Munson Township

The meeting involved the swearing in of a reappointed Zoning Commission member, election of officers for 2012, review of correspondence including zoning bulletins and a letter from the Geauga County Planning Commission, and a comprehensive review and discussion of a reformatted zoning resolution. The Zoning Inspector's report included a 2011 report showing Munson Township's ranking for new homes and an update on a long-standing court case and noise issues.

Correspondence regarding zoning bulletin issues was addressed. The township's legal counsel met with new members and addressed questions and concerns. A map of gas wells in the county and the issue of injection wells were reviewed.

The Board of Zoning Appeals meeting involved reviewing and approving several variance requests. Key cases included Hutter Properties' request for a garage, Mike Lee's request for an accessory building, Laurence King's request for a gazebo, and Floyd Lanhan's request for an attached garage. Each case involved discussion of the applicant's reasons for the proposed structure's location, potential impacts on the neighborhood, and compliance with zoning regulations. Public comments were received for some cases. The board voted on each variance request, with some requests approved and others denied.

The board reviewed and approved the minutes from the April 14, 2011 meeting. A variance request was considered for James Rose to construct an accessory building. The request violated minimum dimensional requirements and front yard setbacks. The board granted the variance, with one dissenting vote, due to the impracticality of alternative locations on the property because of a leech field and cost considerations. Findings of Fact were also approved for Cases 11-04 through 11-08.

The board meeting involved several variance requests. Case 12-12 concerned a request to build an in-law suite, which was continued to the next month for plan submission. Case 12-08 approved a variance for constructing an accessory building, citing the property's landlocked nature and the building's minimal visibility. Case 12-09 granted a variance for constructing an accessory building on a vacant lot, emphasizing the lack of impact on the neighborhood and the property owner's intention to sell the house and lot together. Cases 12-10 and 12-11, involving deck reconstruction requests, were approved due to the unique circumstances of the Bass Lake community and the need for deck replacement. Case 12-12, revisited after plan submission, was approved with a 4-1 vote, despite concerns about the definition of the breezeway connecting the main house and in-law suite.