Motive!!!

Dear Austinburg Trustees and Zoning:

It is becoming evident that the intensions of certain people within our township government are possibly being influenced by or dissuaded by others with motives that are possibly time tactical. Therefore, it is imperative that we examine events that have transpired concerning our Winery Property as it pertains to Austinburg Trustees, Zoning, Ravinewood Acres and possibly former Austinburg government and zoning officials.

Date

Zoning Change Application: Farinacci’s filed for a Zoning change for our winery property from R1 to NC.

Ashtabula Planning Commission: Approved rezoning of all three properties approximately 38 acres from R1 to NC for our Winery.

Austinburg Zoning Meeting: Ravingwood residence and there Association representatives reject the proposal. They were concerned that we were going to build a strip mall and wanted to know why we required to rezone all 38 acres to operate a winery that they said could be done on as little as 5 acres.

Farinacci’s Compromise: We wrote a letter to the Zoning board indicating that we would are revising our initial rezoning from 38 acres to 16 acres. This was the parcel that our winery is currently located on.

#2 Austinburg Zoning Meeting: Ravinewood Residence again voice there rejection of this proposal as well. We asked why the overwhelming rejection of this compromise when the property to the west was NC. Let us note that this property is owned by Fred and Mary Lachey. I then stated that all four corners of the intersection of 307 and Mechanicsville/Sextant were in fact zoned NC and that our winery would blend into its usage and would not be considered spot zoning.

In response to my comment concerning Fred Lachey's property being NC. Richard Dana (Ravinewood Resident Officer and Lawyer) said to the effect that we will be looking into that also (meaning Fred & Mary’s Property to the west ).

Oh by the way the tapes of this meeting have disappeared.  That is OK we have our own tape  LOL

Our proposal was unanimously rejected by the Zoning board.

We proceed to open our winery under the Agricultural Exemption.

Our motive for changing said property from R1 to NC was so that we didn’t have to practice viticulture before we were able to open the winery. NC would allow us to direct our funds into the construction of the winery rather that planting and maintaining a vineyard.

The winery has been open for about 2 years.

The next episode opened our eyes to the thought that there may be an underlying motive to our applications for NC being summarily rejected. This came to light when we recently applied to re-zone 2 acres on which was a house that we wanted rent for use as a small office.

On January 2006 we applied for another zoning amendment change. We requested that our vacant house to the immediate west of our winery building be rezoned from R1 to NC so that we may utilize this structure for a small professional rental office. This would entail 2 acres (minimum land requirement for NC) be replated and deeded from the original 16 acres.

Planning Commission Review: Unanimously approved.

Austingburg Zoning Board Public Meeting: This time very few people from Ravinewood Acres were present and the petitions against our Zoning change was only 20 as apposed to 108 signatures that were collected when we tried to rezone the 38 acres. This meeting commenced with 4 zoning members. Absent were Richard Dana and Carl Cherenza. They voted to review until next meeting.

Next meeting Zoning Board: All board members were present. All were apposed to the zoning change except Carl Charenza.

Summary: This latest zoning change did not, in our opinion impact the neighborhood in a negative way. We failed to see why changing 200 feet of road frontage would severely impact the sanctity and standard of living within the surrounding area. If not for a small business sign you wouldn’t even know it was a place of business. After all according to the Ohio revised code agriculture (Winery) is considered a commercial. Therefore the house would be considered commercial also because we could use it as part of the winery establishment.

We should have seen it from the start but our lack of zoning knowledge hindered us from seeing the complete picture and possible the motive behind the rejections.

Naturally Zoning has the authority to change zoning from R1 to NC. That was evident from the proceedings. Conversely that also have the authority to change NC back to R1!

Now let us review a comment made by Richard Dana during the----------. When asked about Fred Lachey property being NC also. He said that he will look into that next. At that time we had no idea that NC can be arbitrarily changed back to R1. Herein could lie the insidious motive. If we were granted NC for any of our properties it would make it very difficult for zoning to justify removing Fred Lachey NC status on his property(s) because we would then be considered Spot Zoning. The real threat from Fred Lachey’s property is the SE parcel that borders 1400 feet along Ravinewood Acers back yards. This too is NC and would be considered a threat to those residences.

Therefore it is our opinion that any course of action that removes the surrounding NC zoning in the future would indicate to us an ulterior motive or pre-conceived plan on the part of Austinburg Zoning, former Trustees and representatives of Ravinewood Acres past and present.

This letter is not intended to accuse any one or organization or suggest that any wrong doing or manipulation is afoot. Its sole purpose is to fuse certain comments and possible motives as to enlighten the possibility of impropriety as it pertains to our circumstances.

Summary:  When and if Zoning decides to change the property owned by Fred and Mary Lachey from NC to R1  We will be filing a lawsuit against the Austinburg Township/Zoning.

Sincerely,

Michael & Dawn Farinacci

Home