Members present:                                                        Ted Deremer
                                                                                        Edward McDonnell
                                                                                        Richard Dodson-Recused from #1950
                                                                                       Jim Giulitto
                                                                                       John Juergensen-Recused from #1950

Zoning Inspector:                                                         Joni Poindexter

APPEAL #1949 – Brenda K. Murphy, 8750 Eastlynn Ave. NW, Massillon, Ohio 44646 agent for Prudential DeHoff Realtors, property owner, 821 S. Main St., North Canton, Ohio 44720 requests a variance for an off-premises temporary civic sign from December 2, 2004 until March 30, 2005 where a civic temporary sign is permitted for a period not to exceed 30 days within a six month period per Art. V Sect. 504.2 of the zoning resolution.  Property located at the southeast corner of Fulton Rd. and Wales Ave., Sect. 21NE Jackson Twp.  Area zoned B-3.

Mr. Deremer read the file application signed by Brenda Murphy with reasons being as stated by the applicant, “To encourage community support for the Jackson Basketball Team and inform the community of their game schedule”.  The file contained a tax map of the property in question, a rendering showing what the sign would look like, and a site plan showing the proposed location of the sign.

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

Mr. Deremer swore in Brenda Murphy, 8750 Eastlynn Ave. NW.

Ms. Murphy stated that the sign is the same one that they put up every year that shows the schedule.  The season ends in February, so the sign would be removed by the first of March.

Mr. Deremer asked if the sign is the same size as the sign they had last year.

Ms. Murphy stated yes.  The only thing that changed is the schedule itself and the date.

Mr. Deremer asked if the location would be 25 ft. off of the right of way from Fulton Rd.

Ms. Murphy stated yes.  It would be in the same location as last year.

No one else in 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. McDonnell stated that he didn’t have problem with the request and thinks in the past the board has restricted one sign at a time, so if and when another team or booster club wants to put a sign up then they will have to wait until this sign comes down.

Mr. Dodson agreed with Mr. McDonnell.

Mr. McDonnell made a motion to approve appeal #1949 as requested.

Mr. Dodson seconded the motion.

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

APPEAL #1948 – Harris/Day Architects, Inc., Matthew Sutter, 3722 Whipple Ave. NW, Canton, Ohio 44718 agent for New Plan Excel Realty Trust Inc., property owner, 22054 Farmington Rd., Farmington, MI 48336 requests a variance for a 34 ft. front yard setback for principal building where 50 ft. is required in Art. IV Sect. 411.5 of the zoning resolution.  Property located at 4215-4501 Whipple Ave. NW, Sect. 25NE Jackson Twp.  Area zoned B-3.

Mr. Deremer read the file application signed by Matthew Sutter with reasons being as stated by the applicant, “Do to an existing sanitary line and easement and traffic patterns in the plaza, 34 ft. is the maximum that this building can be setback from the right of way.  If this variance is not granted a hardship will be on the owner, he will have to move the building 100 ft. from the right of way, and the building will be hidden by the Outback Steakhouse”.  The file contained an aerial view of the property in question from the GIS program, and a site location plan consisting of ten pages with a received stamped date of October 21, 2004.  Mr. Deremer stated that there is an e-mail in the file, but it would not be read into the record because it is not sworn testimony.

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

Mr. Deremer swore in Matthew Sutter, 3722 Whipple Ave. NW.

Mr. Sutter stated the plaza contains stores such as Office Max, Pat Catan’s and the Outback Steakhouse.  The Espresso coffee shop, which has only drive up windows, would like to move into the plaza.  Mr. Sutter gave the board a copy of the site plan, which was marked as exhibit #1, and stated that the building is 12 x 16 ft. and would be to the south and east of the Outback Steakhouse.  New Plan Excel’s property does not include the Outback Steakhouse and Pat Catan’s is not part of the property.  When the building was first laid out they were at a 48 or 49 ft. setback, but then they found out that there is a county sanitary sewer easement that is 20 ft. and runs through the front of the plaza.  Mr. Sutter stated that they cannot build within the easement and to the west is an existing drive for the plaza that is a major circulation area for traffic.  If the building were pushed back it would be about 115 ft. from the front setback which would put it behind the Outback Steakhouse.  Mr. Sutter stated that the building is very small and needs to be visible from the street.  This is why they are asking for a 34 ft. front setback.

Mr. Deremer asked if there is a traffic flow pattern that goes with the building and if there would be windows on both sides.

Mr. Sutter that there would be windows on both sides of the building and the site plan shows that there are traffic patterns on both sides of the building.  Mr. Sutter stated that there is no entry directly off the street, so there wouldn’t be any traffic issues.

Mr. Deremer asked if the building would have an impact on the parking for the Outback Steakhouse.

Mr. Sutter stated no.

Mr. Giulitto asked Mr. Sutter if it was his testimony that no one from the Outback parks in the spaces that would be taken for the building.

Mr. Sutter stated that he has been at the Outback on Friday and Saturday nights and only the spaces to the north and west of the building are used.

Mr. Deremer asked if Mr. Sutter indicated that the building would not be visible from the street if it were put beyond the drive.

Mr. Sutter stated in essence you could see it, but the building is only 12 x 16 ft. and thinks in comparison to the shopping center it would get lost and if coming from the north it would not be visible until you were right up on it because it would be behind the Steakhouse.

Mr. Deremer asked if there is existing grass and pavement work that would have to be done if the building were in another location.

Mr. Sutter stated yes.

Mr. McDonnell asked Mr. Sutter if it was his testimony that New Plan Realty Trust owns basically the entire parcel with the exception of Pat Catan’s and the Outback Steakhouse.

Mr. Sutter stated yes.

Mr. McDonnell asked if it is all one parcel.

Mr. Sutter stated that he was not sure.

Mr. McDonnell asked if the building would be basically in the middle of what is paved area as shown in exhibit #1.

Mr. Sutter stated yes.  The left edge of the building would be along the edge of the parking stalls.

Mr. McDonnell asked if Mr. Sutter is taking about the east or the west edge.

Mr. Sutter stated nearest to Whipple.  The building would start at the edge and go toward the east.

Mr. McDonnell asked if Mr. Sutter indicated that one of the reasons he wanted the building to be where it is proposed is basically for marketing reasons and so it can seen.

Mr. Sutter stated that is correct.

Mr. McDonnell asked why the building couldn’t be moved north of the Steakhouse.

Mr. Sutter stated that there is a large sign to the north.

Mr. Deremer asked if there would be signage for the building.

Mr. Sutter stated that the only signage would be on the building.

Mr. Dodson asked if the area behind the plaza to the north is essentially a truck delivery area and if the area primarily coming in is to the north of the Outback Steakhouse.

Mr. Sutter stated yes.

Mr. McDonnell asked Mr. Sutter if there would be additional paving if the building were put where it is proposed.

Mr. Sutter stated no.

Mr. Deremer asked if parking would be lost for the plaza.

Mr. Sutter stated that 12 parking spaces would be impacted.

Mr. McDonnell asked Ms. Poindexter if the parking requirements for the plaza would be met if 12 parking spaces were lost.

Ms. Poindexter stated yes.

Mr. Deremer swore in Shawn Adams, 4702 Cleveland Ave. NW.

Mr. Adams stated if the building were moved to a 115 ft. setback it would take away visibility for the building and it would get lost in the shopping center.

Mr. McDonnell asked Mr. Adams if he is with New Plan Excel Realty Trust.

Mr. Adams stated no; he is the one who wants to put the building on the property.

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. Dodson stated that if this were a B-1 or B-2 district the minimum front setback would be 30 ft.  Because it is a B-3 the front setback is 50 ft.  Mr. Dodson stated if the sanitary easement, which obviously can’t be built on, is not a practical difficult he thinks it will do until the real thing shows up, so he really doesn’t have a problem with the request.

Mr. Giulitto agreed with Mr. Dodson and stated there wouldn’t be a problem with the traffic flow or the parking spaces.  The building could be put somewhere else but it wouldn’t be practical, so he doesn’t have a problem with the appeal.

Mr. McDonnell stated that agrees with the fact that the easement does present some difficulty, but he is not sure that it rises to the level of a practical difficulty that will justify the variance.  Mr. McDonnell stated that he is not sure it has been indicated that this is the only area that the building could be built.  He doesn’t look at it as comparing it to B-1 or B-2 because it is a B-3 and there are certain regulations for a B-3.  If the trustees wanted them to treat it like a B-1 or B-2 then they would have zoned it to a B-1 or B-2.  Mr. McDonnell stated that one of the thing’s the board is to consider is whether the property will yield a reasonable return and currently the property is yielding a reasonable return.  Perhaps by locating the building somewhere else it may not yield a reasonable return for the espresso business, but the property itself is yielding that return.  Mr. McDonnell stated that the one thing that sticks in his mind is if this observes the spirit and intent behind the zoning resolution, and he doesn’t think it does.  The easement appears to go all way down the plaza and if the board makes an exception for this building then the next one that comes in and says they want the same exception, how can they tell them no.

Mr. Juergensen agreed with Mr. McDonnell and stated that there was testimony that the building could be built in another location and meet the zoning requirements.  Mr. Juergensen stated what he thinks is unusual about this variance is that opposed to a home that has to be built a certain distance from the street but it can’t because of an easement or something, there isn’t necessarily room on the other side of that easement to put the property, but here we have that.  They may not be able to the put the building to the east of the easement, but they certainly can to the west of the easement.

Mr. Deremer agreed with Mr. McDonnell and Mr. Juergensen and stated this is a B-3 zoned parcel so this is what has to be looked at regarding the setback.  They cannot put the building at the 50 ft. setback because of the easement but also it would not fit well within the existing plan as far as the pavement area.  The applicant indicated that the building could be moved further back into the grassy area which may have been an outlot site at one time.  Mr. Deremer stated that he does not believe this is a valid application within the intent of the zoning resolution and he is not in favor of it.

Mr. Juergensen made a motion to deny appeal #1948 as requested.

Mr. Giulitto seconded the motion.

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

Mr. Dodson and Mr. Juergensen recused themselves from appeal #1950.

APPEAL #1950 – Ed Reynolds, property owner, 3049 Perry Dr. NW, Canton, Ohio 44708 requests a variance to allow a second dwelling on a 5.87 acre tract where no more than one principal building shall be permitted on any lot in any residential district per Art. III Sect. 302.3(B) of the zoning resolution.  Property located at 3049 Perry Dr. NW, Sect. 34SE Jackson Twp.  Area zoned R-R.

Mr. Deremer read the file application signed by Ed Reynolds with reasons being as stated by the applicant, “Not cost effective to remodel and expand existing century home on approximately a six acre parcel which cannot be split due to lack of frontage”.  The file contained a copy of the tax map showing the property in question, a topography view of the property in question, an aerial view of the property in question, and a letter addressed to John Phillippi from Robert & Roberta McGowan with a stamped received date of November 29, 2004, which was kept in the file but not read into the record.  The file also contained an e-mail from John Phillippi forwarded to Joni Poindexter from Conrad Moeller of the Sanitary Engineer’s Office, and a letter from John Phillippi, Jackson Township Zoning and Planning Director, to the Mr. Deremer, Board of Zoning Appeals, dated December 2, 2004, which were read into the record.

Mr. Deremer asked who would like to speak in favor of the appeal.  Mr. Gene Barnhart came forward.

Mr. Deremer:  Are you speaking as an attorney?

Mr. Barnhart:  I am speaking as counsel.  Gentlemen for purposes of the record I am Gene Barnhart.  I am a lawyer.  My office is here in Jackson Township.  I am, however, also of counsel to the law firm of Black McCuskey Souers & Arbaugh which is in the city of Canton, and Ms. Reynolds, the applicant’s wife, is a member of that firm.  If I might could I perhaps see the communication from Mr. Phillippi respecting….

Mr. Deremer:  Sure.  Would you also like to see the e-mail, Mr. Barnhart?

Mr. Barnhart:  No sir I’m aware of that one.  If you could advise me, in what specific was the zoning regulation amended to remove the authority to grant a use variance.

Mr. Deremer:  In the last amendment they removed that authority from the BZA as part of their…..It had been in there a long time and then they elected to take that authority away from us.

Mr. Barnhart:  Well it is difficult to argue with a zoning resolution even when it’s wrong.  That probably is an improper decision by the trustees because the code of Ohio specifically authorizes the board of zoning appeals to grant a use variance.  To gut the provisions of the zoning resolution by such an ambiguous, which it certainly is, provision I think is very unfortunate.  I would like to address those particular words.  Mr. McDonnell what page is that on if you would be so kind?

Mr. McDonnell:  803-134.  It’s section 803.5, subsection “E” as in echo.

Mr. Barnhart:  Because I think this is probably going to be determined with your decision that perhaps I’m in error, I’m not sure of the purpose of that particular amendment, but I would point out that the use we are requesting tonight is a residential use and that is distinctly a use which is permitted by the resolution.  Consequently, I think Mr. Phillippi is in error.  If I understand his letter, he says, “In the case of Mr. Reynolds request the variance would permit two residential structures on the same property which by definition constitutes a group dwelling development which is not permitted in the R-R district.  Moreover, a group dwelling development requires a conditional use permit even when located in a district where permitted.”  That is certainly correct in the latter of the provision because if you turn to the general use provisions of the code it very clearly does provide that a group dwelling does require a conditional use permit and by definition a group dwelling is two or more residential structures located on one lot.  It does not, however, specify in which classification the group dwelling development has application in that regard.  Consequently, when one says that it creates two residential structures and constitutes a group dwelling, which is not permitted in the R-R district, I’m not certain, frankly, that is correct.
I would like the opportunity to present our testimony tonight, if I might, and we will try to do it in a more summary fashion than I had originally intended.  I had heard that this comment had been made, but I was not aware that it had been reduced to writing.  I apologize that I was not aware of that.  I noticed that it was dated yesterday.  But, I would like to very briefly summarize the reasons and rational for this appeal.  I would then like to present testimony of the applicant and of his builder, because his builder was kind enough to come down here from Summit County, and then if I might at the end of our presentation I would request that this matter be continued so that I might present a brief in opposition to Mr. Phillippi’s letter, if that might be satisfactory.

Mr. Deremer:  That would be fine sir.

Mr. Barnhart:  Gentlemen we are going to present testimony of the applicant and his builder Rocky Keim.  Mr. Keim is a developer with extensive experience here in Stark County and the Hartville area, in Summit County, in Aurora, and in Medina County.  We believe that the testimony will show that this application arose from a practical difficulty and that morally the proposed solution, which results in this request, is a well prepared request for a variance and it is not a plan which was devised on the back of an envelope.  Factually, it’s a sole residence on this almost six acre parcel, it’s a century home.  It’s been modified in the past.  If you gentlemen happen to have been out there your initial reaction is, “This is a century home?”  But then when you walk inside it is amazing of what you see.  It has retained a substantial portion of its one hundred year old post and beam construction.  Most of the wall structure, but not all of it, but most of the wall structure is more than one hundred years old, it has an old fireplace, and it even has the well worn oak threshold, which is now inside the facade which was added sometime later.  The building is essentially structurally sound as it presently exists, except there is a possible necessity for the reinforcement of the rear roof structure.  What had happened was Mr. Reynolds purchased this property when he was a bachelor in July of 1999.  He was married last December, a year ago this month, and his bride, as I already mentioned is a lawyer, has three teenage children.  They had planned temporarily to live in this century home and that is a matter of fact is where Ed himself had been living.  He soon became a parent and it wasn’t big enough for a husband and wife and three teenage boys.  Consequently, they began and developed through Mr. Keim a plan to expand and amplify that century home.  The testimony I suggest tonight will disclose that some preliminary remodeling had already started when it was discovered that three of the exterior low barring walls and part of the post and beam construction would need to be replaced in order to support the new structure.  The cost of that replacement alone is estimated by Mr. Keim to be one hundred thousand dollars.  Gentlemen, that sounds like a lot of money.  I think as a couple of you on this board know that I’ve long been active in the Canton Preservation Society.  I’m a long term board member and I’m a former president and I can tell you stories that will chill your heal.  The Canton Preservation Society just within the last few years moved the Hearten house from West Tuscarawas St. to Wertz Ave.  It was a gift.  The board approved that gift and the movement after a restoration architect presented to our board estimates for acquisition of the new site, movement of the property, and the reconstruction as was necessary, two hundred and seventy one thousand dollars.  Based upon those estimates the board of the Canton Presentation Society approved that gift and the move.  We are now at five hundred ninety four thousand dollars and still going.  So I’m not surprised and it’s unfortunate we love these old buildings, but it often becomes financially impossible to restructure.  So, it does not surprise me when they got into this actual remodeling and found that these one hundred year old walls were really nothing but mud and earth stripping and they just wouldn’t support the project.  As a consequence the decision was made to save the building.  They do not want to destroy it but to save the building and to build another building on the same parcel.  When I say parcel, and I want to point out this is almost six acres which is way beyond the required rural residential provision when we talk about two buildings on that property.

What occurred was they prepared plans for the second residence, and we have those plan here tonight with Mr. Keim, and they also have developed a plan to access the sewer and we have letter this evening indicating that those approvals are pretty well forth coming.  Condra Moeller did not want to make a total commitment, but it is his expectation, he said words to that affect, that the plans would be approved.  Gentlemen, we all know one of the classic examples of the variance is a grant to save a substantial old beautiful oak tree.  Here in Jackson we are rapidly moving our old homes and barns.  This is a devastating blow to the rural nature of Jackson Township which for over one hundred and fifty years truly was a rural township.  When my wife Shirley and I moved here forty seven years ago this was a rural area.  There were concentrations in the eastern section and there were concentrations of houses just north of Massillon.  The rest, gentlemen, was strictly rural.  Ask your dad or your mother.  What we are going to suggest is that this is a heritage that we believe should be used, and we will call upon this board to recognize and contribute to the preservation of that heritage by approving this application.  I realize we have a real issue presented by Mr. Phillippi’s letter, and I would like to address that if I might by brief.  If I might, I would now like to call Mr. Reynolds.  Gentlemen we will try to keep this brief.  Ed you will have to take the oath.  You might as well come forward Rocky and take the oath at the same time.

Mr. Deremer:  If you would raise your right hand gentlemen.  Do you swear or affirm that the testimony your about to give is the whole truth and nothing but the truth?

Mr. Reynolds and Mr. Keim: Yes.

Mr. Deremer:  Please state your name and address for the record.

Mr. Reynolds:  Ed Reynolds, 3049 Perry Dr. NW, Canton, Ohio 44708.

Mr. Deremer:  Thank you sir.

Mr. Barnhart:  Ed if you would just very briefly give them the story of your acquisition of this property, the condition it was in when you acquired it and that is with the drive itself, how that happened, and also what transpired upon your marriage.

Mr. Reynolds:  I searched for a property for quite sometime and was very, very pleased to find six acres in Jackson Township so close to Belden Village and everything else but yet so isolated from Belden Village and everything else.  The property is pretty well surrounded by cornfield.  It’s a gorgeous property with rolling hills and a great view from the proposed new building site.  No neighbors for the most part that frequent the area except for the deer and a few wild turkeys and some red tip hawks.  It was an ideal situation for me at that point in time to find an old century home.  I like to pick up old things and give them new life and the property needed a lot of help.  There was a chicken coop on the property when I got it and a variety of other things and things that needed repaired and a whole lot of effort in doing that; in turning the property, especially the driveway, from being an eyesore into something that the adjoining neighborhood, which is Millridge Development, could be happy looking at and be proud of.

I was fortunate enough to get married this last January and was also fortunate enough to have three teenage boys come along with that.  The idea was before that time to enlarge the house and make it more suitable for a family of five.  We proceeded and hired various architects and got ideas and were able to finally talk Mr. Keim into helping us remodel this old century home.  As we got more and more involved into it and started doing the interior remodeling to move some interior walls, we found the wall structure was not conducive to doing the additions that we hoped to do.  I had never seen anything like mud and sticks in the walls for insulation, but I’m sure that was probably the norm one hundred years ago prior to insulation.  That along with the other elements we’ve uncovered while doing the interior demolition made it virtually impossible cost effective wise to continue that remodeling.  One of the options we had was to tear down the existing structure at that point in time.  There is nothing wrong with the house the way the house stands.  It needs some new dry wall and some shoring up here and there but as far as a functional home it is fine for a small family, but not fine for a family of five.  So, that is where we are at this point in time.  We have explored the possibility of trying to split lots but due to the flag ship nature of the lot that was impossible from what I was told by various people including Ms. Butera at Regional Planning.  In a discussion with her we came up with the idea of a second house on the same property.  There is a natural dividing line on the property with a row of pine trees that have been planted that would separate the existing home from the proposed new home, so it would be isolated to a large degree.  We are just basically looking for a place to raise a family and the existing house will not accomplish that for us.

Mr. Barnhart:  When you acquired the property it was in the condition that it is in now; you have not done anything to change the nature of the approximate six acres?

Mr. Reynolds:  No, other than tearing down the chicken coop.

Mr. Barnhart:  Thank you.  Please identify yourself.

Mr. Rocky Keim:  My name is Rocky Keim.  I live at 5367 Whitetail Circle in Wadsworth, Ohio, Medina County.

Mr. Barnhart:  If you would, you and Ed have been friends for a lot of years and the two of you, as I understand it, have talked about the prospect of redoing the century home and expanding it.  If you would, tell the board the things that you’ve learned and what your recommendation is.

Mr. Keim:  Recently the plan was to add on to the existing home on both sides creating a new wing on the left and the right flanks of the existing home.  The existing home has a very thick barn stone type foundation about two feet thick.  These are very large and structurally sound foundations so at first glance I though there was a lot of merit to being able to add on to this structure.  We created plans, which were about 90% complete, and we were putting the finishing touches on it and actually started some of the demolition on the house enough to remove dry wall and walls that we knew were going to have to be modified substantially.  When we did that we ran into some of the normal variances that you do in any type of remodeling project, but the most remarkable thing that we found was on three of the exterior walls they were constructed of what I would refer to as wood lath type construction but it predates any kind of wood lath that most people are familiar with.  This was very much like a log cabin except that it doesn’t use large logs.  It used timber probably two to three inches in diameter and the spaces between each timber were packed with a mud-straw mixture.  I had never seen anything like that before.  I’ve read about it and I was amazed because I really never seen anything like that before.  The wood actually still had the bark from the trees.  Two things struck me at that point.  One, if I have to put an opening in this wall how can I do that with a mud-straw mixture that is pretty brittle and probably wouldn’t stand a lot of vibration and shock.  Then the other part of it is how is that going to hold up structurally with a whole new addition and the movement that is typical in a new structure, and will that movement put stresses and loads on this wall.  At that point I realized in order to do what we wanted to do that these walls had to be completely removed.  I think at that time the owners decided that wasn’t what they wanted to do.

Mr. Barnhart:  At that point when you discussed this did you have an estimate as to what the replacement of the walls would cost?

Mr. Keim:  Yes.  Just the variance that related to the walls and the structure above it would probably be in the $85,000 to $100,000 range.

Mr. Barnhart:  What that really would be doing is replacing the walls, which if the property is left as it is would not have anything done to it, so there was a total additional cost that.  I don’t want to put words in your mouth, but I think it’s important for the board to understand this.  It was a total additional cost for which there was really no benefit received except to make sure the finished product was then an acceptable finished product.

Mr. Keim:  Right.  This is something we had not contemplated in the cost of the addition.  It was in addition to any of that cost.  I couldn’t see doing a $200,000 or $250,000 addition and leaving a timer and mud structure next to it.  It wouldn’t make sense, but there’s probably some nostalgic or historical value to that part of the structure

Mr. Barnhart:  You then, as I understand it after discussion with the Reynolds, they requested you to prepare a proposal for a home on the same parcel but separate and apart from the historical home.

Mr. Keim:  Yes.  I have the plans.

Mr. Barnhart:  Could you show those to the board.  I don’t know if they really want to look through them.

Mr. Keim:  These are not the addition.  It is the new house they are proposing to build.  With bonus areas and a finished basement it is probably going to range in the 4,200 sq. ft. range.

Mr. Barnhart:  As I understand you’ve prepared a complete set of plans.
Mr. Keim:  These were actually purchased through a national architect.  We are contemplating some modifications such as a four car garage, an additional fire place and enlarging some rooms and additional square footages.  This home will be completely sided in stone.  A home of this size on a lot would typically bring $150.00 to $160.00 a square foot.  I would estimate the value of this in the $650,000 range.

Mr. Barnhart:  Customarily as I understand it, customarily you are not in this particular type of business.  Your general construction is a little bit different.  Am I correct?

Mr. Keim:  I have been in the custom home business.  I don’t do that anymore.  Predominately I’m a land developer.

Mr. Barnhart:  And you’re doing this because of your relationship with the Reynolds?

Mr. Keim:  Right.  I have an aerial photograph of the site if that would help.

Mr. Deremer:  We do have one here.  Thank you though.

Mr. Barnhart:  We have a topo.

Mr. Deremer:  We’ve got a topo.

Mr. Barnhart:  Mr. Keim, if you would show the board the sewer plans that you’ve developed for the county sanitary engineer.

Mr. Keim:  This is the site of the Reynolds property and the location of the proposed new home.  This is the existing home and the existing barn.  We were going to bring a driveway in here for this house and have a structure similar to this.  The new house would be served by sanitary sewer that is in this road right of way via a force main and a grinder pump.  It would go along the Reynolds driveway into the public right of way and into the manhole.

Mr. Barnhart:  We have received preliminary approval.

Mr. Keim:  This is the letter that was referred to from Conrad Moeller.

Mr. Barnhart:  This is a letter that came just this afternoon about 4:30 p.m. from the Health Department.

Mr. Deremer:  Are these our copies to keep.

Mr. Barnhart:  Yes, we would like to submit those.

Mr. Deremer:  We’ll mark the letter from the sewer district as exhibit #1 and the Health Department as exhibit #2.  Are we able to keep a copy of this?

Mr. Barnhart:  Yes.

Mr. Deremer:  We’ll mark this as exhibit #3, which is the proposed force main sewer for the parcel.

Mr. Barnhart:  We don’t want to impose upon your time, but if you have an interest we do have photographs which were taken by Mr. Reynolds of the various historical matters in the house.  We have pictures of the walls, post and beam construction, the fire place, and threshold if you would care to have those.

Mr. Deremer:  If you want to do that now or want to wait until a later date of your continuance.

Mr. Barnhart:  Whichever the board would prefer.

Mr. Deremer:  Why don’t we wait until the continuance.  I would think that would work better after hearing your brief.

Mr. Barnhart:  At this point if we might subject to reopening and an adjourned hearing by this board, we would rest presently but reserving the right to reopen.  Thank you very much.

Mr. Deremer:  Thank you Mr. Barnhart.  Gentlemen at this time the applicant has requested a continuance to address some of the comments placed in the file.  I would make a motion that we continue appeal #1950.  Do we have a second?

Mr. McDonnell:  Do we have a date specifically?

Ms. Poindexter:  We do not have a regular meeting until January 13th, 2005.  We could continue it as a special meeting next Thursday or do you want to have it when we have a regular meeting?

Mr. Deremer:  Is time of the essence Mr. Barnhart?  The next scheduled date is January 13th.

Mr. Barnhart:  Do I understand that presently it appears to be a decision between next week and January 13th.

Mr. Deremer:  Correct.  She would check to see if next Thursday was open.

Mr. Barnhart:  I think January 13th would be satisfactory.

Mr. Deremer:  Very good.  I would amend my motion that we continue appeal 1950 to January 13th at 7:30 pm.  We will put you first on the agenda.  Do I have a second?

Mr. McDonnell:  Second.

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

APPEAL #1951 – Ellis Erb, Inc., 800 West Maple, Hartville, Ohio 44632 agent for Harry Rennecker, property owner, 5637 N. Island Dr. NW, Canton, Ohio 44718 requests a variance for a 2’6” right side yard setback where 5 ft. is required and a 29 ft. front setback where the average depth of existing front yards on the two lots immediately adjoining is 34.5 ft. per Art. IV Sect. 401.7 of the zoning resolution.  Property located at 5637 N. Island Dr. NW, Sect. 14SW Jackson Twp.  Area zoned R-1.

Mr. Deremer read the file application signed by Ellis Erb with reasons being as stated by the applicant, “To add garage addition”.  The file contained a tax map of the property in question and a site plan showing the proposed location of the addition.

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

Mr. Deremer swore in Ellis Erb, 800 West Maple, Hartville, Ohio 44632.

Mr. Erb stated that they are trying to add an addition to the house.  Originally they were going to put the front door in the area that protrudes into the 2 ft. 6 in. setback, but upon talking to the neighbor they decided to stay in line with the existing structure which is 4 ft. 6 inches from the side yard setback.  Mr. Erb stated that they would be adding a garage in the front which would actually be 2 ft. back from the neighbor’s garage.

Mr. Erb presented several photos the board and explained what they represented.  Exhibit #1 shows the neighbors house to the east.  Exhibit #2 shows the neighbors garage to the west, which is actually 2 ft. in front of the proposed garage.  Exhibit #3 shows the distance between the neighbor’s house to the west and Mr. Rennecker’s house.  Exhibit #4 is a view showing where the garage would be located.  Exhibit #5 is a view between the house to the east and Mr. Renneker’s house.  Exhibit #6 is a view looking to the rear between Mr. Rennecker’s house and the house to the west, and exhibit #7 is a view of Mr. Rennecker’s rear yard.
Mr. Erb stated that he wanted the board to know that he came up with the 4 ft. 6 inch setback for the chimney from the surveyor’s plat, which also showed the house as being 6 ft. 6 inches from the side setback.  Two people from the zoning office came out to the property and measured the distance for the side setback for the house at 4 ft. 6 inches and the chimney at 2 ft. 6 inches.  They decided not to add the additional 2 ft. along the side and will be staying in line with the existing structure which is 4 ft. 6 inches from the side setback.

Mr. Deremer stated that the variance can be reduced to 4 ft. 6 inches as opposed to 2 ft. 6 inches.

Mr. Erb stated that they would like to modify the request.

Mr. Erb explained what would be included in the proposed addition and stated that the garage addition could not be added anywhere else because there would not be any access to it.

Mr. McDonnell asked if he is correct in stating that the portion along the east side of the house that is shown at a 2 ft. 6 inch setback would be removed from the plan and the setback would become 4 ft. 6 inches.

Mr. Erb stated yes.

Mr. Deremer swore in Harry Rennecker, 5637 N. Island Dr. NW.

Mr. Rennecker stated that the reason for withdrawing the 2 ft. 6 inch variance is because after discussions with Mr. Wallace, Mr. Wallace felt that it would encroach too much on his property, which after looking at the situation he agreed.  Mr. Rennecker stated that he is just looking to add a garage and a little more living space.

Mr. Deremer asked if he is correct in stating that they are modifying the 2 ft. 6 inch setback to a 4 ft. 6 inch setback.

Mr. Rennecker state yes.

Mr. Dodson asked if the plan was approved by the Lake Cable Board.

Mr. Rennecker stated that he called the board of trustees at Lake Cable to see if they needed to look at anything and their secretary said they didn’t need to see the plans.

Mr. Deremer swore in Ron Wallace, 5633 N. Island Dr. NW.

Mr. Wallace stated that he did not have a problem with the request as modified to a 4 ft. 6 inch side yard setback.

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. Giulitto stated that he did not have a problem with the request as modified to a 4 ft. 6 inch setback.

Mr. Juergensen agreed with Mr. Giulitto.

Mr. McDonnell stated that he thinks a practical difficulty exists with the lot because it is only 40 ft. wide and the fact that the requested side variance is no wider than the existing structure.  The garage will be 22 ft. deep, which is a reasonable size garage, and is not out of line.  Mr. McDonnell stated that he did not have problem with the variance as modified.

Mr. Deremer stated that this is one of the narrower lots in Lake Cable being only 40 ft. wide, so it would be hard to do any modifications without a variance in the front and in the back toward the lake is inaccessible so he didn’t see a problem with the request as modified.

Mr. McDonnell made a motion to approve appeal #1951 as modified to a 4 ft. 6 inch right side yard setback and a 29 ft. front yard setback.

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. Deremer asked if the board had any comments or a motion on the minutes from the meeting held October 21, 2004.

Mr. Giulitto made a motion to approve the minutes from the meeting held October 21, 2004.

Mr. Juergensen seconded the motion.

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

Mr. Deremer asked if the board had any comments or a motion on the minutes from the meeting held November 4, 2004.

Mr. Giulitto stated there is an error on page 11.  “Dr.” Deremer should be changed to “Mr.” Deremer.

Mr. McDonnell stated on page 5 there is a spelling error.  Where it reads “difficulty” it should read “difficult” and the word “their” should be changed to “they’re”.

Mr. McDonnell made a motion to approve the minutes as amended.

Mr. Juergensen seconded the motion.

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