Members present:                                                            Ted Deremer
                                                                                            Edward McDonnell
                                                                                            Richard Dodson
                                                                                            Jim Giulitto
                                                                                           John Juergensen

Zoning Inspector:                                                             Mike Saracina
Zoning Data Coordinator:                                              Joni Poindexter

APPEAL #1932 – Jeffery & Susan Scott, property owner, 7951 Parkford NW, Massillon, Ohio 44646 requests a variance for a 15 ft. east side yard setback where a 25 ft. side yard setback is required in Art. IV Sect. 401.6 of the zoning resolution.  Property located at 7951 Parkford NW, Sect. 28SW Jackson Twp.  Area zoned R-1A.  Mr. Deremer read the file application signed by Jeffery Scott with reasons being as stated by the applicant, “Setback is 25 ft. due to the side yard street frontage.  Expansion is limited due to current structures positioned on angular lot.  Repositioning new construction will distort roof line & cause drainage issues.  Also, a large tree in the back would be too close to structure and there is no other practical place for this construction.”  The file contained a tax map of the property in question, a site plan dated 6/8/89 by Hoover & Associates and three pages consisting of three photos each showing the existing property.  Mr. Deremer stated that the file also contained a sign up sheet with signatures of neighbors regarding the variance that would remain in the file but was not read into the record because it is not swore testimony.  Mr. Deremer asked who would like to speak in favor of this appeal.  Mr. Deremer swore in Jeffery Scott, 7951 Parkford NW.  Mr. Scott stated that he is trying to add a three car garage with a master suite above it.  They are also taking the back room and adding another eight feet onto it so it will flow with the stairs to the garage and upstairs.  Mr. Deremer asked if the garage could fit on the property without a variance in another manner.  Mr. Scott stated that they have looked at all possible options and this is the most feasible due to the angular nature of the lot and the way the house is built.  Mr. Scott stated that setting the garage further back would not work due to the rooflines.  Mr. Deremer asked where the current garage entrance is located.  Mr. Scott stated that it is located on Parkford St. and is a one car garage.  Mr. Deremer asked if the driveway would be switched to Northwood.  Mr. Scott stated yes, but they would also keep the other driveway.  Mr. McDonnell asked if it is possible, although it may not be practical, to fit the garage anywhere else on the property without a variance.

Mr. Scott stated in his opinion the answer is no; not without removing trees.  Mr. McDonnell asked if a variance would be required if the garage were moved 10 ft. to the west away from Northwood.  Mr. Scott stated that he doesn’t think so, but he is not sure how to answer the question.  Mr. McDonnell asked if the garage would be 15 ft. away from the rear lot line if moved 10 ft. to the west.  Mr. Scott stated that he believes it would.

Mr. McDonnell asked what the portion of the house is that sticks out to the rear.  Mr. Scott stated that it is a family room and there is a deck that would be removed.  Mr. McDonnell asked why everything couldn’t be moved back 10 ft. to meet the 25 ft. setback.  Mr. Scott stated because it would change the aesthetic value of the house and the roofline.  The photos that are in the file show where the trees are located and why the garage needs to be located where it is proposed.  Mr. Giulitto asked if the pitch of the roofline would remain the same.  Mr. Scott stated yes.  Mr. Deremer asked if any thought was given to putting the addition on the west side of the house.  Mr. Scott stated no, because there are bedrooms there and they would have to walk through the bedroom to get to the garage.

Mr. Deremer swore in Rich Hamilton, 1886 Downing St., East Sparta, Ohio.

Mr. Hamilton stated that anytime you add square footage to a house you want it to look like it was there when the home was originally built, so it is very important to keep rooflines in consideration so that the style of the house, after it is complete, looks as a complete unit.  Mr. Hamilton stated that this is a before and after type project.  It is going to completely change the whole design and look of the house and when finished it will look like an upscale home and improve the looks of the neighborhood.

Mr. Deremer asked if the roofline would be modified.

Mr. Hamilton stated that the home has a “T” configuration and they would like to maintain this by extending the new addition out.  Because the new addition is going to be a second story, they still want the centerline of that “T” to run through the home like it does now.  Mr. Hamilton stated the new addition will be two stories where the existing home is now one story.

Mr. McDonnell asked if there is a support wall in the back that lends itself to the position of the garage being where it is as opposed to the setback of ten more feet.

Mr. Hamilton stated that the house is higher than it is on the south side, so if they set it back it will cause more of a look of higher elevation.

Mr. McDonnell asked if Mr. Hamilton said that the south side is higher.

Mr. Hamilton stated that the way the north side of the home sits, the elevation is higher than the south side.

Mr. McDonnell asked if the ground falls away heading north.
Mr. Hamilton stated yes.  They are trying to take advantage of that fall by putting the first floor at a lower level and then building the second story on top of it.

Mr. McDonnell asked if the land falls away on the west side.

Mr. Hamilton stated that it goes uphill.

Mr. Deremer swore in Susan Hamilton, 7951 Parkford NW.

Ms. Hamilton stated that they have lived in the home for fourteen years.  They have looked at other options and this is the way to go.

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

Mr. Juergensen stated that he believes a practical difficulty has been demonstrated by the way the lot is shaped and the variance is not out of line.

Mr. Dodson agreed with Mr. Juergensen.

Mr. Giulitto stated that he agrees with the other board members and thinks this is the best location with the drainage and the topography of the land.

Mr. McDonnell stated that the addition could be moved 10 ft. over without a variance, so the applicant did meet what they call the sardine law, which is it is possible to the put the addition somewhere else without a variance although it is not practical.

Mr. Dodson made a motion to approve appeal #1932 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.

APPEAL #1933 – Charles Kirkpatrick, 7621 Wales Ave. NW, North Canton, Ohio 44720 agent for McDonaldsville St. Paul Church, property owner, 7641 Wales Ave. NW, North Canton, Ohio 44720 requests a variance for a freestanding sign to be 35 ft. from the center of the road where 45 ft. is required in Art. V Sect. 501.5G of the zoning resolution.  Property located at 7641 Wales Ave. NW, Sect. 9NE Jackson Twp.  Area zoned B-3.

Mr. Deremer read the file application signed by Charles Kirkpatrick with reasons being the sign will be 4 ft. into the parking lot if located 45 ft. from the center of the road.  Wales is considered an 80 ft. right of way for zoning purposes; however, the actual road right of way is 60 ft.  The file contained a tax map of the property in question, an aerial view of the property showing the sign location, and a drawing by Sign-A-Rama, dated 6/2/04, showing what the proposed sign would look like.

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

Mr. Deremer swore in Charles Kirkpatrick, Pastor of the church, 7621 Wales Rd. NW.

Mr. Kirkpatrick stated that the current sign is 32 to 35 years old.  It is small compared to the roadway and the way of the speed limit and is in dire need of replacement.  Part of the replacement is because the letters are so old.  The letters, which are made of molded plastic with a little hanger on the back, are no longer made.  They have been looking to improve the aesthetics around the church and the building itself, which includes the sign.  They are looking to purchase a new sign that will have better visibility and enable the public to see the activities that are going on at the church.  Mr. Kirkpatrick stated that the cemetery is located north of the church and follows Wales Ave.

Mr. Deremer asked how far the current sign is from the road right of way.

Mr. Kirkpatrick stated that it is 32 ft.  If looking at the upper right quadrant on the aerial view of the map it shows a car in front of the church.  Just below that where there is a dark line is the location of the current sign.

Mr. Deremer asked if the location of the new sign would be to the south.

Mr. Kirkpatrick stated yes.  There is a little hillside from the cemetery to the north and the sign comes up rather quickly.  Aesthetically, they think the sign will be serve the church best being a little further south.

Mr. Kirkpatrick stated that they are hopeful that within the next five years they will be able to expand the church.  When this is done it will be expanded toward the south, which would put the sign more toward the center of the building.

Mr. Deremer asked if there is more than one sign.

Mr. Kirkpatrick stated that the church only has one sign.

Mr. McDonnell stated that it is his understanding that the current sign is in the grass strip between the road and the parking lot.

Mr. Kirkpatrick stated yes.

Mr. McDonnell stated that the testimony is the current sign is 32 ft. from the right of way and the new sign will be 35 ft. from the right of way.  Mr. McDonnell asked Mr. Saracina if a worn out sign that is non-conforming could be replaced and put in the exact same place as the current sign.

Mr. Saracina stated that this is existing non-conforming and you cannot tear it down and rebuild it without conforming to the existing zoning laws.

Mr. Juergensen asked if the sign burned to the ground, could it be replaced at 32 ft.

Mr. Saracina stated that they would have to follow the existing zoning laws.

Mr. Deremer stated if it is a non-conforming use, it could be continued.

Mr. Saracina stated yes, but if the sign burned to the ground they would have to follow whatever the current zoning laws are.

Mr. Juergensen asked if it was indicated that there is a hill or slope in the road.

Mr. Kirkpatrick stated to the north of the church the property goes up about 6 ft. to the cemetery with steps.  The sign is difficult to see because of the letter size and the angle that it is at from the curve.

Mr. Juergensen asked if the sign were moved, would it be easier to see when coming over the hill.

Mr. Kirkpatrick stated yes.

Mr. Deremer asked what the size of the sign is.

Mr. Kirkpatrick stated that the current old sign is approximately 5-1/2 x 7 ft. and the new sign will be 8 x 11 ft.

Mr. Saracina stated that he would like to make a correction to something that he said earlier.  Per the resolution, if the sign burned to the ground it could be rebuilt in the same place.

Mr. Kirkpatrick stated that Roger Miller, who helped with the sign, is in the audience to answer any questions.

Mr. McDonnell asked Mr. Kirkpatrick if he is aware of any variance that may have been granted in the past for the sign or if he knew how long the sign has been on the property.

Mr. Kirkpatrick stated that the sign has been at the previous location for 30 to 35 years.

Mr. Deremer swore in Roger Miller of Sign-A-Rama.

Mr. Miller stated that he is available if the board has any questions regarding the sign.  The sign will be more aesthetically pleasing than the current sign because the current sign is old, has small letters, and is hard to read.  One of the reasons they want to locate the sign at the proposed location is because there is existing electric in the area.

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. Deremer stated that this is a portion of township where the right of way has been artificially widened.  The right of way is actually 60 ft. but zoning considers it as 80 ft. because it is expected to be expanded someday, so it is an artificial barrier that may cause some concern.

Mr. McDonnell stated that he doesn’t really have a problem with this request.  What he sees occurring is an old sign from 1968 that is nonconforming.  This is basically replacing a worn out nonconforming sign and they are decreasing the nonconformity by 3 ft.

Mr. Juergensen agreed with Mr. McDonnell and stated that the slope of the hill seems like a practical difficulty and by moving it 3 ft. back it will not harm the spirit and intent of the zoning resolution in any way.

Mr. McDonnell made a motion to approve appeal #1933 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.

APPEAL #1935 – Jeffery & Julie Richmond, property owner, 4660 Smithview NW, Massillon, Ohio 44646 requests a variance for a 20 ft. north side yard setback for accessory building where 25 ft. is required per Art. IV Sect. 401.11 of the zoning resolution.  Property located at 4660 Smithview NW, Sect. 30 NE Jackson Twp.  Area zoned R-R.

Mr. Deremer read the file application signed by Jeffery Richmond with reasons being as stated by the applicant, “Cannot achieve the 25 ft. setback from the right of way because of the location of the septic system.  The granting of the variance would allow me to be 6 ft. from the septic system.”  The file contained a tax map of the property in question and a site plan showing the proposed location of the addition.

Mr. Deremer swore in Jeffery Richmond, 4660 Smithview NW.

Mr. Richmond stated currently the house has a single car garage that is under living space.  The reason for the size of the garage is because there are four cars in the family.  The property does not have sewer and the location of the septic limits where the garage can be located.  Mr. Richmond stated that he could possibly put the garage on the other side of the septic system but then he would have to put a driveway over it, and he is not comfortable with this and does not think it is a good idea.

Mr. Giulitto asked how close the garage is permitted to be to the septic system.

Mr. Richmond stated that he has to be at least 5 ft. from the septic system.  There are two tanks and the current leach field is the large round cylinder type with pipes coming out of it.  Mr. Richmond stated that he couldn’t move the garage to the back end of the lot without getting into the leach field because of the size of the cylinder.

Mr. Giulitto asked how far the garage would be away from the pipes.

Mr. Richmond stated that the garage would be 6 ft. from the pipes and 5 ft. from the tanks.

Mr. Deremer asked if the existing garage would be kept.

Mr. Richmond stated that it would not be kept as a garage because his hope is to convert it to living space.

Mr. Deremer asked what size the new garage would be.

Mr. Richmond stated that it would be 24 x 32 ft., which is for three cars.

Mr. Dodson stated that he understands it would be a nightmare to move the leach bed, but would there be any reason the tank couldn’t be moved.

Mr. Richmond stated that he is not an expert but thinks if he did anything like that he would have to go to the county for permits, and he has no idea what they would make him do because the codes are a lot different from what they were in 1978.

Mr. Deremer asked if the homes to the east sit back further from the road where the garage would stick out in front of them.

Mr. Richmond stated yes.  He spoke to the neighbors about this and no one has a problem with the location.

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

Mr. Dodson stated that he believes the location of the septic is a practical difficulty, so he does not have a problem with the appeal.

Mr. Deremer agreed with Mr. Dodson and stated that he believes the appeal is practical.

Mr. Giulitto made a motion to approve appeal #1935 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.

APPEAL #1934 – Doug Hosterman, 805 E. Linclonway, Minerva, Ohio 44657 agent for Tom Borcoman, property owner, 5438 Island Dr .NW, Canton, Ohio 44718 request a conditional use permit for a car wash of 0.87 acres where a conditional use permit is required with a minimum of one (1) acre per Art. IV Sect. 411.3 & 431.5 of the zoning resolution.  Property location is parcel #1625374 on the south side of Fulton Rd., Sect. 23SE Jackson Twp.  Area zoned B-3.

Mr. Deremer read the file application signed by Doug Hosterman with reasons being a conditional use permit is required with a minimum of one acre.  The file contained a tax map of the property in question, the answers to the criteria for the conditional use permit, a site plan, and comments from Ted Heck of the Jackson Township Fire Department.

Mr. Deremer swore in Doug Hosterman, 805 E. Lincolnway, Minerva, Ohio.

Mr. Hosterman stated that originally the property was over one acre, but when the road was widened some of the property was taken so it is now 0.87 acres.  This is why a variance is required for the acreage.

Mr. Hosterman stated that he is in the process of purchasing the property to build a two stall automatic car wash that will take cash or credit cards.  People will pull into the bay, the car will be washed, and then as they pull out the car will be air dried.  Mr. Hosterman stated that the car wash is an unattended car wash.

Mr. Deremer asked if the car wash would be similar to the ones at gas stations.

Mr. Hosterman stated yes.

Mr. Deremer stated that he understands the reason for the lot variance is because this is what is left after the widening of the road.

Mr. McDonnell reviewed the criteria for the conditional use permit, section 431.2.

Mr. McDonnell asked if it is Mr. Hosterman’s testimony that it will not be detrimental to property values in the immediate vicinity.

Mr. Hosterman stated that the car wash will be an asset to the community.  It is valued at $600,000 and will have a standing seam blue metal roof with a split face block and an upscale look.

Mr. McDonnell asked if it will not restrict or adversely affect the existing use of the adjacent property owners.

Mr. Hosterman stated that the adjacent property owner to the east is Phil’s Bistro and to the west is Wood Fire 91.  They plan on landscaping around the entire area that meets the criteria of Jackson Township.

Mr. McDonnell asked if it is Mr. Hosterman’s testimony that it will be designed and constructed so that all access drives, access points to public streets, driveways, parking and service areas shall meet the approval of the Township Trustees, or county or state agencies, where applicable.

Mr. Hosterman stated yes.

Mr. McDonnell asked if it will meet the requirements of the EPA for stormwater runoff, where applicable.

Mr. Hosterman stated that they are having a report drawn up regarding the stormwater runoff because that was a condition regarding Regional Planning.

Mr. McDonnell asked if they have to meet Regional Planning’s approval for the stormwater runoff.

Mr. Hosterman stated yes.

Mr. McDonnell asked Mr. Saracina if he reviewed the plan as far as landscaping.

Mr. Saracina stated yes.  All of the requirements have been met per zoning other than the requested variance.

Mr. McDonnell asked if it is Mr. Hosterman’s testimony that this will be constructed in a neat, orderly and safe condition.

Mr. Hosterman state yes.  He has been a business owner for over 20 years and owns the Grinder’s restaurants, so he is in town almost every day so someone will be at the car wash everyday.

Mr. McDonnell reviewed section 431.3(C).

Mr. McDonnell asked what the hours of operation would be.

Mr. Hosterman stated that it would a 24 hours self serve operation seven days a week.

Mr. McDonnell stated that all points of vehicular entrance or exits shall be located no closer than 100 ft. from the intersection of two arterial streets or 50 ft. from the intersection of an arterial and a local or collector street.  Mr. McDonnell stated that he believes Fulton is the arterial street and Blakemore is the collector street so they are talking about 50 ft.  Mr. McDonnell asked where the entrance and exit is located in reference to the intersection.

Mr. Hosterman stated that Blakemore is to the west, but he is not sure how far it is.

Mr. McDonnell asked what type of lighting would be on the property.

Mr. Hosterman stated that it will be a well lit car wash with directional type lighting that does not shine on other properties.

Mr. McDonnell asked if there would be any floodlights, searchlights, or loudspeakers.

Mr. Hosterman stated no.

Mr. McDonnell asked if there would be a trash receptacle.

Mr. Hosterman stated yes, it will be built into a vacuum island.

Mr. McDonnell stated that he assumes these are trash cans.

Mr. Hosterman stated that there will be receptacles set in with an aluminum shield on top.

Mr. McDonnell asked if they would be emptied periodically and put into a dumpster.

Mr. Hosterman stated that they would be emptied everyday.

Mr. McDonnell asked where the dumpster would be located.

Mr. Hosterman stated that it would be in the back of the property and would be screened with a fence.

Mr. McDonnell asked if the grading and drainage provisions are being prepared by a registered engineer.

Mr. Hosterman stated yes, he is negotiating with two different engineers pursuant to the agreement with Stark Regional Planning.

Mr. McDonnell reviewed section 431.6(A) and asked if there would be any fuel pumps or if any work would be performed outside the building.

Mr. Hosterman stated no.  It is a self serve car wash.

Mr. McDonnell stated that he noticed that there was a vacuum area outside the car wash, and the criteria states that if work is performed on a vehicle, said vehicle shall be entirely within a building.

Mr. Giulitto stated that the testimony is that he is washing the cars in the building.  People have to have somewhere to dry the car off more and to vacuum it.

Mr. McDonnell stated that he thinks the intent is repair as opposed to drying or vacuuming, so they don’t need to worry about it at this point.  This concluded reviewing the criteria for the conditional use permit.

Mr. McDonnell stated that the only concern is if the 50 ft. is met regarding the entrance and exit from Blakemore and Fulton.

Mr. Saracina stated that the entrance to the car wash is at one end of the lot and Blakemore is at the other end of the lot.  Fulton is 80 ft. wide so there is at least 50 ft. between the intersection of Blakemore and Fulton and the entrance and exit to the property.

Mr. McDonnell asked Mr. Hosterman if it was determined that the curb cut was less than 50 ft. from Blakemore, would there be a problem moving it.

Mr. Hosterman stated that they could move it if there was a problem, but Regional Planning looked at the plan and approved it where it is located.  They are actually using the curb cut that is currently on the property.

Mr. Deremer asked if Mr. Hosterman’s testimony is that the driveway would be moved if needed.

Mr. Hosterman stated yes.

Mr. Giulitto asked if the curb cut is at least 27 ft. wide because the fire departments comments stated that this was the minimum.

Mr. Hosterman stated that he would conform to a 27 ft. wide curb cut.

Mr. McDonnell asked if Mr. Hosterman knew the decibel rating of the car wash when it’s operating.

Mr. Hosterman stated that he had no idea.

Mr. Deremer asked if the car wash would be open on each end.

Mr. Hosterman stated yes.

Mr. Deremer stated that the tax map shows the acreage as 0.66 acres.

Ms. Poindexter stated that the property is split between two section maps, so if you look at the other portion of the map there is 0.21 acres.  When put together with the 0.66 acres it gives them a total of 0.87 acres.

Mr. McDonnell asked how much property was taken by the state.
Mr. Hosterman stated that the property was over one acre, but after the widening of Fulton the property is now 0.87 acres.

Mr. McDonnell asked Mr. Hosterman if it is his testimony that the property was over one acre and prior to the widening of Fulton Rd. the variance would not have been required.

Mr. Hosterman stated yes.

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

Mr. Dodson stated, with regards to the entrance, he feels confident that the entrance and exits are more than 50 ft. from the intersection if looking at the map.

Mr. McDonnell stated that he thinks Mr. Dodson is correct and it may be 50 ft., but just to make sure if it is not, if approved, he would like to make a condition that it is demonstrated to the zoning administrator that it is 50 ft. or moved.  Mr. McDonnell stated that his initial concern was the size of the property, but if the state took some of the property he doesn’t have a problem with it being 0.87 acres.  There are many other businesses that are permitted in the B-3 that generate more lighting and noise than a car wash and it appears the conditions have been met, so he does not have a problem with the request.

Mr. Deremer stated with the state taking a portion of the road and Mr. McDonnell’s comments, he is in agreement with the conditional use permit as presented.

Mr. Juergensen stated that he agrees with the other board members but believes there needs to be a condition regarding 50 ft. from the intersection.

Mr. McDonnell made a motion to approve appeal #1934 with the conditions that the requirement of section 431.3C2B, the point of vehicular entrance & exit shall be located no closer than 50 ft. from the intersection of the arterial street Fulton & the local collector street Blakemore, shall be demonstrated to the zoning department prior to issuance of the conditional use permit, the driveway width will be 27 ft., and the address number will be a minimum of 4 inches in size and shall be posted on the street side.

Mr. Juergensen seconded the motion.

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

Mr. McDonnell 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