To find a specific item within this document, point and click on Edit  in the Toolbar.  Dependent on the browser you are using, select Find (on this page)  or Find in Frame.  Type a keyword or words in the Find what: box then click on Find Next.
JACKSON TOWNSHIP BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS
Thursday, February 23, 2006
MINUTES

Members present:                                                        Ted Deremer
                                                                                        Edward McDonnell
                                                                                        Richard Dodson
                                                                                        Jim Giulitto
                                                                                        John Juergensen
Alternate member:                                                        Eric Oldroyd - absent
 
Zoning Inspector:                                                          Joni Poindexter
Zoning Coordinator:                                                      Lori Foutz

APPEAL #2017 – Gary David, 7630 Arlington Ave, NW, Massillon OH 44646, property owner, requests a variance for an 11 ft. front building setback where 40 ft. is required, a 2 ft. front parking setback with no landscaping where 20 ft. is required, and zero percent interior landscaped islands where 15% is required per Art. IV, Sect. 411.5, 411.8, and 411.9 of the zoning resolution.  Property location is 4462 Erie Ave NW, Massillon, OH, Sect. 30NW Jackson Twp.  Area zoned C-P.

Mr. Deremer read the application signed by Gary David and the reason for the appeal as listed in the file.  The file contained a site plan reflecting the proposed addition and parking requirements.  Also in the file was an aerial view of the parcel and adjoining parcels.

Mr. Deremer swore in Mr. Gary David, 7630 Arlington Ave NW, Massillon, to speak on behalf of the application.

Mr. David stated he bought the property in November 2005.  He was not aware that the parking lot was not in compliance with zoning.   He would like to keep the parking as it currently is.  The previous owners tore down an old house and used the lot as parking.  The only change he would like to do is add a 30x35 ft. deck to the 80 year old existing structure.  The deck would be in line with the existing front porch.   There is asphalt from the building out to street.  The side parking lot is currently graveled.  There will be landscaping around the side and back of the parking lot.

Mr. Giulitto asked Mr. David to show him where he is removing the landscaping.

Mr. David stated he is not removing any landscaping, he is asking not to put it in.

Mr. Giulitto asked if he could move the deck back.

Mr. David stated he could not due to there is a fire door that he needs to keep open.

Mr. McDonnell asked what type of facility is in this building now.

Mr. David stated it is a restaurant/bar.

Mr. McDonnell asked how many parking spaces he currently has, and how many are required.

Ms. Poindexter stated there are 23 required parking spaces, and he has 23 parking spaces on the site plan.

Mr. McDonnell asked how many parking spaces are required with the new deck.

Ms. Poindexter stated adding the new deck requires an additional 20 spaces.

Mr. McDonnell clarified that he needs a total of 43 parking spaces.  The site plan shows 9 more parking spaces than are required.  He also stated the board is required to find a practical difficulty to grant a variance.  He already has 9 more parking spaces then required.  If he took out the front 12 parking spaces and found 3 other parking spaces somewhere else on the lot he would not need this variance.

Mr. David stated there is a driveway on each side of the lot.  There is not room for 3 more parking spaces.

Mr. Juergensen asked Ms. Poindexter if he complies with Section 411.15 of the zoning resolution.

Ms. Poindexter stated technically they are since they did not tear down the house.  The violation was against the other owner.  They need to come into compliance that is why they need the variance.

Mr. Juergensen asked if they comply with the second part of the regulation that states buildings and parking areas shall not cover more than 75% of the lot.

Ms. Poindexter stated all he is adding is a deck.  The existing parking lot does not matter at this point.

Mr. Juergensen asked if it is over 75%, wouldn’t he need a variance for that.

Ms. Poindexter stated at this time she does not know if he is compliance with that regulation.

Mr. McDonnell stated he feels they can not consider these variances until they know if he needs another variance for 75% coverage of the lot.

Mr. Deremer figured the lot coverage with both the parking and building and he stated about one third of the property is landscaped.  Therefore, he is in compliance with Section 411.15.

No one else in the audience spoke in favor or opposition of this application.  The meeting was closed to public input and the board deliberated.

Mr. McDonnell stated if the board granted the variance, he would suggest some type of condition be added to keep customers from parking any closer to Erie then 22 ft.  There is nothing from keeping people from parking 2 ft. from the street.  He does not have a problem with the deck.

Mr. Juergensen stated he also does not have a problem with the deck addition.  He does have an issue granting a variance for no interior landscaping.  He referred to the definition of Canal Parkland District in the resolution book stating to preserve and protect natural open space and existing landscaping.  He feels it is their responsibility to make sure the property conforms to the resolution.

Mr. McDonnell suggested they give the applicant the opportunity to take another look at this request and see if the full variance is required.  If he chooses, they could continue and vote on the request as filed or modify the request and schedule for a later date.

Mr. David stated if you parallel park cars in front of the building, they would be too close to the street.  He feels it would be a safety issue.  Also, he will be landscaping around the back and side of the lot.  He will just not have landscaping in the front.  He would like to proceed with the meeting.

Mr. McDonnell suggested they divide the question.

Mr. Deremer stated he also agrees with the 11 ft. front setback for the deck since it will be in line with the existing porch.  He feels they are trying to squeeze as much parking as they possibly can into these lots.  He struggles if it makes sense for the applicant to put in a front landscaping strip, then gravel parking lot, and more landscaping.  He feels the gravel parking lot will not create a water problem, it actually will be better for water run off than asphalt.  They are in compliance with section 411.15 of the zoning resolution on maximum lot coverage for Canal Parkland District with the buildings and parking lot not covering more than 75% of the lot.  He feels it is a unique property and their only other option would be to tear down the log structure and rebuild.  If he did this, Jackson Township would lose part of its history.  He doesn’t have a problem granting the variances.

Mr. McDonnell made a motion to approve appeal #2017 for an 11 ft. front building setback.

Mr. Dodson seconded the motion.

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

Mr. McDonnell made a motion to approve appeal #2017 for a 2 ft. front parking setback with no landscaping with the condition that a sign is installed indicating where parking begins to ensure it will be 22 ft. from Erie Avenue.

Mr. Dodson seconded the motion.

The vote was: Mr. Juergensen-no, Mr. Giulitto-yes, Mr. Dodson-yes, Mr. McDonnell-no, and Mr. Deremer-yes.

Mr. McDonnell made a motion to approve appeal #2017 for zero percent interior landscaped islands as requested.

Mr. Dodson seconded the motion.

The vote was: Mr. Juergensen-no, Mr. Giulitto-yes, Mr. Dodson-yes, Mr. McDonnell-no, and Mr. Deremer-yes.

APPEAL #2016 – Larry & Paula Haymaker, 5695 East Blvd NW, Canton, OH, 44718, property owners, request a conditional use permit for garden supply sales and landscaping where a conditional use permit is required per Art. IV, Sect. 411.3 of the zoning resolution.  Property location is 6854 Wales Ave, Sect. 10SW Jackson Twp.  Area zoned B-3.

Mr. Deremer read the application signed by Larry Haymaker and the reason for the appeal as listed in the file.  The file contained an 11x17 and a full size site plan.  Also in the file was an aerial view of the parcel and adjoining parcels.

Mr. Deremer swore in Mr. Larry Haymaker, to speak on behalf of the appeal.  Mr. Haymaker stated he went through this before and was approved but never picked up his permit.  He was not aware that he had to pick his permit.

Mr. Deremer asked if everything on the site plan was the same as last time.

Mr. Haymaker stated everything is the same except they are removing a structure and building a new building.  They are leaving the slab in place.

Mr. McDonnell asked what the property is used for now.

Mr. Haymaker stated they are selling vegetables in the front, parking trucks, for lawn service, in the back.  They also have agriculture equipment they need to store in the property which is why they need a new building.

Mr. McDonnell confirmed they are using the property as garden supply sales and landscaping business currently because they thought they had a conditional use permit.

Mr. Haymaker stated that is correct.

Mr. McDonnell read through the general criteria for all conditional use permits in Section 431.2.

A. Will not be detrimental to property values in the immediate vicinity.  RESPONSE: No.

B. Will not restrict or adversely affect the existing use of the adjacent property owners.  RESPONSE:   No.

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:  Yes.

D. Will meet all requirements for EPA for storm water runoff, when applicable.  RESPONSE:  Yes.

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:  Yes.

F. Will be constructed and maintained in a neat, orderly and safe condition.  RESPONSE:  Yes

Mr. McDonnell 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 7:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. and they will be open 7 days a week.

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:  Under an acre.

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 lights will be shielded from the road and adjacent properties.  There will be security lights in the back.
 
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:  No.

5. All trash receptacles shall be adequately screened.  RESPONSE:  They have a J&J dumpster and it is at the stand in the summer and in the back of the shop in the winter.  It is not fenced in.

6. Grading and surface drainage provisions shall be prepared by a registered engineer and reviewed or approved by the Stark County Subdivision Engineer.  RESPONSE:  No changes except for new spouting.

Mr. McDonnell 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 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: Mulch will be stored on the site and will comply with regulations.  Materials will not be processed on the 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. Mark Haymaker, 6919 Lake O Springs was sworn in to speak in favor.  He also works with the business.  He wanted to comment on the trash receptacle.  It is not fenced in, but you can not see it from the road.  Storm sewer drain was moved with the road widening, they can not run to the curb.  They will comply with all regulations for drainage.

No one else in the audience spoke in favor or opposition of the appeal.  The meeting was closed to public input and the board deliberated.

Mr. McDonnell stated he is satisfied with the testimony they will comply with the requirements for the conditional use permit.  He is aware that if he is not in compliance the permit can be revoked.  As far as the screening of the trash receptacles he is comfortable leaving it up to the zoning investigator to make sure it is in compliance.

Mr. Juergensen stated he thought they had to be screened.

Mr. Dodson stated there is a difference between screening and fencing.  Screening is more visual.

Mr. Deremer agreed with Mr. Dodson that screening is from public view.

Mr. Giulitto made a motion to approve appeal #2016 as filed.

Mr. Juergensen seconded the motion.

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

APPEAL #2018 – Diversified Acquisition, 9298 Brooker St, Suite 200, Litchfield, OH 44253, applicant, B & L Real Estate Investment, 6900 Deerfield Ave, NW, Canal Fulton, OH 44614, property owners, request a conditional use permit for inside storage of automobile, truck, boat, RV, and trailer where a conditional use permit is required per Art. IV, Sect. 411.3 of the zoning resolution.  Property location is SE Corner of High Mill & Portage, parcel #1629628 & #1629629, Sect. 18NW Jackson Twp.  Area zoned B-3.

Mr. Deremer read the application signed by Craig Sturgill and the reason for the appeal as listed in the file.  The file contained an 11x17 site plan of the property prepared by Cunningham & Associates.  In the file is a copy of an email from Joni Poindexter to Craig Sturgill stating the requirements for landscaping.  Also in the file was an aerial view of the parcel and adjoining parcels.

Mr. Craig Sturgill, Builder & Developer for Diversified Acquisition & Development, 9298 Brooker St, Litchfield, OH, was sworn in to speak on behalf of the appeal.  Mr. Sturgill stated this is a two building project.  There is a third building on the corner, which is a lot split.  The front building to the north is approximately 24,000 sq. ft.  It will be a retail plaza, with a maximum of 20 tenants.  This building already meets zoning regulations for commercial district.  The second building to the south is approximately 18,200 sq. ft. and this is where they need the CUP.  It will be a jumbo and mini storage unit building.  There are 13 units measuring 20x50 sq. ft. at 1,000 sq. ft and on the north side 13 mini 10x20 units.  Stark County Planning has conditionally approved this project.  The south building needs the CUP for storage use.  There will be no outside storage.  This building would have a dual purpose.  They plan to construct the building so it can accommodate storage users along with renting to a small business like a contractor.  They would have an option of renting the large bay in the back and both small units in the front to one user.  They plan to put in a sewer line so they could possibly add a restroom.  The building at the highest point will be 24 ft. in height.  He submitted into record a picture of the north building and the jumbo storage units.  The doors on the storage units will be 12 ft wide and 14 ft. high, and will have a man door in each unit.  The building was designed so they could have 3 tenants per 20 ft. bay for a total of 39 tenants in the back building.  They feel the maximum occupancy of tenants for both buildings will be 60 tenants.

Mr. Deremer clarified there will be no outside storage.

Mr. Sturgill stated there will be no outside storage.

Mr. McDonnell read through the general criteria for all conditional use permits in Section 431.2.

A.  Will not be detrimental to property values in the immediate vicinity.  RESPONSE: Correct.

B.  Will not restrict or adversely affect the existing use of the adjacent property owners.  RESPONSE:        Correct.

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:  Yes.

D.  Will meet all requirements for EPA for storm water runoff, when applicable.  RESPONSE:  Yes.

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:  Yes.

F. Will be constructed and maintained in a neat, orderly and safe condition.  RESPONSE:  Yes

Mr. McDonnell 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 24 hours a day.

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:  The parcel is 3.5 acres, and has two access drives off Portage, one to the west and one to the east.  Both are over 200 ft. from intersection of Portage and High Mill.

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:  An electrical schematic will be submitted to zoning for their approval showing voltage and location.  He would like to use 100 watt lights.  He referred to the exhibit with the jumbo storage units to show type of lighting.  Light is directed downward and will be shielded from adjacent properties.
 
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:  No.

5. All trash receptacles shall be adequately screened.  RESPONSE:  They have one dumpster located near the southwest corner of the site.  It will be fenced and accessible from the north side.  The other sides would be enclosed.  It will be used for the entire site, including the commercial building.

6. Grading and surface drainage provisions shall be prepared by a registered engineer and reviewed or approved by the Stark County Subdivision Engineer.  RESPONSE:  Yes.

Mr. McDonnell referred to Section 431.6 (A) for automobile, truck, boat, trailer, and farm implement sales, storage, or repair, and car wash shall be operated so that all activities, except those required to be performed at fuel pumps, shall be carried on inside a building; if work is performed on a vehicle, said vehicle shall be entirely within a building.

Mr. Sturgill stated there will be no fuel pumps.  He also stated all work will be performed inside of the building.

Mr. McDonnell asked him how he plans to enforce the tenants not to do any work outside of the building.

Mr. Sturgill stated Mr. DeStephano, owner of B & L Real Estate Investment, will make sure the renters comply with the zoning regulations.

Mr. Carl Massouh, 4589 Portage Street, NW, spoke concerning the appeal.  He stated Portage Street is a very dangerous street, and there are many accidents.  He is concerned about the access drives.  He is also concerned about the security of the building.

Mr. Charles Gross, 6690 High Mill spoke concerning the appeal.  He stated the land sloped toward his property and the water will go in his direction.  There will not be any green space to help with the water run off.  He did state he is willing to work with them.  His second concern is security.  This is a large building and you are not able to see behind it from Portage.  The fact they will be open 24 hours a day worries him.  He doesn’t know what the answer is, he suggested a gate may be an option.

Mr. Sturgill stated Stark County Planning has approved the access drives, however, they will work closely with highway engineers to make sure it is as safe as possible.  They will work with storm water management on the drainage problems to help control the water run off.  They are planning on putting security cameras in the back of the south and north building.  They feel a gate will not be esthetically attractive and may produce some safety issues for fire or emergency access.  They would like to buffer the south property line with staggered pine trees to help with the view and security.

Mr. McDonnell asked if the grading and surface drainage plan has been prepared by an engineer.

Mr. Strugill stated it will be prepared by an engineer and approved by the Stark County Engineers Office.  They also are committed to the Gross’s, and they will be involved in that process.

Mr. Deremer asked if they are required to have a retention pond on the south side, where would it be.

Mr. Strugill stated they do not have a lot of room for a surface retention area.  They have looked at culverts under the ground and they can meet that requirement if necessary.

Mr. McDonnell clarified it is his testimony that they would be installing security cameras.

Mr. Sturgill stated they will be installing security cameras.  The cameras will be monitoring the south area and the area in between.  They will also monitor the back of the north building.

Mr. McDonnell stated he is concerned that all work is done inside of a building.  He wants to make sure at 11:00 at night someone is not firing up some type of vehicle to work on it.  He asked Mr. Sturgill how he plans to stop that type of situation.

Mr. Sturgill stated the security cameras will help enforce the tenant requirements.  They will also have written leases the tenants will sign that states they must keep vehicles inside of building.

No one else in the audience spoke in favor or opposition of the appeal.  The meeting was closed to public input and the board deliberated.

Mr. McDonnell stated he does not have a problem with the storage building if a few conditions are added for approval.  A specific requirement be added in the written agreement with their tenants stating they must comply with regulation 431.6(A) in regards to no work performed outside of building.  He would have preferred to see a plan for landscaping prior to approval.  However, another condition would be they must comply with section 431.2(E) before a zoning permit is issued.  He would like to add all lighting be on buildings as opposed to poles.  He will leave this up to the zoning department to ensure they meet the regulations.  Also, the Stark County Engineers office must approve their drainage plan.

Mr. Deremer suggested they add a condition that security cameras will be installed in the rear of both buildings.

Mr. Giulitto suggested they also add a condition that 6 ft. staggered pine trees will be planted on the south side that abuts the residential property, as stated in their testimony.

Mr. Deremer stated that it appears they will need some type of drainage to control the water on the side that abuts the residential property.  He feels the under ground culverts are a good idea.  He does feel it is a good idea to add this as a condition that the drainage plan must be prepared by an engineer and approved by Stark County Engineer.

Mr. McDonnell made a motion to approve appeal #2018 with all of the conditions that were stated above.

Mr. Juergensen seconded the motion.

The vote was: Mr. Juergensen-yes, Mr. Giulitto-yes, Mr. Dodson-no, Mr. McDonnell-no, and Mr. Deremer-yes.

Mr. Deremer asked if there were any comments or a motion on the minutes from the meeting of December 22, 2005.  All members were present.  Mr. Deremer recused himself for appeal 2007 only and Mr. McDonnell recused himself from appeal #2008 only.

Mr. Juergensen made a motion to approve the minutes from December 22, 2005 meeting as written.

Mr. Dodson seconded the motion.

The vote was: Mr. Juergensen-yes, Mr. Giulitto-yes, Mr. Dodson-yes, Mr. McDonnell-yes-with regards to appeal 2007, and Mr. Deremer-yes- with regards to appeal 2008.

Respectfully submitted,

Lori Foutz
Zoning Coordinator