Members present:
Ted Deremer
Edward McDonnell
Richard Dodson
Jim Giulitto
John Juergensen
Alternate member:
Eric Oldroyd
Zoning Inspector:
Joni Poindexter
Zoning Data Coordinator:
Amy Saba
APPEAL #2060 Akers Sign, 2417 Cleveland Avenue NW, Canto, OH 44709, agent for Rohr’s Nursery, property owner, 5457 Everhard Road NW, Canton, OH 44718, requests a variance for a 70 sq. ft. freestanding sign with a height of 17 ft. where a 50 sq. ft. sign with a height of 9 ft. is permitted per Art. V Sect. 502.2 of the zoning resolution. Property located at 5357 Everhard NW.
Mr. Deremer stated that the application for appeal was signed by Dave Fromholtz. Other artifacts in the file: Site map of the parcel, aerial view from the Stark County Auditor’s office, a sketch of the proposed sign, an 8 and ½” x 11” color photo of the sign, a picture of the sign. The reason given for the appeal is that the owner needs to identify property for customers on 45 mph highway. The original sign was used when Everhard Road was a smaller street.
Mr. Deremer swore in Tim Rohr, 8188 Stuhldreher Avenue, and Jerry Yoder (representing Akers Sign), 751 Mohawk Avenue.
Mr. Rohr explained that the street where his nursery is located was widened and that the speed limit was increased to 45 mph. He said that when he enlarged the sign at his business on Portage that it helped increase business considerably. He said that Akers Sign had recommended a sign that would be 17 ft. high and 70 sq. ft. would have the most impact.
Mr. Deremer asked if the store is open all year.
Mr. Rohr said yes it is.
Mr. McDonnell asked how Akers determined what size the sign should be and if there was a standard study that they use. Why is a 70 sq. ft. sign recommended?
Mr. Yoder said that there are some trees in the front of the store that would block a smaller sign. He also referred to a chart that is used to help determine the best size for signs. He noted that for 100 feet of visibility the minimum recommendation is 4 feet high and for 200 feet of visibility the minimum is 8 feet high.
Mr. Deremer asked what size the letters are on the sign now. Mr. Rohr answered 6 inches.
Mr. Yoder said that the new letters will be 8 inches.
Mr. Giulitto asked if there had been any accidents in front of the store. Mr. Rohr said that no, there had been no accidents, and that they have also recently improved the entrance.
Mr. McDonnell asked Ms. Poindexter if this was a non-conforming issue. Ms. Poindexter said yes.
Mr. McDonnell told the applicants that the board is required to identify a practical difficulty to justify the reason for the appeal. He asked them to explain what their practical difficulty was.
Mr. Rohr said that the visibility from Meadowview is compromised with the current sign and he added that the nursery business is difficult because it’s seasonal. Advertisement is essential for success.
Mr. Deremer asked for public input from the audience. No one responded either in support, or opposition.
Mr. Deremer asked the board members to share their thoughts.
Mr. McDonnell said that he was having trouble understanding the practical difficulty. He didn’t think the 45 mph speed limit was a reason that had been applicable for other businesses in the township requesting larger signs.
Mr. Giulitto agreed and added that the overall increase in size was about 40% and requested height was twice as high. He said he thought there was no real practical difficulty in that area.
Mr. Deremer said that he agreed with part of the issue. Perhaps the higher speed limit was valid, along with the placement of the sign. For a business, 100 sq. ft. is allowed, but only 10 ft. high. Jackson has always been very tight with sign restrictions, the goal in mind is to get everything down to ground level.
Mr. McDonnell asked if the issue could be divided into two separate appeals. Mr. Deremer asked the applicant if they approved of this idea. Mr. Rohr replied yes, that would be fine with him.
Mr. Giulitto asked if they would consider lowering the sign. Mr. Deremer said that because the appeal was advertised the board must stick with the original request as documented.
Mr. McDonnell moved to approve the request for appeal to build a sign that is 70 sq. ft. large.
Mr. Dodson seconded the motion.
The vote was: Mr. Juergensen-no, Mr. Giulitto-yes, Mr. Dodson-no, Mr. McDonnell-no, Mr. Deremer-yes
Mr. McDonnell moved to approve the request for appeal to build a sign that is 17 ft. high.
Mr. Dodson seconded the motion.
The vote was: Mr. Juergensen-no, Mr. Giulitto-no, Mr. Dodson-no, Mr. McDonnell-no, Mr. Deremer-no
APPEAL #2061 Evelyn Heil, 3626 Pinehurst Ave. NW, Massillon, OH 44646, requests a variance for a 5 ft. south parking setback where 10 ft. is required and a 5 ft. rear parking setback where 20 ft. is required per Art. IV Sect. 411.8 of the zoning resolution. Property located at 3211 Wales NW, located in the SE corner of section 32, Zoned B2.
Mr. Deremer read the reason for the appeal. The topography of the land is such that the area at the back of the lot is near level to the cement walk to the front entrance. The north and east side have a 10-15 ft. drop. The front has a hill, trees, & fence and makes the property very attractive. The application is signed by Evelyn Heil. Artifacts in the file: Site plan of the parcel with landscaping and trees, an aerial view from the Stark County Auditor’s office, along with adjacent parcels, three 8 and ½” x 11” sheets with ten photos.
Mr. Deremer swore in Evelyn M. Heil, 3626 Pinehurst NW, Massillon, OH 44646.
Ms. Heil said she’d been informed that she needed to put parking space on the property because the street parking had become inadequate for the doctor’s office that is located there. She said she needed to add eight spaces. She explained the reasons why the front yard, with a driveway off of Wales, or Concord was not preferred because of the wrought iron fence, trees, and slope in the yard. She said that her proposed parking would leave 5 feet between her yard and Mr. Bubenchick, her next door neighbor, and she is prepared to put landscaping along the boundary to make it look nice, and hide the cars. The cars are there usually only four days a week.
Mr. Dodson asked Ms. Heil who told her she needed to add the parking. Ms. Heil answered she thought it was Ms. Poindexter.
Ms. Poindexter said that the property was originally residential and at that time Mr. Heil had a doctor’s office there under home occupation permit. Then the property was rezoned to B-1 and they had moved their residence out. It came to light that it had never been officially converted to Commercial Use. It was vacant for a while and then a new doctor moved in and when the zoning office found out, a letter was sent stating that it’s being used as a Commercial Use and it’s no longer permitted under the non-conforming status as residential and therefore it needed to be converted to Commercial Use. From the square footage of the property that’s being used for the doctor’s office they are required to have eight parking spaces.
Mr. Dodson asked why the parking could not be put in the front yard where there is a huge area that seems like it would work.
Ms. Heil replied that there is quite a hill in the front. It drops down maybe 10 or 15 feet. So there would have to be a sidewalk constructed around the side to get out of there and there would also have to be a drive constructed to get into the lot, either via Wales, or Concord. There’s a fire hydrant on Concord. There’s also a huge oak tree there, and several other large trees. She stated that the property was very attractive with the landscaping and that she wanted to try and keep it that way. The parking lot seems like it would fit nicely in the back, out of the way, not bothering anyone too much.
Mr. Dodson asked where the parking for the next door Orthodontist’s office was located.
Ms. Heil replied that it is in front of
their office and the driveway is entered via Wales Road. Next to
that, there is an insurance office that also has parking in the front with
a driveway entered via Wales. There was some question as to whether
the block is too short to add another driveway off of Wales.
Ms. Poindexter stated that she and Ms.
Heil and Cliff, from Stark County Regional Planning met and it was Cliff’s
thought that ODOT may not permit her to put another driveway off of Wales
Road due to the distance from Concord, along with the fact that it is a
state route.
Mr. Dodson asked if there was a problem with putting a driveway off of Concord.
Ms. Poindexter answered that because Concord is a residential street and that it isn’t normally allowed to put a commercial driveway onto a residential street, however because there already is an existing driveway she would be able to use that one, but in order to use it, the Stark County Regional Planning Commission would have to grant her a variance just to make it conforming.
Mr. Deremer asked what sits behind the garage. It looks like an open area.
Ms. Heil answered that it is open but that it slopes downhill quite a distance.
Mr. Giulitto asked if the garage was used.
Ms. Heil said that there is a large tractor (with a snow blower on it) stored there. She said she’s hoping to sell the property. Mr. Giulitto asked if it was possible to tear down the garage and move everything back the 15 feet that is needed. Ms. Heil said it’s a well-built brick garage and she hasn’t investigated how much it would cost to tear it down. She said she’d rather use it as it is right now without moving the garage because it’s handy for the storing the equipment to take care of the yard.
Mr. Deremer said that the current zoning resolution is in place to protect the residents of the neighborhood and that is why there is a 20 ft setback for commercial construction. The board needs to hear why this is potentially the only spot where the extra parking can be placed.
Ms. Heil said it’s because of the land around the house, on the front and on the side, drops down maybe 15 ft.
Mr. Deremer asked if the proposed parking area is all grassed right now. Ms. Heil answered that not all of it is grassed, but there is a fence that comes out from behind the back of the garage that extends to Mr. Bubenchik’s property. North of the fence is an area that used to be a garden, as well as some fruit trees.
Mr. McDonnell asked Ms. Poindexter to verify the zoning for all of the adjacent properties. Ms. Poindexter stated that the property to the West is zoned Residential. The property to the South (across Concord) is Residential. The property to the North is Commercial.
Mr. McDonnell asked to have the pictures numbered, one through four. He asked Ms. Heil to verify, in picture number one, that the proposed new parking would be to the left of the garage.
Ms. Heil answered yes.
Mr. Deremer asked Ms. Heil if she considered putting the parking to the right of the garage along side of the office.
Ms. Heil stated she had considered that and found that it would only create two spaces.
Mr. Deremer asked Ms. Heil if she had someone come out to look at the property to make other suggestions about where other parking might work.
Ms. Heil replied that she had tried to arrange that but the man never came.
Ms. Poindexter said that Ron Revlock did go out and he is the one who took the pictures. She said that she had met with Ron and Ms. Heil several times and discussed four or five different options, including the ones that had been mentioned just now at the meeting and the requested proposal was the best thing they could come up with.
Mr. Juergensen asked Ms. Poindexter if there had been any thought given to applying for a variance for the parking spaces rather than the parking setback. Ms. Poindexter answered no, actually the problem came to light because we had been getting calls from residents complaining about cars being parked on the street and so the trustees passed a resolution to post a no-parking sign from a certain point, up to the corner, and then there’s no parking on the other side of the street also, to help with that problem, and at that meeting too, it was discussed that the zoning department was working with Ms. Heil, and RPC, to get parking on her property, to keep those cars off the street.
Mr. Juergensen asked Ms. Heil if the doctor actually needed all eight spaces. Perhaps if space number one was eliminated that might take care of the one of the variances, and then a couple of the others might be able to be moved to the East.
Ms. Heil said that might work. A different idea was to put in another driveway at the end of the property and have the parking places and the driveway trade places, but that would mean putting in an additional driveway, which is not approved.
Mr. Deremer asked for anyone in the audience to come forward who might like to speak in favor of the appeal. No one replied.
Mr. Deremer then asked for anyone opposed to the appeal to come forward.
Mr. Deremer swore in Nancy Brannon, 1423 Janice, Massillon, Ohio, and Milo Bubenchik, 1346 Concord St. NW, Massillon, OH 44646
Mr. Bubenchik said that he has lived in the house next to Ms. Heil’s property for over 50 years, and he does not want a parking lot next to his house.
Ms. Brannon spoke on behalf of her father, Mr. Bubenchik. She said that ever since Mr. Heil’s property became zoned commercial there’s been nothing but problems. This year alone, there have been leaves that sat on Concord for weeks and when they were finally bagged, the bags sat there for 2 or 3 weeks. Her father spent approximately 3 or 4 months trying to get Ms. Heil to prune, not remove, the tree that was dropping walnuts and destroying his roof. The whole place is overgrown and when she talks about how she doesn’t want to put parking in the front yard because it takes away from the beauty of the property, perhaps to see how it really looks, a person should come there in the spring. Plus, there’s a gentleman that’s living there in the evening that nobody wants to come out there to verify, and it’s not supposed to be zoned for someone to live there. The other thing is that if there’s a parking lot, will there be lighting for security? Because this property is now commercial it has lowered the value of my father’s property. It is the opinion of those in my family that Ms. Heil’s property never should have been rezoned to commercial. The reason why this whole thing came up was because there were cars parked from the fire hydrant all the way up to my dad’s house and when my dad tried to pull out he couldn’t see. Ms Brannon added that one day she turned the corner off of Wales and nearly clipped the car that was parked right behind the hydrant.
Mr. Giulitto asked Ms. Brannon if she understood that the parking lot is legally allowed if Ms. Heil were to stay within the setbacks outlined in the zoning resolution.
Ms. Brannon answered that yes, she did understand that.
Mr. Giulitto asked if her preference was for Ms. Heil to put the parking in the front yard.
Ms. Brannon stated yes, absolutely, adding that there is more than enough space on the lot for parking, whether it be in the front yard, or whether she tears down the garage. It doesn’t have to be in the rear, right up against Mr. Bubenchik’s property.
Mr. Giulitto asked Ms. Brannon if she agreed that the front yard had a significant slope.
Ms. Brannon said yes there is a slope, but she’s not sure it’s big enough to prevent the parking lot from being built. She said she thought the real reason Ms. Heil didn’t want to build the lot in the front was because she didn’t want to tear down her wrought iron fence.
Mr. Deremer swore in Roger Fox, 1340 Concord Street NW, Massillon OH 44646
Mr. Fox said that he is Mr. Bubenchik’s next door neighbor on the other side. He stated that the thinks the proposed parking lot is an infringement on the neighborhood. The original decision to rezone Ms. Heil’s property was a bad decision and now this proposal is compounding that decision by trying to infringe on barriers that were established to maintain the integrity of the residential neighborhood. This has gone way into the neighborhood, unlike the Orthodontist and the insurance agent, who use their parking area on the Wales (East) side of their properties. Plus they keep their properties looking residential, neat and clean and that might not be said about Ms. Heil’s property. To add another maintenance feature to this property wouldn’t be advantageous, but if she could do it within the zoning requirements, then so be it, but to violate the setbacks would be a major error. Mr. Fox added that he is also a commercial property owner in Jackson Township and when he bought his property he realized, as anyone should, what the benefits and deficits are. That’s not to say that she doesn’t have the right to come and ask for the variance from the board but on the other hand it is not, as she says, maintaining the integrity of everything at the sake of the neighbors. Ms. Heil doesn’t want to tear down her fence, her trees, or her garage. As a property owner, a person takes the good with the bad, and that’s when it’s realized whether the investment has more bad than good. If this property is not a good enough investment for Ms. Heil, it’s not up to the township to rectify that problem for her.
Mr. Juergensen asked Mr. Fox if he knew whether Ms. Heil bought the property before it had been rezoned.
Mr. Fox answered that yes, he believed she did buy it prior to the rezoning.
Mr. Deremer swore in Mr. Jarrell Miller, 1343 Concord St. NW, Massillon.
Mr. Miller said that this was the second time he had been at a hearing about zoning in the neighborhood and that there has been a change in the residents of the neighborhood over recent years. There are several children living in the block now. In both cases, the property that was trying to get rezoned was not occupied by the owner. They didn’t have to deal with the congestion. People have been using his property as a turn around. The added traffic on the street and the young children, some of them under two years of age, is an issue now. Also there is an impact on the residential property values. The house in question was built as a house. How it ended up being zoned commercial is a mistake that should be corrected instead of added-to. These people are not our neighbors and they’re certainly not good neighbors. They don’t live there and they don’t have to deal with what we deal with. The reason for this hearing is because of money. It costs a lot of money to do what needs to be done to Ms. Heil’s property to put the proper parking spaces on it. To put it next to Mr. Bubenchik’s house is the cheap and easy way out. This house is for sale. The property where the Orthodontist is used to be a house and it was sold and torn down and a whole new building was put up. Who’s to say that this won’t happen with Ms. Heil’s property? Wales is the smart way to go, it’s also the expensive way, but it’s the best way not to impact the residential properties any more. It all comes down to cash money in the pocket when it’s common knowledge that the property will be worth three times more as commercial than it is residential. There is a gentleman who lives there at night that brought the police out because of a fight he had with his girlfriend at 11:00 at night.
Mr. Deremer stated that the board was a board of appeals, and cannot rezone property. The only thing before this board this evening is the variance request for the parking area.
Mr. Fox said that five years ago he was at a hearing about the house across the street that was trying to do the same thing and the issue rested on the fact that there was a difference in the property value, of about $150,000 residential and $400,000 commercial.
Mr. Deremer said that may be true but that the board of appeals only deals with appeals to present properties, as they are currently zoned.
Mr. Miller said he thought there was some question about what Ms. Heil’s property was zoned, because he thought is was commercial, but if people are living there, then that’s not supposed to be happening.
Ms. Poindexter verified that the property in question is in fact zoned B-1. She added that the zoning department has no proof that someone is living at the property, nor do they have the right to go inside to investigate whether someone is living there. Ms. Poindexter stated if Mr. Miller has proof that someone has proof that someone is living there, he is more than welcome to submit it to the zoning department and they will look into the matter, again.
Mr. Miller said that there is a police report on record, from just a couple of months ago, where the man living at that house accused a woman of assaulting him. If the man said he is living there, in that report, isn’t that proof? I guess it just depends on how much work you want to do in order to find out.
Mr. Juergensen told Mr. Miller that he was out of line and asked him to return to his seat.
Mr. Miller raised his voice and went back toward his seat, shouting angry remarks.
Mr. Deremer explained to Mr. Miller that he has a right to report any activity that he believes to be outside of the law, to the zoning department, and to the police, and it would be investigated, however this hearing tonight is not designed to address the issue that he is complaining about.
Mr. Deremer asked for any other comments
in opposition, from the audience. No one replied.
Mr. Deremer asked Ms. Heil if she wanted
to respond to any of the comments that were made.
Ms. Heil said that even though it doesn’t relate to the variance request, she is aware of the fact that some nights the doctor who rents her property does work late, however his home is in down in Mogadore or Bolivar.
Mr. Deremer asked Ms. Heil to verify what her rental agreement stated.
Ms. Heil stated that it is an office rental, but that she is aware that he has a bed in there and sometimes during the day he lies down to rest and takes long lunches on occasion.
Mr. Deremer said that this issue doesn’t have anything to do with parking. He asked her if she had anything more to add regarding the parking.
Ms. Heil said that she had several conversations with Ms. Poindexter about where to put the parking and the proposal in question this evening ended up being the most feasible because it didn’t require building another driveway, either on Wales or on Concord. Even though there seems to be more space in the front yard, the driveway seems to be the matter, and also to prevent people from having to climb steps. It also seems unnecessary for my property to have 20 ft. of unused space at the back to make things nicer for my neighbor.
Mr. Deremer closed the floor for public comments and asked the board to share their thoughts.
Mr. Dodson said that his father had lived in this neighborhood for many years and he is very familiar with this property. There is a doctor across the street which had a similar type of property and he went to the trouble to have railroad ties installed and landscaping to buildup the area needed for a driveway off of Wales. There doesn’t appear to be any reason why this same thing couldn’t be done at this property so he said that he is very much opposed to this variance.
Mr. Juergensen said he apologized for the outburst earlier with Mr. Miller. He said he is not convinced that the parking spaces can’t be put somewhere else on the property therefore he is not in favor of the variance.
Mr. Giulitto said that he concurred with Mr. Juergensen and Mr. Dodson and to put parking spaces 5 feet from Mr. Bubenchik’s property is not reasonable when there are some other spots on the property that look like possibilities.
Mr. McDonnell said that the reason why there is a 20 ft. setback required for a commercial property that abuts a residential property is to protect the residential. This is a neighborhood that is clearly residential and there hasn’t been any testimony that outweighs the benefits of protecting the residential. It is the board’s duty to uphold the zoning resolution, in this case, to protect the residential. There was no testimony that any experts have taken a look at the property to determine the best alternative to create the required parking and not violate zoning and not require variances. There needed to be practical difficulties and none have been presented, especially since it abuts a residential property.
Mr. Giulitto moved to approve the appeal as requested and Mr. Dodson seconded the motion.
The vote was: Mr. Juergensen-no, Mr. Giulitto-no, Mr. Dodson-no, Mr. McDonnell-no, Mr. Deremer-no
ADJOURNMENT
Mr. McDonnell moved to adjourn the meeting.
Mr. Giulitto seconded the motion.
The vote was: Mr. Juergensen-yes, Mr. Giulitto-yes, Mr. Dodson-yes, Mr. McDonnell-yes, Mr. Deremer-yes
Respectfully submitted,
Amy Saba
Zoning Data Coordinator