Members present:                        Ted Deremer
                                                        Edward McDonnell
                                                        Jim Giulitto
                                                        John Juergensen
                                                        Eric Oldroyd

Absent Members:                         Richard Dodson

Zoning Inspector:                         Joni Poindexter
Zoning Data Coordinator:           Andrea Paumier
 

Appeal #2098 – Bill Parker, 4501 Navarre Rd. SW, Canton, OH 44706, agent for Par/Joh LLC, 4501 Navarre Rd. SW, Canton, OH 44706, requests a variance for two (2) 24 sq. ft. and one (1) 18 sq. ft. directional signs with a height of 4 ft. where 6 sq. ft. and 3 ft. in height is permitted per Art. V, Sect. 502.1 of the zoning resolution. Property located at 4033 Whipple NW, Sect. 25NE, Jackson Twp., area zoned B-1.

Mr. Deremer read the file application and the contents of the file.

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

Mr. Deremer swore in Bill Parker, 4501 Navarre Rd. SW, Canton, OH 44706.

Mr. Parker stated that he would like to modify his application. Mr. Parker stated that they would like to make the signs smaller.

Mr. Parker approached the bench out of audio hearing and presented the Board with the new request.

Mr. Parker stated that it is similar to what he had originally applied for, the building layout is the same there are just new drawings. Mr. Parker stated that once he talked to the sign company and realized that how much bigger the request was from the original signs, they spoke with the sign company to see how small the signs could be and still be able to get the names of the tenants on the actual sign. Mr. Parker stated that the signs would be 3.9” over all and at 11.81 sq. ft. for all three signs, instead of having two signs at 24 sq. ft. and one sign at 18 sq. ft. Mr. Parker stated that they took a lot of the design off of the sign to try and incorporate the sign to get it as small as they could and still feel like it is functional for the building.

Mr. Deremer referred to the packet Mr. Parker presented to the Board this evening. Mr. Deremer asked if this was what the signs would look like.

Mr. Parker stated yes. The sign would be 27” x 63” and it would be 18” off of the ground.

Mr. Parker stated that there are going to be a possible nineteen suites on this property. He felt that it was important to identify the build. Mr. Parker stated that they felt that all the tenants could not be identified from the freestanding sign on Whipple because it would be possibly up to nineteen different names on there and felt that would be a problem with traffic safety.

Mr. Deremer asked if they will be able to display everything with the three signs.

Mr. Parker stated yes.

Mr. Deremer asked if they are directional signs.

Mr. Parker stated that they are more of an identifying sign because as you are pulling in on the property, the sign off of Whipple displays where the building is and the directories are on the inside. Mr. Parker stated that each suite will have their own entrance to their offices and the public needs to know where they are going first before they park.

Mr. Deremer asked where the signs will be located.

Mr. Parker stated that they will be located right in front of each building, in the grass area, right behind the sidewalk.

Mr. McDonnell asked Mr. Parker to explain what the request is for tonight so the Board is clear on the subject.

Mr. Parker stated that the original request was for three signs, one 18 sq. ft. sign for the first building and two 24 sq. ft. signs for the other two buildings. The freestanding sign on Whipple is in compliance.

Mr. Parker stated that the modified request is for three signs, all at 11.81 sq. ft. to try and come closer to the regulations in the zoning resolution.

Mr. Deremer stated that they are still almost twice as big as what is permitted.

Mr. Parker stated that is correct where before they were asking for almost three times the size of sign that is permitted.

Mr. McDonnell stated that originally he requested three signs, two at 24 sq. ft. and one at 18 sq. ft. and now the variance request is three signs at 11.81 sq. ft.

Mr. Parker stated that is correct, they had gone back to the sign company and redesign the signs to see if they would be able to make this work.

Mr. McDonnell stated that he just wanted to be sure that these were all reduced request.

Mr. Parker stated that yes they are.

Mr. McDonnell asked how Mr. Parker arrived at 27” x 63”.

Mr. Parker stated that the sign company designed the signs on the computer with a program that the company uses that tells them for the size of the sign what the lettering needs to be in order to see the sign.

Mr. McDonnell stated that the same size sign will be taking care of building one, where there might be three tenants, building two where there are up to six tenants.

Mr. Parker stated that they are selling it as that, the first building there are three tenants, it was originally laid out for four tenants but two of them took larger spaces and one tenant took a very small space. Mr. Parker stated that they don’t know the number of tenants that will be on this property.

Mr. Parker stated that with the signs being the same size, they would fit and look better. Mr. Parker stated that with the buildings being similar, the fronts are all going to be the same.

Mr. Deremer asked if the back two buildings are two stories.

Mr. Parker stated yes that is correct.

Mr. Oldroyd asked if the sign company that Mr. Parker is working with, give him and indication of what size lettering the sign would end up with.

Mr. Parker stated about four inches.

Mr. Deremer asked if there will still be individual labels for the suites.

Mr. Parker stated yes, the sign will show the owner of the suite after each suite number or letter.

Mr. Deremer asked if there will be signs on the building itself.

Mr. Parker stated that they are trying to figure that out because of the way the buildings are laid out, there are obstructions at the entrances of the columns. Mr. Parker stated that they do have to put the A, B & C on the building, but we are still trying to figured out how to place those above each door.

Mr. McDonnell stated that the Board is required to find a practical difficult in order to grant a variance and asked Mr. Parked to explain to the Board what their practical difficult is.

Mr. Parker stated that nine times out of ten people slow down or stop because they are looking for an address or company name. Mr. Parker stated that this is the reason that they couldn’t put these signs on Whipple because it is too congested in that area. Mr. Parker stated that is the hardship and slowing down or stopping in that area could potentially be a traffic issue.

Mr. Deremer asked if he were correct in stating that it is not Mr. Parkers intention to put wall signs for each location.

Mr. Parker stated that is correct.

Mr. Deremer stated that would be permitted though.

Mr. Parker stated that is correct, but he feels that putting wall signs would be less visible. Mr. Parker stated that the buildings have a lot of different colors on them, brink, stone and siding.

Mr. Juergensen asked why the lettering has to be the size that Mr. Parker is requesting.

Mr. Parker stated that one sign is going to have a couple tenants on it, the next sign could have multiple tenants and the letter will get smaller on the signs. Mr. Parker stated that with the suites available per building, the letting will get smaller on the other signs depending on the number of actual tenants.

Mr. Juergensen asked if Mr. Parker could make a 6 sq. ft. sign with smaller lettering.

Mr. Parker stated that he is unsure because when the signs are that small. Mr. Parker stated that he does not have a good answer for that.

Mr. Deremer stated that the size is not going to be as such as you could see from Whipple.

Mr. Parker stated that is correct.

Mr. McDonnell asked if these signs are non-illuminate signs.

Mr. Parker stated that is correct, the only illuminate sign is the main entrance sign.

Mr. Deremer swore in Karen Parker, 4501 Navarre Rd. SW, Canton, OH 44706.

Ms. Parker stated that the front sign is illuminate sign and in order to put as many tenants as they have on the sign it would be too small of letter that the public could even read from Whipple. Ms. Parker stated that the sign company did not recommend putting the tenants on the front sign. Ms. Parker stated that the sign company stated that the four inch lettering is the smallest letter that should be on the sign in order to be able to read the sign from the distance when drive through the property.

Mr. Deremer asked if four inch lettering is what is on the sign out front.

Ms. Parker stated not that lettering is larger.

Mr. McDonnell asked if he were correct in saying that these signs are not illuminated.

Ms. Parker stated that is correct. Ms. Parker stated that the office hours are 8:00am to 5:00pm and the signs are not illuminated.

Mr. Juergensen asked Ms. Poindexter if there is a limit on the number of directional signs.

Ms. Poindexter stated that no, there is not.

Mr. Juergensen stated that they could have a 6 sq. ft. sign for each tenant.

Ms. Parker asked if Mr. Juergensen is saying that they are permitted to have one 6 sq. ft. sign in front of each tenant.

Mr. Juergensen stated that is correct.

Ms. Poindexter confirmed.

Ms. Parker stated that one point with that would be with the two story buildings in the back, the public wouldn’t know what building to go to until they go to the back of the property. Ms. Parker stated that it would be best to identify the buildings from the front.

Mr. Giulitto stated that Mr. Juergensen’s point is that they could potentially have seventeen signs.

Mr. Deremer stated that they could put wall signs on each.

Ms. Parker stated that is correct and they are planning on putting the names on the doors, not big enough to identify where the public should go before they park, it will just identify once they know what building to go to and what door to go into.

Mr. Deremer asked what is located in the front building.

Ms. Parker stated that Dr. Jenson, D.D.S, is in the first building. Power Resources is taking a suite and a lawyer.

Mr. McDonnell asked if this was all one lot.

Ms. Parker stated that the parcels were combined, they had to go through Regional Planning and have it designs to be a condo unit.

No one else in the audience wanted to speak in favor of or opposition of this appeal.

Mr. McDonnell asked Ms. Poindexter in regards to the zoning resolution, Sect. 502.4 the maximum allowed wall signs is 64 sq. ft. With the configuration of this lot with three buildings, is it maximum 64 sq. ft. for the lot, since this is one lot or are they permitted 64 sq. ft. per building.

Ms. Poindexter stated that it is 64 sq. ft. per unit frontage, they have three units, whatever the frontage of each unit is, it is two times that frontage or 64 sq. ft which ever is less.

Mr. McDonnell stated so potentially 192 sq. ft. of signage.

Ms. Poindexter stated that depends on the building size.

Mr. McDonnell stated potentially a maximum of 192 sq. ft.

Ms. Poindexter stated that is correct.

Mr. Deremer closed this meeting to public input.

Mr. Juergensen stated that Mr. Parker is asking for almost two times the square footage allowed which is better than what was originally proposed, on the other hand they could potentially put seventeen different signs on this property and considering what they could so, this request seems reasonable.

Mr. Giulitto stated that the applicant does not want seventeen signs and that was not the intent of the applicant. After learning about the zoning codes and restrictions, the applicant has reduced it from roughly 66 ft. down to 35 ft. Mr. Giulitto stated that Mr. McDonnell also made a point that it sounds like they could have up to 192 sq. ft. for wall signs between three buildings and they are asking for 35. Mr. Giulitto stated that he does not have a problem with this appeal.

Mr. McDonnell stated that he agrees with both Mr. Juergensen and Mr. Giulitto, again they could have 17, 18 or 19 directional signs. Mr. McDonnell stated that they are showing 36 sq. ft. in the entire complex verses 54 sq. ft. As Mr. Giulitto they could potentially have up to 192 sq. ft. between the three buildings. Mr. McDonnell stated that anything the Board can do to reduce the signs in the township, he is in favor of. Mr. McDonnell stated that one concern is when he looks at Art. V, Sect. 502.1, The following types of signs are exempt from sign permit requirements and shall not be considered in determining the allowable number or size of signs on a lot. Mr. McDonnell stated that his concern is that the Board shall not allow the number or size on the lot. Mr. McDonnell stated that if the Board is so inclined to grant this variance he feels there should be a condition that these are in place of the other signage that may be allowed and that there will be no wall signs and if they decided to place a wall sign on the building, then the directional signs have to go, one or the other.

Mr. Juergensen stated that he agreed with Mr. McDonnell.

Mr. Giulitto stated that the applicants have mentioned that they are putting A, B, C, etc on the buildings to identify the building itself.

Mr. McDonnell stated that they would be allowed to do that, what he was referring to those signs that are allowed in a commercial district, specifically those that are in Section 502.4. As far as Section 502.1 that is in regards to the A, B, C, etc.

Mr. Juergensen asked if the condition should state the number of signs allowed. Mr. Juergensen stated that the request is for three directional signs that are bigger then what the zoning resolution allows.

Mr. Deremer stated that his thought was that they are taking the place of the wall signs.

Mr. McDonnell made a motion to approve appeal #2098 as modified to three directional signs at 11.81 sq. ft. with a height of 18 inches, 27” x 63”, with the condition that there are only three directional signs as requested, there shall be no additional directional signs without the approval of the Board of Zoning Appeals and no additional signs as listed in Section 504.2 of the zoning resolution, shall be allowed.

Mr. Juergensen seconded the motion.

The vote was: Mr. Oldroyd: Yes, Mr. Juergensen: Yes, Mr. Giulitto: Yes, Mr. McDonnell: Yes & Mr. Deremer: Yes.

APPEAL #2099 – Caplea Studio Architects, 11700 Cleveland Ave, Uniontown, OH 44685, agent for property owner Gran Slam, 5656 Dressler Rd. NW, N. Canton, OH 44702 requests a variance for a 16 ft. east and south parking setback for principal use where 25 ft. is required and a variance for 140 parking spaces where 179 spaces are required per Art. IV, Sect. 411.5 & 601.2 of the zoning resolution. Property located at 5656 Dressler Rd., Sect. 13SE, Jackson Twp., area zoned I-1.

Mr. Deremer read the file application and the contents of the file.

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

Mr. Deremer swore in Ken Hoops, 11700 Cleveland Ave, Uniontown, OH 44865.

Mr. Hoops stated that there has been a few changes made to the site plan to seek this request. The initial request is for a side yard set back running along the south property line, from Dressler Rd. due east, which extends all the way up to Metro Cir. Mr. Hoops stated that the zoning at that corner is where it becomes I-1. The property to the north and south of the property in question is B-3. Mr. Hoops stated that the B-3 district required a 16 ft. setback and obviously that area falls into the B-3 district, but this property is stricken by being zoned I-1 regulation of a 25 ft. setback. The request tonight is to match what is currently on the adjacent property. Mr. Hoops stated he has revised the layout of the race track to avoid any setback issues relative to Metro Cir. that was on one of the previous request.

Mr. McDonnell asked why the setback variance is needed.

Mr. Hoops stated that the setback distance of 25 ft., we are restricted by the gas line. If you look at the site plan there are catch basins blocks through there, a gas line, they have been working with East Ohio Gas for the past three years in regards to the track being installed. Mr. Hoops stated that East Ohio Gas has approved this plan.

Mr. McDonnell asked if Mr. Hoops or the property owner has considered requesting a zone change.

Mr. Hoops stated that has not been considered.

Mr. Hoops stated that he thought that requesting a 16 ft. variance would be an easier process.

Mr. McDonnell stated that Mr. Hoops testimony is that he cant build the track or it would be very difficult to build the track without this variance.

Mr. Hoops stated that is correct it would be very difficult.

Mr. Deremer stated that there are a lot of “x” outs on the existing gas vents.

Mr. Hoops stated that those are basins that have been approved by East Ohio Gas to delete and remove from the premises.

Mr. Hoops stated that this has been in the process since 2004 with East Ohio Gas Company. This is vacant wasted land, it has not been developed, it is gravel parking area that has no use. Mr. Hoops stated that Gran Slam is a seasonal use facility with 4 months of use in the summer for putt-putt golf course and 6 months of use out of the big building with baseball and such. Mr. Hoops stated that the owner is trying to maximize the use of the facility to generate more income.

Mr. Juergensen asked in regards to the parking spaces how is different from the previous request.

Mr. Hoops stated that the original setbacks, the plan was to carry the parking basically into Metro Cir. and that was the biggest issue in regards to if it were a front or rear setback. Mr. Hoops stated that instead they just avoided that issue all together by complying with the 25 ft. setback off of Metro Cir.

Mr. Hoops stated that on the south property line there are utilities that run down through there, a storm water easement, transformers, etc., so it is an undeveloped area that is just grass that no one would be able to utilize with any major structures.

Mr. Hoops stated that the previous request was for a significant amount of spaces. The original design request was based on what the parking currently is and was and it went from 180 parking spaces to 99 parking spaces which was a significant amount. Mr. Hoops stated that with this new revised plan what the proposal is to go in and re-strip the parking lot to match the current lay out shown on the site plan to generate 140 parking spaces on the proposed site, which has also been reviewed by the Jackson Township Fire Department, they approved the layout of the parking to allow the fire lanes around the building and the parking has been maximized on this site. Mr. Hoops stated that the total amount of parking needed is 179 spaces and this property can provide 140 spaces, which leaves them 39 spaces short. This is a seasonal facility, the existing building does not get a lot of use in the summer months because baseball and basketball are outside during the summer.

Mr. Juergensen asked if it is possible to put the 39 spaces on this property.

Mr. Hoops stated no.

Mr. Juergensen asked why the 39 spaces could not be built.

Mr. Hoops stated that there isn’t enough room on the property.

Mr. Juergensen asked if all possibilities have been reviewed.

Mr. Hoops stated that the request of marking off of Metro Cir. has not been explored because this facility very rarely sees more than 50 to 60 cars in the parking lot. Mr. Hoops stated that the owner is here to represent the occupancy of the building. Mr. Hoops stated that there isn’t any seating for the public to watch basketball games, so if they were to put more parking in, it would just be money down the drain.

Mr. Deremer asked what the maximum amount of cars that are there, as the parking lot is currently laid out.

Mr. Hoops stated that the owner could answer that.

Mr. Juergensen asked if Mr. Hoops is adding onto the building.

Mr. Hoops stated no, there is a small cart building down there in the center at the bottom of the page, a 30’ x 40’ storage/ticket booth.

Mr. Juergensen asked how many spaces are existing on the property right now.

Mr. Hoops stated about one hundred.

Mr. Juergensen asked if the parking is currently not in compliance.

Mr. Hoops stated that is correct, they are trying to bring this into compliance.

Mr. Giulitto stated that for clarification on the track, the previous proposal by Metro Cir., there was a variance requested there, now the 25 ft. setback will be met.

Mr. Hoops stated that is correct.

Mr. Oldroyd asked if there are any plans for the northern area.

Mr. Hoops stated no, there is a fence around the golf course there for security and safety reasons.

Mr. Hoops stated that he would also like to state that a decision for gas or electric hasn’t been finalized. There isn’t a selection on the carts at this time.

Mr. Deremer swore in Kyle Young, 5656 Dressler Rd. N. Canton, OH 44720.

Mr. Young stated that he is partial owner with his father, Carl Young. This has been family run for fifteen years. Mr. Young stated that this is a seasonal business plus an entertainment business. Mr. Young stated that in the summer time the golf course is their main revenue, with some bating cage use and no basketball use in the summer. The whole left side of their building is unused. Mr. Young stated that in the back northern area he and his father are looking into constructing a maze type of structure for another summer seasonal use.

Mr. Deremer asked if there are any party rooms.

Mr. Young stated yes, there are three party rooms.

Mr. Deremer asked how many cars would be in the parking lot with three parties going on at the same time.

Mr. Young stated that they never allow three parties to go on at the same time. We never double book parties, they do not have the staff for that. If there is a party from 1-3pm, then next party wouldn’t start until 3pm. Mr. Young stated that most of the parties are young kids and most of them would get dropped off and parents would pick them up after the end of the party. Most of the parties are 12-15 kids.

Mr. Deremer stated just for argument sake, lets say there were three parties going on, about how many spaces would be taken up.

Mr. Young stated that they can not have three parties going on at the same time because to get to the third room, you would have to go through one of the other two party rooms. Mr. Yong stated if anything they can only have to parties at the same time maximum, so maybe 30-40 kids, 20 in each room.

Mr. Deremer asked what Mr. Young’s opinion would be of the amount of cars that are there at any given time.

Mr. Young stated maybe 20 cars maximum, Sundays are the days that are most used and that would be maybe 50 cars, through out the a four hour span, there are never 50 cars on the property at once.

Mr. McDonnell asked Mr. Young if they had considered a zone change.

Mr. Young stated that he didn’t realize this was an option.

Mr. McDonnell stated that they would get exactly what they are requesting through a zone change.

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

Ms. Poindexter stated that a zone change would take care of the setback issue but for the parking issue.

Mr. Deremer closed this appeal to public input.

Mr. McDonnell made a request to separate the two issues.

Mr. Deremer asked the applicant if he would like to separate the two issues or keep them as one.

Mr. Hoops stated that he would like to keep them as one issue.

Mr. Juergensen stated that in respect to the 16 ft. setback portion of the request, it is abutting a B-3 district. Mr. Juergensen stated that he would not submit this as a typical business in the I-1 district, its not a factory. Mr. Juergensen stated that in respect to the parking, 140 parking space out of 179 spaces is a lot more powerful to him then the request last time, its only about a 22% reduction.

Mr. McDonnell stated that he agrees with part of what Mr. Juergensen has stated. Mr. McDonnell stated that he sees a practical difficulty in the fact that there is mixed seasonal use on the property and because the indoor is primarily winter time facility as opposed to the golf course and the go cart, which are obviously summer outdoor activities and they have all been combined to come up with 179 spaces. Mr. McDonnell stated that by the applicants argument of being seasonal and the building is use in one season and the golf course in another season, he would be inclined to grant the variance for the parking, he is not inclined to grant the variance for the setback. Mr. McDonnell stated that Gran Slam could go in and request a zone change.

Mr. Giulitto stated that he agrees with both Mr. Juergensen and Mr. McDonnell. Mr. Giulitto stated that to him it looks like a B-3 even though it is an I-1. Mr. Giulitto stated that he has on problem with the setback variance. Mr. Giulitto stated that the parking aspect a 22% parking variance, he has no problem with that as well.

Mr. Deremer stated that he agrees with Mr. McDonnell. Mr. Deremer stated that the parking has been addressed as far as the use and with the owner here we have the testimony that has covered any issues but this is a rezoning issue. Mr. Deremer stated that there is a similar issue on the Strip where everything is zoned I-1.

Mr. Giulitto stated that the initial proposed was towards the north, which was toward a hotel. Toward the south is Target, granted it is still a business but it is a back lot.

Mr. Juergensen made a motion to approve appeal #2099 with the condition that the variance is permitted for the current business “Gran Slam” – use as testified. If the business were to sell or change, the variance would not remain in affect.

Mr. Giulitto seconded the motion.

The vote was: Mr. Oldroyd: No, Mr. Juergensen: Yes, Mr. Giulitto: Yes, Mr. McDonnell: No & Mr. Deremer: No.

APPEAL #2100 – Michele Goff, 2746 Demington Ave. NW, Canton, OH 44718, property owner, requests a variance for a zero (0) ft. north setback for principal building (existing) where 15 ft. is required per Art. IV, Sect. 401.6 of the zoning resolution. Property located at: 5852 East Blvd. NW, Sect. 14SW, Jackson Twp., area zoned R-1.

Mr. Deremer read the file application and the contents of the file.

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

Mr. Deremer swore in Michael Zirpolo, attorney speaking on behalf of Michele Goff.

Mr. Zirpolo presented the Board with photos of the property in question.

Mr. Zirpolo described some of the photos as he spoke about the back yard portion of the property in question.

Mr. Zirpolo stated that Ms. Goff purchased the property at 5852 East Blvd. in May of 2007. If anyone were to go to this property in question and walk into the back yard, you would see a triangular area that is outside of what is actually her property. The triangular appears to be a back yard. Mr. Zirpolo stated that in the photos that he presented to the Board it shows a large back yard to this property. Mr. Zirpolo stated that at approximately the Northwest corner of the lot, from the house to the property line is roughly 50-60 ft. The northeast side of the lot, its probably 100 ft. to what appears to be the end of the back yard from the house. Mr. Zirpolo stated that if the apparent back yard of this property was in fact the back yard, then we wouldn’t be here, it would comply with the zoning requirements. Mr. Zirpolo stated that when she inspected the property, nobody told her that, that back yard is not part of the property of 5852 East Blvd., she completed the sale, gave the buyers their money and after that an adjoining property owner went to Mr. Goff and stated that she has a problem, the gentleman that owns Lake O’Springs he said that her back yard belongs to him. Mr. Zirpolo stated that Ms. Goff then called her realtor and asked her what was going on with her property.

Mr. Zirpolo stated that the owner of the property, Ohio Vedic Homes sent Ms. Goff a letter basically stating that this problem can go away if Ms. Goff pays them $61,000 for the back yard portion of the property. Mr. Zirpolo stated that this house was built in 1971 and that portion of the property has been used as a back yard since 1971. Mr. Zirpolo stated that they have sent a letter to Ohio Vedic Homes regarding this issue and stating that Ms. Goff has a claim to this property by virtue of adverse possession with out a response as of December 27, 2007.

Mr. Zirpolo stated that the other part of Ms. Goff’s problem is the structures that were built without property zoning clearance. Mr. Zirpolo stated that this structure was built by the previous home owner and he believes Ms. Goff is a victim of circumstances. Mr. Zirpolo stated that this is why they are here in front of the Board this evening, asking for some type of relief.

Mr. Juergensen stated that Mr. Zirpolo isn’t asking for a variance of any kind in the back yard. Mr. Juergensen stated that the problem is, in regards to the picture of Ron Revlock holding up the steak, that was believes to be Ms. Goff property.

Mr. Zirpolo stated that is correct and approached the bench and explained the photos.

Mr. Juergensen asked if anything in regards to the back yard is pending.

Mr. Zirpolo stated that they are trying. The latest attempt was a letter that was sent to Ohio Vedic Homes on December the third without a response as of today.

Ms. Poindexter stated that for clarification back in October of 2006, the previous owner came into the zoning department and applied for a permit to enclose an existing carport, however, what he wanted to do was go closer to the property line and that is what the pictures are in regards to with Ron Revlock holding up the steak. Ms. Poindexter stated that the zoning department contacted the home owners and stated that if they were going to continue with this construction, then they needed to apply for a variance. The home owner called the zoning department and stated that they were not going to continue the construction but did it anyhow without any permits. Ms. Poindexter stated that the zoning department found out that the home owner in fact continued the construction and she went back out to the property in November of 2007 and took more pictures. Ms. Poindexter stated that Mr. Zirpolo is correct in stating that this is of no fault of Ms. Goff, this construction was don’t by the previous property owner, knowing that he was in violation. Ms. Poindexter stated that the steps that are coming down from the deck are what is encroaching on the adjoining property.

Mr. McDonnell referred to an aerial map of the property in question and asked Mr. Zirpolo what portion is the triangular portion he is speaking of.

Mr. Zirpolo did so.

Mr. Zirpolo stated that they are asking for a variance or a time relief of some sort from Jackson Township because the problems with Ms. Goff’s property is coming at her in pieces and we need time to unscramble these issues.

Mr. Oldroyd asked what would happen if the zero (0) ft. variance wasn’t granted.

Ms. Poindexter stated that she believes that the current property owner could possibly take legal action against the previous owner and if Jackson Township told Ms. Goff that the structure that is encroaching on the adjoining property then Ms. Goff could possible have legal actions taken against Jackson Township. Ms. Poindexter stated that if a structure doesn’t comply with the zoning requirement that is when it would be turned over to the legal department.

Mr. Juergensen asked if a motion could be made to continue this appeal until the legal matters of the property were dispersed.

Ms. Poindexter stated that a continuance can be made, but a date has to be given.

Mr. Zirpolo stated that he was going to suggest a six month continuance.

No one else in the audience wanted to speak in favor of or opposition to this appeal.

Mr. Juergensen made a motion to continue appeal #2100 until June 26, 2008 at 7:00pm.

Mr. Giulitto seconded the motion.

The vote was: Mr. Oldroyd: Yes, Mr. Juergensen: Yes, Mr. Giulitto: Yes, Mr. McDonnell: Yes & Mr. Deremer: Yes.

Mr. Juergensen made a motion to adjourn.

Mr. Giulitto seconded the motion.

All were in favor.

Respectfully submitted,

Andrea Paumier
Zoning Data Coordinator