Members present:
Ted Deremer
Edward McDonnell
Richard Dodson
Jim Giulitto
John Juergensen
Absent Member:
Eric Oldroyd
Zoning Inspector:
Joni Poindexter
Zoning Date Coordinator:
Andrea Paumier
Appeal 2081 – Larry Smith/ Smith Outdoor, 8036 Fox Run Ave. NW, Canton, OH 44720, agent for property owner, Canton S Group, 4773 Portage St. NW, N. Canton, OH 44720, requesting a variance of a side setback for an off premises sign from 25 ft. to 10 ft. on the east property line. Property located at: 477 Portage St. NW, Sect. 12SW, Jackson Twp.
Mr. Deremer read the application and contents of the file.
Mr. Deremer swore in Larry Smith, 8036 Fox Run Ave., N. Canton, OH 44720.
Mr. Smith stated that he was not aware of the letter from the Trustee until it was read into the file, who are the current owners of the property. Normally, in the billboard industry it is to save money or move the billboard closer to the road, or to make the billboard bigger and higher, in this case, the variance request pertains to none of those. If the fifteen (15) feet against the parking lot were approved, the appearance would improve as well as the safety. Normally a variance like this wouldn’t be requested, but the excess land from the driveway and the widening of the road and it ended up being deeded to Jackson Township, which is believed to be previously owned by Stark County. With the current building regulations nothing could be built on that piece of property except maybe a billboard.
Mr. Smith stated that he does not request variances very often and figured the Trustees would be members of the Board of Zoning Appeals and if the Trustee were to have any questions he could answer them at that time.
Mr. Deremer stated that the members on the Board of Zoning Appeals are appointed by the Trustees.
Mr. Deremer asked if the location of the original requested billboard met all zoning requirements.
Mr. Smith stated yes, although in Section
501 it states that any pole sign has to be ten (10) feet away. All freestanding
or pole signs shall not be located close then five (5) feet to any street
right of way or ten (10) feet from the side or rear property lines. Which
we have a freestanding pole sign.
Mr. Deremer stated that the sign being
requested for the variance this evening falls under Section 503.1, Billboards.
Mr. Juergensen asked if he were correct in saying that the billboard can be built at the twenty-five (25) feet required setback.
Mr. Smith stated that was correct. They already have the permit and are almost ready to construct the billboard.
Mr. Juergensen asked if they would just prefer to be fifteen (15) feet closer to the property line.
Mr. Smith stated that is correct.
No one else spoke in favor for the appeal.
No one else spoke in opposition for the appeal.
Mr. Deremer closed the appeal to public input.
Mr. McDonnell stated the applicant is required to demonstrate that a practical difficulty exists that requires a variance. In this case the applicant has indicated that he can place the billboard where the regulation requires. In Section 501.3 (B) number 4 it states, whether the essential character of the neighborhood would be substantially altered or whether adjoining properties would suffer substantial detriment as a result of the variance. He is unable to state whether it is substantial, but there is a letter from the property owners who are opposed to the variance.
Mr. Deremer stated that in Section 503.1 regarding Billboards it does state that all billboards shall be located so as to maintain the minimum front yard as measured from the public right-of-way, side yard, and rear yard setbacks as required for buildings located in the same district. Because they used the word “shall” it was intended to not permit any variances around that. Based on the information present to the Board this evening, he does not see a valid reason to allow the variance as requested.
Mr. McDonnell stated that in follow up to Mr. Deremer’s remarks, in Section 201.1 (C) states use of the word “shall” indicated a mandatory requirement.
Mr. McDonnell made a motion to approve Appeal no. 2081.
Mr. Dodson seconded the motion.
The vote was: Mr. Juergensen: No, Mr. Giulitto: No, Mr. Dodson: No, Mr. McDonnell: No, and Mr. Deremer: No.
Appeal 2082 – Hettler – Largent
Engineering LLC, 1225 N. Main St., Suite A, N. Canton, OH 44720, agent
for property owner, ST. Joseph’s Federal Credit Union, 1901 Whipple Ave.
NW, Canton, OH 44708, requesting a variance for a 7.4 ft. south parking
setback where 20 ft. is required. Property located at: 1907 Whipple Ave.
Sect. 36SE, Jackson Twp.
Mr. McDonnell recused himself from Appeal
No. 2082
Mr. Deremer swore in Rich Largent, 1225 N. Main St.
Mr. Largent stated that they had submitted a site plan to the Stark County Regional Planning Commission with two (2) driveways out onto 18th St. and at the meeting a majority of the property owners attended. After the meeting the property owner and the adjacent property owners discussed issues about the site plans. The adjacent property owners main concern were the two (2) entrances onto 18th St. At that time St. Joseph’s Credit Union proposed to remove one of the entrances, the one farthest to the west. By doing this issues were raised with the positioning of the building in relationship to the fire access to the rear of the building. The minimum is 20 ft. for fire access to the rear of the building and by removing the second access on 18th, we were required to keep the driveway on the north side of the building more then 20 ft. To accommodate the size of building and the number of drive-thru lanes, it required us to go into the side parking setback along 18th St., the existing pavement along 18th St. is offset in the right of way. It is actually further away from the road right of way then normal. The proposed edge of pavement for the new facility will be about 32 ½ ft. away from the existing edge of pavement. This is definitely enough space to meet the township landscaping requirements.
Mr. Deremer swore in Mitch Ciccarone.
Mr. Ciccarone stated that he comes before this Board tonight with an odd situation. Typically when a developer requests a variance, it is solely for their own purposes. In this case the variance request is for the adjacent property owners and neighbors. As Mr. Largent had stated the neighbors were concerned about the traffic coming in and out of the site. By ordinance, we could develop this building with out a variance no question. With the side of the building and the parking spaces it is a very doable site. What St. Joseph’s Credit Union is trying to do is to accommodate the neighborhood. As Mr. Largent stated is to eliminate the seconded entrance onto 18th St. so customers wouldn’t pull out onto 18th St. and go through the neighborhood but rather onto Whipple Ave. When the plan was originally drawn up, in order to stay out of the variance area, the building had to be moved up toward the north to the sixteen (16) ft. setback line, which would only give us a twelve (12) ft. driveway entrance at the north side of the building. However, when Jackson Township Fire Department looked at the plan, they stated that the Ohio Fire Code requires a twenty (20) ft. driveway if that is the only accessible area to the back of the building. So basically the variance being requested tonight is on behalf of the neighbors. Otherwise the building will have to be shifted back to the original plan and have the two (2) driveway entrances, and that is counter to what the neighbors wanted.
Mr. Dodson asked if they had to have an entrances off of Whipple on the north side of the building, is that only if the west entrances off of 18th St. is eliminated.
Mr. Ciccarone stated that two (2) entrances are needed. One on 18th St. and one on Whipple.
Mr. Dodson asked if there has to be one off Whipple.
Mr. Ciccarone stated yes.
Mr. Dodson asked if three (3) drive-thru lanes are needed.
Mr. Ciccarone stated yes. One is an ATM and drop box and the other two are the active drive-thru lanes.
Mr. Juergensen asked if the first driveway, the west one is in compliance with the Ohio Fire Code.
Mr. Ciccarone stated yes.
Mr. Juergensen stated so by eliminating that, that’s when it acetates the need to move the building to the south.
Mr. Ciccarone stated yes to the south and to make sure they have the twenty (20) ft. And they want to do this for neighborhood. The traffic is a major concern of theirs and thinks by allowing this variance, they will be within the Ohio Fire Code and also giving the neighbors peace of mind.
Mr. Juergensen asked if the first plan submitted to Regional Planning, completely complies with all zoning requirements.
Mr. Ciccarone stated yes with conditional approval.
Mr. Deremer asked if anyone wanted to speak in favor of the Appeal.
Mr. Deremer swore in William Mavrakis 1743 Whipple Ave.
Mr. Mavrakis stated that his property is located just south of 1807 Whipple Ave. His property is roughly the same length as theirs and if this were to affect anybody it would be his property the most. As a business and a property owner, he states he is in favor for the variance to eliminate that back entrance. Unfortunately they are pushing the traffic more towards his parking lot. Since they bought this property, the appearance is a lot better then it has been over the last ten years. As they are improving this property, they are taking the first step in the Jackson Township and improve the first entrance people will see entering into the township.
Mr. Mavrakis stated that he is defiantly in favor of the variance they are asking for.
Mr. Deremer swore in Rebecca Perez, N. Canton.
Ms. Perez asked which of the two plans submitted to Regional Planning were approved.
Mr. Largent stated that they have conditional approval with the planning showing two driveways.
Ms. Perez asked if Regional Planning has looked at the plan with the one driveway proposal.
Mr. Largent stated that he has faxed that proposed plan to Reva at Regional Planning.
Ms. Perez stated that her concern, being an adjacent property owner, is to get clarification, with the plan that has one driveway, is that plan “on record”.
Mr. Deremer stated the plan with one driveway is what is being discussed this evening.
Mr. Ciccarone asked Mr. Deremer to repeat his statement for clarification of the audience.
Mr. Deremer stated that the plans the Board is view this evening shows one driveway off of Whipple Ave. and one driveway off of 18th St. This is the plan in which the board is hearing testimony on this evening.
No one else spoke in favor for the appeal.
Mr. Deremer asked if anyone in the audience would like to speak in opposition of the Appeal.
Mr. Deremer swore in Jerry Young, 4435 18th St.
Mr. Young stated that he does not have an objection to the Credit Union. The neighbors have asked Mr. Ciccarone to put something in writing that states that he will not construct the seconded driveway. He declines. He states that, that makes him a little hesitant.
Mr. Deremer stated that the document the Board is viewing this evening only shows the two driveways not three. There is a driveway off of Whipple Ave. and one off of 18th St.
Mr. Young asked what is to prevent Mr. Ciccarone, after the variance tonight is approved, to out that seconded driveway on that is closest to him.
Mr. Deremer stated that there are means of method to address that if the variance is approved this evening. The board is looking at this set of site plans, if somebody were to do something different, then the township will investigate the property at that time. This Board, for all they can see, is the site plan presented this evening and that is what the Board bases their decision on.
Mr. Juergensen asked if Mr. Young’s preference would be to have the single driveway then the two driveways.
Mr. Young stated yes, he would prefer to have the driveway at the end of the street.
Mr. Juergensen asked if Mr. Young’s concern was if the Board can compel the Credit Union to do so.
Mr. Young stated yes.
Mr. Deremer swore in Steve and Joan Burick, 4457 18th. St.
Mr. Burick stated that he has been a resident in this neighborhood for twenty years and plans to stay his whole life. Mr. Ciccarone bought this property knowing what it was. The zoning regulations are put into effect to protect people like himself. This will be a beautiful building, but Mr. Ciccarone bought too small of a lot.
Mr. Burick stated that 18th St. is considered a fifty (50) ft. road right of way, and according to Regional Planning, B-3 has to be a sixty (60) ft. road right of way. Mr. Ciccarone is going to destroy the whole integrity of the neighborhood. Mr. Burick presented a petition sighed by seventy-five (75) neighbors who feel the same way.
Mr. Deremer stated that he can but the petition in the record but can not read it into the file due to everything being heard by the Board must be sworn testimony.
Mr. Burick stated that he received a document off the internet from ODOT that states they recommend that the Credit Union does not come out onto a residential street.
Mr. Juergensen asked if Mr. Burick understood that the Credit Union is able to build according to the first plan with the two driveways and there isn’t anything this Board or the Trustees could be about to do. The first plan meets all the zoning regulations.
Mr. Burick stated that he understood.
Mr. Juergensen asked if Mr. Burick would prefer to have the single driveway to the east or the two driveways.
Mr. Burick stated that he would rather have the driveway towards Whipple, but his concern is once the variance is approved, what is stopping Mr. Ciccarone in the future, from building that seconded driveway.
Mr. Burick stated that he would have no problem with the variance if a condition of approval would be added stating that there would never be another driveway located at the rear of the building.
Mrs. Burick stated that she agreed with everything her husband said.
Mr. Deremer swore in Thomas Brownfield, 1732 Ambrose Ave.
Mr. Brownfield stated that he agreed with Mr. Burick. He stated that he would rather have the entrances on Whipple alone, mainly because of how busy Whipple is. Customers may by-pass the stop sign on 18th St., come down one block to his street and cut in front of his house where his kids play out in the front yard.
Mr. Ciccarone stated that this is the first
time that he had applied for a variance to which he did not need and then
actually have opposition to it. It is surprising after he has discussed
with the concerned neighbors and assured them that he is requesting the
variance for them. He stated that he wants this for the neighborhood. Mr.
Ciccarone stated that he has no intention and he is under oath of putting
a second driveway in. If it means putting a condition in the approval of
the variance, he is fine with that but will not enter in with a contract
with the neighborhood. Clearly, he could put another entrance in there,
move the building up 12 feet to the north so that he is out of the right
of way and build what he wanted to build. The property is not too small;
the building is not too big. He could make the site work without the variance,
but again this variance is for the neighborhood.
Mr. Deremer asked if ODOT allowed for
two driveways on Whipple.
Mr. Ciccarone stated that the requirement by ODOT is that you have to be 125 feet from the road right of way and it would only allow for one entrance on Whipple road and one entrance on 18th Street.
Mr. Juergensen asked Ms. Poindexter to confirm that the first plan did comply with zoning, the one with two driveways to the south.
Ms. Poindexter confirmed that the first plan did comply with conditional approval from RPC.
Mr. Deremer closed the Appeal to public input.
Mr. Dodson stated that he is not convinced that the lot is being over built but he does agree if the variance is passed, conditions should be included.
Mr. Juergensen stated that he agrees with Mr. Dodson. The Board should condition the variance if approved, on having the land owner build according to the plans submitted. The Board can not stop Mr. Ciccarone from building according to the first plan because that plan does not require any variances.
Mr. Giulitto stated that he concurs with Mr. Dodson and Mr. Juergensen. He doesn’t believe that Mr. Ciccarone would have gone through all the trouble of applying for the variance and to meet with the members of the neighborhood.
Mr. Juergensen made a motion to accept Appeal No. 2082 subject to the condition that the property is build according to the plans presented to the Board this evening which represent two driveways; one on Whipple and one on the southeast side of the property.
Mr. Giuitto seconded the motion.
The vote was: Mr. Juergensen – Yes, Mr. Giulitto – Yes, Mr. Dodson – Yes, and Mr. Deremer - Yes
Appeal 2083 – Thomas W. Winkhart, 825 S. Main St., N. Canton, OH 44720, agent for property owner, Campbell Oil Co., 611 Erie St. South, Massillon, OH 44646, requests a variance for a 10 ft. south and west parking setback where 20 ft. is required. Property located at: 5508 Wales Ave. NW, Sect. 21NE, Jackson Twp.
Mr. Deremer swore in Mr. Winkhart, 7008 Victoria Ct.
Mr. Winkhart stated that he believed all the Board members were present a few weeks ago when he originally presented for plans for the property located at 5508 Wales Ave., and the record can reflect there are no others present in the room; he stated he will review his previous appeal. Campbell Oil is the owner of a 0.69 acre parcel located at the northeast corner of Wales Ave. and Fulton Rd. This piece of property is due to get smaller due to ODOT for the intersection widening improvements.
Mr. Winkhart presented a colored site plan, marked as exhibit 1, appendix A. The site plan shows a computer depiction of a semi truck travel through the site. He stated that he was here a few weeks ago to request rear yard setback variance, which this Board conditionally granted to allow the construction on this site, within 5 feet of the existing east property line. The lease agreement that Mr. Winkhart purported at the last meeting that would be signed between Campbell Oil and Foxboro Square, negotiations broke down but they resurrected. Mr. Winkhart stated that he had attached 2 color photographs to the site plan has been presented to the Board this evening. The first photograph, labeled exhibit 2, is a view of the property standing at the far east access point on Fulton Rd., looking west. The Board will notice a little to the right of the new telephone phone, is a pink flag. That pink flag is going to be the located of the new road right of way for the ODOT property. That stake has been placed there by engineers from ODOT. The seconded photograph, labeled exhibit 3, is a view from the far south access drive on Wales, looking north. Just to the left of the light pole, there is another pink flag, which represents the location of the new road right of way. Campbell Oil has what they consider to be decent amount of landscaping around the service station. A reminder to the Board that ODOT has limited Campbell Oil to have a right-in and a right-out access on Fulton and has allowed a full-turning movement on Wales. Campbell Oil has a truck that daily delivers gasoline onto the property. Hammontree & Associates have a program that they have over laid onto our site plan that tracks the front of the truck, the turning radius, and the edge of the trail wheels as they come across the property. This shows how limited our space and property is to have a gasoline truck coming west on Fulton, entering the site through the right-in access drive on Fulton Rd. and thankfully ODOT has allowed Campbell Oil to construct roll over curbs. The zoning code requires a 20 ft. parking setback, landscaping area from the property line to the edge of pavement. Looking at exhibit 1, the dotted line represents the new property line after the ODOT expansion. That leaves about 10 ft. from that new property line and what they are proposing to be the back edge of the curb for the parking lot.
Mr. Winkhart would like to present the Board with a packed of photographs marked as Applicant exhibit A. What Campbell Oil is asking for is approximately 20 ft. of landscaped area from the back of ODOTS proposed curb to the back of Campbell Oil’s proposed curb on the interior of the site. Mr. Winkhart stated he had measured the width of the buffer areas himself. Picture 1 shows Wendy’s having an 18 ft. landscaped buffer area. Picture 2 shows Taco Bell having a 17 ft. landscaped buffer area. Picture 3 shows Speedway having a 17.5 ft. landscaped buffer area. Picture 4 shows Fifth Third Bank having an 18 ft. landscaped buffer area. Picture 5 shows Rockne’s (Frank) having a 20 ft. landscaped buffer area. Picture 6 shows Rockne’s (Portage) having a 13.8 ft. landscaped buffer area. Picture 7 shows Shakertown Square having a 19.5 ft. landscaped buffer area. Picture 8 shows Carrabba’s having a 15 ft. landscaped buffer area, and picture 9 shows Gastroenterology & Hepatology having a 17.5 ft. landscaped buffer area. All the pictures presented show good examples of our landscaping requirements working well in the township.
Mr. Deremer asked if the drawing present to the Board this evening, the green area, that is the current landscaping on the property.
Mr. Winkhart stated no the green areas shown on the drawing are what Campbell Oil is proposing. They are actually creating more landscaping onto the property then what currently exists.
Mr. McDonnell asked if the dark line on the outside of the drawing is that representing the curb.
Mr. Winkhart stated no. The dark line represents the existing property line.
Mr. McDonnell asked what the dark line on the outside of the green spaces represents.
Mr. Winkhart stated that the dark line represents a 6 inch curb surround the green area there. That is exactly ODOTS construction plans. ODOT is going to build the curb.
Mr. McDonnell stated that this was created by Hammontree and Associates.
Mr. Winkhart stated yes.
Mr. Giulitto asked if it is Campbell Oil or ODOT requirement for the access drives off of Fulton.
Mr. Winkhart stated that it is ODOTS requirement.
No one spoke in favor of the appeal.
No one spoke in opposition of the appeal.
Mr. Deremer closed Appeal 2083 to public input.
Mr. Giulitto stated that based on Mr. Winkhart’s testimony, there is 15-20ft. of landscape space at other businesses throughout the Township and that is what Mr. Winkhart is asking tonight. Based on his testimony is more green space for this property then what they currently have.
Mr. Juergensen stated that he concurs with Mr. Giulitto and would like to add that this whole variance request is brought about by the widening of the intersection which is not the fault of the applicant.
Mr. Juergensen made the motion to approve Appeal No. 2083 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 2079 - Mann Architects, 3660 Embassy Parkway, Akron, OH 44333, agent for LDV Properties. LLC 3656 Dressler NW, Canton, OH 44718, property owner, requesting a variance for 84 parking spaces where 178 parking spaces are required per Art. IV, Sect. 601.2 of the zoning resolution. Property located at: 3656 Dressler Rd. NW, Sect. 25SE, Jackson Twp, zoned B-3
Mr. Deremer read a letter into the record from Jared Dickey asking for removal of the parking variance due to his client’s purchase of an adjacent property.
Mr. Deremer made a motion to approve Mr.
Dickey’s request for cancellation.
Mr. Juergensen seconded the motion.
All were in favor.
Mr. Juergensen made a motion to adjourn the meeting.
Mr. McDonnell seconded the motion.
All were in favor.
Respectfully Submitted,
Andrea Paumier
Zoning Data Coordinator