair thing. So I think that you know and and I'm not far off from from Jason's thought about the you know extensively long ones is that a a real kind of a pain. Yeah. We'll try to limit burden and that was one of the things I think we're hoping someone I'll tell you this commission could pull some research of other communities to see have they kept that primary driver

that's how you normally do not you know because if they're all making a pay to 50 ft that seems to be working then go with it. Hudson doesn't even have one by the way. I looked at Macedonia for I couldn't find I well I I didn't do the whole code what little I looked at today. I couldn't even find that they they worried about concrete drive. There's a ton of of gravel driveways in Hudson. But there are bigger lots just like you said. A lot of them are big lots. So you know the the road to the main house seems like there's general about that.

So that I mean it sounds like it the back of the house to the out building. I will tell you that um to pick a number will likely be arbitrary. Yeah. And you need to you know how all these ordinances work. You want to show that it advances some legitimate government interest. I don't know what government interest you'd be advancing by picking a number out of thin air to say this section can be paved and this can be gravel because at the end of the day it's all at the backyard, right?

And that's not being dragged out on the road. It's the it's the main garage to the road that's the being dragging out gravel.

Yeah. Uh, also what I like to say is that this does not apply to existing structure. So if somebody wants to put up a garage or if he wants to put up a barn in the backyard, they have to come to the building department and they have to come to the planning commission. So when they come to the planning commission, we will look at the driveway and at that time, you know, we can make a decision. Okay, it's gravel, you know, but let's do this. Let's contain the gravel. Let's kind of, you know, outline this with railroad ties or stones or whatever. So, we have control over that.

Well, I think we could basically then put a width on it that that if it's a gravel driveway, it can be no wider than X feet must be contained by railroad ties and maintained in a reasonably clean manner. Exactly.

And and the other thought I had too was is and this is where I get your point of it kind of becomes an arbitrary piece, but maybe the first X amount like up to and this is where if the house is way far back, it's not going to really do any good or it's going to open another whole can of worms. But my thought was is if there's a structure, it has the that paved driveway or whatever has to be taken to at least the back part of the existing house and from there back could be gravel. Flip side of that is is if that house sits 200 300 feet off the road, they're putting 200, three feet of concrete and after that, who knows how much is left to to not have concrete. But just a thought that way at least it it keeps it keeps that gravel from getting all the way to the street. Hopefully by that point, it's at least gotten off of the tires and whatever else and

by the time it reaches the road itself, just a thought. And that's why it be nice to see what other cities have or have not done and has it work. I just by the way the the the you say it doesn't apply to existing structures. These ordinances do apply to existing structures. If you repair a driveway that's an existing structure and and so uh these ordinances apply to existing structures and and the new ones you don't have to worry about. But this this applies mostly to existing.

Yeah. We had a lot larger discussion about what is repair. Uh at what point uh it becomes kind of a new concrete uh or a new driveway, you know, instead of repairing. Is it 30%, 40%, 50%, what what what percentage of that? Normally, you know, they use like 40% is still repair. you go over 40% then you know well what if someone has a grass driveway going back to their barn in the back which I've seen in other words they have a regular driveway yeah and then they went for their tractor into their barn way in the back which are in farms they're grass

now that's an existing structure now what are we going to do it's existing I mean we're not going to bother it's well no but this code would apply to that if if you if you abandon it or I don't The whole thing's kind of screwy. I think that would be I mean as long as they resurface the existing gravel one, they they are permitted to keep it. This is again mostly for new because like I said, we have nothing in our ordinance that addresses any gravel drive whatsoever. Neither the width nor the depth nor nor the you know the maintenance. I mean this there's nothing. Well, that's the way it should read then. And maybe that's

new new driveways only.

Maybe that's something we could suggest and have the law director modify it to say, okay, our intention is not to to to nail existing driveways. It's it's really about new ones moving forward. Um, that's the way the Ohio law reads that existing driveway, you can keep it forever as long as you don't abandon it. That's that's that's our non-conforming ordinance reads the same way 1173. Well, so what what do we think maybe see if these idea, you know, the road to the main home is what we're talking about? We're not talking about backyard, you know, or maybe we are. I mean, that's that's that's probably a point of discussion. um does not apply to an existing structures intended for new. Um you know, maybe there's something in there about maintaining the width of an existing one to keep it from from being triggered. Um but maybe we those ideas plus anything else that we think that we need to mention, let's bullet list those then send it back to

I think it's a good idea. There are some ordinances where if you do abandon your driveway and other I showed you I think North Homestead or something like that. If you abandon it, I think it's a good thing to have this in there. If they if they abandon it,

uh then then the the non-conforming use thing applies. And so I I don't think it's a bad I wouldn't take the whole thing out. I I just leave it the way kind of the way the code reads, but if you abandon something like that, then then you're stuck with the new rules and it's got to be a concrete driveway. And uh that that that's the way I think most cities would do it. And I I and so I think we ought to maybe each of us send a little memo in and then we mull it over. We'll send a memo to you. We can bring Well, I I think you probably probably need to physically bring it instead of instead of instead of sending something so we're not all right. Yeah.

And let's let's put it all together next time. And if we can come to some kind of conclusion on here's the four or five bullets we think need to be integrated, we'll give that to the city. ask them to have keep as much as we can of what they try trying to do. And I I sort of see what they're trying to do and it's not a bad idea. A lot of cities do that. In fact, we ought to copy their their ordinances maybe. But uh uh that that that's right. We'll bring it in with us a little.

Yeah. And and let's see if Yeah. And so maybe Yeah. If we could pass off to him instead of us trying to reward his stuff, let's just tell him what we sitting here. Yeah. You're right. tell him what our intentions are and let him do the word magic uh with it and see, you know, maybe he can turn around for January or February, meaning if we give it to him in December and if we're good with that, we'll send it back to they wanted to get this done. So, we we probably ought to move on. Yeah. Okay. And Mr. Chairman, just to answer your question, uh, all the cities that I've been involved with in the cities surrounding Mayfield Heights,

uh, Lynhurst, uh, Highland Heights, uh, I mean, South Uklid, uh, Pepper Park, none of them really allowed any gravel driveway. It was all, it's all out of service. Now, I'm sure that there's some communities that, you know, you just mentioned, you know, they would allow, but no, new driveways. You're right. I think that's probably true. I'm talking about old driveways that been there some farmer 20 years ago. This is strictly new. Yes. We have bigger lots here. We have far more larger lots here than saw

in some some areas. Yeah. But not, you know, a lot of streets here are similar to Mayfield Heights. That's one of my concerns is that I see someone owns this house. They have a gravel drive. They're 200 feet off the road. They sell it. That's not disclosed or whatever. But the new buyer then finds out, oh crap, I got to go drive drop 50,000 75,000 on a 200 foot drive. I didn't know about that. Or or the homeowner says, you've made my property, you know, undesirable because nobody wants to buy it because it doesn't have this drive. So it does is it could that lead to legal action against the city and push out and stuff?

Well uh first of all point of sale inspection and being challenged and there were two communities Walter Nils and Barefoot Heard they got sued and they had to pay a boatload of money because my point has always been you have the same builder who built the same houses on on the same street. Not just because I'm selling my house, I have to do 20, 30, $40,000 of upgrade while my neighbor who's not selling his house, you know, he's he's permitted to keep it the way it is. And what we're saying, well, you know, you have violations. You you know, you have hazards in your house. Well, that house got the same hazards. So, how do you justify that? So, and besides, I don't believe that anybody should be allowed to come into my house to do an inspection just because I'm selling the property. So, I I I've been wherever I've been, I always said instead of doing porn inspection, let's just do a systematic uh exterior inspection. You know, let's just do it from the street. Let's see what we could see. Is the house painted? Is the roof okay? Is the driveway okay? Is the grass, you know, do you have junks in there? So that because even if you are in a house before somebody sells it and you tell them to do $30,000 worth of, you know, upgrades and stuff, you know, the new tenant that comes in, the new owner comes in there after 3, four months, their house could be worse than it was before. Some of the people living there, their orders or whatever. So you know, you really have no control what goes on inside somebody's house. So, and besides we're in there if if you change your furnace, we should be in there to do inspection. You do a hot water heater, we should be there. I mean, you you remodel your kitchen. So, that we have different ways to come in there.

So, I I personally do not think the point of sale inspection should be done at all. I mean, they should do away with it, but it's just my opinion. But, you're saying we do that? We do it. Well, we're doing it from from the outside. Yes. We don't go inside the house. Yes. still doing it. I like we just make our points and bring them next meeting and then take them back. No, if they're kind of short-handed, I'd hate to have do a bunch of research.

Yeah. No, I mean, if you guys need to do something, let let us know. Yeah, we we've been kind of uh uh there's been a lot going on, but you need anything, just let me know, please. I mean, you know, I got help now, so we we could do whatever you guys want. Is our attorney hourly or salary? Is our attorney hourly or salary? Most likely salary. Let's just go with this for now. Bring our ideas next one. We actually need to take action. We need to continue this. I think you just

Yeah. I Yeah. Still a mystery in my mind how it's here. Yeah. All right. I'll make a motion to uh continue the discussion on ordinance 55205 uh to the next meeting to allow us to um finalize our thoughts on the language. Second. I'll second. All in favor? I. Anything else you guys need? All right. Jason motions to adjourn. I'll second. All in favor? Thanks, guys.