The City of Norton Planning Commission on Nov. 13 conducted a preliminary site plan review of application SPR14-2024 for a mower-dealership relocation to the intersection of Eastern and Cleveland Masslow Road. The commission provided technical comments but did not vote to approve the plan.

Commissioners and city staff focused on engineering review comments, stormwater and septic permitting, driveway access for trailers and outdoor equipment storage. City staff said the project is an existing business moving from the City of Barberton into the City of Norton and that engineering had submitted some technical comments to the applicant. "Engineering has reviewed, has some comments. They're working through those," a city staff member said.

The applicant told the commission the main outstanding issue is the septic review, which Summit County initially handled but has since been outsourced to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. "We had gotten a septic system designed submitted to Summit County ... they called and said actually we're not doing this anymore; we're outsourcing it to the EPA ... so the drawings and everything that we have are pretty much worthless," the applicant said. He added that he expects to restart the septic process this week.

Commissioners and the applicant discussed utilities and site layout. The applicant said he believes city water service is available but did not confirm that formally. He also said running sewer across the road appeared cost-prohibitive based on early estimates; he was pursuing either a septic solution or, if necessary, a well. The applicant said the business would retain outdoor equipment storage and a fenced yard; commissioners reminded him that final plans must show dumpster location and fenced enclosures and include details for proposed fencing and surfacing in code-compliant form.

On site access, the applicant said the plan was to provide driveways on both Eastern and Cleveland Masslow Road to allow large trailers to enter and exit without difficult turning maneuvers. Commissioners suggested extending the parking area to the fence line so equipment can be stored behind the parking lot, and noted the code has loading-space requirements to consider for certain vehicle sizes.

The commission also asked for typical site-plan items on final drawings: fencing details, trash enclosure location, landscaping, and any necessary detention/retention or stormwater management measures. City staff said fire department review would occur as construction plans progress and that no police impacts were identified at this stage.

The applicant said he hopes to begin construction in the summer if permitting and final design proceed on schedule. "I'm hoping maybe summertime to start," he said. He added the business currently employs nine full-time workers and could add one or two over the next couple years.

Because SPR14-2024 was submitted as a preliminary site plan, the commission did not vote to approve it. City staff told the applicant to resolve engineering comments, complete the revised civil and architectural drawings and return with final plans. City staff also said this project does not require City Council approval once final site-plan revisions satisfy staff and code requirements; the applicant will then coordinate construction permits with the city and his contractor.

Votes at a glance

The commission approved the minutes of its Nov. 13 meeting during the same session. A motion to approve the minutes was moved and seconded; a roll call returned unanimous affirmative votes recorded as: Ms. Dymak — yes; Mr. Leyda — yes; Mr. Dowling — yes; Mr. Coughlin — yes; Mr. Peterson — yes.

The planning commission adjourned at 6:21 p.m.