Members present:
Ted Deremer
Edward McDonnell
Richard Dodson
Alternate Member:
Eric Oldroyd
Zoning Inspector:
Joni Poindexter
Absent Members:
Jim Giulitto
John Juergensen
Appeal #2070 – Collier Construction, 5126 Birkdale NW, Canton, Ohio 44718 requests a variance for a 33.5 ft. front yard setback where 40 ft. is required per Art. IV Sect. 401.6 of the zoning resolution. Property located at 3474 Vineyard NW, Sect. 33NE Jackson Twp. Area zoned R-R.
Mr. Deremer read the file application signed by Robin Warstler with the reason being the newly constructed home is completed and does not meet the 40 ft. setback requirement. The file contained an aerial view of the property and a site plan showing the layout of the home. The file also contained a letter from Mr. & Mrs. Carr stating they were in favor of the appeal; however, it was not read into the record due to not being sworn testimony.
Mr. Deremer swore in Simon Warstler, 1236 Spring Valley NW, Canton, Ohio 44708.
Mr. Warstler stated that he isn’t sure exactly what happened but guesses the setback was taken from the back of the curb and not the property line. This was done unintentionally. The house has been sold but the closing is pending due to the variance.
Mr. Deremer asked if this is a new subdivision.
Mr. Warstler stated yes, it started in 2001. The house is behind the setback but the garage portion is encroaching into the 40 ft. setback. Mr. Warstler stated he didn’t realize there was a problem until the Zoning Investigator looked at the house and pointed it out.
Mr. Dodson asked how far the house actually sits from Vineyard.
Mr. Warstler stated the house actually sits back 8 ft. further than the garage.
Mr. McDonnell asked if they are building other homes in the subdivision.
Mr. Warstler stated yes, they will probably build a home to the south of the property in question.
Mr. Deremer asked what it would cost to remove a portion of the garage.
Mr. Warstler stated about $30,000 due to the design of the roof.
Mr. Deremer swore in Ms. Cindy Stankunas, 3479 Vineyard NW. Ms. Stankunas stated she does not have a problem with the house but wanted to know what the procedure was for Jackson Township and if they go to construction sites to prevent this from happening and when does the Zoning Investigator notice this other than by accident.
Ms. Poindexter stated when a permit is issued a copy goes to the Zoning Investigator, but we don’t know when that construction is being started because there is a one year time period to start construction after a permit is issued. He looks at properties when he is in the area, which could be when the foundation is put in or after the entire home is built because the builder does not notify the zoning department when they start construction and the investigator cannot go to the property every week to see if construction has started.
Ms. Stankunas asked if there is only one zoning investigator.
Ms. Poindexter stated yes, he is part-time.
Ms. Stankunas stated she would think that Jackson would have more investigators or at least one that is full-time.
Ms. Poindexter stated that the zoning department does not do building inspections and believes what Mr. Warstler stated happened is actually want happened because Mr. Revlock measured from the curb and came up with the same measurement.
Ms. Stankunas stated to remove the garage would be a very costly remedy.
Mr. Deremer stated that there have been times when things have been caught when just the foundation was put in and the board has had them move it back to the correct setback.
Ms. Poindexter stated when a site plan is submitted with the application the zoning department relies on it having the correct information.
Mr. Deremer stated that the building department does not call the zoning department to let them know they did a foundation inspection. The Zoning Investigator does his inspection while making his rounds. Mr. Deremer asked Ms. Stankunas if she thought the house was a detriment to the neighborhood by not meeting the setback.
Ms. Stankunas stated no.
No one else in the audience spoke in favor of or in opposition to the appeal.
Mr. McDonnell asked Mr. Poindexter if a site plan is submitted with an application.
Ms. Poindexter stated yes.
Mr. McDonnell asked if the builder is required to show setbacks.
Ms. Poindexter stated yes.
Mr. McDonnell stated so it is the builders testimony that when the permit is issued the structure will meet the setback requirements.
Ms. Poindexter stated yes.
Mr. McDonnell asked if this particular builder has had any previous violations regarding the setbacks for construction.
Ms. Poindexter stated not to her knowledge.
Mr. Warstler stated that he wanted to the board to know that he realizes it was their responsibility to meet the setback and apologizes for the mistake and hopes the board will grant the variance.
Mr. Deremer closed this appeal to pubic input.
Mr. McDonnell stated that the request is not significant and does not appear to be a detriment to the neighborhood. He is willing to grant the variance with the understanding that it was not intentional and consequently will not happen again.
Mr. Dodson concurred with Mr. McDonnell.
Mr. Deremer stated that he also agreed with Mr. McDonnell. If it was a repeat violation he would tend to turn it down but believes the mistake was unintentional so he does not have a problem with the appeal.
Mr. Dodson made a motion to approve appeal #2070 as requested.
Mr. Oldroyd seconded the motion.
The motion was: Mr. Oldroyd-yes, Mr. Dodson-yes, Mr. McDonnell-yes, and Mr. Deremer-yes.
Appeal #2071 – Thomas Group, LLC, 4150 Belden Village NW, Canton, Ohio 44718 agent for B & K Leasing, Ltd, 6299 Dressler NW, North Canton, Ohio 44720, property owner, requests a variance for a 14ft. 6in. front parking and landscaping setback where 20 ft. is required per Art. IV Sect. 411.8 of the zoning resolution. Property location is 6299 Dressler, Parcel #1616681, Sect. 13NE Jackson Twp. Area zoned I-1.
Mr. Deremer read the file application signed by David Thomson with reasons being for zoning purposes Dressler is considered an 80 ft. right of way although it is currently not that wide and the landscaping setback will be larger than 20 ft. The file contained an aerial view of the property, a letter from David Thomson dated March 5, 2007 addressed to the Board of Appeals, a site plan of the property and a proposed split layout of the property. Also in the file was a memo from Joni Poindexter, Zoning Inspector explaining the landscaping setback.
Mr. Deremer swore in David Thomson 4150 Belden Village NW. Mr. Thomson stated that the building will be 4,000 sq. ft. and will be located on an out lot of Midwest Digital which is the previous Sam’s Club property. There is an existing 65 ft. dedicated road but for zoning purposes Dressler is considered as an 80 ft. right of way. The variance will allow the continuation of an existing condition, which is about 37 ft. of actual landscaped area although about 22 ft. of that will be within the road right of way.
Mr. Thomson stated he understands the 80
ft. right of way has been in the regulations for a while but this variance
will be no different than others that were granted such as Chick-Fil-A,
Rudy Tuesday’s, Family Video and Macaroni Grill.
Mr. Thomson asked that the variance be
permitted to continue the location as it is today.
Mr. Oldroyd asked if there is currently a landscaped area between the road and the property and if so who maintains it.
Mr. Thomson stated there is currently a landscaped strip and it is maintained by the property owner.
Mr. McDonnell asked if he is correct in stating that currently there is a 12-1/2 ft. landscaped strip between Dressler’s edge of pavement and the property line.
Mr. Thomson stated yes.
Mr. McDonnell asked if the actual landscaped strip is 37 ft. wide between the edge of the pavement and the parking setback and the variance is because Dressler is considered and 80 ft. right of way.
Mr. Thomson stated that is correct.
Mr. Deremer asked if the building would be new and the drive shared.
Mr. Thomson stated yes. It will be a separate parcel with shared access, not shared parking.
No one else in the audience spoke in favor of or in opposition to the appeal.
Mr. McDonnell asked Ms. Poindexter if the site meets all the requirements except for the requested variance.
Ms. Poindexter stated yes. However, the zoning department will require a detailed landscaping plan prior to the issuance of a zoning permit.
Mr. Deremer closed this appeal to public input.
Mr. Deremer stated he does not have a problem with the appeal due to the fact that the existing landscaping is 37 ft. and it will not be a detriment to the property by approving the variance.
Mr. Dodson concurred with Mr. Deremer.
Mr. McDonnell stated if the split were not created it would have continued as is. The reason for the variance is because they are improving the property and being asked to be held to a higher standard. Mr. McDonnell stated he did not have a problem with granting the variance.
Mr. Oldroyd made a motion to approve appeal #2071 as requested.
Mr. Dodson seconded the motion.
The vote was: Mr. Oldroyd-yes, Mr. Dodson-yes, Mr. McDonnell-yes, and Mr. Deremer-yes.
Appeal #2072 – Memmer Development, Inc., 5888 Fulton Dr. NW, Canton, Ohio 44718 agent for Frank Manello, 5543 East Blvd. NW, Canton, Ohio 44718, property owner, requests a variance for an 8.4 ft. right and left side yard setback where 10 ft. is required per Art. IV Sect. 401.6 of the zoning resolution. Property located at 5543 East Blvd. NW, Sect. 14SE Jackson Twp. Area zoned R-1.
Mr. Deremer read the file application signed by Mark Memmer with reasons being the house is larger than the previous house and sits 8.4’ on both sides yard. The file contained an aerial view of the property and a site plan.
Mr. Deremer swore in Mark Memmer, 5985 Inverrary NW and Ron Memmer, 5196 Fox Chase NW.
Mr. Mark Memmer stated that the existing home has been torn down. The original home was a cottage and the owner is upgrading. Lesser setbacks are common for the Lake Cable area and they are asking for an 8.4 ft. left and right side yard setback where 10 ft. is required. The house was originally built on 1-1/2 lots in 1926 or 1927. Currently it is one lot due to the lot line being vacated.
Mr. Deremer asked the size of the home.
Mr. Ron Memmer stated that it would be 2,600 sq. ft. on the first floor and about the same for the basement, which is a walk-out.
Mr. Dodson asked if the previous home had been razed.
Mr. Ron Memmer stated yes.
Mr. McDonnell asked if the measurement was 8.4 ft. as opposed to 8’4”.
Mr. Ron Memmer stated yes, it is 8.4 ft.
No one else in the audience spoke in favor of or in opposition to the appeal.
Mr. Deremer closed this appeal to public input.
Mr. Dodson stated that he is familiar with the property. The Lake Cable Trustees have said that they like the setback to be at least 5 ft. Typically the board grants these types of variances so he doesn’t have a problem with the request.
Mr. McDonnell concurred with Mr. Dodson and suggested if granted that the board make it clear that it is for the structure presented to the board and does not extend the length of the property.
Mr. Deremer stated by making it a lot and a half it is almost the size of a normal lot. Mr. Deremer stated that he does not have a problem with the variance as requested because with the setback being between 5 and 10 ft. it is leaning more toward the 10 ft. and homes of this size are being built along the Lake properties. Another factor is the back of the lot is 350 ft. deep.
Mr. Oldroyd agreed with the other board members.
Mr. Dodson made a motion to approve appeal #2072 as requested.
Mr. McDonnell seconded the motion.
The vote was: Mr. Oldroyd-yes, Mr. Dodson-yes, Mr. McDonnell-yes, and Mr. Deremer-yes.
Mr. McDonnell made a motion to approve the minutes from March 8, 2007 and noted that Mr. Oldroyd was not present for the meeting of March 8th.
Mr. Dodson seconded the motion.
The motion was: Mr. Dodson-yes, Mr. McDonnell-yes, and Mr. Deremer-yes.
Mr. Dodson stated there is a spelling error in the minutes from March 22, 2007.
Mr. Dodson made a motion to approve the minutes from March 22, 2007 with the corrected spelling error.
Mr. McDonnell seconded the motion.
The vote was: Mr. Oldroyd-yes, Mr. Dodson-yes, Mr. McDonnell-yes with respect to appeal #2066 and 2067, and Mr. Deremer-yes.
Mr. Dodson made a motion to adjourn.
Mr. McDonnell seconded the motion. All was in favor.
Respectfully submitted,
Joni Poindexter,
Zoning Inspector