Minutes: February 8th, 2023

FEBRUARY 8, 2023
Candice Irlbacher Mike Irlbacher
Bob Martin Philip Enderle
Laura Enderle Dan Barlow
Diane Belden
Dave Belden James Dick
Theresa Dick Daniel Birkett
Doug Focht Robin McIntire
Jim Radloff Michael Prosser
John Granzier Nuha Hamad
John Mahoney Michelle Recker
Cheryl Hetrick Scott Hetrick
Chris McIntire Dominic Mahoney
Leo Mahoney

Members of the Commission in attendance were Chairperson Jordan Davenport, Paul Shaw, Dr. Gregory Hart, Kevin Howe, and Alternates Bill Barnes and David Wonnell. Alternate Bill Barnes replaced Matt Gottron and Alternate David Wonnell replaced Dr. Gregory Hart. Also in attendance were Todd Bickley, Zoning Inspector/Zoning Commission Secretary and Trustees Matt Montowski and Diane Belden.

Chairperson Davenport called the meeting of the Catawba Island Township Zoning Commission to order at 7:10 p.m. For the record, he identified the date as February 8, 2023. The Zoning Commission procedure was reviewed by Chairperson Davenport.
The Pledge of Allegiance was recited.
Chairperson Davenport reviewed the agenda.
Agenda Item 1 – PUD Application
Case #157916 JTG Hospitality, LLC – Marsh’s Crossing PUD
Chairman Davenport noted that Agenda Item 1 is the continuation of the Marsh’s Crossing PUD Application. The applicant is JTG Hospitality, LLC and John Granzier was introduced as the owner and Mike Prosser was introduced as the project designer. Chairman Davenport noted that both he and Mr. Bickley sent letters to the applicant requesting additional information. The applicant has submitted amended drawings. Chairman Davenport also noted that additional correspondence was received from neighboring owners and copies were provided to the Zoning Commission members and the developer.
Chairman Davenport recognized Mike Prosser and asked Mr. Prosser to provide a general overview of the revised drawings. Mr. Prosser indicated that comments from the last meeting were taken into consideration and that they talked to several neighbors. The applicant now proposes to shorten the walkway path and remove the path from the rear yards of the four (4) lots in the Marsh’s Edge and reduce the number of duplexes to eight (8) with each having a two (2) car garage and being a story and a half. As a result, the project density is lowered.
Mr. Prosser commented that the correspondence was reviewed and that the project will be compliant with the EPA and that they have correspondence with the EPA. Mr. Prosser noted that the EPA was contacted suggesting that the applicant was filling in a wetland, which Mr. Prosser indicated that was not true and they were misinformed. Mr. Prosser noted that an NOIS permit, which deals with runoff, will need to be obtained. Mr. Prosser noted that a consultant would prepare and submit the application; however, a consultant has not yet been hired. The first step is to rezone the property and then receive PUD approval. The design phase would then follow. As a result of the conversation, the design phase will now begin.
Mr. Prosser noted that the neighbors are concerned about the marsh. Mr. Prosser commented that the developer is required to do a sedimentation plan and test the water quality. An inch and a half pipe would control the water flowing into the marsh. The water will need to be detained in the pond and Mr. Prosser commented their will not be additional water going into the marsh than what goes in now. Mr. Prosser stated that the adjacent farm field and orchards drain into the marsh and that the marsh flushes out the contaminants.
Mr. Prosser commented that the letter from the Marsh’s Edge Association questions vistas and views. Mr. Prosser noted that views will not be changed and that the purpose of the PUD is being met.
Mr. Prosser noted discussion about the northeast corner. Initially, the developer considered whether a lot could be added in that area. Mr. Prosser commented that nothing has been determined for this area and he noted a sixteen (16) foot access that could be used. Mr. Prosser noted that does not have any intention to use the sixteen (16) foot easement; although he has rights to the easement. Mr. Prosser also noted that the easement is not part of the PUD. Mr. Prosser commented if a future change is proposed, then a modification to the PUD would be required, which probably be considered a major modification. Mr. Bickley agreed.
Concerning the single family homes, Mr. Prosser noted that two (2) floor plans were submitted for consideration. Mr. Prosser commented that he did not believe that homes on single family house lots were reviewed similar to the multi-family dwellings. Mr. Prosser believed that for single family lots, the proposed home would be reviewed by the Association’s Architectural Review Committee and then a zoning permit would be requested from the township.
Mr. Prosser noted that the applicant met with the neighbor in the middle and the applicant agreed to have a fence placed around the neighbor’s property, along with a twenty (20) foot landscape buffer. Mr. Prosser indicated that the neighbor wrote a letter which surprised Mr. Ganzier. Mr. Prosser commented that only two (2) windows in each unit would look over at the neighbor’s property, and one is at the stairs. Chairman Davenport noted that he talked with the neighbor and the neighbor is wondering if the street location could be changed. Mr. Granzier noted that the neighbor was worried about the road when on the property line, so the road was placed on the other side of the property. Mr. Granzier also commented that he talked with the neighbor after the last meeting and felt he was comfortable with the duplex going from three (3) stories to two (2) stories.
Mr. Prosser addressed the open space. Mr. Prosser noted that there was a great deal of open space and did not include the northeast area has open space, just in case a house were to be at that location. Mr. Prosser commented that 66% of the water area is considered open space and that the PUD would have 45.5% of open space. Mr. Bickley indicated that 1/3 third of open space must be dry land and Mr. Prosser noted that almost 50% of the open space is dry land.
Chairman Davenport noted that a concern of the neighbors is a house at the northeast corner and that is no longer considered and the sixteen (16) foot easement is not part of the PUD. Jim Dick requested and received a copy of the revised drawings. Mr. Prosser explained that when Marsh’s Edge was being platted, Bob Snyder learned he owned the sixteen (16) foot strip of land upon which the easement is situated. The sixteen (16) foot easement was access to a clubhouse. When Bob obtained the strip of land, Mr. Granzier’s piece retained an access easement. Chairman Davenport noted that the sixteen (16) foot of land is not part of the PUD. Mr. Prosser agreed.
Chairman Davenport referred to the letter from Marsh’s Edge HOA Board. The first item is the site development plan and the open space calculations are being questioned. Chairman Davenport reviewed the open space calculation and determined that the open space totals 4.570 acres or 26.6%, which exceeds the twenty percent (20%) requirement. Mr. Prosser indicated that the area shown as a peninsula will not be filled in and that it was shown based on how the vegetation was picked up by the mapping system. Mr. Prosser noted that the walkway will be located on the south and east side of the existing pond area.
The letter’s next item considered was trees. Mr. Granzier indicated that Barnes Nursery will undertake an evaluation of the trees. The intent is to save as many trees as possible and plant new trees. Mr. Granzier indicated that some trees will be removed, but trees will be saved. Mr. Prosser noted that during the engineering stage, the road may change a little to prevent the removal of a tree.
The letter’s next item was the fire chief review. Mr. Prosser indicated that he has talked and texted with the fire chief. Mr. Prosser indicated that an eight inch (8”) pipe will run to the north cul-de-sac and a hydrant will be installed to assist Marsh’s Edge homes. The hydrant at the cul-de-sac’s north end was not requirement, but the developer agreed to have the hydrant installed at that location. Chairman Davenport reviewed the hydrant locations and noted that Marsh’s Edge does not have fire hydrants and the fire chief asked that the additional hydrant be installed.
The letter’s next item was the walk way and the path material and restrictions on motor vehicles. Mr. Prosser indicated that it would be similar to the path in Catawba Bay and Marsh’s Edge. The material will be cut grass and if wet, mulch would go in, and the path would be maintained by the Association.
The letter’s next item was whether a lot will be situated in the northeast corner. Chairman Davenport noted that there will be no home at the northeast corner.
The letter’s next item was sewer, water and lighting plan. Chairman Davenport noted that the fire chief has reviewed the waterlines. Mr. Prosser commented that the drawing does show a lighting plan and that Ohio Edison lights and poles will be used. Mr. Prosser noted that Ohio Edison will not accept an electrical plan until the water and sewer plan is approved by the Sanitary Engineer’s Office. So a detailed plan is not possible at this time.
The letter’s next item is drainage. Mr. Bickley indicated that he contacted Ron Lajti, the Ottawa County Engineer, who indicated that when reviewing the drainage plan for the thirteen (13) lot subdivision, the drainage created by the development would be taken into consideration. Mr. Prosser noted that calculations must take into account the entire drainage area. Mr. Prosser reviewed the preliminary drainage concept. Michael Irlbacher explained that the pump was recently replaced, which was paid for by Marsh’s Edge property owners along with repairing the dikes. Mr. Irlbacher questioned what the developer will contribute to those costs. The issue is more than then a drainage issue. Mr. Prosser explained that the drainage laws prevent the developer from putting more water into the marsh than what flows currently. Mr. Prosser reviewed Marsh’s Edge dike, which was installed by the developer and acknowledged that the pump is helping out the PUD property. Chairman Davenport noted that the water will be metered to control flow. Chris McIntire requested that the record show that the Marsh’s Edge resident pay to run and maintain the pump. John Mahoney commented that in the restaurant area, the water will not be able to drain into the ground because of the building and parking lot. Chairman Davenport commented that the restaurant is not part of the PUD and would be reviewed by the Board of Zoning Appeals.
Candace Irlbacher questioned the parking spaces for the duplexes. Chairman Davenport noted that the units will have garages, so parking will not be required in the street.
The letter’s next item was landscaping. Chairman Davenport noted that the application includes a landscape plan. Chairman Davenport noted fencing in Phase 2 of the development along with the landscaping. Mr. Prosser noted the fencing and twenty (20) foot landscaping. Mr. Granzier noted that Dominic has a six (6) foot vinyl fence now so the intent is to match his fence.
Chairman Davenport noted that the property owner’s association was requesting a twenty (20) foot buffer easement along the north property line from SR 53 back to Lot 1 of the subdivision and Chairman Davenport noted a majority of the buffer would be in the restaurant phase. Mr. Prosser indicated that the developer had no intention of adding a buffer along Lot 1. Mr. Prosser noted that the developer is working on releasing the rights to the sixteen (16) foot easement and having the sixteen (16) foot strip of land turned over to Marsh’s Edge Association.
The letter’s next item was architectural plans. Chairman Davenport noted that in the narrative, the garage for the duplexes was listed as a one (1) car garage and Mr. Prosser noted that the garages will be two (2) car garages.
Chairman Davenport recognized Jim Radloff. Mr. Radloff questioned the sixteen (16) foot easement and whether the easement is recorded. Mr. Prosser indicated that he did not have a copy of the easement but a copy can be obtained from Attorney John Kocher. Mr. Radloff requested a copy of the easement and Mr. Prosser will attempt to provide a copy to Mr. Radloff for the Marsh’s Edge homeowners.
Jim Dick was recognized by Chairman Davenport. Mr. Dick commented that the homeowner’s association is not opposing the development but expressed concern that if approved by the township, but then EPA comes in and says a portion of the property is protected wetlands. Chairman Davenport noted that if a PUD is approved, the developer has up to two (2) years to begin construction, which allows the developer to work with the appropriate agencies concerning the wetlands.
Chairman Davenport recognized Scott Hetrick. Mr. Hetrick questioned if the applicant would have to come back before the township if changes need to be made after review by other agencies. Mr. Bickley noted that change or modification would determine whether the applicant would have to go through the review process.
Mr. Hetrick questioned the ownership of the sixteen (16) foot easement, which was explained by Mr. Bickley. Mr. Hetrick noted that the easement is part of the natural drainage of the area and is normally wet during this time of the year. Mr. Hetrick also noted a waterline that goes through the easement and Mr. Prosser commented that Ottawa County has an easement through the sixteen (16) foot strip of land. Mr. Radloff commented that the sixteen (16) foot easement is a big issue for the homeowner’s association and Mr. Prosser noted that the easement is not part of the PUD.
Chairman Davenport recognized Chris McIntire. Mr. McIntire commented on the northeast corner and Mr. Prosser indicated that the area is not used in the open space calculations. Mr. Bickley noted that the applicant provides the acreage determinations. If questionable, then the applicant would be required to submit verification.
Chairman Davenport recognized Philip Enderle. Mr. Enderle questioned the open space; specifically the true boundaries of the marsh and the applicant should resubmit a drawing that truly shows the open space boundaries. Mr. Enderle noted that the applicant has indicated that the marsh will not be filled in.
Jim Radloff questioned the east side trail and whether there will be any problems with using the old hunting dikes. Mr. Prosser commented that the applicant will make it work. Discussion on Turtle Crossing and the dikes followed.
Mr. Enderle questioned if an island that cannot be accessed considered open space. Mr. Bickley indicated that it would be considered open space.
Mr. Enderle questioned the roadway and pond design. The development’s attempt is to save as many trees as possible and make it look like Marsh’s Edge. Mr. Enderle commented that it was his belief that the roadway plan does not attempt to save as many trees as possible as the submitted drawings do not show tree locations. A tree assessment should be completed. Mr. Prosser commented that the applicant will attempt to save as many trees as possible and the restaurant will be heavily landscaped by Barnes Nursery. Mr. Prosser noted that a split street is possible, but some trees will be damaged during construction.
Mr. Enderle questioned fire chief review. Mr. Bickley noted that he talked with the fire chief who requested a fire hydrant near Marsh’s Edge Subdivision and the fire chief did not indicate a concern with the street that will service the duplexes and he was given the revised plans.
Mr. Enderle questioned the path material. Mr. Bickley noted that Mr. Prosser indicated that the path would consist of the existing ground materials and that motorized vehicles would not be permitted on the pathways. Mr. McIntire commented that several portions of the pathway would be narrow. Mr. Prosser noted that if required, the developer would apply under a nationwide permit to improve the existing dike in the areas that are narrow.
Mr. Enderle commented that the northeast area is not identified as residential site and Mr. Bickley noted the plan should reflect that the area is not included in the open space calculations. Chairperson Davenport noted that drawing should specifically delineate the open space for calculation purposes and the marsh boundaries.
Mr. Enderle questioned drainage and questioned what measures will be taken to make sure the runoff from Marsh’s Crossing will not negatively affect the Marsh’s Edge wetland in terms of water quality and quantity. Mr. Prosser noted that plans will need to be submitted to EPA to verify water quality. Mr. Prosser explained how water quality will be monitored. Mr. Enderle questioned if the homeowner’s association would be able to get a copy of the material that is submitted to the County Engineer. Mr. Bickley noted that the submitted material is a public record and copies can be obtained from the Engineer’s office.
Mr. Enderle noted that the previously submitted plan showed the elevation of the single family lots at 578. Mr. Prosser commented that existing elevation along the pond is 576 and filling outside this area does not require a floodplain development permit. Mr. Prosser indicated that the restaurant site will be raised with fill.
Mr. Enderle noted that the pond up front is partly outside the PUD and would it not be appropriate for the restaurant to be included in the PUD review versus review by the BZA. Mr. Bickley commented that the property is zoned “C-3” and the restaurant requires a conditional use permit, which is reviewed by the BZA.
Mr. Enderle questioned if the developer is willing to compensate Marsh’s Edge for the maintenance of the pumps and dikes. Concerning the pump, Mr. Granzier commented that there will be no additional runoff onto Marsh’s Edge Crossing property. Mr. Prosser noted increased runoff will go into the ponds, which is metered so that the runoff is not increased. Discussion concerning pump maintenance followed.
Mr. Enderle commented on wetland issues and that the developer conduct a wetland delineation. Mr. Prosser indicated that a wetland delineation is required.
Mr. Hetrick questioned that at the walkway turnaround, will the trees be kept. Mr. Prosser indicated that the dike will probably be repaired and will try to preserve the trees. Mr. Granzier noted that brush trees would be removed if necessary.
Chairman Davenport recognized John Mahoney. Mr. Mahoney noted that a pipe was replaced under SR 53 last summer by the ODOT. However, drainage is still an issue. Mr. Prosser commented that they will probably locate the pipe and it will eventually drain into the new pond. Mr. Mahoney questioned if a permit is required for digging a pond. Mr. Prosser indicated a permit is not required. Mr. Mahoney questioned if an application has been submitted for the roadway entrance. Mr. Prosser indicated that an application has not been submitted. Mr. Mahoney would like to see two (2) separate drives. Mr. Prosser stated that the State requires distances between drives and as a result, the entrance drive is at the south end of the property to keep it away from Marsh’s Edge. Mr. Mahoney questioned the pilings dumped on the property. Mr. Prosser commented that a NOI to do work on the property will need to be filed with the EPA. Mr. Prosser indicated that the grindings will be used as roadway base.
Chairman Davenport noted the time and indicated that the meeting will be continued to Wednesday, February 22nd at 7:00 P.M. Chairman Davenport requested that the applicant provide a drawing showing the open space and marsh boundaries, and an update to the open space computations. Additional information may be requested.
Chairman Davenport adjourned the meeting at 9:03 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,

Todd Bickley