Members present:                                                                    Ted Deremer
                                                                                                    Richard Dodson
                                                                                                    Jim Giulitto
                                                                                                    John Juergensen
Alternate Member:                                                                    Eric Oldroyd
Zoning Inspector:                                                                      Joni Poindexter

Absent Member:                                                                       Edward McDonnell

APPEAL #1963 - John P. Mollric, property owner, 6929 Hillway Ave. NW, North Canton, Ohio 44720 requests a variance to split a 40,000 sq. ft. lot into two lots, one being 20,000 sq. ft. and the other being 19,950 sq. ft. where 20,000 sq. ft. is required and a variance to allow the existing principal building on the split portion of 19,950 sq. ft. to be at a 12.9 ft. rear yard setback where 25 ft. is required in Art. IV Sect. 401.5 & 401.6 of the zoning resolution.  Property located at 6929 Hillway NW, Sect. 10SW Jackson Twp.  Area zoned R-R.

Mr. Deremer read the file application signed by John Mollric with reasons being as stated by the applicant, “To split the lot.  Both lots will technically be 20,000 sq. ft. but of the 19,950 sq. ft. lot 50 ft. is in the road right of way and the house cannot be moved to meet the 25 ft. setback.”  The file contained a tax map of the property in question, an aerial view of the property, and a preliminary survey plat dated October 2004.

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

Mr. Deremer swore in Joseph Mollric, 7817 Autumn Wood NW.

Mr. Mollric gave the board a letter regarding the request and stated that the variance is for a 19,950 sq. ft. lot due to 50 ft. being the road right of way.  Previously when they were before the board the suggestion was made as to redrawing the lot, but no matter how the lot is drawn one of the lots is going to be substandard due to 50 ft. being the road right of way.  Mr. Mollric stated that he is also asking for a variance on the northwest portion of the existing building as proposed to the new property line because it will not meet the 25 ft. setback requirement.  Mr. Mollric stated that the tax map shows the existing property to be 40,000 sq. ft. but the survey, which they are going by, shows 39,950 sq. ft. due to the right of way.

Mr. Deremer asked Mr. Mollric if the surveyor confirmed that 50 ft. is not officially part of the property.

Mr. Mollric stated that the surveyor put it in as he saw it as 50 ft. being in the right of way.

Mr. Deremer asked if the driveway to the existing home is off of Hillway or Sylvian.

Mr. Mollric stated that the driveway is on Sylvian, but the property is addressed to Hillway.  The house that would be built on the new lot would be at least 75 ft. away from the existing home.

Mr. Deremer stated that he wasn’t sure how they got a Hillway address if the drive and door faces Sylvian.

Mr. Deremer asked Mr. Mollric if he considered his front to be on Sylvian because if the property were addressed to Sylvian it would eliminate a variance.

Mr. Mollric stated yes, because this is where the door that is most used is located.
Mr. Dodson stated that the plan shows that the outbuilding would be removed and asked if there would be any problem, if granted, of the board requiring a 38 ft. side setback on any new residence built on the vacant portion of the lot because this would leave 50 ft. between the houses.

Mr. Mollric stated that there is plenty of room to build a house, so if the board put a restriction on where the house would be located he did not have a problem with it.

No one else in the audience spoke in favor of this appeal and no one in the audience spoke in opposition to the appeal.  Mr. Deremer closed this appeal to public input.

Mr. Dodson stated that the variance is minimal for the square footage and he doesn’t have a problem approving it.  He suggested that the variance for the side setback be approve with the restriction that any residence that is constructed be located no closer than 38 ft. to the existing parcel.

Mr. Deremer agreed with Mr. Dodson and stated that it is a positive with the new parcel meeting the 20,000 sq. ft. requirement.

Mr. Giulitto stated that he thought a condition should be made that the outbuilding would be removed.

Mr. Dodson made a motion to approve appeal #1963 for the lot split and the side setback be approve with the restriction that any new residence constructed on the undeveloped portion of the split be no closer than 38 ft. to the east property line and the accessory building on the developed portion of the lot will be removed.

Ms. Poindexter stated that the variance is not a side setback.  It is a rear setback.

Mr. Deremer stated that if the front was considered on Sylvian then it would be a side setback.

Ms. Poindexter stated that it can’t be a side setback because the address is on Hillway if it were considered the side then the rear wouldn’t meet the requirement.

Mr. Dodson amended his motion to approve appeal #1963 for the lot split and the rear setback be approved with the restriction that any new residence constructed on the undeveloped portion of the split be no closer than 38 ft. to the east property line and the accessory building on the developed portion of the lot will be removed.

Mr. Juergensen seconded the motion.

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

APPEAL #1962 - First Baptist Church of Jackson, property owner, 6975 Promway Ave. NW, North Canton, Ohio 44720 requests a conditional use permit for a church where a conditional use permit is required and to allow the construction of 157 parking spaces and defer 43 parking spaces, until needed, where a total of 200 spaces are required per Art. IV Sect. 401.3 & 601.4 of the zoning resolution.  Property location is Parcel #1629546 Strausser St. NW, Sect. 5SW Jackson Twp.  Area zoned R-R.

Mr. Deremer read the file application signed by Thomas Gang with reasons being a conditional use permit is required and there are currently only 350 church members at this time although seating is available to 600 people.  The file contained a tax map of the property in question, the answers to the criteria for the conditional use permit, and a set of plans for the church consisting of four pages dated 1/20/2004.  The file also contained a memo dated 1/25/05 to the Fire Department, Chief Heck, from Joni Poindexter asking for any comments he may have regarding the property.

Ms. Poindexter stated that no comments were received.
Mr. Deremer asked who would like to speak in favor of this appeal.

Mr. Deremer swore in Mr. Clevenger who stated that he is a member of the church as well as their attorney.

Mr. Clevenger stated that they would like to build a church on the property.  They have been meeting at Jackson High School for a number of years with a conditional use permit that was issued last year.  They now are looking to move forward and build a church.

Mr. Deremer asked if the facility was previously before the board.

Mr. Clevenger stated yes.

Mr. Deremer asked if there are any outstanding issues that the board needed to be aware of.

Mr. Clevenger stated that there were none that he was aware of.  The parking spaces that they are requesting adequately cover’s their current membership.  There are a number of reasons why they are requesting 157 parking spaces as opposed to 200 spaces.  One is the cost and the other is it will give them more room around the church to perform activities outside the church.  Mr. Clevenger stated that it is not their goal to become really large.

Mr. Deremer stated that there appears to be adequate room for the parking spaces.

Mr. Clevenger stated Mr. Deremer is correct, so if they do grow unexpectedly they will have adequate space to increase the parking.

Mr. Deremer reviewed the criteria for the conditional use permit.

Section 431.2
Mr. Deremer asked if it would not be detrimental to property values in the immediate vicinity.

Mr. Clevenger stated yes.

Mr. Deremer asked if it would not restrict or adversely affect the existing use of the adjacent property owners.

Mr. Clevenger stated yes.

Mr. Deremer asked if it would be designed and constructed so that all access drives points to public streets, driveways, parking and service areas shall meet the approval of the Township Trustees, or county or state agencies where applicable.

Mr. Clevenger stated yes.

Mr. Deremer asked Mr. Clevenger if he has approached anyone regarding the drive location.

Mr. Clevenger stated that he believes the builder has had discussions regarding the drive location.

Mr. Deremer asked if it will meet the requirements of EPA for stormwater runoff, where applicable.

Mr. Clevenger stated yes.

Mr. Deremer asked if it would be properly landscaped according to Section 411.9 where applicable pursuant to Chapter 411 or when specified as a condition for approval.

Mr. Clevenger stated yes.

Mr. Deremer asked if there are any agreements with the neighbors to put up some type of screening.

Mr. Clevenger stated not that he was aware of.

Mr. Deremer asked if it would be constructed and maintained in a neat, orderly and safe condition.

Mr. Clevenger stated yes.

Section 431.3
Mr. Deremer stated that the Board of Zoning Appeals may limit the hours of operation to ensure that the conditional use is compatible with the surrounding uses and asked if the use would be more than one day a week.

Mr. Clevenger stated that they would operate as they do now which is Sunday morning and they also have a Wednesday night prayer group.

Mr. Deremer stated for parcels of one or more acres, all points of vehicular entrance or exit shall be located no closer than one hundred feet from the intersection of two arterial streets, or fifty feet from the intersection of an arterial street and a local or collector street.

Mr. Clevenger stated yes, and that is shown on the plans.

Mr. Deremer stated that no lighting shall constitute a nuisance and in no way shall impair safe movement of traffic on any street or highway.  All outside lighting shall be shielded from adjacent properties.

Mr. Clevenger stated yes.

Mr. Deremer stated that all trash receptacles shall be adequately screened.

Mr. Clevenger stated yes.

Mr. Deremer asked where the trash receptacle would be located.

Mr. Clevenger stated that it would be as shown on the plan.

Mr. Deremer stated that grading and surface drainage provisions shall be prepared by a registered engineer and reviewed or approved by the Stark County Subdivision Engineer, where applicable.

Mr. Clevenger stated yes.

Mr. Deremer stated that 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 properties.

Mr. Clevenger stated yes.

Mr. Deremer asked if the building, parking, etc. meet all the setback requirements.

Mr. Clevenger stated yes.

Mr. Deremer asked Ms. Poindexter if she reviewed the plan and agreed that it meets all the requirements.

Ms. Poindexter stated yes except for the requested variance.

Section 431.6(F)
Mr. Deremer stated that such uses should be located on an arterial or collector street or have direct access to an arterial or collector street without going through a residential neighborhood to lessen the impact on the residential area.

Mr. Clevenger stated yes.

Mr. Deremer stated that all outdoor children’s activities areas shall be enclosed by a fence or wall having a height of at least five feet but not exceeding six feet.  An entry gate shall be securely fastened.

Mr. Clevenger stated yes.

Mr. Deremer stated that churches and other places of worship may be erected to a height not to exceed seventy-five feet if the building is set back from each lot line one foot for each foot of additional building height in excess of the district limitation.

Mr. Clevenger stated yes.

Mr. Deremer asked if their maximum height was 54 ft. to the steeple.

Mr. Clevenger stated yes.

Mr. Deremer stated that all activities, programs and other events shall be directly related to the conditional use permit so granted, and shall be adequately and property supervised so as to prevent any hazard and to assure against any disturbance or nuisance to surrounding properties, residents or to the community in general.

Mr. Clevenger stated yes.

Mr. Deremer stated the development plan shall indicate the parking and emergency entrances or exits and other safety precautions.

Mr. Clevenger stated yes.

This concluded the criteria for the conditional use permit.

No one else in the audience spoke in favor of this appeal.

Mr. Deremer asked if anyone in the audience wanted to speak in opposition to the appeal.

Mr. Deremer swore in Tom Funk, 8878 Strausser St. NW.

Mr. Funk asked if it mattered if he speaks or if this is a done deal.

Mr. Deremer stated not yet.  That is why they ask to people to speak on both sides of the issue.

Mr. Funk stated that he thinks this will impact the neighborhood and the traffic is terrible.  Mr. Funk stated that he is definitely opposed to it and it seems like the residents have no recourse and churches can go in anywhere.

Mr. Deremer stated yes, if they meet all the conditions.

Mr. Funk stated that the church could say they are going to do everything they are suppose to but what happens if they don’t.

Mr. Deremer stated that they would then lose their permit.

Mr. Funk stated that the church would still be there.

Mr. Deremer stated that is correct.

Mr. Funk stated that he thinks churches are disguised as commercial operations and something needs to be done.

Mr. Deremer stated that they are working with what is in the resolution.

Mr. Funk stated that there are horse farms in the area and the only reason they were able to split the property was because of a loophole.  Strausser is going to have more traffic and it is not going to be safe.  Mr. Funk stated that he thinks it is very wrong to put a church on the property, which is a neighborhood.

Mr. Deremer stated that they take all things into consideration.

Mr. Deremer swore in Martha Gerber, 8000 Lutz Ave. NW.

Ms. Gerber stated that she is not opposed to the church but wanted to know how accurate the site plan that was sent to her would have to be.

Mr. Deremer stated that it better be very accurate because that is what the board relies on.

Ms. Gerber stated that the site plan shows that the existing fence along the property line would remain; however, the other day there were people out there removing the fence.  So, the fence that was on two sides of the property has been removed.

Mr. Deremer stated that the fence issue is a good thing to bring up and they will ask the applicant to address the issue.

Mr. Deremer swore in Skip Rea, 8230 Lutz Ave. NW.

Mr. Rea stated that he was the original owner of the property.  When the property was originally divided everyone had to have a minimum of five acres.  Mr. Ranier purchased two five acre tracts.  When it was sold the agreement between himself and Mr. Ranier was that Mr. Rainer could only divided the property one time, but he got around the issue by selling a piece to someone else and then they divided it.

Mr. Rea stated that he is not against the church but doesn’t think the property is big enough.  Mr. Rea stated that they have about 350 members and just about everyone will have a car.  If they had 10 or 15 acres it would be better.

Mr. Rea stated that he has lived on Lutz a long time and there are accidents all the time.  There is a hill that will probably get cut down because of the school but it is still a tuff intersection and there is a huge drainage problem.  All the water comes down the hill and back through his property.  It doesn’t affect him now but it ends up going through Wonderland Hills and with the blacktop there will be more water.

Mr. Clevenger stated that there is a lot of opinion without fact, but they meet the requirements of the conditional use permit.  They do not want 10 or 15 acres with day care and soccer and other things.  Mr. Clevenger stated regarding traffic flow and accidents, it seems like because they want a church that they should be responsible for all the things that are out of their control.

Mr. Clevenger stated that he would like to remind everyone that they meet the requirements for the conditional use permit as outlined in the zoning code.

Mr. Deremer asked Mr. Clevenger to address the fence issue.

Mr. Clevenger stated that he assumes the fence probably stood out from the design of the church in terms of the structure and the colonial look.  He also assumes there may be a reason why they pulled the fence up regarding some issues with Stark County.  Mr. Clevenger stated outside of those assumptions he is not quite sure because that was probably done by the builder, but this is the first he has heard of it and they may be planning to put the fence back up.

Mr. Deremer stated this is why he asked about keeping the neighbors happy and asked if the fence was taken down, if it would be put back up.

Mr. Clevenger stated if there is a reason that they are digging underneath it or something like that or a requirement with another government board then he would have to say yes.

Mr. Juergensen asked if anyone is present that could say that it would be put back up.

Mr. Clevenger stated if he represents that the fence would go back up, then it will go back up.  He can’t say when, but it will go back up.

Mr. Deremer swore in Tom Gang, 6315 Youngdale NW.

Mr. Gang stated that he is the pastor of the church and the original design of the building was colonial in style and the fence worked with the structural design.  With the funds that they had they had to change to an original style building.  The fence no longer worked and should have been taken out of the plans.  Mr. Gang stated that he thinks this was an oversight on the architect or builders part, but it should not have been on the plan that they were going to leave the existing fence.  Mr. Gang stated if there is a problem they will put up another fence, but it wouldn’t be the same fence.  It would be a fence that would fit with the architectural design of the building.

Mr. Deremer stated what is before the board shows a fence so they have to address what is shown and advertised to the public.

Mr. Gang stated that they could put up another fence that would go with the property.

Mr. Funk stated that he would be putting up a fence along his property that will not go with the churches architecture.  It will be an agricultural fence because he doesn’t want any encroachment on his property.

No one else in the audience spoke regarding the appeal.  Mr. Deremer closed this appeal to public input.

Mr. Juergensen stated that section 601.4 allows the board to grant fewer parking spaces.  There is an area reserved for parking if needed in the future and it is not less than 70 % of the total spaces required so he does not have a problem with the variance.  The resolution states pretty clear if the applicant meets the requirements that are contained within the criteria and in the absence of any creditable evidence to the contrary they have to take the applicants word that is presented before them.  Mr. Juergensen stated that he thinks all the conditions have been met as testified to so he does not have a problem with the conditional use permit.

Mr. Dodson stated that he is a little concerned about the parking spaces because they are 43 short and wondered to makes the decision as to when the other ones are needed.  If someone else buys the property and they need the spaces but decide they don’t want to put the money into it and don’t build them then there could be a problem.  On the other hand since it is zoned R-R, which is the most restrictive use under the zoning resolution, he doesn’t think it would be a real problem so he is tempted to grant it.

Mr. Deremer stated that the parking spaces are based on the maximum seating capacity, which is one space for each three seats.  Per the plan it is shown to have 600 seats in the auditorium and they are proposing 200 spaces when they are all built which meets the requirement.  At this time they are going to build 157 spaces which meet the 70% requirement.  Mr. Deremer stated that there was testimony that all the requirements for the conditional use permit have been met based on the responses and information presented except for the fencing.  Mr. Deremer stated that the board may want to make sure the fencing issued is covered in anything that is voted on.

Mr. Juergensen made a motion to approve appeal #1962 with the condition that a fence is built as close to the same location as the fence that was on the property at the time of advertising.

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. Giulitto made a motion to approve the meeting minutes from January 27, 2005.

Mr. Juergensen seconded the motion.

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

Mr. Juergensen made a motion to adjourn the meeting.

Mr. Oldroyd seconded the motion.

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

Respectfully submitted,

Joni Poindexter
Zoning Inspector