Members present:
Ted Deremer – recused for Appeal #2007 only
Edward McDonnell – recused for Appeal #2008 only
Richard Dodson
John Juergensen
Jim Giulitto
Alternate member:
Eric Oldroyd
Zoning Inspector:
Joni Poindexter
Zoning Coordinator:
Lori Foutz
APPEAL #2007 – Eugenia Frank, Trustee, 5422 Portage St, NW, North Canton, OH 44720, property owner, Tom Strobl, Canton Christian Home, 2550 Cleveland Ave NW, Canton, OH 44709 applicant, appeals the decision of the zoning administrator as provided for in Art. VIII, Section 803.1 of the zoning resolution regarding compliance of a congregate living facility. Property located at 5422 Portage St NW, North Canton, OH, approx. 80 acres, Sect. 14NE Jackson Township. Area zoned R-R.
Mr. McDonnell read the application signed by Tom Strobl, and the reason for the appeal as listed in the file. The file contained a letter and a signed affidavit from Eugenia Frank for Canton Christian Home to pursue its application for a conditional use permit, signed by notary public Dianne Blocker Braun. A letter, from Joni Poindexter, to Tom Strobl, stating the plan does not meet the definition of a congregate living facility. A copy of Baldwin’s Ohio Revised Code R.C. 519.15. A letter, from Paul Pusateri, to Joni Poindexter, responding to her denial letter. Full size, and reduced 11x17, site plan prepared by RMCN Group, LLC, and a property layout, in color, site plan. Also in the file was an aerial view of the parcel and adjoining parcels.
Mr. McDonnell clarified this meeting is to decide whether the proposed project constitutes a congregate living facility as defined in the zoning resolution book. Please keep any remarks you have to that issue. We are not considering a conditional use permit for this project at this time.
Mr. McDonnell asked if both parties would be represented by legal counsel. Mr. David Ferrell will be representing Joni Poindexter, Jackson Twp. Zoning Inspector. Paul Pusateri will be representing Tom Strobl, Canton Christian Home.
Mr. McDonnell swore in Joni Poindexter, Jackson Twp. Zoning Inspector. Mr. Ferrell asked if her role as the zoning inspector was to receive conditional use permit applications and determine whether the application is sufficient and complete.
Ms. Poindexter stated that was correct.
Mr. Ferrell asked Ms. Poindexter to give the board the procedural history of this case and what lead up to her decision.
Ms. Poindexter stated they had several meetings with Canton Christian Home. After each meeting she advised them they were still doing research to determine if it meets a congregate living facility and would get back to them. They are not disputing the facility with the common areas. The decision was based on the attached and detached single family dwellings, they do not fall under the congregate living facility definition. If you look under the congregate living facility definition for conditional uses it states “A congregate living facility may include one or more of the following types of residential facilities: Independent living with congregate dining facilities, congregate living, assisted living, nursing home”. What they are saying is the facility itself that includes that, is within the criteria for the conditional use. The detached single family homes are not independent with congregate dining facilities because they have all the facilities that your normal house would have.
Mr. Ferrell clarified which buildings Ms. Poindexter was referring to on the overhead projector.
Ms Poindexter stated that there are 107 detached buildings that do not meet the requirement.
Mr. Ferrell asked if the plan did not have the 107 detached buildings they would meet the definition.
Ms. Poindexter stated yes, they would meet the definition.
Mr. Ferrell asked Ms. Poindexter to read the definition in the zoning resolution book for a congregate living facility.
Ms. Poindexter read from the zoning resolution book, a congregate living facility is defined as a residential facility to provide for the needs of individuals who are elderly or handicapped. The facility shall consist of residential dwelling units designed specifically for the elderly or handicapped, and have common social, recreational, dining and food preparation facilities.
Mr. Ferrell clarified that since the independent living units have there own kitchens and dining rooms, there is nothing common about them.
Ms. Poindexter stated that they do not have common dining facilities. She stated it is there understanding that the other buildings are connected and have common dining facilities.
Mr. Ferrell asked what the distance was from the farthest independent unit to the dining area.
Ms. Poindexter stated she is not sure which building will have the dining area in it, however, from the first independent unit, closest to Portage, to the first building they consider congregate living is 1500 feet.
Mr. Ferrell asked Ms. Poindexter if she would expect someone to walk 1500 feet for dinner.
Ms. Poindexter stated that she would not.
Mr. Ferrell clarified her decision was based on if this project meets a congregate living facility according to the zoning resolution, not that it was a good or bad project.
Ms. Poindexter stated that her decision was based on if it meets the zoning resolution.
Mr. Ferrell asked if this project could be built in another area of Jackson Township.
Ms. Poindexter stated that it could be built in an R-3 district, however, they would have to revise their plan because there is a minimum of 30 ft. between buildings.
Mr. Ferrell asked how close the independent buildings are to each other now.
Ms. Poindexter stated that the closest one is 6.41 feet to another building. In an R-R district there is a 10 ft. setback and even if you do not have property lines you still have 20 ft between buildings. Under any of our regulations that permit single family attached buildings the code requires 30 feet between buildings.
Mr. Pusateri asked if Ms. Poindexter realizes that the independent living facilities have kitchens.
Ms. Poindexter stated yes she did.
Mr. Pusateri stated if all of these houses were attached to the main building it would meet the definition. The only thing we are disputing is that they are not attached.
Ms. Poindexter stated if everything was attached, one facility, and it all had congregate dining, common social, recreational, then it would be considered a congregate living facility.
Mr. Pusateri asked if that would be kinda silly.
Ms. Poindexter answered sure it would, but that is how the regulation reads.
Mr. Pusateri informed the board that along with providing legal counsel, he will also be testifying. Mr. McDonnell swore in Mr. Pusateri.
Mr. Pusateri stated the only disagreement they have is a slight requirement on the interpretation of the zoning resolution. They also represent Ms. Frank’s interest in selling 80 plus acres. Canton Christian Home wants to provide a service to Jackson Township by constructing a congregate living facility. A facility that will provide our aging community with a place to retire and have their needs met. The application they submitted for a conditional use permit was complete and met all the requirements of the zoning resolution. Canton Christian Home wants an opportunity to be heard on its merits on that conditional use application. The zoning inspector issued the letter dated 11/21/05, and concludes the issue is the villas surrounding the major villas are not attached. How she comes to that conclusion is the word facility is singular not plural. So it has to be one facility, not individual facilities. The issue is if the congregate living facility requires a single building in the zoning resolution. Mr. Pusateri reminded the board that it is a conditional use permit in other districts. If they decide to make a decision that it is a single building, it will also impact other congregate living facilities in other districts. The legal authority is contrary to Ms. Poindexter’s opinion. The letter from Mr. Pusateri, to Ms. Poindexter, is in Section 201 of the zoning resolution book. It clearly states that a word used in a singular shall be considered plural and a word used in the plural shall be considered singular throughout the resolution book. Therefore, Canton Christian Home should not be reduced to one building. General rule of statutory interpretation, recognized by the courts in Ohio, when a word is used in the singular it is also considered in the plural. In addition, zoning boards need to treat applications for conditional use permits equally. An example is Kent University Stark, and Stark State College. Both of these facilities are situated in an R-R district. The definition of school, business, and trade in the zoning resolution is defined as a higher education facility. Facility is singular. We know both of these entities have multiple buildings. They are not limited to one building. Mr. Pusateri distributed maps to the board members of these buildings.
Mr. McDonnell marked the map as Exhibit 1 for the file.
Mr. Pusateri stated there is also a common sense approach to this. To meet the guidelines, Canton Christian Home would have to come back with one huge building or connect all of these buildings together. Either of these options does not make any sense. However, that is what they would have to do to comply to meet the definition of the word facility.
Mr. Dodson asked Mr. Pusateri if could define the difference between a two family dwelling unit as defined on page 201-13 of the resolution book and the unattached buildings in their plan. Mr. Dodson stated that two family dwellings are not allowed in an R-R district.
Mr. Pusteri stated they are not on separate lots and not owned by the person living in them. The facility owns the homes. The individuals in these homes have the same common uses of the other buildings. The concept is a healthy person can live in these homes and the spouse that needs medical attention can live in the assisted area.
Mr. Dodson asked if the villas are rented.
Ms. Pusateri stated there is a one time upfront deposit then they pay a monthly amount. The monthly amount is paid whether you live in the villas, apartments, or assisted living area.
Mr. Juergensen stated Mr. Pusateri indicated that his interpretation of the zoning inspector’s decision of the resolution is if the buildings are connected, they would be totally different. Mr. Juergensen stated you could really say that about anywhere. If he connects his home to his neighbors, now they have a duplex and that is not allowed in his district.
Mr. Pusateri stated this is one lot. You have to meet specific setback requirements for each lot.
Mr. Juergensen stated the issue is they are asking for a conditional use permit in an R-R district that prescribes certain types of buildings. The issue is you are dealing with independent living facilities without congregate dining. Each individual villa has its own dining facility; therefore, it is not congregate dining.
Mr. Strobl stated that was not true. The dining room facility is designed for everyone that lives there. They are offered different packages for meals. The dining facility in the congregate building would not be the same number as the number of people in the apartments. All the people in the apartments would not come to the facility every day for every meal. Likewise would be the same for the number of people from the homes, they would not eat there every meal or everyday. Also, he doesn’t feel the distance of 1500 feet to the dining facility will be an impact. The people that live there love to walk. The people that would not walk could drive.
Mr. Juergensen clarified they are saying it is both. They are independent facilities with congregate dining facilities, and independent dining facilities.
Mr. Strobl answered yes. The apartment style has the kitchen dining area just like a home. Even some of the assisted living facilities have kitchens, but they do not expect them to cook all the time.
Mr. Pusateri stated that this type of facility is a new trend in care for the elderly and new to Stark County. There is an identical facility in Copley.
Mr. Juergensen asked if they are required to buy any meals from the main facility.
Mr. Strobl stated that is an operations decision and has not yet been decided. They will not be required to buy all 3 meals every day, however, they may be required to buy some meals.
Mr. Pusateri again stated he wanted to distinguish there is no difference between the independent living apartments attached and the individual homes.
Mr. Juergensen stated that he disagrees; there is a difference because they are altogether in one building.
Mr. Pusateri stated the difference is they are attached, which is the only issue. He referred to Ms. Poindexter’s statement the fact that they are detached is what excludes them from the congregate living facility.
Mr. McDonnell asked what the age requirements are for the people living in this facility.
Mr. Strobl stated it would either be 55 or 62, depending on what federal fair housing law requires.
Mr. McDonnell asked if there is an age requirement for handicap.
Mr. Strobl stated it is the same age requirement.
Mr. McDonnell asked if the center of this facility is where the commons center is located and what the 107 independent villas’/apartments look like inside.
Mr. Strobl stated they have a walk in kitchen, with an oven, microwave, and refrigerator, dining area, living room, bedroom, and bathroom. There would also be a storage area.
Mr. McDonnell asked how many of those types of units are in the plan.
Mr. Strobl stated phase 1 would consist of 50 -70 units, and phase 2 would have another 50-70 units.
Mr. McDonnell asked Mr. Strobl for a good estimate of how many people would be in the facility when it was totally completed.
Mr. Strobl stated phase 1 would have 170 – 180 people. In about 5 years, phase 2 would start which would be an additional 170 - 180 people. The total number would be 340-360 people.
Mr. McDonnell clarified there will be approximately 350 people in the facility when completed. He asked where the dining facilities will be located and how many people it would hold.
Mr. Strobl stated he does not have exact number of what the dining facility will hold, but it would be enough to feed everyone on a phase basis.
Mr. McDonnell asked if he lived in a villa, could the people next door use his dining and/or kitchen facilities as a matter of right. Is it a common dining facility?
Mr. Strobl answered not really. You can’t walk into your neighbor’s house and use his kitchen unless invited.
Mr. McDonnell asked if most people will be eating in their villa and in their apartments.
Mr. Strobl stated yes, they are giving a choice. They are not restricting them to eat in the common area.
Mr. McDonnell asked how many meals are capable of being prepared.
Mr. Strobl answered he does not have the exact number, the architect has that number.
Mr. McDonnell asked what they used to determine the setbacks and distance’s between buildings.
Mr. Pusateri stated they used the building code.
Mr. McDonnell asked if they used the zoning resolution for the distance between buildings.
Mr. Pusateri states all buildings meet the guidelines from the resolution book. There are only setbacks for each lot in the resolution book.
Mr. McDonnell clarified they used the building code for the entire piece of property.
Mr. Pusateri stated yes.
Mr. McDonnell read the definition of dwelling unit, single family attached and dwelling unit from the zoning resolution book. He asked Mr. Pusateri to differentiate the difference between and single family unit attached and the villas in their facility.
Mr. Pusateri stated these are not dwelling units, they are not individual lots. The question before the board is does his client meet the requirements for a congregate living facility? We are not talking about single family units, we are talking about a facility.
Mr. Juergensen referred to the resolution book Section 431.6 (G) Congregate Living Facility. He stated that the regulation reads independent living with congregate dining facilities. If the trustees intended for this type of plan why would it not read independent living with or without congregate dining facilities.
Mr. Pusateri stated they all have congregate dining facilities.
Mr. Juergensen stated what you are saying is they have both. The question he has if does the fact that each villa has independent dining facilities, exclude them from putting this in. Does it take it out of the realm of a congregate living facility?
Mr. Pusateri stated that when you look at that definition, the word facilities is plural. You can have more than one.
Mr. Juergensen commented he goes back to the point that Mr. McDonnell made, those dining facilities are not common.
Mr. Pusateri stated they are getting into facility versus facilities, which is ambiguous. Ambiguity is in his clients favor.
Mr. Oldroyd stated he feels with the buildings in question it comes down to a practicality. In the apartments it would be practical to walk down stairs and have dinner. Is it practical for someone to walk 1500 feet for dinner. If they get in their cars to drive, it is just as practical to drive to Belden Village. He feels the buildings in question are like duplexes, he doesn’t see how they can call them congregate dining facilities.
Mr. Strobl stated it comes down to their sense of economy. If they bought a meal package seven days a week, they would use it because they paid for it. They will travel to the facility one way or another, whether it would be on foot, car or golf cart.
Mr. Juergensen asked Ms. Poindexter if the villas did not have their own separate dining and kitchens, and the residents would have to eat in the common dining area, would that change her decision.
Ms. Poindexter stated that the facility itself has to be a building where everything is common. That could be independent living with congregate dining facilities.
Mr. Ferrell made a closing statement to the board. He feels the problem here is not ambiguous, the problem is the plan does not fit the definition. They are attempting to boot strap themselves in, which is causing ambiguities. The rule of construction, singular/plural, you just don’t pull out when it fits your argument. When it is ambiguous, then you go to the rules of construction. The plural and singular ambiguity does not apply here. An example of this is the resolution book also states you can have a sign. This does not mean signs. Mr. Ferrell reviewed the site plan once again showing the buildings that meet the regulations and do not meet the regulation. The common social dining area is the real issue. There is no common dining in the villas. He also noted this concept is unique to Stark County. Jackson Township is not ready for this plan in a rural residential district or we would have regulations in the zoning resolution book to fit this type of plan. Maybe it is time for the township to set up some regulations for this type of plan. He feels the zoning administrator made the correct decision.
Mr. Pusteri wanted to state for the record that Mr. Ferrell was incorrect about the use of singular plural and it has to be ambiguous first. It is in State Statute 1.43, which is how Ohio Statute’s are interrupted. He also doesn’t agree that Jackson Township is not ready for this type of plan. The resolution book has a congregate living facility defined, which indicates they are ready for this plan.
Mr. McDonnell opened the meeting to public input. He reminded everyone that their comments should only be if you agree with the zoning inspector’s decision or not. The following spoke in favor of the zoning inspector’s decision:
Mr. Jonathan Stump, 6096 Cherry Blossum Circle, Ms. Bonnie Hiltner, 6151 Granite Street, Mr. Carl Tucker, 5265 East Lake St, Ms. Darla Bruno, 6519 Pebble Creek Avenue, Mr. Pat Seaman, 6620 Oakbridge Ave, Ms. Marjorie Burdett, 5216 East Lake, Mr. Michael Linz, 6105 Cherry Blossom Circle, Mr. James Wingert, 6080 Echodell, Mr. Eric Hiltner, 6151 Granite Street, Mr. Tom Shumar, 6366 Fox Hollow Drive, Mr. Jeff Gaidos, 6319 Fox Hollow Drive, Mr. Edward Ogden, 6314 Walnut Ridge Circle, and Ms. Heather Watkins, 6041 Echodell, all agreed with zoning inspector’s decision.
Mr. Gary Hill, 5538 Bexley Circle, spoke in opposition, feeling the zoning inspector made the incorrect decision and would like to see it overturned. He feels the distance of 1500 feet is not an issue.
Mr. Pusateri stated they felt the conditional use application met all of the zoning regulations. They would like to have their project measured on its merits.
The meeting was closed to public input and the board deliberated.
Mr. Juergensen stated he disagrees with Mr. Pusateri on a few issues. He feels if the villas did not have their own kitchen and dining facilities, it would make a difference. He also feels if they are attached it does change the character to fit into a specific zoning area. In the definition of a congregate living facility you have common social, recreational, and dining facilities. The regulation also reads independent living with congregate dining, it does not read with or without congregate dining. You need to look at what the use really is, and not squeeze one thing into another. He feels they are trying to squeeze duplexes into a congregate living facility. The defining character to him was by putting independent eating and dining facilities into each of the villas. When you do this, you have taken it from a congregate living facility and made it something else. He doesn’t feel the trustees intended for this type of a plan in a congregate living facility, that is why an R-3 PUD was made. The board has a responsibility to the citizens of Jackson Township to ensure the definition is being met for the use. He does not feel this meets that definition.
Mr. Oldroyd stated overall it is not a bad idea, however, they are there to decide if it meets the definition of a congregate living facility according to the zoning resolution. He feels half of this project meets the zoning regulation and the other half is condo type of living. As it stands today, it does not meet the current regulation.
Mr. Giulitto concurred with the other two board members. According to the definition, the villas are a single family building and that does not meet the definition. He agrees with the zoning inspector.
Mr. McDonnell stated he looked at what the definition is of a congregate living facility and he does not think it meets that definition. They meet the definition that it is a residential facility. They may or may not meet the criteria that it is for the elderly, when they are using the age 55-62 years old. When you talk about an elderly person walking 1500 yards for breakfast, in 12 degree weather, he feels that speaks on intent of the project. It may meet the definition for common, social, and recreational facilities. The other criteria is common dining facilities. When they added independent food preparation and separate dining facilities in each villa, it was obvious they do not intend to have common dining facilities. In his opinion, it then becomes duplexes, which are not allowed in an R-R district. The regulation states that the board shall not have the authority to grant a use where a use is not allowed. The definition of shall in the resolution states shall indicates a mandatory requirement. Therefore, the definition of congregate living facility states the facility shall consist of residential dwelling units designed specifically for the elderly or handicapped, and have common social recreational, dining and food preparation facilities. The resolution also states in Section 101.4 that any uses which are omitted from these regulations, not being specifically permitted, shall be considered prohibited until such uses are written into these regulations. He feels it does meet the definition of a congregate living facility, it more closely resembles other uses in an R-R district that the board is prohibited to allow.
Mr. Dodson made a motion to deny appeal #2007 and uphold the decision of the zoning administrator.
Mr. Juergensen seconded the motion.
The vote was: Mr. Oldroyd–yes, Mr. Juergensen-yes, Mr. Giulitto-yes, Mr. Dodson-yes, and Mr. McDonnell-yes.
Mr. McDonnell informed the applicant they have 30 days to appeal to the Court of Common Pleas.
APPEAL #2008 – Ron Canterbury Jr., Canterbury Lawn & Landscaping, 4859 Hills & Dales Rd, NW, Canton, OH 44708, property owner, request approval for a conditional use permit for garden supply sales and landscaping where a conditional use permit is required per Art IV, Section 401.3 of the zoning resolution. Property location is 4859 Hills & Dales Rd, NW, Canton, OH, 44708, Sect. 25SW Jackson Twp. Area zoned B-3.
Mr. Deremer read the file application signed by Ron Canterbury, with reason for the appeal as listed in the file. The file contained a site plan of the property. The file also contained an aerial view of the parcel and adjacent parcels.
Mr. Deremer swore in Gary Duvall, Architect, 1738 Ravenna Ave, Louisville, OH, to speak on behalf of the application.
Mr. Duvall stated that he is representing Mr. Canterbury. Mr. Canterbury has responded in letter form to the criteria required for the conditional use permit. Mr. Canterbury was approved for a CUP for the property adjacent to this property for landscaping. Mr. Duvall reviewed the site plan showing the layout of the property.
Mr. Deremer read through the general criteria for all conditional use permits in Section 431.2. Mr. Duvall responded to each question from the letter submitted by Mr. Canterbury:
A. Will not be detrimental to property values in the immediate vicinity. RESPONSE: Their proposed plan will not be detrimental to property values. He feels it will help due to they will be cleaning up the property.
B. Will not restrict or adversely affect the existing use of the adjacent property owners. RESPONSE: The use will go hand in hand with Lab Nursery Sales. Lab Nursery does not offer plants and trees, and Canterbury Nursery will.
C. Will be designed and constructed so that all access drives, access points to public streets, driveways, parking and service areas shall meet the approval of the Township Trustees, or count or state agencies where applicable. RESPONSE: They will be designed and constructed so all above will meet the regulations. All areas were surveyed by Cooper Engineering.
D. Will meet all requirements for EPA for storm water runoff, when applicable. RESPONSE: They will meet requirements, and plans have already been submitted to Regional Planning.
E. Will be property landscaped according to Section 411.9 where applicable pursuant to Chapter 411 or when specified as a condition for approval. RESPONSE: This is a landscaping company, and they will meet Section 411.9. Appearance is of utmost importance to Mr. Canterbury.
F. Will be constructed and maintained in a neat, orderly and safe condition. RESPONSE: Property will be constructed in a neat, orderly and safe condition.
Mr. Deremer referred to Section 431.3 for specific standards for conditional uses and read through the criteria that pertained to their request under paragraph C., specific development standards:
1. The Board of Zoning Appeals may limit the hours of operation to ensure that the conditional use is compatible with the surrounding uses. RESPONSE: Hours of operation will be 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. Monday through Friday with limited hours on weekends.
2. For parcels of one or more acres, all points of vehicular entrance or exit shall be located no closer than 100 feet from the intersection of two arterial streets, or 50 feet from the intersection of an arterial street and a local or collector street. RESPONSE: Drawings reflect that they will meet the 100 feet distance from Dressler.
3. No lighting shall constitute a nuisance
or in no way shall impair safe movement of traffic on any street or highway.
All outside lighting shall be shielded from adjacent properties.
RESPONSE: All outside lighting will be shaded from adjacent properties.
No pole lighting will be used.
4. Floodlights, searchlights, loudspeakers
or similar structures shall not be erected or used in any manner that will
cause hazards or annoyance to the public generally or to the occupants
of adjacent property. RESPONSE: They will comply with all criteria
above.
5. All trash receptacles shall be adequately screened. RESPONSE: All trash receptacles will be adequately screened. If a dumpster is added it would be placed behind the storage facility.
6. Grading and surface drainage provisions shall be prepared by a registered engineer and reviewed or approved by the Stark County Subdivision Engineer. RESPONSE: Their plans were prepared by Cooper & Associates and have already been submitted for approval.
Mr. Deremer referred to Section 431.6 for supplemental regulations for certain uses and read through the criteria that pertained to landscaping under paragraph P., landscaping business and garden supply sales for a B-3 district:
A. Dismantled or inoperable vehicles or equipment shall not be maintained or stored on the property. RESPONSE: Dismantled or inoperable vehicles or equipment will not be maintained or stored on the property.
B. Outdoor storage areas shall be located in the side or rear yard in compliance with Section 411.12B. RESPONSE: Outdoor storage will be located in the rear or side in compliance with regulations.
C. Materials, such as mulch or topsoil, may be stockpiled on the site provided, the materials are maintained in compliance with the Stark County Health Department regulations, such materials shall not be processed on the site, such materials shall not emit any odor that is discernible on adjoining property. RESPONSE: Topsoil and/or mulch may be stored on the site and will comply with regulations. Materials will not be processed on the site and will not emit an odor. Mr. Canterbury will purchase the mulch off site.
D. Outdoor retail sales shall comply with Section 411.12A and shall not be conducted in required parking or landscaped areas. RESPONSE: Outdoor sales will comply with Section 411.12A.
Mr. Deremer asked if they meet all other setback requirements.
Mr. Duvall stated that yes they meet all required setbacks.
Mr. Jack Brannon, 4875 Hills & Dales Rd, was sworn in to speak on the request. Mr. Brannon’s main concern is the odor that will come from the mulch. He is also concerned about their compliance to the regulation. He doesn’t feel they have complied with the CUP they were approved for 2 years ago. He is not against the property being used for retail sales, however, he feels they need to comply with all regulations and there should be limits on the timing of the compliance.
Mr. Duvall stated that the project took longer than they expected. Project was delayed quite a long time due to Wetland.
No one else in the audience spoke in favor or opposition of the application. The meeting was closed to public input and the board deliberated.
Mr. Juergensen stated that normal procedure is if they meet all requirements the CUP will be approved. He is satisfied with the testimony he heard and would approve the request.
Mr. Dodson stated that he also supports approving the application.
Mr. Oldroyd stated he has not heard any testimony that he feels warrants them not to approve the application. He also would approve the CUP.
Mr. Deremer suggested that this appeal be attached or cross reference to appeal #1871, which was the first conditional use permit that was approved.
Mr. Juergensen made a motion to approve appeal #2008 as requested.
Mr. Giulitto seconded the motion.
The vote was: Mr. Oldroyd-yes, Mr. Juergensen-yes, Mr. Giulitto-yes, Mr. Dodson-yes, and Mr. Deremer-yes.
Mr. Deremer asked if there are any comments or a motion on the minutes of November 10, 2005. All members were present except for Mr. Oldroyd.
Mr. Giulitto made a motion to approve the minutes from November 10, 2005.
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,
Lori Foutz
Zoning Coordinator