Members present:                                                                Ted Deremer
                                                                                                Edward McDonnell
                                                                                                Gerald Werner
                                                                                                Richard Dodson
                                                                                                Jim Giulitto

Zoning Administrator:                                                          John Phillippi

Zoning Data Coordinator:                                                   Joni Poindexter

APPEAL #1795 – Craig Conley, 220 Market Ave. S., Suite 604, Canton, Ohio 44702 agent for Richard Snee, property owner, 5335 Strausser St. NW, North Canton, Ohio 44720 appeals the decision of the Zoning Administrator as provided for in Art. VIII Sect. 803.1, in letter dated 7/9/02 regarding the denial of a 25% expansion of a non-conforming use of the property for Earth & Wood Products.  Property located at 5335 Strausser St. NW, Sect. 2SE Jackson Twp.  Area zoned R-R. (Continued from 11/21/02)

Mr. Dodson made a motion that the decision of the Zoning Administrator in appeal #1795 to deny the requested expansion of the property of Earth & Wood Products, 5335 Strausser St. NW, be upheld on the authority of Davis vs. Miller, 163 Ohio State 91 (1955), without reaching the issue of whether the proposed expansion would exceed 25% of the original non-conforming use, as the proposed expansion of the non-conforming use onto a separate parcel of land would exceed the power of the Board of Zoning Appeal.

Mr. McDonnell seconded the motion.

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

(SEE OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT IN FILE FOR APPEAL #1795)

APPEAL #1819 – Jay & Kelly Serra, property owner, 4829 East Blvd. NW, Canton, Ohio 44718 requests a variance for a 3 ft. 6 in. (north) right side yard setback where a 10 ft. side yard setback is required in Art. IV Sect. 401.6 of the zoning resolution.  Property located at 4829 East Blvd. NW, Sect. 23SE Jackson Twp.  Area zoned R-1.

Mr. Deremer read the file application signed by Jay Serra with reasons being that the existing garage is small and they want to build a two car oversized garage.  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 this appeal.

Mr. Deremer swore in Jay & Kelly Serra, 4829 East Blvd. NW.

Mr. Serra stated that the existing garage is too small for their vehicles and other belongings.  The lot is small, but long, and the proposed location is the only place that they can put the addition.  They have notified their neighbors and no one has a problem with the proposed plan.

Mr. Deremer stated that it is not uncommon for Lake Cable to have in their legal description that there is a 5 ft. setback restriction and asked why they need a setback of 3 ft. 6 inches.

Mr. Kelly stated that they have to pull in the driveway to get the cars in and out and the existing garage is small.

Mr. Deremer stated that the drawing shows that there is a 28 ft. area in front of the driveway that allows them to turn into the driveway.

Mr. Serra stated that currently they have one Cheep Cherokee and are looking to upgrade to another SUV and the existing garage is too small for both vehicles.

Mr. Deremer stated that the front corner on the sketch shows a 2 ft. setback.

Mr. Serra stated that they are trying to make the garage fit so the 2 ft. setback could be changed to a 3 ft. setback.

Mr. Deremer stated that the request is for 3 ft. 6 in. and if this were granted they could not go any closer then 3 ft. 6 in. to the property line.

Ms. Serra stated that she talked to the builder and he said that they could go 3 ft.

Mr. Deremer stated that if they need 3 ft. then the request would have to be re-advertised because the board cannot grant more than was advertised.

Mr. Dodson stated that Mr. Giulitto had pointed out to him that the drawing shows a 38 ft. front yard setback and the requirement is 40 ft.

Mr. Deremer stated that the front setback could not be addressed because it was not requested or advertised and asked if a 38 ft. setback is needed for the garage.

Mr. Serra stated that he thinks the 38 ft. setback was measured from the road.

Ms. Serra asked if they could get a 38 ft. setback if it is requested and advertised.

Mr. Deremer stated that this is the only way the board could consider the modification and asked if they would like to continue this appeal until January 9th.

Mr. Serra stated yes.

Mr. Deremer made motion to continue appeal #1819 until January 9, 2003 at 7:30 pm.

Mr. Werner seconded the motion.

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

APPEAL #1820 – Dan Bartko, 2915 Woodlawn Ave. NW, Canton, Ohio 44708 agent for Michael Miller, property owner, 6215 Whipple Ave. NW, North Canton, Ohio 44720 requests a conditional use permit for a car wash facility where a conditional use permit is required in Art. IV Sect. 411.3 of the zoning resolution.  Property located at 4663 Hills & Dales rd. NW, Sect. 25SE Jackson Twp.  Area zoned B-3.

Mr. Deremer read the file application signed by Dan Bartko with reasons being that a conditional use permit is required in a B-3 district.  The file contained a tax map of the property in question, a site plan by William McCullough, Professional Engineer stamped received November 4, 2002, a notice of subdivision action from Stark County Regional Planning for approval, and the typed answers to the criteria for the conditional use permit.
Mr. Deremer asked who would like to speak in favor of this appeal.

Mr. Deremer swore in Dan Bartko, 2915 Woodlawn Ave. NW, Canton, Ohio 44708.

Mr. Bartko stated that he is asking for a conditional use permit for the purpose of hand washing and detailing autos.  Mr. Bartko stated that there would not be any automated washing.

Mr. Deremer asked if the business would go by appointments.

Mr. Bartko stated that appointments are taken at his current location due to the size of his building.  At the new location, the building is designed in such a way that he can take car washes as they come in without an appointment.

Mr. Bartko stated that the main part of the business is the detailing of autos and there is plenty of parking which is designed in such a way that a smooth line of traffic could move into the building if needed.

Mr. Bartko stated that the building is going to be 60 x 60 square feet.  The site plan shows phase one and phase two however they are going to go with phase one only at this time.  The building will be made of pre-manufactured steel with split face block on the front.  There will be proper landscaping and the parking lot will be done at a later date due to the whether.

Mr. McDonnell reviewed the criteria for the conditional use permit and Mr. Bartko answered as follows:
Section 431.2
A) Will not be detrimental to the property values.
B) Will not.
C) Yes
D) Yes
E) Yes
F) Yes
Section 431.3(C)
1) The hours for retail would probably be Monday and Thursday 8:00 am to 9:00 pm, Tuesday, Wednesday, and Friday 8:00 am to 5:00 pm, Saturday 8:00 am to 5:00 pm and closed on Sunday.
2) Yes
3) Will comply.  The lights are gas that will come on at dusk automatically.  There will be lights over the buildings garage doors and front entrance way.  Parking lights are not in the plans at this time but when they are put in they will be shielded from the adjacent properties.
4) Will not cause a hazard or annoyance to anyone.
5) Trash receptacles will be adequately screened.
6) Yes
Section 431.6(A)
Mr. Bartko stated that all work would be done inside the building.

Mr. McDonnell stated that all the requirements have been reviewed except the landscaping and setback requirements which can be a condition.

Mr. Bartko stated that the building plans have already been approved under a retail building.  They are asking for the conditional use permit so they can operate as a car wash.

Mr. Bartko had no further comments and the board had no further questions.

Mr. Deremer asked if anyone else in the audience wanted to speak in favor of this appeal.

Mr. Deremer swore in Michael Miller, 6415 St. Augustine, Canton, Ohio.

Mr. Miller stated that he is an auto dealer and has dealt with Mr. Bartko for many years.  He is the landlord for the project and Mr. Bartko does quality work and is an asset to the area.  Mr. Miller stated that he believes the board will be impressed with the business.

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

Mr. Deremer closed this appeal to public discussion.

Mr. Dodson stated that the policy has been with a conditional use permit, if the applicant has met all the criteria then the board tends to grant the request.  Mr. Dodson stated that he believes all the criteria has been met and he does not have a problem with the request.

Mr. Werner stated that he agrees with Mr. Dodson and has no problem with the request.

Mr. McDonnell stated that he has no problem with the request.  However, if approved it should be contingent upon meeting all landscaping and setback requirements.

Mr. Deremer stated that he agrees with Mr. Dodson that all the criteria has been met and the conditional use permit should be granted.

Mr. Werner made a motion to approve appeal #1820 with the condition that all the landscaping and setback requirements be met.

Mr. Giulitto seconded the motion.

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

APPEAL #1821 – James Seran, 915 High St. NW, Canton, Ohio 44703 agent for Gloria Prose, property owner, 260 Oak Dr. NW, North Canton, Ohio 44720 requests a variance for a 3 ft. 4 in. right side yard setback where a 10 ft. side yard setback is required in Art. IV Sect. 401.6 of the zoning resolution.  Property located 265 Oak Dr. NW, Sect. 4NE Jackson Twp.  Area zoned R-R.

Mr. Deremer read the file application signed by James Seran with reasons being a great room addition aligning with the established 45 degree regulation axis.  The file contained a tax map of the property in question and a site plan showing the proposed addition.

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

Mr. Deremer swore in James Seran, 915 High St .NW, Canton, Ohio 44703.

Mr. Seran stated that he was before the board regarding an addition to the home about one year ago when they asked for a variance to add on a bedroom and were going to encroach of the east property line with a 1 ft. 4 in. setback.  At that time he did not have permission from the Willowdale Lake Association and the request was denied.  Mr. Seran stated that this time he has permission from the association for the requested setback.

Mr. Seran stated that lot #264 is an empty lot.  There is a home on lot #263 and the owners do not have a problem with the request.

Mr. Seran stated that there is a hill on the north side of the property and if the addition were moved he would be building out over the hill and there would be no deck space.

Mr. Deremer asked how large the hill is.
Mr. Seran stated that it drops off pretty rapidly.  There is an approach that is probably about one foot down from the basement.  Then as starting down the steps there is a drop of about 6 ft., then it levels and then there is a plateau.  By the time he would get done the poles would probably be in the air about 40 ft. to try to hold the deck up.  If done the proposed way it would work out a lot better.

Mr. Seran explained the site plan and how the proposed addition would be constructed.

Mr. Dodson asked if the plan was approved by the Willowdale Lake Trustees.

Mr. Seran stated yes.

Mr. McDonnell asked if the current house is 4 ft. 8 in. from the property line.

Mr. Seran stated no, it is about 8 ft. from the property line.  There is a deck that was built prior to Ms. Prose owning the property that is within 4 ft. of the property line that will be removed.

Mr. McDonnell asked what the impact would be if the addition did not extend any further then the existing side of the house.

Mr. Seran stated that the addition would be 18’ x 18’ and if made smaller it would be a detriment to the design.

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

Mr. Deremer closed this appeal to public discussion.

Mr. Dodson stated that Willowdale is a unique area and the association owns the land.  The lot lines don’t really mean anything and are where the association says they are.  Mr. Dodson stated that if this is approved by the association and they know what the needs are, then he has no problem with this appeal.

Mr. Deremer stated that the lots in Willowdale were developed approximately in 1924 and are only 40 ft. wide.  If the association is happy with the 3 ft. 4 inches then he concurs with that and does not have a problem with the request.

Mr. McDonnell made a motion to approve appeal #1821 as requested.

Mr. Dodson seconded the motion.

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

APPEAL #1824 – Berlin Construction, 4740 TR356, Millersburg, Ohio 44654 agent for Margaret Hulit, property owner, 2613 Williamsburg Land, NW, Apt. #3, Canton, Ohio 44708 requests a variance for an 18 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 1940 Devonshire NW, Sect. 36SW Jackson Twp.  Area zoned R-R.

Mr. Deremer read the file application signed by Jake Hershberger with reasons being a combination of the homeowner and the builder not knowing there is a setback requirement and the lot having a steep incline on the back side.  The file contained a tax map of the property in question and a site plan showing the location of the home.  The file also contained a letter from Ron Revlock, Zoning Investigator for Jackson Twp. dated 12/5/02 stating that on 12/2/02 he measured the front setback of 1940 Devonshire NW and determined the setback to be 31 ft. from the property line at a right of way of 50 ft.

Mr. Deremer swore in Mr. Yoder, 4740 TR356, Millersburg, Ohio 44654 and Mr. Hershberger, 5550 County Rd. 407, Millersburg, Ohio 44654.

Mr. Yoder stated that he drew up the plans for the home.  The lot was wooded and he didn’t realize how much of an incline was on the property.  After cleaning the trees and having the property excavated they realized how much of an incline there was.  The basement was installed and the bank sent out a title company surveyor to look at the property and they said the house did not meet the required setbacks.

Mr. Deremer asked if the home could not go back any further do to the hill.

Mr. Yoder stated this is correct.

Mr. Deremer asked how they came up with an 18 ft. setback.

Mr. Yoder stated that he is not sure, but thinks that the surveyor may have measured from the road right of way.  If measuring from the curb the garage is at a 31 ft. setback.

Mr. Deremer asked if the mortgage surveyor believes the house is at an 18 ft. setback.

Mr. Hershberger stated that the survey says 18 ft. plus.

Mr. Deremer asked how the house looks compared to the other adjoining homes.

Mr. Yoder stated that he looked at the other houses in the area and some are actually closer then this home.

Mr. Deremer stated that the 31 ft. as measured by Mr. Revlock is to the front of the garage.

Mr. Yoder stated yes.  They confirmed this before coming to the hearing.

Mr. Deremer asked if this is the last house in the development.

Mr. Yoder stated yes.

Mr. Giulitto asked when the foundation was installed.

Mr. Yoder stated that the basement was installed in October.  When they realized that the home did not meet the setbacks they halted construction until coming before the board.

Mr. McDonnell asked how far back the house at 1954 Devonshire Dr. NW sits.

Mr. Yoder stated that is sits a little further back then the home in question.

Mr. Deremer asked if there is a hill at the property of 1954 Devonshire that is similar to the hill at the proposed home.

Mr. Yoder stated that he is not sure.

Mr. Hershberger stated that he believe there is less of an incline on the adjoining property.

No one else in the audience spoke in favor of this appeal.

Mr. Deremer asked if anyone in the audience wanted to speak in opposition to the appeal.

Mr. Deremer swore in Mr. Bob Cook, 1954 Devonshire NW.
Mr. Cook stated that there is a hill on his property with a brick retaining wall.

Mr. Deremer asked if it is a detriment as to where the home in question is sitting.

Mr. Cook stated that he thinks some things could be done differently such as the garage being on the other side of the house but most people do not want to see any more of the trees taken away because it gives privacy.

Mr. Cook asked if the home is one or two stories.

Mr. Hershberger stated that the home is a one story ranch.

Mr. Cook stated that he was with Mr. Revlock when he measured from the front corner of the garage to the street and does not know how the title company came up with 18 ft. as opposed to 31 ft.

Mr. Deremer stated that this is why Mr. Revlock went out and measured.

Mr. Cook asked if the township has a surveyor to survey the property and testify regarding the setback.

Mr. Deremer stated the township does not survey the property and normally the board takes Mr. Revlock’s measurements.

Mr. Deremer asked Mr. Cook how far his house sits from the road.

Mr. Cook stated probably 50 or 60 ft.

Mr. Dodson asked how the terrain in Mr. Cook’s backyard compares to the terrain on the proposed property.

Mr. Cook stated that when his house was built it was terraced.

Mr. Werner asked Mr. Cook if his finished grade is higher then the property in question.

Mr. Cook stated yes.

Mr. McDonnell stated that Mr. Cook is the adjacent property most affected and asked if he is opposed to the request or in favor of the request.

Mr. Cook stated that his only concern is that it looks like it is close to the street.

Mr. Deremer asked Mr. Cook if there would be a substantial effort to get the house back to the same distance as his house.

Mr. Cook stated that he is not a builder so he does not know what would have to be done.

Mr. Yoder stated that if the house had to be moved it would take a lot of dirt and a large retaining wall and they have already hauled 66 loads of dirt from the property.

Mr. Hershberger stated that the house will be an asset to the neighborhood.

Mr. Deremer swore in Ken Cebulko, 1921 Glenmont NW, Canton, Ohio 44708.

Mr. Cebulko asked if the board grants variances as to how close a retaining wall can go to a property line.

Mr. Deremer stated that there is not a restriction on setbacks for a retaining wall.
Mr. Cebulko stated that the way the house sets now looks fine to him and he has no problem with it.

Mr. Deremer swore in Howard Bettis, 1935 Devonshire NW.

Mr. Bettis stated that he has no objection with the request and it will be the last house in the allotment.

No one else in the audience spoke in favor of or in opposition to the appeal.

Mr. Deremer closed this appeal to public discussion.

Mr. Dodson stated that he is hesitant to grant a variance for a front setback that is actually smaller then what is needed.  He would like to know exactly how far the basement edge is from the right of way because if it is 31 ft. he sees no reason to grant 18 ft.  Mr. Dodson stated that the board may want to grant a continuance to get an exact measurement.

Mr. McDonnell stated that he concurs with Mr. Dodson because he is not going to grant a request for 18 ft. if the measurement is 31 ft. as indicated by Mr. Revlock.

Ms. Poindexter stated that Mr. Revlock was out to the property three different times and had stated to her that he measured from the property pin to come up with a 31 ft. setback.

Mr. Deremer stated that he would be more then willing to grant the 31 ft. setback if the board could confirm this is what the setback is.

Mr. Deremer stated that the board could grant the 31 ft. setback or continue the appeal until the next hearing to get a confirmation on the setback.

Ms. Poindexter stated that the next available time for a continuance would be December 19, 2002 at 8:00 pm.

Mr. Giulitto asked if Mr. Revlock would have to be present at the hearing.

Mr. Deremer stated either Mr. Revlock needs to be at the hearing or they need to get an official survey to verify where the basement is located.

Mr. Deremer stated that he trusts Mr. Revlock to know the township and whatnot and would tend to think that his measurement is correct but he would like some confirmation of that.  Based on the testimony that he has heard he has no problem with the variance where it exists but he would like to verify the number before they officially try to approve it.

Mr. Deremer asked Mr. Yoder if it would be possible to get a survey done.

Mr. Yoder stated that they had a survey done and asked if the setback is from the curb or the road right of way.

Mr. Deremer stated a surveyor would have to figure out where the curb of the road would be or if the road right of way is behind the curb.

Mr. Hershberger stated that he had spoken with Ms. Poindexter and she said that Mr. Revlock had been out to the property three times and measured 31 ft. and he has no problem changing from a low number.

Mr. Deremer stated that he would like to know for sure before making a decision and asked if the case were continued would they have time to get an official survey as to the setback.

Mr. Hershberger stated that he has a survey from the registered surveyor and the title company showing the property and wants to make sure what exactly he needs.

Mr. Deremer stated that it would be similar to what they have.  So the 18 ft. may be the number that they are looking at.

Mr. Deremer stated that he would like to continue this appeal until December 19th so the applicant can contact the surveyor again and let him know that there are questions because the zoning investigator is coming up with a 31 ft. setback.

Mr. Deremer made a motion to continue appeal #1824 until December 19, 2002 at 8:00 pm.

Mr. Werner seconded the motion.

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

Mr. McDonnell made a motion to approve the minutes from October 31, 2002.

Mr. Werner seconded the motion.

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

Mr. McDonnell made a motion to approve the minutes from the November 7, 2002 meeting.

Mr. Giulitto seconded the motion.

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

Respectfully submitted,

Joni Poindexter
Zoning Data Coordinator
Clerk/Secretary