Members present:                                                                     Ted Deremer
                                                                                                     Edward McDonnell
                                                                                                     Gerald Werner
                                                                                                     Richard Dodson
                                                                                                    Jim Giulitto

Zoning Data Coordinator:                                                         Joni Poindexter

Mr. Deremer stated that the board needed to elect a new Chairman and Vice Chairman for the year 2003.

Mr. McDonnell asked if they knew what the board would be for the year 2003.

Mr. Deremer stated yes, the trustees have reappointed him as a regular board member.

Mr. McDonnell stated that Mr. Deremer has done a good job as Chairman and he does not see any reason for him not to continue as Chairman.  Mr. McDonnell made a motion to nominate Mr. Deremer as Chairman for the year 2003.

Mr. Dodson seconded the motion.

Mr. Deremer stated that the trustees had said that it might not be a bad idea to rotate the Chairmanship.

Mr. McDonnell stated that he would stand by his nomination.

There were no other nominations.

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

Mr. Werner stated that Mr. McDonnell has done a fine job in the absence of Mr. Deremer.  Mr. Werner made a motion to nominate Mr. McDonnell as Vice Chairman for the year 2003.

Mr. Giulitto seconded the motion.

There were no other nominations.

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

Mr. Deremer stated that Mr. McDonnell has been tweaking some of the procedures for the BZA meetings that were approved last year.  Mr. Deremer stated that he would like the board members to have a copy of them, review the changes, and possibly agree to them and adopt them at the next hearing.

Mr. McDonnell stated that he would e-mail the proposal to the board members.

APPEAL #1819 – Jay & Kelly Serra, property owner, 4829 East Blvd. NW, Canton, Ohio 44718 requests a variance for a 3 ft. (north) right side yard setback where a 10 ft. side yard setback is required in Art. IV Sect. 401.6 of the zoning resolution.  Property located at 4829 East Blvd. NW, Sect. 23SE Jackson Twp.  Area zoned R-1.

Mr. Deremer stated that this appeal is continued from December 5, 2002 with a modification.

Ms. Poindexter stated that the request was re-advertised and new notices were sent to the adjoining property owners with the modification.

Mr. Deremer read the file application signed by Jay Serra with reasons being that the existing garage is small and they want to build a two car oversized garage.  The file contained a tax map of the property in question and a site plan showing the proposed location of the addition.

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

Mr. Deremer swore in Kelly Serra, 4829 East Blvd. NW.

Ms. Serra stated that they would like to have an oversized garage on the side.  At the last hearing the site plan showed a 38 ft. front setback but they have revised the plan so the addition meets the required 40 ft. front setback.

Mr. Deremer asked if they are looking at a 3 ft. side yard setback.

Ms. Serra stated yes.

Mr. McDonnell stated that the board needed to see a practical difficulty and asked why the addition needed to be at a 3 ft. side yard setback.

Ms. Serra stated that the existing garage is too small and the only place that they can put the addition is on the side.  Ms. Serra stated that they want to turn the existing garage into a bathroom and the sewer is located by the garage.  The addition cannot be put in the back because it is too far and it is a safety issue.

Mr. McDonnell asked if their intention is to remodel the existing garage and make it into a larger living space.

Ms. Serra stated yes.

Mr. McDonnell asked if the breezeway exists.

Ms. Serra stated no.

Mr. McDonnell stated that the plan shows a 13 ft. breezeway and asked why they can’t add onto the existing garage by 13 ft.

Ms. Serra stated that they can’t because they want to put a bathroom in the existing garage.

Mr. McDonnell asked if part of the problem is that they want to take the existing garage and make it into living space and then put a 13 ft. breezeway on.

Ms. Serra stated yes.

Mr. McDonnell asked why the new garage needed to be 3 ft. from the property line.

Ms. Serra stated so there is enough room to pull cars in and out of the garage.
Mr. McDonnell stated that the site plan shows that the pad is 28 ft. between the garage and the walkway.

Ms. Serra stated that she needs room to pull in and out and this is what they came up with.

Mr. McDonnell stated that 3 ft. is pretty severe when it comes to a variance.

Ms. Serra stated that she has seen other homes that are sitting almost on top of each other.

Mr. McDonnell stated that every situation is treated differently and asked why they need 28 ft. for the pad as opposed to 25 or 22 ft.

Mr. Serra stated that she needs room to pull in and out of the garage and they would have to dig closer to the house and it would be more of a mess.

Mr. McDonnell stated that the reason he is asking is because he knows that a 22 ft. pad for a side garage is typically adequate.  The measurement is 28 ft. but that is not to the end of the drive.  Mr. McDonnell stated that he thinks they could probably go with a 22 ft. pad.

Mr. Deremer asked if Ms. Serra is saying that she needs 28 ft. to pull in and out of the garage.

Ms. Serra stated yes, because she doesn’t want to run into the wall that is across from the garage and 28 ft. will give her enough room.

Mr. Deremer asked Ms. Serra if they looked at a shorter distance.

Ms. Serra stated no.

Mr. Werner asked if Ms. Serra and the builder feel that they have to have 28 ft. to pull in and out.

Ms. Serra stated yes.

Mr. Deremer stated that the Lake Cable area is notorious for having tight property lines and the board is asking questions to prove that there is a hardship.  The deed restrictions in Lake Cable allow a 5 ft. setback from the side property line in order to keep at least 10 ft. between buildings so there would be enough room to get a boat to the lake if needed.

Ms. Serra stated that she would have enough room on the other side of her house but most of the boats are stored on the beach.

Mr. Deremer stated if her neighbor is only 5 ft. from the side property line then they would be at a disadvantage in being able to get a boat to the lake.

Ms. Serra stated that her neighbor has no problem with the request.

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 discussion.

Mr. Dodson stated that traditionally the board has given variances in Lake Cable because the lots tend to be small and narrow.  But in this circumstance it is an extreme variance and he is looking for a practical difficulty that has to do with the land and he does not see it.

Mr. McDonnell stated that Mr. Dodson raises a good point.  He hasn’t seen a practical difficulty with the land.  In the Lake Cable area the board has been pretty liberal as far as variances go but never to the extreme of three feet.

Mr. McDonnell stated although the board treats every case individually, he remembers the board recently had a request for a 3 ft. setback where the abutting property was common space.  A representative from the Lake Cable association attended that hearing and indicated that they had a problem with less than 5 ft. and was concerned about setting a precedence.

Mr. McDonnell stated that he does not think the depth of the garage, being 21 ft., is out of line and thinks 22 ft. is adequate to pull in and out of a side garage.  Mr. McDonnell stated that he believes 3 ft. is extreme and would have difficulty approving a 3 ft. setback.   Mr. McDonnell stated that he could consider 5 ft. but he has not seen a practical difficulty for a 3 ft. setback.

Mr. Werner stated that he agrees with Mr. McDonnell and is afraid of granting 3 ft.  If it would be taken back under consideration by the applicant to reduce the request by a couple feet then he would be satisfied.

Mr. Deremer stated that he agrees that 3 ft. is extreme.  The use of the land and how the land is laid out might have some restrictions but that was not testified to.  The lot is 80 ft. wide and he does not feel the board has seen evidence to grant the 3 ft. setback.

Mr. McDonnell made a motion to deny appeal #1819 as requested.

Mr. Werner seconded the motion.

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

Mr. Deremer stated that appeal #1819 has been denied.  The applicant has the right to appeal the decision to the Stark County Court of Common Pleas within 30 days if they feel the decision is wrong.

APPEAL #1826 – Boyer Signs & Graphics, Inc., 21611 Tungsten Rd., Euclid, Ohio 44117 agent for Developers Diversified, property owner, 3300 Enterprise Parkway, PO Box 228042, Beachwood, Ohio 44122 requests a variance for a wall sign on the east elevation of the building where a wall sign is not permitted per Art. V Sect. 502.4 of the zoning resolution.  Property located at 4333 Everhard Rd. NW, Sect. 24NE Jackson Twp.  Area zoned B-3.

Mr. Deremer read the file application signed by Rudy Knific with the reasons being to identify the business to the west bound traffic.  The file contained a tax map of the property in question, a sketch showing the east elevation and proposed signage by Access Sign, a sketch showing the proposed location of the sign labeled floor elevation, and a sketch showing the buildings on the property and where the proposed sign would be located.  The file also contained a letter from Developers Diversified Realty Corporation dated 10/28/02 to the Jackson Township Zoning Department giving permission for the sign.

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

Mr. Deremer swore in Bob Casto, 21611 Tungsten Rd., Euclid, Ohio 44117.

Mr. Casto stated that one sign that is permitted per zoning has been installed and they are asking for a variance to permit a sign on the east elevation of the building.  Mr. Casto present a packet to the board that contained five pages and stated that the first three pages are what was submitted with the application and the last two pages are photos of different businesses in the township with signs on the side of the building.

Mr. Casto stated that the building is located in a vital area which is next to the I-77 exit.

Mr. Deremer asked if the current sign is located on the front of the building that faces Everhard Rd. and is attached to Kohl’s shopping center.

Mr. Casto stated yes.

Mr. Giulitto asked Mr. Casto if it is his testimony that when someone is getting off of the I-77 exit ramp, the sign that they are requesting would be in direct view of the ramp with no obstructions.

Mr. Casto stated that this is correct; he does not see any obstructions.

Mr. McDonnell stated that there has to be an unnecessary hardship demonstrated in order for the board to grant a variance of this sort and asked Mr. Casto if he could enlighten the board on what the hardship would be if the request were not granted.

Mr. Casto stated no, he could not.

Mr. McDonnell asked if this is a marketing issue.

Mr. Casto stated yes.

Mr. Werner stated that on the same property there is a big new sign going up and asked if it has anything to do with them.

Mr. Casto stated no, not that he is aware of.  He knows that he is not doing anything with it.

Mr. Deremer stated that in looking at the photos that were presented, the Goodyear property was on a street at one time which was a cut through for Kohl’s and was considered a corner parcel so this is why the side sign was permitted.  The Rim and Trim building is the same way, there is an alley going back to the hotel.  Fazoli’s is in the next township so they can do what ever they want.  Mr. Deremer stated that he is not sure about Backyard Adventures because there is a street that goes back there on paper to get back to the Burger King that is in front of it.  Eat-n-Park is considered a corner because it is at the entrance of the mall so they are allowed two signs.  They were before the board at one time asking for a third sign to get exposure on I-77.  K-Carpet, and NTB is considered to be on a corner and Cabinet Elegance faces two entrances that allows them the second sign so there is specific reasons why these businesses are permitted the other signs.  Mr. Deremer stated that the Vitamin Shoppe does not sit on the corner of a street.

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 discussion.

Mr. McDonnell stated that he does not see an unnecessary hardship that would be incurred or has been presented with regards to the sign and most of the other signs that were presented in the photo’s are on corner lots.  Mr. McDonnell stated that he has not seen a reason to grant the variance other then marketing and would have difficulty in granting the variance.

Mr. Werner stated that he agrees with Mr. McDonnell and the sign would strictly be a marketing tool.

Mr. Deremer stated that if there was an entrance on the side there may not be a problem but he does not see any evidence to warrant the addition of the second sign.

Mr. McDonnell made a motion to deny appeal #1826 as requested.
Mr. Dodson seconded the motion.

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

Mr. Deremer stated that appeal #1826 has been denied.  The applicant has the right to appeal the decision to the Stark County Court of Common Pleas within 30 days if they feel the decision is wrong.

APPEAL #1827 – Leoffler Construction, Inc., property owner, 2520 Trillium Cir. NE, Massillon, Ohio 44646 requests a variance for a 20 ft. front yard setback where a 40 ft. front yard setback is required in Art. IV Sect. 401.6 of the zoning resolution.  Property located at 4069 Red Oak Cir. NW, Sect. 29SW Jackson Twp.  Area zoned R-1.

Mr. Deremer read the file application signed by Bryce Leoffler with reasons being the lot has an extreme drop off point.  The file contained a tax map of the property in question and a site plan showing the proposed location of the home.

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

Mr. Deremer swore in Bryce Leoffler, 2520 Trillium Cir. NE.

Mr. Leoffler stated that the lot goes back about 20 ft. and then there is a drop off of about 10 ft.  It then is flat for about 30 ft. and then drops off again.

Mr. Leoffler presented several photos showing the property and stated that exhibit #1 shows the drop off of the lot, exhibit #2 is the property shown from the bottom looking up, exhibit #3 & 4 shows a different view of how the property drops off, and exhibit #5 shows where the home would be located.

Mr. Deremer asked if the lot is located in a new subdivision.

Mr. Leoffler stated that the subdivision is about four years old and there are six lots left.

Mr. Deremer asked what type of home would be built on the property.

Mr. Leoffler stated that the home would be a 2,000 sq. ft. ranch with a walk out basement.  Mr. Leoffler stated that he believes the house next to the lot in question is at a 30 ft. setback.

Mr. Deremer asked Mr. Leoffler if he has built other homes in the subdivision.

Mr. Leoffler stated that this would be the third home he has built in the subdivision.

Mr. McDonnell asked Mr. Leoffler if he built the home located at 4072 Red Oak, which is directly to the east of the property in question.

Mr. Leoffler stated no.

Mr. McDonnell asked if this is the home that he referred to as having a 30 ft. back and if so does he know for sure it is setback 30 ft. or did he estimate the setback.

Mr. Leoffler stated that he estimated the 30 ft. setback.

Mr. McDonnell asked if 20 ft. is as far back as the home can sit without getting into the drop off.

Mr. Leoffler stated yes.

Mr. Deremer asked if the home was setback at 40 ft., would it be 15 ft. below the road without any fill.

Mr. Leoffler stated yes, he would have to fill 15 to 20 ft. from the house to the road and it would take hundreds of truck loads of dirt.

Mr. Deremer asked if the lot was filled when they put the roadway in.

Mr. Leoffler stated that the front was but not where he wants to put the house.

Mr. McDonnell asked Mr. Leoffler if he purchased the lot or subdivided it.

Mr. Leoffler stated that he purchased the lot and was not involved in the subdivision itself or the laying out of the lots.

Mr. Werner asked if there is another style of house that could be built and moved back at least another 10 ft. in order to be more in line with the neighbor’s home.

Mr. Leoffler stated that it would be tuff.  He could possibly go to a 25 ft. setback but it would be hard to do.

Mr. Deremer asked if there is a restriction on the type of home that has to be built.

Mr. Leoffler stated that there is a restriction for the square footage but not the type of home.

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.

Several people raised their hands and Mr. Deremer swore them all in at the same time.

Mr. Mark Gorris, 4072 Red Oak Cir. NW stated that he has three reasons why he is not in favor of the request.  The first two are common sense in that the code says a 40 ft. front setback and in the covenants and restrictions of Hampton Hills the house must conform to the Jackson zoning regulations.  The third and most important reason is because of the property values and neighborhood esthetics.

Mr. Gorris presented several photos to the board and stated that exhibit OE#1 is a photo of his home at a 40 ft. setback and a home that Mr. Leoffler had built, which is in line with each other.  Mr. Gorris stated that his home was built on a lot similar to the one Mr. Leoffler is looking to build on as well as five to seven other lots that needed to be filled.

Mr. Gorris stated that exhibit OE#2 shows new homes that were built on Eastlynn that had very little frontage and that all the homes are in line with each other.  Exhibit OE#3 shows where the proposed home would be at a 20 ft. setback and at a 40 ft. setback.  Mr. Gorris stated that many of the lots are similar and he does not think the lot is un-buildable at a 40 ft. setback.  Exhibit OE#4 shows his home and the cul-de-sac.  Mr. Gorris stated if the home is put at a 20 ft. setback he believes that it will decrease the property values and neighborhood esthetics.

Mr. Gorris stated although he has a steep drop off in the back, he has a beautiful back yard that has been graded and he has not had any problems with the foundation.

Mr. Gorris stated that when he enters Jackson Township he sees a sign that says “We make things happen” and he asking that the board make the right thing happen and deny the request.

Mr. McDonnell asked if it is Mr. Gorris testimony that he does not have any variances on his property and the home is at a 40 ft. setback.
Mr. Gorris stated that there are no variances that he is aware of.  He measured the setback from the street and it is 39 or 40 ft. back.  It just depends where it is measured from along the cul-de-sac.

Mr. McDonnell asked if Mr. Gorris property basically drops off the same as Mr. Leoffler’s.

Mr. Gorris stated the yard takes a little bit of work.  The property drops off and there is a walk out basement with two decks and then it gets flat at the bottom.

Mr. Dennis Waggamon of 8732 Eastlynn read section 401.7 of the zoning resolution and stated that they want the neighborhood to look uniform.  Mr. Waggamon stated that he first picked lot #21 when looking on the plat for a lot to build on in 1996.  When he visited the lot and saw how the lot dropped off he said that there is no way a home could be built at a 40 ft. setback.  Mr. Waggamon stated that he was told by the builder at that time that they already found someone to put a house on the lot because they figured out a way to do it, however it never happened.

Mr. Waggamon presented several photos to the board and stated that exhibit OE#5 is a photo showing the final grade of his home when it was being built.  Exhibit OE#6 shows how the fill was added to the entire front elevation and exhibit OE#7 is a photo of the home after it was built with the final grading.

Mr. Waggamon stated that it is possible to built a house on the property and meet the zoning regulations.

Mr. Deremer asked Mr. Waggamon if his house sits back further then 40 ft.

Mr. Waggamon stated that he believes all of the homes on Eastlynn are setback about 60 ft. but the lots are deep.  Mr. Waggamon stated that his lot falls off in the rear also.  Lot #15 is currently under construction and it has been filled with at least 14 loads of fill.  Mr. Waggamon stated that it makes the neighborhood look good when all the houses are in line.

Mr. Robert Atkinson of 8708 Eastlynn stated that he will see the back of the house more then the front and agrees with his neighbors comments and is opposed for the same reasons.

Mr. Atkinson stated that his lot is pretty flat until you get to the end of the property where it drops off into the ravine.

Mr. Deremer stated that Mr. Atkinson’s lot is a little shorter then the other homes further down on Eastlynn and asked if his house is 40 ft. from the road or further.

Mr. Atkinson stated that his home is in line with the other homes.

Mr. John Cindea of 4167 Red Oak Cir. NW stated that the deed restrictions are a concern.  The development was done by a number of contractors and it seems because of economic reasons they built on a lot of the lots that were economical.  Then what had happened was a lot of the contractors left and sold off the rest of the existing lots to other contractors who in turn want variances to try to get around the cost of building the homes.  Mr. Cindea stated that he doesn’t blame the contractors for trying to get around some of the cost but it’s not right if it’s going to change the uniformity of the neighborhood.

No one else in the audience spoke in opposition to this appeal.

Mr. Leoffler stated that on Eastlynn most of the brunt of the houses themselves is on the hill before it drops off.  Unfortunately the drop off on the proposed lot is only 20 ft. back, not 40 ft.  Mr. Leoffler stated that the lot is on a circle so the home is not really lining up with anything.

Mr. Leoffler had no further comments.

Mr. Deremer closed this appeal to public discussion.
Mr. Werner stated if he heard the testimony right, there are other lots that were basically in the same predicament and they were able to cope with it and make the adjustments such as more fill.  Mr. Werner stated that he can’t see where there is a handicap here and believes it can be worked in order to meet the 40 ft. setback and he is opposed to the request.

Mr. Dodson stated that he sees this primarily as a burden of proof issue with the burden being on the applicant to establish that it is not practical to build a house with the 40 ft. setback.  Based on the evidence he heard he does not think the burden has been met and would be inclined to deny the application.

Mr. Giulitto stated that he agrees with Mr. Werner in particular and sides with the people that are established in the neighborhood.

Mr. Deremer stated that it appears that a lot of the parcels have been filled overtime and as the dirt runs out this is what’s left, 20 ft. of fill to date.  The extremeness of the variance is an issue even though it is on a cul-de-sac and he thinks it would potentially pinch the property next to it.  Mr. Deremer stated that he is not if favor of the request based on the evidence that has been presented.

Mr. McDonnell stated that in looking at section 803.5(B)(1) of the zoning resolution, one of the requirements is whether special conditions and circumstances exist which are peculiar to the land or structure involved and which are not applicable generally to other lands or structures in the same zoning district.  Mr. McDonnell stated that he thinks the testimony has indicated that the same circumstances are applicable to the surrounding area and he is not sure the practical difficulty has been met.

Mr. Werner made a motion to deny appeal #1827 as requested.

Mr. Dodson seconded the motion.

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

Mr. Deremer stated that appeal #1827 has been denied.  The applicant has the right to appeal the decision to the Stark County Court of Common Pleas within 30 days if they feel the decision is wrong.

APPEAL #1828 – The Maximillian Group Inc./Tom Uhler, 6400 Promler St. NW, North Canton, Ohio 44720 agent for Alex Jakobouitch/Robert Nieto, property owner, 6995 Fry Rd., Cleveland, Ohio 44130 requests a variance for two illuminated wall signs (total 30.50 sq. ft.) and three changeable poster frame wall signs (15 sq. ft. each) on the south side of the building where wall signs are not permitted in Art. V Sect. 502.4 of the zoning resolution.  Property located at 5642 Wales Rd. NW, Sect. 16SE Jackson Twp.  Area zoned B-3.

Mr. Deremer read the file application with reasons for the appeal being to identify the building from Fulton Rd. and the south area of the Foxboro Square Plaza.  The file contained a tax map of the property in question and a site plan showing the proposed location of the signs.

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

Mr. Deremer swore in Tom Uhler, 6400 Promler St. NW.

Mr. Uhler stated that the building is attached to the roller rink and is separate from the larger part of the plaza.  As one is coming down Fulton Rd. the plaza actually travels almost southeast to northwest where the roller rink is sitting in front of the larger part of the plaza.  The roller rink is very identifiable.  One of the reasons they would like the sign on the south side is so it would clearly break their building from the roller rink and people would know that there is a new Dairy Queen there and it is not part of the roller rink.
Mr. Uhler stated that they will be investing approximately one-half million dollars in the renovations and it will not look like the normal red, white, and blue Dairy Queens.  Dairy Queen is trying to go from a strict ice cream parlor to a restaurant type business.  Mr. Uhler stated that because the building will not look like the average Dairy Queen, they still want to identify it as a Dairy Queen by the signage so people will know that it is a Dairy Queen.

Mr. Uhler stated that the property surrounding the building is a large grassy area, which is to the south, the parking area, and First Merit bank.  Lighting will not affected the residents to the east because there is a row of pine trees behind the building.

Mr. Uhler stated that they are restricted by the franchise of the Dairy Queen as to what the franchise requires as far as signage.  Mr. Uhler stated that he made a mistake on his application and Dairy Queen does not require signage on all sides of the building; they only require it on two sides of the building.

Mr. Uhler stated along with the sign on the top of the building they are asking for three changeable signs for advertising purposes.  These would be made of stainless steel frames with glass covers in which they would slide posters behind.

Mr. Uhler stated that they have a lot of money invested in the business and intend on hiring 35 to 40 new employees.  They would hate to have the Dairy Queen bulk because things cannot be done their way.

Mr. McDonnell asked if there would be a freestanding sign in front of the property.

Mr. Uhler stated that they are getting together with the roller rink and the landlord for a sign.  When they come up with a design that both can advertise on they will apply for a permit.

Mr. McDonnell asked other then Dairy Queen saying that they have to do this, is there any unnecessary hardship that would be encountered by not having the signs on the south side of the building.

Mr. Uhler stated that the only unnecessary hardship would be the fact that instead of someone turning into the plaza and being able to identify the building as a Dairy Queen and not part of the roller rink, as opposed to going down 241 and turning up and saying there’s a Dairy Queen, it would be visible and they could enter through the south entrance and the parking lot.

Mr. McDonnell asked if there would be signage on the front of the building.

Mr. Uhler stated yes, it would be the same signage as what is requested.

Mr. McDonnell stated that this strikes him as being more of a marketing issue as opposed to a safety or hardship issue.

Mr. Uhler stated that he does not see this as being a safety issue but as far as the hardship issue Dairy Queen may bulk on the deal and they have already spent thousands of dollars gutting the building.

Mr. McDonnell stated that the reason he is asking about a hardship is because the board needs to see a hardship before the variance can be approved.
Mr. Deremer asked if there would be signage for the drive-thru window.

Mr. Uhler stated that there will be a small drive-thru sign.

Mr. Deremer asked if there will be a connection between the Foxboro Shopping Center and the property in question.

Mr. Uhler stated yes.

Mr. Deremer asked if the plan has been approved by Regional Planning.

Mr. Uhler stated yes.

Mr. Deremer asked if Dairy Queen has other options if the changeable signs are not approved.

Mr. Uhler stated that the Dairy Queen representative that is attendance for the meeting could answer this.

Mr. Uhler stated that posters would probably be put on the inside of the windows and the Dairy Queen sign on the building is more important to him then the changeable signs.

Mr. Deremer swore in Jeffery Ward, 746 Gram Rd., Cuyahoga Falls, Ohio.

Mr. Ward stated that he is a territory operator for Dairy Queen and this is a new concept for them.  There isn’t one built that is in operation in the country at this time.  Mr. Ward stated that they brought this to Jackson knowing the type of town Jackson is and that it would do very well.

Mr. Ward stated that part of the plan is very aggressive as far as signage is concerned.  The way the building is positioned there are many opportunities where you can’t see it so eliminating the signage on the south side would create a hardship regarding the financial situation and the investment that is involved.

Mr. Ward stated that the upper signage fits into the design of the building and the three lower signs, that are strictly advertising, could be taken care of if not permitted.

Mr. Ward stated that the signs are for advertising but this is what they are in business for, to advertise and profit as much as possible and do well.

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 discussion.

Mr. McDonnell stated that the board needed to see an unnecessary hardship and he is not sure that they have.  Mr. McDonnell stated that he would not even consider the three wall signs because to him there is no hardship.  He understands that the reason they are in business is to make as much profit as they can but to him he has not see an unnecessary hardship demonstrated for the signage on the top of the south side of the building.  Mr. McDonnell stated that there has been testimony that this is Dairy Queen’s new flagship design and there have been many other companies that have come to Jackson and indicated that they have a flagship design but they don’t meet the regulations.  Mr. McDonnell stated unfortunately when coming to Jackson you have to meet the regulations and he does not see anything different then what was in front of the board previously that would cause him to believe that the hardship has been demonstrated.

Mr. Werner stated that he agrees with Mr. McDonnell.  Mr. Werner stated that he is opposed to corporations coming in and saying the Jackson needs to follow their regulations because it would like the tail wagging the dog.  Mr. Werner stated that the board needs to stay firm with the regulations and he is opposed to the request.

Mr. Deremer stated that he agrees with some of the comments and this is similar to the case that was in front of the board earlier this evening.  Mr. Deremer stated that the allowable square footage for a menu board is 80 sq. ft. and is set behind the front line of the building so they potentially have 80 sq. ft. of signage that could be modified to get the Dairy Queen name out on the south side because that is where the drive-thru is.  Mr. Deremer stated that this somewhat comforts him, that they are not completely shutting out any type of signage on the south side.  Mr. Deremer stated that he is not in favor of the signs as requested but believes that they do have an option.
Mr. McDonnell made a motion to deny appeal #1828 as requested.

Mr. Werner seconded the motion.

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

Mr. Deremer stated that appeal #1828 has been denied.  The applicant has the right to appeal the decision to the Stark County Court of Common Pleas within 30 day if they feel the decision is wrong.

Ms. Poindexter stated that the board needed to review the conclusion of fact for appeal #1795.

Mr. Deremer read the conclusion of fact into the record.

Mr. Dodson stated that he believes the first word “Whereas” in the first sentence should be removed and the citation of “Davis verses Miller” is traditionally written as “Davis vs. Miller”.

Mr. McDonnell stated that this is very minor, but the last sentence should read “Board of Zoning Appeals” not “Board of Zoning Appeal”.

The board agreed.

Mr. McDonnell made a motion to adopt the conclusion of fact for appeal #1795 as modified.

Mr. Dodson seconded the motion.

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

Mr. McDonnell made a motion to adjourn the meeting.

Mr. Werner seconded the motion.

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

Respectfully submitted,

Joni Poindexter
Zoning Data Coordinator
Clerk/Secretary