Members present:
Ted Deremer
Edward McDonnell
Richard Dodson
Jim Giulitto
Absent Member: Gerald Werner
Zoning Administrator: John Phillippi
Zoning Data Coordinator: Joni Poindexter
APPEAL #1822 – Randy Wilson, Attorney, 6010 Erie Ave. N, Canal Fulton, Ohio 44614 agent for Desanka Vranesevic, property owner, 3522 Amherst Rd. NW, Massillon, Ohio 44646 requests a variance to allow the parking of a semi tractor on the property of 3522 Amherst Rd. NW where a semi tractor is not permitted in Art. IV Sect. 401.14(C)&(D) of the zoning resolution. Property located at 3522 Amherst Rd. NW, Sect. 32NE Jackson Twp. Area zoned R-R.
MR. DEREMER: Good evening ladies and gentleman this is the Jackson Township Board of Zoning Appeals. It is the 19th of December 2002. The first appeal this night is appeal number 1822. The property owner is Desanka - - are you going to say this for me?
MS. VRANESEVIC: Vranesevic.
MR. DEREMER: Say that.
MS. VRANESEVIC: Vranesevic.
MR. DEREMER: Vranesevic, Ok you leave
out the first “V”. All right. 3522 Amherst Rd. NW, Massillon,
Ohio 44646. The applicant is Randy Wilson, Attorney, 6010 Erie Ave.
N, Canal Fulton, Ohio 44614. Decision being appealed is request a
variance to allow the parking of a semi tractor on the property of 3522
Amherst Rd. NW where a semi is not permitted in Art. V Sect. 401.14(C)
& (D) of the zoning resolution. Property is located at 3522 Amherst
Rd. NW.
The premise affected are the same, 3522
Amherst Rd. NW, Massillon, Ohio located in the northeast corner of quarter
section 32, zoned R-R of Jackson Township. The date of the decision
being appealed is November 7, 2002. Date appeal filed with the Zoning
Administrator is November 7, 2002. Date of appeal filed with the
board is November 7, 2002. Date of publication in the Canton Repository
of December 5, 2002. Date of notice mailed to parties in interest
is December 6, 2002. Date and time of public hearing is December
19, 2002 at 7:30 pm. It is now approximately 7:34.
Reason for the appeal as written
by the applicant is, “Safety for my truck. No terminal within 380
miles and I’m a long distance trucker. The truck is not there everyday”.
And it is signed by Desanka Vranesevic. Boy I want to put that “V”
in there real bad. Thank you.
Also within the file we do have
a tax map of the property in question showing the adjacent parcels and
the current zoning within those parcels. Also a sketch of the property
indicating where the vehicle is parked in approximation to the house and
the rest of the property.
Also within the file we do have
some- - a notice from the - - Earl and Zora Grove dated December 9, 2002,
addressed to the Jackson Township Board of Zoning Appeals, 5735 Wales Ave.
NW, Massillon, Ohio 44646. “Dear Board Members. Please find
enclosed our joint affidavit. We are opposed to the request for variance.
However, we cannot attend the hearing. Very truly yours, Earl H.
Grove and Zora Grove”. And they do have attached an affidavit that
was filed in the County of Trumbull, State of Ohio which states Now comes,
Earl H. Grove and Zora Grove, and after being duly sworn, states the following:
Number one: the undersigned own property at 8481 Milmont Street NW, Massillon,
Ohio 44646. Number two: The above address is our residence in Jackson
Township. Number three: Our residence is in an area zoned R-R.
Number four: We recently received a notice of a public hearing in front
of the Jackson Township Board of Zoning Appeals which is appeal number
1822 for property owned by Desanka - -
MS. VRANESEVIC: Vranesevic
MR. DEREMER: Vranesevic, gee I was getting warmer, at 3522 Amherst Rd. NW, Massillon, Ohio. Number five: The above appeal is an appeal of a denial of a variance to allow the parking of a semi tractor on the above property. Number six: The purpose of this affidavit is to notify the Jackson Township Board of Zoning Appeals that we will be out of state on the date of the hearing which is Thursday, November 19, December 19, 2002 at 7:30 pm. Item seven: Further, we wish the Jackson Township Board of Zoning Appeals to consider our very strong objection to the granting of any such variance. Item eight: Further, we wish the Board to appreciate that we live in Jackson Township because of the protection which zoning affords residential property owners such as ourselves. We do not wish to view semi tractors parked or traveling in our neighborhood. Item nine: Please accept the contents of this affidavit as if we were able to attend and address the Board orally. Futher, Affiants Sayeth Naught and it’s signed by Earl H. Grove and Zora Grove and sworn to before me and subscribed in my presence this eleventh day of December, 2002 by Michael E. Grove, Attorney at Law, Notary Public. And I do believe that is it for the file at this time. Who will be speak on behalf of this appeal this evening?
MR. RANDY WILSON: If it pleases this panel Randy Wilson, Attorney at Law.
MR. DEREMER: Please come forward sir. Are you going to testify or just present your appeal?
MR. WILSON: I’m just going to present the - -Ms. Vranesvic’s case for her.
MR. DEREMER: You can say it better than I can.
MR. WILSON: I’ve known her for over ten years so I’ve had a chance to work on it. I would indicate that the affidavit that you have - - I assume this is the same drawing that is in your file. That- - that property owner is not on any of the boarding streets. Stuhlderher is behind this property, Wales - - Amherst is in front so I believe that objection is not based on a personal problem with this other then a zoning history or a scheme for Jackson Township from what you -
MR. DEREMER: They do indicate that they live at 8481 Milmont St. which is an adjacent parcel to this property.
MR. WILSON: Where is Milmont?
MR. DEREMER: Right here. That’s why they did - - they received a notice as an adjacent parcel but they are just - -
MR. WILSON: Ok but it’s probably about one quarter of a mile away.
MR. DEREMER: No, it’s hooked right to the property.
MR. WILSON: Oh, but I assume their house is out front though, on the street, rather then out back.
MR. DEREMER: That’s partly how they became aware that - -
MR. WILSON: Ok, Yea I couldn’t find it on this one. I would indicate that that property, and I’ll get into that, but the way that the truck is parked there is only two property owners that that truck is visible to because it’s parked next to the garage and if you need to see these two pictures in conjunction with each other.
MR. DEREMER: And what you do present we will leave in the file and mark as exhibits.
MR. WILSON: Ok. This is from - - this isn’t even from the street itself. This is from the edge of their paved driveway which is only about twenty foot, twenty-five foot paved. The rest of it is gravel. This house is situated over one-hundred and ten feet from Wales Avenue itself so anyone traveling on Wales Avenue would have to look for this truck to see it and would have to look very hard to find it because of the way it’s situated.
MR. DEREMER: We’ll mark those as exhibit one and two when I get a hold of them so-
MR. WILSON: When it’s parked next
to the garage no one from the south can see it and the only two people
who can see it is the property owner’s on the- - it would be the north
side. One of those property owner’s is Mr. Herman and he is here
today and he will indicate that he has no objection to it. And he
can only speak for himself but I believe that he will confirm what I’m
going to tell the board at this point.
One is that the truck is there maybe once
or twice a month. The ah - - the ah - - being a long haul operator
he’s on the road for ten- - twelve days at a time. When he gets back
to Jackson Township there is no terminal in this area. He keeps all
his personal belongs setup in the truck. The trailer is absolutely
never parked there. The tractor is there approximately one - two
days a month and I would note that it is never parked on the street.
It’s parked over one hundred and ten feet away from the street and in a
very almost secluded location.
I don’t know if you gentleman have been
out to this property itself but this is probably one of the largest parcels
in this neighborhood. It is over three acres and its- - - there is
big oak trees all around. This is - - this is almost a rural area
in the middle of a subdivision if you actually seen this house. As
I said even its not- - even the house itself and tractor is not up on the
road but its set well back.
No work is ever done on the truck when
it’s there. It is simply parked there for the day or two that he’s
in town. The engine doesn’t sit and run. You know the only
time it’s started up is when he leaves to go off on his trips.
I’m not aware of any problems at least
with, or at least till I came here today, of any problems with any of the
neighbors. And certainly none of the one’s that this truck is visible
to. That person who did put their affidavit in here would absolutely
never see this truck from their location. I’m not even sure they
can see the house from their location because with all the trees that’s
in this area and the size of the lots and the locations of the houses there
is only about three houses that I’ve ever seen visible from this property
and I’ve been there many a time.
It is - - there’s a couple of things -
- the safety problem, he’s trying to park the tractor anywhere else due
to the fact that there’s personal possessions that are in there.
This tractor is not a nuisance in any sense. He’s not working on
the truck there. Not doing anything on the truck there except staying
there one or two days a month. And that’s all we have. Ah I
would ask Mr. Herman, the neighbor, to speak next.
MR. DEREMER: Thank you sir. If you would sir please come forward.
MR. HERMAN: Gentleman, Ladies, I come in this evening to propose that we allow my neighbors to bring the tractor - - truck in there.
MR. DEREMER: If you would we’ll swear you in.
MR. HERMAN: I’m right next door to her. Her lot is there and mine’s right smack up against it.
MR. DEREMER: OK, raise you right hand so we get your testimony - -
MR. HERMAN: Pardon.
MR. DEREMER: We need to get your
testimony on the record.
MR. HERMAN: Alright.
MR. DEREMER: I need to swear you in first. Raise your right hand.
MR. HERMAN: Sure enough.
MR. DEREMER: Do you swear or affirm that the testimony that you’re about to give is the whole truth and nothing but the truth.
MR. HERMAN: You bet your life.
MR. DEREMER: Now you notice Mr. Wilson didn’t have to do that so - -
MR. HERMAN: Ok, they got a separate deal on their own. I’m not an attorney. I’m just a neighbor that’s well pleased with my neighbor. She’s been there ten years or better and I’ve known her in there and that place is as clean as a whistle and she takes real good care of it. The only thing I’ve ever seen is the tractor there and the man washes it occasionally. Now you drive a tractor trailer over the long haul roads and you got to wash it someplace. He doesn’t disturb anybody. One thing I want to make very clear, those objections were on Milmont, right?
MR. DEREMER: Yes.
MR. HERMAN: Now between Desandra’s and those that do abut her over there, not her lot, they are on Milmont and they cannot see this tractor. Furthermore if they’re going to object to the tractor there, why doesn’t the zoning board look into right south of Desandra’s the third house down, they have a pickup truck, they have a tractor - - not a tractor trailer but a vacation trailer and they have a lawn tractor back there. Right north of her, two doors there, they have used cars there. Now if she can’t park that trailer down there and the trailer tractor only, well then we better make these people move there stuff out of there to then. Cause they’ve been there for - - well I know they’ve been there more than three years. Day in and day out, summer and winter, sitting right out there but it’s in back of the house, in back of the garage and you can’t see it from the road. Now this little tractor trailer, if you’re poking along going slow you can see it sitting back there about one hundred twenty five, thirty feet away from the road. But it doesn’t bother anybody and I know for sure they don’t have any idea of building a garage repair place back there. They’ve got plenty of room. He’s got three acres there and I have been there incidentally for thirty eight years. We bought the house before it was finished and I know the people that lived there all the time. And when Dasandra came in there they cleaned the place up, remodeled and it’s a very decent place. She is a wonderful neighbor and I’ve enjoyed having her there. We don’t go buddy buddy or coffee classes or anything like that but she’s there and I’m there for her when we have any problems and so forth. So she asked me if I would come up. I said that I would be glad to come up and testify for you. But I can’t see what objection those people from - - Would you read that over again, just a portion of that on Milmont that are objecting.
MR. DEREMER: 8481 Milmont, they just touch the back of the property.
MR. HERMAN: No it does not touch the back of her property.
MR. DEREMER: According to the tax map it does.
MR. HERMAN: No. Our property is right down there. There is a big vacant field and Milmont is down here. They have no connection with Dasandra’s. And she can’t see the dog gone - - whoever’s objecting to it can’t see the dog gone tractor from their house.
VOICE FROM AUDIENCE: There’s a little thing of woods right where the property touches ours.
MR. DEREMER: Ok. They were given a notice because by the tax map they do abut the property. So that’s the only way they - -
MR. HERMAN: Well I know cause I’ve had some problems to. They were taxing me for two lots and I don’t have two lots. They finally got that straighten out so I wish you wouldn’t go on that. Some guys that own it come up and cut the grass once or twice a summer and that’s the end of it. But Dasandra’s lot has no connection whatsoever with there’s on Milmont. They can’t even see her. But they can see the vacation trailer, the pickup truck, and the tractor that’s parked behind the one garage over on Amherst three doors down closer to Milmont. Now if they are going to complain about Dasandra’s how about complaining about them to.
MR. DEREMER: Would you agree with Mr. Wilson’s presentation that the truck is only there once or twice a month?
MR. HERMAN: Oh yea. Sometimes he’s not even there in a month. I think the longest time I’ve seen the truck down there was probably one time and it may have been not quite a week. And he is very careful with it. He doesn’t park it out in the road or back in the space they got there. It’s right smack up almost up against the garage. She has a brick home so her place is almost immaculate. She’s a darn good housekeeper.
MR. DEREMER: Very good. Gentleman do you have any questions?
MR. HERMAN: I'd be sure glad to answer them for you if you have any questions or anything because as I said before we don’t have a coffee class or any of that kind of connection. She is there and she does a good job and keeps her place well and cleaned up real nice. And I do the same thing with mine as far as I can tell.
MR. DEREMER: OK.
MR. HERMAN: But you can see my back patio from one of those pictures there.
MR. DEREMER: Very good. Yea these are the only two we have right now.
MR. HERMAN: Well I think mine is on there - - someplace there. This is my house right there.
MR. DEREMER: Ok.
MR. HERMAN: So if anybody’s going to object - -
MR. DEREMER: Ok. You’re the one that would be most visible to the truck.
MR. HERMAN: Why sure.
MR. DEREMER: I think we have a copy of that.
MR. HERMAN: This is my house. This is Mr. Railhall and this is Clements at the circle and this is this house. So these must be the ones that object. What’s there names?
MR. DEREMER: It’s this parcel right here.
MR. HERMAN: My heavens only that much for Cripes sake.
MR. DEREMER: They’re close but they touch so they are allowed - - they got a notice.
MR. HERMAN: Well sure but how picky can you get.
MR. DEREMER: Well a lot of people get very picky.
MR. HERMAN: I guess so. I’ve been around this earth for eighty-six years and the more I see people the more I think Yuk.
MR. DEREMER: Thank you sir.
MR. HERMAN: I’ll answer any questions if you got any questions.
MR. DEREMER: Gentleman you got any questions? Thank you.
MR. HERMAN: Thank you very much.
MR. DEREMER: Mr. Wilson, anyone else you have to present?
MR. WILSON: No sir.
MR. DEREMER: Ok. Gentleman do you have any questions of Mr. Wilson or the applicant?
MR. MCDONNELL: I do.
MR. DEREMER: You do? For who?
MR. MCDONNELL: Mr. Wilson.
MR. DEREMER: If you would Mr. Wilson, Mr. McDonnell has some questions here.
MR. MCDONNELL: Maybe I missed something here along the way. Who actually drives the truck?
MR. WILSON: Her finance. Neal is his name.
MR. MCDONNELL: Is there anything about the property itself that creates this problem?
MR. WILSON: That creates a problem? I don’t believe so. On the opposite - - the property itself minimizes any problem because of the lack of visibility for anyone. The one with the most visibility of all is Mr. Herman here. None of the other people, and I understand now that Milmont does touch back there but it touches through a woods so not only is it - - That lot I believe is over one thousand feet deep - -about twelve-hundred feet deep. And they are back here five–six hundred feet deep looking through trees and through a building. There is no one except these people that can even see the truck. And even on the highway it’s so far back that the trucks almost invisible unless you were actually trying to look for it.
MR. DEREMER: Any other questions gentleman? Anything else you’d like to add?
MR. WILSON: No, only that I’ve known Ms. Vranesevic for many years and she is a fine person and a good property owner and good citizen of Jackson Township.
MR. DEREMER: Well thank you sir.
With that we will close to the applicant’s presentation and look to anyone
in the audience who would like to speak in favor of the application this
evening. By your silence I shall take that as a no. Is there
anyone in the audience that would like to speak in opposition to the application
this evening? Please come forward.
Hi. Please raise your right
hand. Do you swear or affirm that the testimony your about to give
is the whole truth and nothing but the truth?
MS. DRAKE: I do.
MR. DEREMER: Please state your name and address for the record.
MS. DRAKE: Linda K. Drake, 8501 Milmont.
MR. DEREMER: And you do touch the parcel?
MS. DRAKE: Yea, I’m right next to Earl and Zora Grove and my property is one acre and my woods in the back do touch that property and you can see up there.
MR. DEREMER: OK.
MS. DRAKE: My objection mainly is to - - relates to another issue to my neighbor at 8519 who was given permission to build a garage out towards Milmont, which is not in line with the rest of our houses. And since then he is parking four trucks, one boat, a tractor, wagon, a pontoon and three cars. I do not want to see a semi tractor trailer behind me because that’s all you’ll be looking at. I think our concern - -I was not given- -this is the only thing I was given. I don’t know where - - I was not given a paper showing exactly where the tractor will be parked.
MR. DEREMER: You can come and take a look at what was presented. This is where it sits. It’s on the, right here on the house. It would be on the opposite side of your - - -yea.
MS. DRAKE: I think Earl and Zora Grove and my concern is if we can see that tractor trailer, we object. If they can guarantee me that I can’t see that with the rest of the junk to the east of me then I have no objection.
MR. DEREMER: Have you seen it yet?
MS. DRAKE: No I have not. But they say you can’t see the property and you can. When I’m up there doing my lawn and leaves and stuff you can see that property. But if it’s going to be on the other side of that brick building then I have no objection, if that’s guaranteed that’s where it’s going to be.
MR. DEREMER: Well that is what the testimony has been which we, we will hold the applicant to that testimony, if it is approved. There’s no guarantee of that as yet.
MS. DRAKE: Cause it is a nice township and slowly but surely it is turning into a junk yard. And I think Mr. Wilson meant when you’re coming down, slowly down Amherst not Wales. You can’t see it from Wales.
MR. WILSON: Yes that’s correct.
MS. DRAKE: So that’s my only objection. I don’t want to see it back there with the rest of the junk on the other side of me.
MR. DEREMER: OK. Any questions gentleman?
MR. MCDONNELL: Yea. I’m sorry I didn’t catch you name ma’am.
MS. DRAKE: Linda Drake.
MR. MCDONNELL: Ms. Drake just, not
really a question but a comment. First of all with regards to the
problem you indicated before, there’s nothing the board can do about it
at this time. If - - if that’s, just so you know, recreational vehicles,
pontoons, whatever, cannot be parked in front- - in front of the house.
They can be parked on the side. If they’re being parked in the front
call the zoning office and we’ll send the inspector out and they can issue
a citation. Number two, just so you know also, you don’t have to
abut the property. If you lived over on Whipple Ave. in Jackson Township,
you could come and speak on any hearing that you saw fit to speak on, that
had an opinion on. The fact that you live closest is fine and - -
MS. DRAKE: And I’m glad there is a hearing on- - the other one I spoke about there was not. It just fell within the guidelines. Now my concern is - -
MR. MCDONNELL: Even as far as the garage, if it fell within the guidelines there would not be a hearing.
MS. DRAKE: It’s just my concern is that I do not want to see another vehicle parked where it can ruin my property values and my neighbor’s property values.
MR. MCDONNELL: I understand.
MS. DRAKE: It may sound selfish but if I can’t see it, I have no objection.
MR. MCDONNELL: What I was going to say, if there, if there is a concern with other things being parked there, recreational vehicles, pontoons, whatever, being parked in the front just call the zoning office and they can send someone out to take a look.
MS. DRAKE: But they can park on the side.
MR. MCDONNELL: I believe.
MS. DRAKE: That’s all I can see out my window, the vehicles.
MR. MCDONNELL: They can park on the side.
MS. DRAKE: Ok, thank you.
MR. MCDONNELL: Thank you.
MR. DEREMER: Thank you ma’am.
Is there anyone else in the audience
that would like to speak in opposition to the appeal this evening?
MR. GIULITTO: Mr. Chairman, I just had one other question. How long has the truck been at this location?
MR. DEREMER: Mr. Wilson if you want to address that.
MR. WILSON: On an average not more than two days a month.
MR. GIULITTO: Yea I understand that. But how long? Has it been there a year or six months or - -
MS. VRANESVIC: Since April.
MR. WILSON: Since about April.
MR. GIULITTO: Ok, thank you.
MR. DEREMER: Mr. Wilson, we do let the applicant have the last bite at the apple so to speak if you have any statements.
MR. WILSON: I would reiterate in trying to lay her concerns that from her property back there, I think she indicated there is woods back there, its sounds like somewhere over here, and Mr. Herman eluted to the same thing, there’s someone who parks a pontoon and trucks and used cars and everything else that probably is an eyesore and I can understand her concerns, but this one is not. The fact that she indicates she’s never seen it I think is pretty telling that from where this truck is parked it’s not going to bother any of the people on Milmont. There not going to see it. They apparently do have a problem with an eyesore but it’s not this truck. That’s about all I can tell you.
MR. DEREMER: Thank you sir.
MR. WILSON: I noticed that the only two people who could ever view this, the one apparently - - apparently did not show up today so it is not bothering her and Mr. Herman who has the best view of it has no objections with what’s there.
MR. DEREMER: Thank you sir.
MR. WILSON: Thank you.
MR. DEREMER: With that we will close to public input at this time, deliberate amongst the board members here within public view and hope we come to a resolution here shortly. Gentleman what are your thought on this matter this evening?
MR. DODSON: Mr. Chairman.
MR. DEREMER: Please.
MR. DODSON: If memory serves, this
is the fourth time this has come up since I’ve been on the board.
The first two times the semi’s were parked for the first time after the
enactment of the zoning prohibition when we denied the variance both times.
The third time it was established that the truck was first parked on the
property in question prior to the time of the enactment of the zoning prohibition.
In that case the owner’s of the property had actually contacted the zoning
office to confirm that they’d be allow to park the trailer on the property
and were told it was ok and subsequently the zoning had changed and a citation
was issued. Even though you would normally expect that to be grandfathered
I think the finding of the majority of the board, as I was a minority,
was that that was an exercise of the police power for public safety and
grandfathering didn’t apply. We denied that one to.
The other thing that comes to mind,
we do have the obligation to find an undo hardship in connection with the
land itself not created by the applicant. And a hardship here and
I understand there is a hardship, but it has nothing to do with the land.
It stems from the fact that there’s no nearby terminal, so the problem
is really is put on the applicant. I’m sympathetic and I know we
consider each case on its own facts and it may be that this particular
trailer is not going to be an eyesore or problem for anybody but based
on the decisions that we’ve made in the past I really question whether
we should grant it. Thank you.
MR. DEREMER: Thank you sir. Gentleman, any other comments?
MR. MCDONNELL: Mr. Chairman.
MR. DEREMER: Yes.
MR. MCDONNELL: First of all I concur with Mr. Dodson’s remarks. The other thing I take a look at is, you know we grant - - we been given the authority to grant variances and one of the conditions is whether the sprit and intent behind zoning requirement would be observed. And then I read the prohibition against parking tractors. By the way it was a tractor that was parked there as opposed to the trailer, a small point but - - I read the prohibition and the prohibition is pretty strong. It says you shall not. I think there is the - - the sprit and intent that the trustees had when they enacted that portion of the resolution was for specific purposes. Does it - - because there is an impact I think on the surrounding properties, surrounding property owners. For the reasons Mr. Dodson indicated and the ones I just also indicated, I would have difficulty voting for this request.
MR. DEREMER: Thank you sir. Any other comments gentleman?
MR. DEREMER: I would just like to add my opinion if I could. We have had four, I believe this is the fourth case in this type of matter here at recent times but I do believe the first two cases that we heard were people who were bringing their vehicles home every night. They were work related trucks that weighed over 10,000 lbs. but they were daily commute type trucks. Instead of parking them in a rental facility or some thing of that sort or nearby terminal and driving to that terminal they drove it home everyday because they were on call at certain times throughout the night and day. One thing that sticks out in my mind in this matter is this is his livelihood; this is his occupation as a long distance trucker. He is only home for minimal points of the month which was testified as one or two days a month. That is similar to the case that we did approve. The truck driver did have a grandfathered history and been doing it for several number of years but it was also the same circumstances. He was gone for ten or twelve days at a time, came back for a day or two and then was out for the next adventure. I do believe that is in my mind, I believe that is somewhat of a hardship because you are asking somebody with their occupation to spend addition money or additional time when they own property in Jackson Township to not park there vehicle there. Now we have testimony both positive and negatively both from the neighboring property owners and mostly it’s because I don’t want to look at an ugly looking semi tractor. That is not the indication here. It’s the vehicle is in good condition, it’s a new vehicle and if it remains in that type of condition I doubt if anybody would make indifference about it. But I’m somewhat of a mind to approve it based on our past history in similar type cases. It’s one thing to be driving it home every night, rattling everyday, every morning, verses one or two times a month that you notice its there. It would be no different then somebody coming out of town and I am a long distance hauler and spend the night at my grandfathers house or something. Is he not allowed to do that for a short time or period? And I think that needs to be allowed within this township even as we grow in the ways we are growing. So that’s my opinion. Any additional thoughts on that or comments?
MR. GIULITTO: Mr. Chairman what I would like to say would be that I concur with you. My short tender on this board it is an individual case and you go off the track record and go from there but what I’ve seen tonight is like you said, that the truck is only there a couple days a month, the neighbors affected around him have testimony that says they have no problem with it - - directly view of this. The one neighbor that was in opposition that was here tonight, when asked about saying that she could not see it directly and it’s been there since April so that would tell me that that would not be a problem either. So I’m leaning toward your way also that I would approve this variance. My concern is if we would go to a two-two tie it would be denied, if we would proceed that way tonight.
MR. DEREMER: That potentially does exist but - -
MR. GIULITTO: But that’s the situation that presents us tonight.
MR. DEREMER: It very well could be so gentleman, any other discussion?
MR. DODSON: Mr. Chairman if we were to limit it to a couple days per week how would we do that because a variance does run with the property.
MR. DEREMER: I believe we did put a condition in the previous one to limit that time frame. It was just for the property owner so it did not go with the land. That’s how we modified it. If the property owner left there would be no variance at that time, if he retired or per say. But I would see no difference then putting a time limit to it also.
MR. MCDONNELL: Mr. Chairman.
MR. DEREMER: Yes.
MR. MCDONNELL: You can put a time limit on it, ten years, twenty years, two weeks, but I don’t know - - and we could put a time limit on it, say it’s only two days a month but that’s unenforceable unless we send the zoning inspector out or we have one of the neighbors sitting there with their score card saying it’s been there two and one half days, get that thing out of here to catch up with the rest of the month. And the problem is again, the variance goes with the property and there is nothing to stop it from while it may only be there two days a week, while it might be a good looking truck- - tractor at this point, and nothing against the applicant or the owner of the truck, but it may windup being there three weeks out of the month. It may windup being a junker down the road and like I said nothing - - maybe they sell it and somebody else moves in but the variance is still there. That’s all I can say. It goes with the land. Its, I think in a situation like this perhaps we’re opening Pandora’s Box. The only one that this board has ever granted of the four, and it’s kind of interesting because we’ve never had these until about the last year, but the one we granted was where the individual has been doing it for years, the regulation changed and he called the zoning office and was informed that he had no problem and he continued doing it. There I felt we had somewhat of a moral obligation to honor that. But any of the additional ones, any that have come up since without those conditions where the situation has occurred after this zoning resolution, I think the board has a history of adhering to the sprit and intent of the resolution that says you will not. And I think part of the reason is because it does go with the property and not with the owner, not with the truck, but it stays with that piece of property.
MR. DEREMER: Thank you sir.
MR. MCDONNELL: And with that I’ll shut up.
MR. DEREMER: Ok. Any other discussion or a possible motion?
MR. MCDONNELL: Mr. Chairman.
MR. DEREMER: Yes.
MR. MCDONNELL: I’ll make a motion and I’m going to make it in the affirmative so that a yes is for it and a no is against it or in opposition to it, that appeal #1822 be approved.
MR. DEREMER: Do we have a seconded.
MR. GIULITTO: Seconded.
MR. DEREMER: I would just remind
the applicant that because we do have a four member board here tonight
if there is a possible two-two tie that is also considered a non positive
vote basically, so it is not passed if that would occur. We try not
to get into these situations but they do occur when members are unfortunately
not able to make it here during the meetings.
Please call the role.
MS. POINDEXTER: Mr. Giulitto.
MR. GIULITTO: Yes.
MS. POINDEXTER: Mr. Dodson
MR. DODSON: No.
MS. POINDEXTER: Mr. McDonnell.
MR. MCDONNELL: No.
MS. POINDEXTER: Mr. Deremer.
MR. DEREMER: Yes.
With that Mr. Wilson though, you are denied
the appeal because of the tie. You do have the right to appeal that
to the Court of Common Pleas of Stark County within thirty days if you
feel the answer or the resolution here this evening is not in your best
interest. So I do appreciate your time here this evening.
MR. WILSON: Do you have a procedure for a motion for reconsideration or another hearing?
MR. DEREMER: We- -If the court would so move us to do that. We normally let it go into the appeal process and then the court will hear that.
MR. WILSON: You don’t have an internal procedure for reconsideration.
MR. DEREMER: No, I’d rather - - my next course of appeal is the Court of Common Pleas of Stark County. So- - and then if they tell me to remand it, or they remand it back to us we will move on their actions.
MR. WILSON: Thank you.
Mr. DEREMER: Thank you for your time.
(This concludes appeal #1822)
APPEAL #1825 – Carol Harmon, 3969 Hyatt Ave. NW, Massillon, Ohio 44646 agent for Prudential DeHoff Realtors, property owner, 821 S. Main St., North Canton, Ohio 44720 requests an off-premises temporary sign until March 30, 2003 where a temporary sign is not permitted in Art. IV Sect. 504.2 of the zoning resolution. Property located at the southeast corner of Wales and Fulton Rd. Sect. 21NE Jackson Twp. Area zoned B-3.
Mr. Deremer read the file application signed by Carol Harmon and the reasons for the appeal. The file contained a tax map of the property in question, a site plan showing the proposed location of the sign, a drawing showing the size of the sign, a letter from the property owner giving permission to erect the sign, and a letter to the trustees asking for a waiver for the appeal fee.
Mr. Deremer asked who would like to speak in favor of this appeal.
Mr. Deremer swore in Carol Harmon, 3969 Hyatt Ave. NW.
Ms. Harmon stated that she is a parent of a basketball player of Jackson and a member of the round ball club. She volunteered to paint the sign and did not realize what everything entailed in erecting the sign. Ms. Harmon stated that she has been a teacher at Jackson for twenty-two years and in the past they have always had signs where the safety building is being constructed.
Ms. Harmon stated that there is currently
a sign on the proposed corner that is well back from the street and does
not block any visibility. The proposed sign would be located directly
next to the existing sign.
Mr. Deremer stated that the sketch indicates
that the sign is going to be twenty-five feet from Fulton Rd.
Ms. Harmon stated that she guessed at this and if anything it is probably more then twenty-five feet from the road.
Ms. Harmon stated that the sign is a 4 x 8’ piece of ply wood with a hand painted polar bear on the top of it so it may be a little over 8 ft. tall after the polar bear is attached.
Ms. Harmon stated that the booster club has already put out over $200.00 in getting Studer Signs to do the lettering.
Mr. Giulitto stated that a few meetings ago they had another part of the Jackson school system that was going to come before the board for a sign that got curtailed. In talking with some of the people they had said that the Superintendent had put a hold on those signs, for the soccer group. Mr. Giulitto asked Ms. Harmon if she had received permission from the school saying that it is Ok for the sign.
Ms. Harmon stated that there is a ruling as to how many signs the school property can actually have along Fulton Rd. so she decided not to even ask if the sign could be put on the school property. This is when DeHoff gave permission to erect the sign for this year only. Ms. Harmon stated that the sign would only be displayed until the end of March. Ms. Harmon stated that Mr. Larson is aware of the sign.
Ms. Harmon stated that it would be good if Jackson would look into to having a billboard or electronic sign where all the sports or even recreational activities for the parks could be displayed.
Mr. McDonnell asked how high the post for the sign would extend above the ground.
Ms. Harmon stated that the posts are eight feet in height. The sign would be raised a little so the bottom of the sign doesn’t lay on the ground but probably no more than ½ foot.
Mr. McDonnell stated that if the board would pass the request the sign could not be any larger then 4 x 8.
Ms. Harmon stated that the sign is already done and is ready to go however the polar bear would stick up a little bit from the top of the sign.
Mr. Deremer stated that he believes the zoning certificate was refused because it was for a period longer then 30 days and this is not permitted, which is the basic issue before the board.
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. Giulitto stated that the only concern he had was to make sure that the school system was Ok with the sign and it seems that they are so he has no problem with the request.
Mr. Dodson stated that he feels if approved, it should only be for this year.
Mr. McDonnell stated that he agrees with Mr. Dodson but the request is only until March 30, 2003. Mr. McDonnell stated that he thinks the sign is a great idea and has no problem with it.
Mr. Deremer stated that a time limit is requested in the appeal so they are limited until March 30, 2003.
Mr. Dodson made a motion to approve appeal #1825 as requested.
Mr. McDonnell seconded the motion.
The vote was: Mr. Giulitto-yes, Mr. Dodson-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 stated that this appeal is continued from December 5, 2002 and the file was read into the record at that time. They had also heard testimony at that time but needed some finalization on the distance.
Mr. Deremer asked the applicant to come forward and stated that he would still be sworn in from the last hearing.
Mr. Hershberger gave the board a copy of a survey and stated that he met with a licensed surveyor from Campbell and Associates on December 10th.
Mr. Deremer marked the survey as exhibit #1.
Mr. Hershberger stated that the reason for the discrepancy was due to the curve in the road. They found the pins that were put in probably when the road was done in 1961, which are approximately 25 ft. from the center of the street. If you run a straight line across the property pins the house sits at a 31 ft. 8 in. setback.
Mr. Hershberger stated that the 18 ft. measurement came from the road curving in but upon talking to the surveyor, bank, and zoning department, everybody is comfortable with a 31 ft. setback.
Mr. Hershberger stated that if the house were setback any further they would have to remove more trees, erosion could be a problem, and there would be a negative impact and hardship for them and the property owner.
Mr. Dodson asked according to zoning, if the front setback runs from the edge of the pavement or the right of way.
Mr. Deremer stated that it is from the right of way. Mr. Deremer stated that he spoke with Mr. Revlock and it was confirmed that the information that he was getting was from the right of way and he concurs with the 31 ft. setback.
Mr. Hershberger stated that the surveyor had stated that the closest point to the blacktop is 36 ft. and it’s the curve that had caused the problem.
Mr. Deremer stated based on his discussions with Mr. Revlock he had measured the setback three times and came up with a rough measurement of 32 ft. so he would be more so to go with the 31 ft. setback as an acceptable number.
Mr. Deremer asked if anyone else in the audience wanted to speak in favor of this appeal
Mr. Deremer swore in Margaret Hulit.
Ms. Hulit stated that she is the owner of the property and would like the board to favorably consider the request because it is very important that she get the home built.
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. Deremer stated that there is a modification to the appeal. The requested variance has changed from 18 ft. to 31 ft. and this has been confirmed through numerous measurements and is an acceptable number to all parties concerned.
Mr. Dodson stated that he doesn’t think the variance is excessive and is necessitated by the topography of the land, which creates a hardship. Mr. Dodson stated that he has no problem with the 31 ft. setback.
Mr. Giulitto stated that he was ready to vote for approval of this request two weeks ago upon verification that the setback was 31 ft. They have this now so he has no problem with this appeal.
Mr. Deremer stated that he agrees with the other board members and it has been testified that if pushed back it would do more detriment to the neighborhood then to leave it where it is.
Mr. McDonnell made a motion to approve appeal #1824 for a 31 ft. setback.
Mr. Dodson seconded the motion.
The vote was: Mr. Giulitto-yes, Mr. Dodson-yes, Mr. McDonnell-yes, and Mr. Deremer-yes.
APPEAL #1816 – Vanguard Church, c/o Canton Women’s Center, 6555 Frank Ave. NW, North Canton, Ohio 44720 agent for Barbara Romero, property owner, 1817 Fairway Dr., Uniontown, Ohio 44685 requests a conditional use permit for a church inside an existing building where a conditional use permit is required in Art. IV Sect. 411.3 of the zoning resolution. Property located at 6555 Frank Ave. NW, Sect. 14NE Jackson Twp. Area zoned B-1.
Mr. Deremer stated that this appeal is continued from November 7, 2002.
Mr. Deremer read the file application signed by Bob Robinson and the reasons for the appeal. The file contained a tax map of the property in question, a sketch showing the existing building and the area to be used for the church service, a letter dated 6/25/02 from Barbara Romero stating that she gives her permission to use the property for the church service, and the responses 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 Bob Robinson, 8481 Whitmer Ave. NW, North Canton, Ohio 44721.
Mr. Robinson stated that he is the pastor of Vanguard Church, which was just started last year. Mr. Robinson stated that had received permission from the property owner to use the conference room of the Women’s Center for their Sunday morning church services but he received a letter from the zoning department that stated that they were in violation and needed to come before the board for permission for the church services to be held on the property.
Mr. Robinson stated that they arrive at 8:00 a.m. to set up for the service and are usually done by 1:00 p.m. On Sunday mornings they put a sign on the property by the street announcing the Sunday morning service.
Mr. Deremer asked what that average attendance is for the services.
Mr. Robinson stated the attendance is between thirty and forty people.
Mr. Deremer asked if Sunday is the only day that they use the facility.
Mr. Robinson stated that once in a while
they will use the facility on a week night, such as Christmas Eve, but
most of the time it is only used on Sunday mornings.
Mr. McDonnell reviewed the criteria for
the conditional use permit and Mr. Robinson answered as follows:
Section 431.2
A) No
B) No
C) N/A- no alterations to the building,
parking or drive entrances/exits
D) N/A
E) N/A
F) N/A
Section 431.3C
1) Yes
2) N/A
3) No lighting
4) N/A
5) No trash receptacles
6) N/A
Section 431.6F
1) N/A
2) No children’s outside activities
3) N/A-building already there
4) No other activities besides the services
and occasionally gathering, such as Christmas Eve.
5) N/A
Mr. Deremer asked if the only sign they would have would be a portable one that is put up on Sunday morning and then taken down after the service.
Mr. Robinson stated yes.
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. McDonnell stated that the building exists and they are using part of it for Sunday services and an occasional meeting. All the requirements have been met and he has no problem with this appeal.
Mr. Deremer stated that usually if all the requirements are met then the conditional use permit is permitted. They are in compliance and he believes this is an acceptable conditional use permit.
Mr. Dodson made a motion to approve appeal #1816 as requested.
Mr. Giulitto seconded the motion.
The vote was: Mr. Giulitto-yes, Mr. Dodson-yes, Mr. McDonnell-yes, and Mr. Deremer-yes.
Mr. Deremer asked if the board had any comments on the minutes from November 21, 2002.
Mr. Giulitto made a motion to approve the minutes from the November 21, 2002 meeting.
Mr. Dodson seconded the motion.
The vote was: Mr. Giulitto-yes, Mr. Dodson-yes,
Mr. McDonnell-yes, and Mr. Deremer-abstained.
Mr. McDonnell made a motion to approve
the minutes from December 5, 2002.
Mr. Dodson seconded the motion.
The vote was: Mr. Giulitto-yes, Mr. Dodson-yes, Mr. McDonnell-yes, and Mr. Deremer-yes.
Mr. McDonnell made a motion to adjourn the meeting.
Mr. Dodson seconded the motion.
The vote was: Mr. Giulitto-yes, Mr. Dodson-yes, Mr. McDonnell-yes, and Mr. Deremer-yes.
Respectfully submitted,
Joni Poindexter
Zoning Data Coordinator
Clerk/Secretary