Members present:                                                                Ted Deremer
                                                                                                Edward McDonnell-Recused from appeal #1972
                                                                                                Richard Dodson
                                                                                                Jim Giulitto
                                                                                                John Juergensen
Alternate Member:                                                                Eric Oldroyd

APPEAL #1971 – Joe Stancato, 2030 Hankins Rd. NW, Massillon, Ohio 44646 agent for John Stancato, property owner, 1118 Genoa Rd. NW, Massillon, Ohio 44646 requests a variance to allow a 15 ft. in height freestanding sign where 10 ft. is the maximum permitted height per Art. V Sect. 502.3 of the zoning resolution.  Property located at 3463 Wales Rd. NW, Sect. 33NW Jackson Twp.  Area zoned B-2.

Mr. Deremer read the file application signed by Joe Stancato and the reasons for the appeal.  The file contained a tax map of the property in question, and three color photos showing the proposed sign location.

Mr. Deremer asked who would like to speak in favor of the appeal.

Mr. Deremer swore in Joe Stancato, 2030 Hankins Rd. NW.

Mr. Stancato stated that six years ago he built a building at the corner of Stuhlderher and Wales next to the one in question.  Sign post were put in that were 10 ft. apart and 24 ft. high, which was acceptable at that time.  Five years later he put up two sign post that were the same as the other ones.  After the posts were constructed he was informed that they were in violation.  He tried for a variance and at the time there were only three members present for the board.  Two voted against it and one voted for it.  Mr. Stancato stated that he received a violation letter so he torched the top of the posts off so they are currently only 10 ft. high in height.

Mr. Stancato stated that there is some difficulty in seeing the traffic traveling north and there is going to be a red light put at the corner which will back up traffic.  A hedge row has to be put in front of the parking lot and it has to be at least 36 inches high so the bushes will block about 2 ft. of the sign.  There is an existing 50 sq. ft. sign where the code allows for a 110 sq. ft. sign, but because the code says that the sign has to be one foot off the ground there is only room for a 40 sq. ft. sign and half of that will be blocked by the shrubs that are required.  Mr. Stancato stated that he has a disadvantage because he needs a sign that people can read and there is a safety factor.  Mr. Stancato stated that he would like to be able to add five feet to the post for a 15 ft. in height sign.

Mr. Deremer asked if this would sit on top of the current sign.

Mr. Stancato stated yes.

Mr. Deremer asked if the street is going to be widened.

Mr. Stancato stated that ODOT has a 10 ft. right of way on the first property, which is on the corner.

Mr. Stancato stated before his buildings were on the property there were two billboards so he has improved the neighborhood.

Mr. Deremer asked if there is room for two cars on the slope of the drive if someone is trying to pull out onto the street.

Mr. Stancato stated yes, but the second car would be looking underneath the sign.
Mr. Deremer asked how high the parking lot is from the road.

Mr. Stancato stated about 6 or 8 ft.

Mr. McDonnell asked if the current sign is 50 ft. sq. ft.

Mr. Stancato stated yes.

Mr. McDonnell asked why another sign couldn’t be put at the other end of the parking lot.

Mr. Stancato stated that he doesn’t think the code would allow it.

Mr. Deremer stated that only one sign is permitted per property.

Mr. McDonnell asked what the practical difficulty is.

Mr. Stancato stated that the sign blocking the view and the backing up of traffic.  Mr. Stancato stated that he didn’t think the intent of the law was to stop him from being competitive and having a sign that was readable, and he doesn’t think it would hurt the neighborhood.  There is a 24 ft. sign less than 200 ft. from this one and across the street is a 20 ft. sign.  He is only asking for 15 ft. which is less than what is in the neighborhood.

Mr. McDonnell stated that he is having difficulty seeing a hardship.

Mr. Stancato stated that Ron Revlock helped him lay out the landscaping and he said that he thought that this would get approved because the sign would be blocked by the shrubs.

Mr. Deremer asked if the shrubs will block the view of the cars.

Mr. Stancato showed the board where the shrubs would be located.

Mr. Deremer asked what would happen if the variance were not approved.

Mr. Stancato stated he could only put a 40 sq. ft. sign up because he has to stay one ft. off the ground.

No one else in the audience spoke in favor of this appeal and no one in the audience spoke in opposition to the appeal.  Mr. Deremer closed this appeal to public input.

Mr. Juergensen stated that they are bound by the resolution to find a practical difficulty associated with the land and he doesn’t feel this has been demonstrated.

Mr. Deremer stated that he can’t help but think of the third car in line and not being able to see if anything is coming when the traffic starts flowing.  He believes there is a health and safety issue there for the traveling public.  The applicant is not requesting additional square footage beyond what is allowed.  He is only requesting a variance for the height.  Mr. Deremer stated that he would rather see the additional height approved so people can see the traffic traveling north.

Mr. Giulitto stated that he has been in the parking lot and if the second or third car is hid there could be problems.  Mr. Giulitto stated in looking at the picture it is clear to him that you cannot see south at all if there is a sign closer to the ground.  Mr. Giulitto stated from a safety issue he doesn’t see a problem putting a sign on top of the current sign.

Mr. McDonnell stated that he doesn’t think the applicant has demonstrated any situation that is significantly different than any other business district that is located across the street.  Mr. McDonnell stated that he doesn’t think a practical difficulty has been established.  The safety factor may have some merit but on the flip side of the coin anyone pulling out of the parking lot isn’t going to shoot out the parking lot without looking.  Mr. McDonnell stated that he understands the safety issue but he is not sure that he agrees with it.  It is up to the property owner to make sure each tenant has enough room for a sign and just because one is 50 sq. ft. doesn’t mean it meets the practical difficulty theory.  Mr. McDonnell stated that he has difficulty with the appeal.

Mr. Juergensen stated that the practical difficulty that has been identified seems to be self made and is not associated with the land.  Mr. Juergensen stated that anyone pulling out is required to stop before doing so to make sure the right of way is clear.  Mr. Juergensen stated if the variance were granted he would like to see it with the restriction that no signage be put under the current sign.

Mr. Deremer stated that he agrees and thinks there would be a danger.  The applicant is not asking for additional square footage for signage so that is not an issue.

Mr. Deremer made a motion to approve appeal #1971 as requested with the condition that the sign be no lower than 5 ft. as currently exists.

Mr. Juergensen seconded the motion.

The vote was: Mr. Juergensen-no, Mr. Giulitto-yes, Mr. Dodson-no, Mr. McDonnell-no, and Mr. Deremer-yes.

Mr. McDonnell recused himself from appeal #1972.  Eric Oldroyd, alternate, participated in the hearing.

APPEAL #1972 – Harris Day Architects/Jeff Barber, 3722 Whipple Ave. NW, Canton, Ohio 44718 agent for YMCA of Stark County, property owner, 405 Second St. NW, Canton, Ohio 44702 requests a variance to allow the construction of 217 parking spaces and defer 30 parking spaces until needed where a total of 247 parking spaces are required per Art. IV Sect. 601.4 of the zoning resolution.  Property location is parcel #1627961 Caritas Circle NW, Sect. 21NE Jackson Twp.  Area zoned B-3

Mr. Deremer read the file application signed by Jeff Barber and the reasons for the appeal.  The file contained a tax map and a site plan.

Mr. Deremer asked who would like to speak in favor of this appeal.

Mr. Deremer swore in Jeff Barber, 3722 Whipple Ave. NW.

Mr. Barber stated that the YMCA is on a tight budget so they are requesting a lesser number of parking spaces until needed.

Mr. Deremer asked what is magical about not having the 30 spaces.

Mr. Barber stated that the YMCA gave them the number of cars they felt would be needed based on how many people they anticipated will be using the YMCA when it first opens.  The way the site is laid out they would have to carve into another area to get the extra spaces that will be for a future lot.

Mr. Deremer asked if they should have a total of 247 spaces.

Mr. Barber stated yes, but total parking will be 302 when the future lot is finished although the zoning requirement is based on one space for every 200 sq. ft. of usable floor area.

No one else in the audience spoke in favor of this appeal and no one in the audience spoke in opposition to the appeal.

Mr. Deremer closed this appeal to public input.

Mr. Giulitto stated according to section 601.4A at least 70 % of the parking spaces need to be constructed and they are asking to construct 88% so he doesn’t have a problem with the request.

Mr. Deremer stated the fact that they are at 88% verses the 70% and that they could meet the requirement is a good thing so he doesn’t have a problem with the request.

Mr. Giulitto made a motion to approve appeal #1972 as requested.

Mr. Juergensen seconded the motion.

The vote was: Mr. Oldroyd-yes, Mr. Juergensen-yes, Mr. Giulitto-yes, Mr. Dodson-no, and Mr. Deremer-yes.

APPEAL #1973 – Dale Langanke, property owner, 5878 Carlew NW, North Canton, Ohio 44720 requests a variance for a 6 ft. rear yard setback for accessory building where 15 ft. is required per Art. IV Sect. 401.11 of the zoning resolution.  Property located at 5878 Carlew NW, Sect. 11SW Jackson Twp.  Area zoned R-R.

Mr. Deremer read the file application signed by Dale Langanke and the reasons for the appeal.  The file contained a tax map of the property in question, an aerial view of the property, two photos showing the layout of the property and a hand sketch of the property with the proposed garage location.

Mr. Deremer asked who would like to speak in favor of this appeal.

Mr. Deremer swore in Dale Langanke, 5878 Carlew NW.

Mr. Langanke stated that he has a small utility shed that is getting to be an eyesore.  He wants to tear it down and build a larger building that is a 24 x 24 ft. garage.  The sewer was put in a few years ago and it runs out of the back of the house, down through the back yard and then to the side yard and out to the street.  He is trying to stay clear of the sewer line.  If the setback for the building is 15 ft. from the property line it will put it about 1 ft. from the sewer line.  Mr. Langanke stated that there is row of bushes that are about 17 ft. in height at the back of the property that would shield the building.

Mr. Deremer asked how big the existing shed is.

Mr. Langanke stated that it is 10 x 12 sq. ft.

Mr. Deremer asked if there is a concrete pad in the back of the property.

Mr. Langanke stated yes.  There is also a patio off the back porch so basically there is no other place for the building to go that would look right or be practical.

Mr. McDonnell stated that there appears to be a natural gas storage well behind the property and asked what the easement for the well is.

Mr. Langanke stated that he did not know.

Mr. McDonnell asked if the variance were granted how far would it be from the sewer line.

Mr. Langanke stated that he thinks it would be about 8 ft.

Mr. Deremer asked if there is any leeway if the board has trouble with the 6 ft. setback and if there would another distance that he could live with.

Mr. Langanke stated a couple more feet or so but going with the 6 ft. he is trying to keep it at a minimum to the back of the lot.
Mr. Deremer stated that Mr. Langanke could leave it as proposed or amend it.

Mr. Langanke stated that he would like to leave room in case the sewer line needed to be dug up.  He would like to leave it at a 6 ft. setback but if the board would rather an 8 ft. setback then that would be okay.

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. McDonnell stated that he believes a practical difficulty has been demonstrated.

Mr. Dodson made a motion to approve appeal #1973 as requested.

Mr. McDonnell seconded the motion.

The vote was: Mr. Juergensen-yes, Mr. Giulitto-yes, Mr. Dodson-yes, Mr. McDonnell-yes, and Mr. Deremer-yes.

APPEAL #1967 – American Sand & Gravel, property owner, 8188 Wales Ave. NW, North Canton, Ohio 44720 requests to eliminate the condition that limits the permit life to 10 years for appeal #1763, CUP#318/SM77, and allow the continuation of the conditional use permit as long as the operation is doing business on the property.  Property location is 195.30 acres fronting on Forty Corners and Riverside Rd., Sect. 30SW/SE Jackson Twp.  Area zoned I-1.

Mr. Deremer read the file application signed by Chris Scala and the reasons for the appeal.  The file contained tax map of the property in question.  Mr. Deremer stated that he would include appeal #1763 which was the original appeal for the conditional use permit.

Mr. Deremer asked who would like to speak in favor of this appeal.

Mr. Deremer swore in Chris Scala, 8188 Wales Ave. NW.

Mr. Scala stated that the property was purchased in 1988 and has been mined by them since 1989; however, the property has been mined since around 1925.  He feels the area has been enhanced since they purchased the property.  Mr. Scala stated that they follow all the rules and regulations.

Mr. Scala stated that previously the five year time limit was taken out of the zoning code with the intent that these type of operations, as long as they were adhering to the terms and conditions set by the board, they would be able to continue to operate.  The board determined that they would like to go to 10 years at that time.  Mr. Scala stated as long as there are terms and conditions and they are met then he doesn’t know why they would have to come back to the board.  It is difficult to bid work when your permit is going to be up in a few years.  Mr. Scala stated that their track record speaks for itself in showing that they are in good faith.  He would like to have the permit continue with the operation and not have to renew it every few years.

Mr. Deremer asked if anything had changed with the operation.

Mr. Scala stated no.

Mr. McDonnell asked what the dollar value of the equipment is that they have.

Mr. Scala stated that it is tuff to guess but it’s probably in excess of ten or twelve million dollars.

Mr. McDonnell asked what types of chemicals are used.

Mr. Scala stated that no chemicals are used.

Mr. McDonnell stated that ODNR requires them to reclaim the property and asked if there is a bond associated with that.

Mr. Scala stated yes.

Mr. McDonnell asked if the bond contains sufficient funds to reclaim the area.

Mr. Scala stated that he has no idea whether the dollar amounts would match but that is the intent of the bond.

Mr. McDonnell asked what the application means when it says to allow as long as the business is doing operation on the property and if it means as long as American Sand & Gravel is doing business.

Mr. Scala stated that he is not sure.

Mr. McDonnell asked if granted, would there be any problem if the request was only for as long as America Sand & Gravel operates on the property.

Mr. Scala stated that is up to the board.

No one else in the audience spoke in favor of the appeal and no one in the audience spoke in opposition to the appeal.  Mr. Deremer closed this appeal to public input.

Mr. Juergensen stated that the doesn’t have a problem as long as American & Sand gravel has the operation.

Mr. McDonnell stated that time limits aren’t put on some things in the industrial area and what makes the sand & gravel business unique is that the land will be reclaimed at sometime.

Mr. Deremer concurred with Mr. McDonnell.

Mr. Juergensen made a motion to approve appeal #1967 as requested.

Mr. McDonnell seconded the motion.

The vote was: Mr. Juergensen-yes, Mr. Giulitto-yes, Mr. Dodson-yes, Mr. McDonnell-yes, and Mr. Deremer-yes.

Mr. Deremer made a motion to adjourn the meeting.

Mr. Giulitto seconded the motion.

The vote was: Mr. Juergensen-yes, Mr. Giulitto-yes, Mr. Dodson-yes, Mr. McDonnell-yes, and Mr. Deremer-yes.

Respectfully submitted,

Joni Poindexter
Zoning Inspector