Members present:                                             Ted Deremer-Absent for appeal #1927 & 1929-Recused from appeal 1937
                                                                             Edward McDonnell-Recused 1929
                                                                             Richard Dodson
                                                                            Jim Giulitto
                                                                            John Juergensen

Zoning Inspector:                                              Mike Saracina
Zoning Data Coordinator:                               Joni Poindexter

APPEAL #1927 – John Albini, property owner, 6134 Grail Circle NW, Canton, Ohio 44708 requests a variance for a 5 ft. west (right) side yard setback for principal building where 10 ft. is required in Art. IV Sect. 401.6 of the zoning resolution.  Property located at 6134 Grail Circle NW, Sect. 34NE Jackson Twp.  Area zoned R-1.

Mr. McDonnell read the file application signed by John Albini with reasons being as stated by the applicant, “Because we have 3 cars, 1 motorcycle, & 3 ATV’s.  These would all fit inside with the new addition of garage.”  The file contained a tax map of the property in question, a site plan showing the location of the proposed addition, and two hand drawn sketches showing the front view of the garage and the west view of the garage.

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

Mr. McDonnell swore in John Albini, 6134 Grail Circle NW.

Mr. Albini stated that he would like to add 10 ft. to the west side of the existing garage in order to add a third car garage.  Right now the garage is 15 ft. from the property line and by adding 10 ft. it will encroach 5 ft. into the setback.

Mr. McDonnell asked if there is any particular aspect or characteristic of the property that requires they go within 5 ft. of the neighbor’s property line as opposed to putting it somewhere else.

Mr. Albini stated the he could possibly build it somewhere else but there would be no access to it from anywhere else on the property.

Mr. McDonnell asked how close the garage is to the house.

Mr. Albini stated that the garage is connected with an enclosed breezeway that is about 9 ft. wide.

Mr. McDonnell asked if it is Mr. Albini’s testimony that the area between the current garage and the house is actually an enclosed structure.

Mr. Albini stated yes.

Mr. McDonnell asked if it is Mr. Albini’s testimony that the reason for the variance is because although it could be constructed somewhere else on the property there is no accessibility to it, but there is no peculiar area of the land or the property itself that would necessitate building it where it’s requested as opposed to somewhere else.

Mr. Albini stated yes.

No one else in the audience spoke in favor of the appeal.
Mr. McDonnell asked if anyone in the audience wanted to speak in opposition to the appeal.

Mr. McDonnell swore in Pam Langenderfer, 6117 Grail Circle NW.

Ms. Langenderfer stated that she is concerned that a three car garage would crowd the neighborhood.  If it is for storage she doesn’t know why they need access to it.  Ms. Langenderfer stated that she had heard that the garage will have a high bay door for Mr. Ablini’s truck.

Mr. McDonnell stated that normally the board’s consideration is the variance itself and generally if the applicant is granted the variance, while the board could make a condition regarding that, the variance runs with the property so even if the applicant did not build a high bay garage the next person that may purchase the property could build what they wanted because the variance stays with the land.

Ms. Langenderfer asked if there are many properties that go that close to the property line.

Mr. McDonnell stated there are properties in the township that are within 5 ft. of the property line but there are also special circumstances and practical difficulties to be demonstrated.

Mr. McDonnell swore in Rebecca Huff, 6135 Grail Circle NW.

Ms. Huff stated that she is concerned with the way the garage will look if it is a high bay garage and it is her understanding that the Albini’s are planning on putting another addition on the other side of their home so it may not look right for the neighborhood.  Ms. Huff stated that there are a lot of jacked up trucks that come to the property and this is not a positive thing for the neighborhood.  There are four homes on the cul-de-sac and seven children in the neighborhood and it is a concern with trucks coming and going.  Ms. Huff stated that she thinks the addition would be a distraction from the neighborhood and a huge garage would take away from the looks of the neighborhood and possibly affect their property values.

Ms. Huff asked if there were any restriction on businesses in a residential neighborhood.

Mr. McDonnell stated that there are restrictions on businesses in a residential neighborhood that requires a home occupation permit.  Correct him if he is wrong, but there are a number of conditions that must be met to qualify for a home occupation permit which requires approval of the board.

Ms. Poindexter stated that a home occupation permit no longer requires the permission of the board, but there are certain conditions that must be met.

Ms. Huff stated that she is not home during the day but wondered if there were large trucks being worked on as a business.

Mr. McDonnell stated that if Ms. Huff has a concern about a business being ran on the property then she should call the zoning office.

Mr. McDonnell swore in Gary Langenderfer, 6117 Grail Circle NW.

Mr. Langenderfer stated he is concerned that there may be a high bay garage.  The reason he moved into the neighborhood is because of the restrictions and if they are relaxed then it could affect his property values.  Mr. Langenderfer stated that he understands the need for additional storage but if the reason is for storage then it appears to him that there could be an alternative construction plan with access in the back and the garage could be double depth as opposed to being wider.

No one else in the audience spoke in opposition to the appeal.

Mr. Albini stated that the reason he needs a three car garage is for three cars.  The existing garage is 28 ft. deep and by adding 10 ft. the ATV’s can be stored in the back and the cars will be located in the front.  Mr. Albini stated that he has two cars that sit outside at this time because the motorcycle and ATV’s are in the garage.  Once the 10 ft. is added the ATV’s can be put in the back and the cars will be pulled in the garage in front of them.  Regarding the high bay door, right now he has a 7 ft. by 16 ft. door and the other garage door to be added would be 8 ft. tall by 10 ft. wide so he can get his pickup truck in the garage, which is jacked up.

Mr. Giulitto asked if the difference in height of the two doors is one foot.

Mr. Albini stated yes.

Mr. Giulitto asked if two of Mr. Albini’s cars sit outside of the garage.

Mr. Albini stated yes, because he has his ATV’s and lawn mowers in the garage.

Mr. McDonnell closed this appeal to public input.

Mr. Dodson stated that he doesn’t think the issue of the property values come into the equation.  They are required by law to find a practical difficulty of some sort and although he can understand the need for more storage space he doesn’t think that by itself constitutes a practical difficulty within the meaning of the statue.

Mr. Juergensen seconded Mr. Dodson’s comments and stated that he does not see a practical difficulty with the land.

Mr. McDonnell agreed with the other board members and stated the question before them is has a practical difficulty been met that goes with the land.  Mr. McDonnell stated that he does not think a practical difficulty has been met regarding the land.  The practical difficulty is that the applicant has ATV’s and motorcycles, which is caused by the owner of the property and not the land.  Mr. McDonnell stated that he agrees that the practical difficulty has not been met and has difficulty with the variance.

Mr. Dodson made a motion to deny appeal #1927.

Mr. Giulitto seconded the motion.

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

Mr. McDonnell recused himself from appeal #1929.

The board unanimously voted for Mr. Dodson to act as interim Chairman for appeal #1929 in the absence of the Chairman, Mr. Deremer, and Vice Chairman, Mr. McDonnell, recusing himself.

APPEAL #1929 – Corina Houston/Archer Signs, 1917 Henry Ave., Canton, Ohio 44706 agent for Paul Tackett, property owner, 490 Vandillia Drive, Tallmadge, Ohio 44278 requests a wall sign on the north (left) side of the building where a wall sign is permitted on the west side of the building per Art. V Sect. 502.4 of the zoning resolution.  Property located at 4922 Everhard Rd. NW, Sect. 24SW Jackson Twp.  Area zoned B-3.

Mr. Dodson read the file application signed by Corina Houston with reasons being as stated by the applicant, “The Aamco Corporation has a building design that they want to remain uniform for all their stores.  In addition, the local owner of this location believes that he must utilize the north side of this building to maximize the customer visibility and make the building more aesthetically appealing.”  The file contained a tax map of the property in question, a site plan showing the location of the building on the lot, a rendering showing where the sign would be located on the building, and the sign specifications dated 6/28/04 by Archer Sign.

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

Mr. Dodson swore in Paul Tackett, 490 Vandillia Drive, Tallmadge, Ohio 44278.

Mr. Tackett stated because of the shape and size of the property they had to orient the building so it is deeper than it is wide.  The standard sign package that Aamco adheres to exceeds the amount of square footage that the local zoning code would require which limits the amount of square footage to 2 sq. ft. per every one foot of frontage.  Mr. Tackett stated that it is his understanding that the frontage is defined as the either the linear distance of the building facing the road or the side of the building that maintains the main entrance of the building.  After the building was oriented the non standard way he had a conversation with John Phillippi and either there was a miscommunication or maybe he didn’t understand what Mr. Phillippi was saying.  As part of the process of reorienting the building the main door was moved to the front, which is the short side of the building.  He didn’t think there would be an issue with the signage as a result of moving the door, but he is now being told that he is limited to the 40 ft. frontage of the building facing the road instead of 105 ft. which would be the normal place where the door would be located.  Mr. Tackett stated that he may have made a mistake by moving the door to the front of the building because if the doors were on the other side of the building he would have had a lot more square footage to work with and would have been well within the regulations.

Mr. Dodson asked Mr. Tackett if it is his testimony that the orientation of the building is necessitated by the narrowness of the lot.

Mr. Tackett stated yes.

Mr. Dodson asked if the application were granted and they allowed the sign to be on the north side of the building would Mr. Tackett be willing to forgo putting the allowed sign on the west side of the building.

Mr. Tackett explained that the side of the building which should have been the front of the building would have a sign with a total square footage of 132 sq. ft.   Based on 105 ft., which is what the north side of the building is, they would have been permitted 210 sq. ft.  Because the building was rotated and the door was put in the front they are now looking at the regulations that say it should be based on the front and not the side.

Mr. Juergensen asked if the problem is the square footage or the location of the sign because the way the appeal is written it looks like the problem is location and they can’t put the sign on the north side of the building.

Mr. Tackett stated that he could actually put the sign anywhere.  Because the front of the building is only 40 ft. wide the regulations limit him to 80 sq. ft. and the total amount of signage including the front and the side would be 132 sq. ft.  There is a combination of issues but basically it boils down to square footage.  If he would have known this was an issue then he would have kept the door on the side to allow 210 sq. ft. of signage.

Mr. Juergensen asked if the north side is normally considered the front of the building but it had to be turned due to the layout of the lot.

Mr. Tackett stated yes.  They could have kept the north side as the main entrance but after talking to John he didn’t think a plain building would look good and he didn’t think there was an issue so basically there was a communication error made to move the door.  The door could be moved to get around the variance but that would cost more money and he doesn’t think it would look good to have a block front building without any doors.

Mr. Giulitto asked if it is Mr. Tackett’s testimony that there is no signage on the building at this time.

Mr. Tackett stated yes.  They are waiting for electrical permits for signage.  Mr. Tackett stated that the building is 24 ft. in height so he believes what they are requesting is not over kill.

Mr. Juergensen asked what the length of the front of the building is.

Mr. Tackett stated that it is 40 ft.

Mr. Juergensen stated that they are limited to 80 sq. ft. of signage and asked how much signage is being requested.

Mr. Tackett stated that they want 132 sq. ft. but if the door were on the side they could have 210 sq. ft. so they are well below that requirement.

Mr. Dodson asked Mr. Saracina if they are permitted one wall sign and one pole sign.

Mr. Saracina stated yes.

Mr. Tackett stated that the regulations don’t say anything about the number of signs.  There is a limit of one pole but it does not limit the number of signs you can have on the pole or on the building.  It’s only the amount of square footage that you have on the building based on the definition of frontage which is either the linear feet facing the road or the linear feet of the side of the building where the main entrance is.  Mr. Tackett stated that it should be based on the north side of the building because had they not made the mistake of moving the door they would be within the requirement and also if they didn’t have to reorient the building because of the lot it would not have been a problem.

Mr. Dodson stated that it is his understanding that the size of the sign that is permitted is based on the amount of the frontage.

Mr. Tackett stated that he could show the board in the book where it talks about where the main entrance is and the option to have a sign where there is a front entrance.

Ms. Poindexter stated that section 502.4 states the sign requirements.

Mr. Tackett stated that the regulations states, “For lots fronting on two or more streets, or where the building has its main entrance other than the wall that faces the street, the building frontage shall be calculated separately for each building wall facing a street or having a main entrance.”  So if the door were on the side the frontage would be calculated separately because one would be the main entrance and the other would face the street.  Mr. Tackett stated that according to the regulations if he had his main entrance on the side he could have a sign there and then a separate sign of 80 sq. ft. on the front of the building.

Mr. Dodson stated that they are not talking about the size of the sign; they are talking about multiple signs on multiple walls.

Mr. Juergensen asked if the board could even hear the appeal for the amount of the signage per the way the regulations read.

Mr. Dodson stated that he didn’t believe so.

Mr. Juergensen stated that Mr. Tackett is actually asking for a variance for the square footage and that’s not what the appeal says.

Mr. Tackett asked if the board is saying that only one sign is allowed on the building.
Mr. Dodson stated not if it is a corner lot.

Mr. Tackett stated that when he spoke to John he made it clear that an even an awning was considered signage so they are including that in their calculations as well but surely the board isn’t going to tell him that he can’t put a sign on his building and he can’t have an awning.  Mr. Tackett stated that he does not see anywhere in the regulations where it says you’re limited to one sign.  The only limitation it gives is the amount of square footage that you put up.

Mr. Juergensen stated that he thinks that is right.  The permitted square footage of wall signs shall be determined by multiplying ……  First of all we can’t grant a variance tonight on the square footage.

Ms. Poindexter stated that when the appeal was filed what was submitted was the drawing for a sign on the north side of the building.  This is the only thing the variance request is for and nothing was mentioned regarding the square footage of the sign.  More than one sign is permitted on the side of the building in which a sign is permitted as long as you don’t go over the total square footage of the wall.  If a variance is granted for the sign on the north side they can also have a sign on the west side, which is permitted.

Mr. Tackett stated that the regulations limit him to 80 sq. ft. but he doesn’t see anywhere in the regulations where it says the sign has to go on the front of the building.  Mr. Tackett stated that he doesn’t really think there is a need for a variance to put a sign on the side of the building.

Mr. Juergensen stated that if Mr. Tackett is asking the board to decide whether he can put a sign 80 sq. ft. on the north side of the building then they can answer that question, but if Mr. Tackett wants more than 80 sq. ft. he is going to have to withdraw the application or modify it.

Mr. Tackett asked if it is fair to say that he can’t put up a sign even if it is within the 80 sq. ft.

Mr. Juergensen stated that is the question that the board can decide tonight, but it would only be limited to 80 sq. ft. and if Mr. Tackett wants to go over the 80 sq. ft. then he will have to come back and ask for another variance.

Mr. Tackett stated that if he is limited to 80 sq. ft. then he wouldn’t put any signage on the north wall and would put it on the front of the building.

Ms. Poindexter stated that he is permitted to put 80 sq. ft. on the front of the building.  The variance is for signage on the north side of the building.

Mr. Tackett stated so basically at this point he could put 80 sq. ft. on the front of the building and if he wants more than 80 sq. ft. regardless of where it goes then he needs to resubmit.

Mr. Giulitto stated yes.

Mr. Dodson swore in Dwight Archer, 1917 Henry Ave. SW, Canton.

Mr. Archer showed the board photos of the signage and asked what the question was regarding the awning.

Mr. Tackett stated that initially there was a comment that there could only be one sign but they were debating whether they could have more than one sign and he thinks multiple signs are permitted as long as you don’t go over the square footage.

Mr. Archer stated that the awning isn’t even a sign; it is a decoration.  It is not a sign unless it has wording on it.

Mr. Tackett stated that he wants to put wording on it.

Mr. Giulitto asked if Mr. Tackett is going to put something on the awning.

Mr. Tackett stated that the standard would be the phone number.  They have included the square footage of the awning in the 132 square feet.

Mr. Juergensen stated that he is saying that the only thing the board can do it answer the question as to if a sign can be put on the long side of the building, but there are two separate issues.

Mr. Dodson stated that they could go forward with the request but Mr. Tackett may want to re-file and advertise the square footage.

Mr. Juergensen stated that they could answer the question about the sign on the north side of the building but Mr. Tackett would be limited to 80 sq. ft.

Mr. Giulitto stated that he thinks it would be best to re-file and to get exactly what Mr. Tackett wants with all the numbers.

Mr. Tackett stated that he would like to continue the hearing because he doesn’t want to put only 80 sq. ft. of signage on the north side of the building.

Mr. Dodson asked Mr. Tackett if he is asking for a continuance.

Mr. Tackett stated yes.

Ms. Poindexter stated that the hearing could be continued until September 9, 2004 at 7:30 pm.

Mr. Juergensen made a motion to continue appeal #1929 until September 9, 2004 at 7:30 pm.

Mr. Giulitto seconded the motion.

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

Mr. Deremer arrived and participated in the meeting.

APPEAL #1930 – Crasi, Inc., 1212 Portage Trail, Suite 4, Cuyahoga Falls, Ohio 44223 agent for Robert McLain, 5519 Island Dr. NW, Canton, Ohio 44718 requests a variance for a 25 ft. front yard setback where a 40 ft. front yard setback is required in Art. IV Sect. 401.6 of the zoning resolution.  Property located at 5519 Island Dr NW, Sect. 14SW Jackson Twp.  Area zoned R-1.

Mr. McDonnell read the file application signed by Tony Crasi.  The file contained a tax map of the property in question and a site plan showing the proposed location of the addition.

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

Mr. McDonnell swore in Tony Crasi, 1212 Portage Trail, Cuyahoga Falls, Ohio.

Mr. Crasi stated that he is the builder and architect for the project.  They are planning on demolishing the existing home and building a brand new structure.  There is a 75 ft. restriction per their deed that does not allow them to get any closer then 75 ft. to the water.  The other homes to the north and south are 75 ft. from the water as well as the existing home, so it will not disturb and views of the neighbors.  Mr. Crasi stated that they are trying to eliminate a front loaded garage because it does not look as good as a side loaded garage.  There is a slight elevation change that enters the property so what they are trying to do is enter from the side which would allow any cars that are parked outside to be hidden.  They are requesting a 15 ft. variance to allow the structure to be at a 25 ft. setback.

Mr. Crasi explained the site plan and how the home would be laid out on the property.

Mr. McDonnell asked what the distance is from the current garage to the right of way.

Mr. Crasi stated that it is approximately 40 ft.

Mr. McDonnell asked Mr. Crasi if he knew how close the adjacent properties are to the right of way.

Mr. Crasi stated that he does not exactly know but one house is approximately even with the proposed home and another house sits a little bit forward from the proposed home.

Mr. McDonnell asked if Mr. Crasi is saying that the garage as proposed will be closer to the road than the others.

Mr. Crasi stated that it will actually be 27 ft. from the road.  The new home will be worth about $600,000 and the existing home is in very bad shape.

Mr. McDonnell asked if the lot is actually two lots.

Mr. Crasi stated yes.

Mr. Deremer asked if any part of the existing structure will remain.

Mr. Crasi stated no.

Mr. McDonnell marked the Nicholsfield Services Incorporated site plan as applicants exhibit AE#1.

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. McDonnell closed this appeal to public input.

Mr. Dodson stated that this is a typical building problem in the Lake Cable area where there are very narrow long lots where the homes have to be setback along way from the water per the deed restrictions.  He presumes the construction plans have been approved by Lake Cable and thinks it makes sense to have a garage loaded from the side rather than from the front so he does not have a problem with this appeal.

Mr. McDonnell agreed with Mr. Dodson and stated that Lake Cable is a different area with long narrow lots.  He does not think the request is out of line with the Lake Cable area and it is not uncommon to have homes closer to the road than what is required.  Mr. McDonnell stated that with the lake he believes a practical difficulty has been demonstrated.

Mr. Dodson made a motion to approve appeal #1930 as requested.

Mr. Juergensen seconded the motion.

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

Mr. McDonnell asked Mr. Crasi to get a copy of exhibit AE#1 to the zoning office for the file.

APPEAL #1931 – Norman Saeger, 4956 Eshelman Ave. NE, Louisville, Ohio 44641 agent for Kristen Booth, property owner, 4462 Erie Ave. NW, Massillon, Ohio 44646 requests a variance for a 15 ft. front parking setback where 20 ft. is required in Art. IV Sect. 411.8 of the zoning resolution.  Property located on the northwest corner of High Mill and Erie Ave. also known as 4462 & 4464 Erie NW, Sect. 30NW Jackson Twp.  Area zoned C-P.

Mr. Deremer read the file application signed by Norman Saeger with reasons being as stated by the applicant, “Allows five more parking spaces.”  The file contained a tax map of the property in question and a site plan dated 6/17/04 by Norman Saeger showing the property and the proposed additions to the parking lot.  Mr. Deremer stated that there is a memo with a site plan attached in the file to the Jackson Township Fire Department from Joni Poindexter asking for any comments that the fire department may have regarding the site plan for the property in question.  There is a note written on the memo that stated as of August 12, 2004 no comments were received.

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

Mr. Deremer swore in Mark Moll, 3488 Erie Ave. NW.

Mr. Moll stated that they are hoping to ask for more than what is requested and would actually like to have the whole 20 ft. for parking.

Mr. Deremer stated that the board could not consider 20 ft. because it wasn’t advertised so Mr. Moll could withdraw his appeal and re-file the proposal.  Mr. Deremer asked Mr. Moll if this is what he would like to do.

Mr. Moll stated yes.

Mr. Deremer stated that there is a motion to withdraw the appeal per the applicant.

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 recused himself from appeal #1937 so Mr. McDonnell served as Chairman.

APPEAL #1937 – Doug Winkler, Treasurer, agent for Jackson Local School District, property owner, 7984 Fulton Rd. NW Massillon, Ohio 44646 requests revision to a previously approved conditional use permit (Appeal #1699, approved 2/8/01) for parking expansion consisting of 75 parking spaces for Strausser School.  Property located at 8646 Strausser St. NW, Sect. 8NW Jackson Twp.  Area zoned R-R.

Mr. McDonnell read the file application signed by Doug Winkler with reasons being as stated by the applicant, “Safe access to this facility during heavy usage periods such as musical programs, open house, etc. to alleviate main entrance blockage from overflow parking.”  The file contained a tax map of the property in question, a letter to the Jackson Township Trustees asking for a waiver of the variance fee, a site plan of the property dated 7/28/04, and a rendering showing the proposed new parking area.  Mr. McDonnell stated that there is a copy of the answers to the criteria from appeal #1699, which was the original appeal for the conditional use permit.

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

Mr. McDonnell swore in Scott Shively, 3722 Whipple Ave. NW.

Mr. Shively stated that the application states that they are asking to add 75 parking spaces but if you count the number of parking spaces on the site plan the actual number is 72.  The facility has been used by the public, which creates the need for additional parking at the facility.  They have had comments from the Jackson Township Fire Department, Tracy Hogue, indicating that there have been several public events where most of the fire lane and emergency vehicle access has been blocked due to the over flow of parking issues.  This is the major reason for the additional requested parking.

Mr. Shively explained the site plan and stated that the parking meets all requirements and will be several hundred feet from all property lines.

Mr. Dodson asked how many parking spots the school currently has.

Mr. Shively stated that he did not know for sure but believes there are 20 in the front and 70 to 80 in the back for staff and then there is a bus drop off that allows for additional parking after hours which would hold about 60 cars.

Mr. McDonnell asked Mr. Saracina if he reviewed the plan regarding setbacks and if it meets the requirements.

Mr. Saracina stated that the plan meets all the requirements.

Mr. McDonnell asked if the activities Mr. Shively referred to are school related.

Mr. Shively stated yes.  The activities are band concerts, board meeting, etc.

Mr. McDonnell asked if there is anything other than what has been testified to that is different than the original conditional use permit.

Mr. Shively stated absolutely not.

Mr. McDonnell asked if the extra parking would be to accommodate attendance for activities directly related to the school.

Mr. Shively stated that is correct.

Mr. Giulitto asked if the Fire Chief has seen the drawing and has given his blessing.

Mr. Shively stated that the Fire Chief doesn’t have a concern with the area because it does not affect any of the emergency vehicle access.  What it will do is help alleviate the overflow area to get people out of the emergency vehicle areas.

Mr. McDonnell stated that in his determination there is nothing in this requests that in anyway affects any of the conditions that had to have been met in the first place with the original conditional use permit so he doesn’t think there is any reason to go through the general or specific criteria that is required for the conditional use permit with Mr. Shively attesting that all the conditions that were originally required are continuing to be met and will continue to be met.  Mr. McDonnell asked Mr. Shively if he can so testify.

Mr. Shively stated that he could.

Mr. McDonnell stated that unless the board wants to go through all the requirement he believes it would be fine to accept Mr. Shively’s testimony that all conditions will continue to be met.

Mr. Dodson stated that the only questions he had is in Section 431.2 where is states it will meet the requirements of the EPA for storm water runoff.  Mr. Dodson stated that he presumes when an area this big is paved there will be runoff.

Mr. Shively stated that the current site has a retention pond on the site and the water will directly drain into this.  They will also be adding additional catch basins that will drain into the retention basin to handle any additional runoff.
Mr. Dodson asked if it is Mr. Shively’s testimony that this will meet the EPA requirements for storm water runoff.

Mr. Shively stated yes.

No one else in the audience spoke in favor of or in opposition to the appeal.  Mr. McDonnell closed this appeal to public input.

Mr. Giulitto stated that he thinks it is a good plan and does not have a problem with the request.

Mr. McDonnell agreed with Mr. Giulitto and stated if the additional parking would have been on the original plan he would not have had a problem with it.

Mr. McDonnell made a motion to include appeal #1699, which was the original conditional use permit, into this appeal.

Mr. Dodson seconded the motion.

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

Mr. Giulitto made a motion to approve appeal #1937 as requested.

Mr. Juergensen seconded the motion.

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

Mr. Deremer rejoined the meeting.

Mr. Deremer asked if the board had any comments on the minutes from the meeting held July 22, 2004.

Mr. McDonnell made a motion to approve the minutes from the meeting held July 22, 2004.

Mr. Juergensen seconded the motion.

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

Mr. Giulitto made a motion to adjourn the meeting.

Mr. Juergensen 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 Data Coordinator
Clerk/Secretary