Members present:                                                             Richard Dodson
                                                                                            John Juergensen
                                                                                            Jim Giulitto
Alternate Member:                                                            Eric Oldroyd

Absent Members:                                                             Ted Deremer
                                                                                            Edward McDonnell

Zoning Inspector:                                                              Joni Poindexter

Mr. Dodson served as Chairman due to Mr. Deremer, Chairman, and Mr. McDonnell, Vice Chairman, being absent.

APPEAL #1985 – Larry & Sue Hammer, property owner, 5411 East Blvd. NW, Canton, Ohio 44718 requests a variance to allow the parking of personal vehicles on a lot as an accessory use where there is no principle use per Art. IV Sect. 401.2(D) of the zoning resolution.  Property location is lot #744 East Blvd. NW, Sect. 23NE Jackson Twp.  Area zoned R-1.

Mr. Dodson read the file application signed by Larry Hammer and the reasons for the appeal as listed in the file.  The file contained a tax map of the property in question, a list of reasons for the appeal, an aerial view of the property and surrounding properties.

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

Mr. Dodson swore in Sue Hammer, 5411 East Blvd. NW.

Ms. Hammer stated that they are parking their vehicles on the property but feel there is a just reason.  They have improved the property which is an enhancement to Jackson Township.  Ms. Hammer showed the board several photos of the property prior to it being improved and after the property had been improved.  Ms. Hammer stated that the property was full of rodents and weeds before they purchased it and now the property almost looks park like.

Ms. Hammer stated that the reason they park their vehicles on the property is because there is an embankment of about 6 ft. in the front and back of the property in which their residence is located so there is no access.  The side yard is only about 10 ft. wide which they can’t get to because of the embankment.  Ms. Hammer stated that there is a wall in the front of the house that is 7 or 8 ft. in height which also prevents them from getting to the side or rear yard.

Ms. Hammer stated if the recreational vehicle and trailer were parked in their driveway they would have no access to the garage and their property is located on a curve so it would be dangerous to park on the street.

Ms. Hammer stated if the trailer had to be removed from the property it wouldn’t really change anything because the neighbor’s back yard abuts their lot and the neighbor has a trailer parked in their yard.  Their driveway goes in from the side and the neighbor’s trailer is parked beside it.

Ms. Hammer stated that there are several trailers and boats parked in front yards throughout the neighborhood.  Ms. Hammer showed the board a photo of a trailer that is parked in someone’s front yard.  Ms. Hammer stated that they have enhanced the property and sees no harm in allowing the variance.

Mr. Giulitto asked if they are parking the vehicles on lot #744 but their residence is located on lot #76.

Ms. Hammer stated yes.

Mr. Giulitto asked when the property was purchased.

Ms. Hammer stated that they purchased lot #76 about four years ago and lot #744 about 3 years ago.  They needed to purchase lot #744 in order to be a member of the association because lot #76 did not have the rights to join.

Mr. Giulitto asked what is being parked on lot #744.

Ms. Hammer stated a motor home, boat, and trailer.

Mr. Dodson asked if the lot is attached to a residence.

Ms. Hammer stated no.  There is a gas well on the property so it is a non-buildable lot.

Mr. Dodson marked the photos that were presented by Ms. Hammer as exhibits.

Mr. Dodson swore in Larry Hammer, 5411 East Blvd.

Mr. Hammer stated that Lake Cable has a rule that you can only belong to the association if your property is an original property.  Many years ago a section of their lot was subdivided to the house to the south.  Back then it didn’t make a difference because the same person owned all five lots.  Once this was done their lot was no longer an original lake cable lot so it could not belong to the association, so the only way they could belong was to buy lot #744.

Mr. Dodson asked how this is related to the placement and storage of the trailers on the property.

Mr. Hammer stated that this is the reason he had to purchase the lot.  He was just trying to answer the question as to why they couldn’t belong to the association without purchasing the lot in question.

Mr. Hammer stated that the reason for the variance is because of past practice in parking on the lot for three years, and obtaining permission to put the driveway in.  Mr. Hammer stated that he was given a brochure regarding the parking and storing of recreational vehicles, boats, and trailers which states parking is permitted in the side or rear yard of a lot in a residential district, and he owns the lot in a residential district so he doesn’t understand what this is all about.

Mr. Hammer stated that they can’t park their vehicles in the street because of the curve of the road.  Mr. Hammer stated if he parked his car on the lot and put his recreational vehicles in the driveway then they would have no access to the garage.  Mr. Hammer asked if it is legal to park his recreational vehicle in his driveway to his home.

Mr. Dodson stated that he believed this was correct.

Ms. Poindexter stated that it would only be permitted to be parked in the rear or side yard.

Mr. Hammer stated that his driveway is in the front of his house.

Mr. Dodson asked if Mr. Hammer’s house is located on a corner.

Mr. Hammer stated no.

Mr. Juergensen asked if the lot #744 could be used for anything other than the parking of vehicles.

Mr. Hammer stated that he plays with his grandson on the property and let’s the neighbor’s use it.

Mr. Juergensen asked what the neighbor’s use it for.

Mr. Hammer stated to park cars if they have parties.

Mr. Dodson swore in Virginia Holsing, 5275 Eastgate NW.

Ms. Holsing stated that the property in question is directly across the street from her house and she has no problem with the parking of the vehicles on the property because Mr. Hammer has done a wonderful job of maintaining it.

Mr. Dodson swore in Colleen Feichter, 1010 Stuart NW.

Ms. Feichter stated that she does not live in the Lake Cable area, but she drove school bus in Jackson for almost 20 years.  She has seen how the property has been improved and believes it is an enhancement for the township, so she is in favor of the variance.

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

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

Mr. Dodson swore in Judith Doerschuk, 5405 East Blvd. NW.

Ms. Doerschuk stated her property is directly west of lot #744 and she is opposed to the variance request.  She is miffed about Mr. Hammer saying he was granted permission to alter the property.  She came into the zoning office this morning and spoke to Ron.  She asked him if Mr. Hammer did his home work and if he went through the proper channels of altering the property.  She also told Ron that Mr. Hammer put a culvert in and graveled the property for the vehicles.  Ms. Doerschuk stated that Ron said Mr. Hammer may have gotten a permit from the highway department to have the culvert put in.

Ms. Doerschuk stated that she has lived on her property for over a decade and recently put thousands of dollars into it.  Her main concern and opposition is the fact that it is the short and long term ramifications.  The property was overgrown and basically Mr. Hammer turned it into a beautiful park, but now it has evolved into a parking lot.

Ms. Doerschuk stated that she has a copy of the regulations for the Lake Cable area which were amended in 1996.

Mr. Dodson stated that the board has nothing to do with the restrictions for Lake Cable and they are not enforced by the township.

Mr. Doerschuk stated that the property is located in Jackson Township and her opposition is that it is going to be turned into a parking lot which is unattractive.  Also, if Mr. Hammer decides to sell his property and a variance is granted then someone could come in that has a business and park all kinds of vehicles on the property.

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

Ms. Holsing stated that she had a Supreme Court decision from Ohio regarding the parking of RV’s in Euclid, Ohio which had to be parked in a completely enclosed building.  Ms. Holsing read most of the case into the record.

Mr. Dodson asked if the case had anything to do with township zoning.

Ms. Holsing stated just that it had been to the Ohio Supreme Court for the city of Euclid.

Mr. Hammer asked if Mr. Dodson said that it would be legal to park in this driveway if he can’t park on the lot.

Mr. Dodson stated that he didn’t say that.  That is a question for the zoning department.

Ms. Poindexter stated that recreational vehicles, boats, trailers, etc. are only permitted in the side or the rear yard.  The side yard is considered anything from the front corner of the house back so the vehicles could be parked anywhere from the front corner of the home on back, but they could not be parked anywhere from the front corner of the house forward.  If the driveway is in front of the house the vehicles could not be parked in it.

Mr. Hammer asked Mr. Dodson if he could comment if there is a road easement from the edge of the road to the culvert and exactly how far one can park.

Mr. Dodson stated the board could not comment on that.

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

Mr. Juergensen asked what someone had to do to put in a park or playground.

Ms. Poindexter stated that a park and playground is a permitted use in a residential district.  If Mr. Hammer wanted to put a grill and picnic table on his property for his use he could do that.

Mr. Dodson stated that when looking at accessory uses under 401.2D, it says accessory uses are permitted in association with and subordinate to a permitted or principal use and then it lists several items including parking.  In section 401.14, section “A” relates to parking or wrecked, disabled, or abandon vehicles.  Section “B” says the parking or storage of recreational vehicles, boats, or trailers, not specifically prohibited by paragraph 401.14A, shall be permitted on in the side or rear yard of any lot in any residential district.  Mr. Dodson stated that this property is in residential district but he doesn’t see a subordinate use so he suggests a legal opinion be obtained as to as to “Is the parking of a recreational vehicle permitted on an undeveloped lot within the stated rear or side setback area that is permitted by the zoning resolution when the property is undeveloped and is within a residential district?”  Mr. Dodson stated in this case specifically when the property is not attached to the primary residence.

The board agreed.

Mr. Giulitto made a motion to continued appeal #1985 until July 28, 2005 at 6:45 pm.

Mr. Juergensen seconded the motion.

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

APPEAL #1986 – Jack Morton, property owner, 1205 Concord NW, Massillon, Ohio 44646 requests approval of the BZA for issuance of a permit for a residential dwelling on a 7,000 sq. ft. substandard lot where approval is required for a dwelling on a lot that is less than 7,500 sq. ft. per Art. III Sect. 303.5 of the zoning resolution.  Property location is parcel #1603198 Concord St. NW, Sect. 32SE Jackson Twp.  Area zoned R-1A.

Mr. Dodson read the file application signed by Jack Morton with reasons being as stated by the applicant, “To use existing non-conforming lot.  Lot is the same size as most other lots in neighborhood.”  The file contained a tax map of the property in question.

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

Mr. Dodson swore in Jack Morton, 1205 Concord NW.

Mr. Morton stated that he has lived in his home for about 5 years but has lived in Jackson all his life.  He enjoyed having the extra parcel but through the years it has become to too much.  He has met with a realtor and would like to sell the property for a home to be built.

Mr. Dodson stated that the board needed to find a practical difficulty with the land itself and economic problems don’t normally apply.  Mr. Dodson asked what is unusual about the property that no one can build on it.

Mr. Morton stated that it is only 7,000 sq. ft. as opposed to 7,500 sq. ft.  Mr. Morton stated that he owns three parcels which are lots 44, 45 & 46.  His house sits on lots 44 and 45, which is a long narrow strip.  Lot #46 is 50 x 140 sq. ft., which is how the neighborhood is laid out.  Almost every property on the street is 50 x 140 sq. ft. so they are all 7,000 sq. ft.  The upside to where his house is located is that he has the 20 ft. strip, lot #45 along his house.

Mr. Morton stated that there are two houses that were recently built in his neighborhood that are on the same size lot as his and were built by the same builder.  Mr. Morton stated that he would not allow a home to be built that would depreciate the value of his home or be substandard to what is in the neighborhood.

Mr. Juergensen asked why lot #45 and #46 couldn’t be added together.

Mr. Morton stated that lot #45 is 20 x 140 ft. and it goes right up to the corner of his house so if lot #44 were added to lot #46 then he wouldn’t have any setback for his home.

Mr. Dodson swore in Brian Downey, 144 Senicview, Copley, Ohio.

Mr. Downey stated that he is familiar with the neighborhood and the other lots are similar to Mr. Morton’s.  He has seen the other homes that were built on lots the same size and it has been an improvement to the neighborhood.

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

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

Mr. Dodson swore in Scott Barchalk, 1220 Plymouth.

Mr. Barchalk stated that he lives directly behind the lot in question.  He’s lived in the neighborhood for 22 years and does not want a home built directly behind him.  Mr. Barchalk stated that they don’t need more houses in the neighborhood.  What they do need is more trees.  The lots are small and they are trying to put too many people into a small area.

Mr. Giulitto stated that Mr. Morton testified that many of the lots on the street are 50 x 140 sq. ft. and asked Mr. Barchalk if he agreed with that.

Mr. Barchalk stated that sounded right.

Mr. Dodson swore in Marcia Barchalk, 1220 Plymouth NW.

Ms. Barchalk stated that the house across the street is 150 ft. deep and Mr. Morton’s lot is 140 ft. deep so there is a difference in the size and it was within the code.  Mr. Barchalk stated that most of the people on her street own more than one lot and they do not want a house built on the lot.

No one else in the audience spoke in opposition to the appeal.  Mr. Dodson closed this appeal to public input.

Mr. Juergensen asked Ms. Poindexter if he is correct that this is not a variance, but per the resolution the board has to give their approval for the lot to be buildable.

Ms. Poindexter stated that is correct.

Mr. Juergensen stated by the applicants testimony this is similar to the other lots in the neighborhood.  There is an available strip next to the property in question but the trees would have to be sacrificed.  Mr. Juergensen stated that there is only a 500 sq. ft. difference and based on the other properties in the area he does not have a problem with the request.

Mr. Oldroyd stated that he concurs with Mr. Juergensen that the other lots are basically the same size, but he doesn’t know how close the trees are on the strip of land beside the property in question or if they would have to be taken down to build a house.

Mr. Giulitto stated that he agrees with Mr. Juergensen and the lot will be about the same as the other lots in the area, so he doesn’t have a problem with the request.

Mr. Juergensen made a motion to approve appeal #1986 as requested.

Mr. Giulitto seconded the motion.

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

APPEAL #1984 – First Baptist Church of Jackson, 6975 Promway Ave. NW, North Canton, Ohio 44720 agent for Jackson Board of Education, property owner, 7084 Fulton Dr. NW, Massillon, Ohio 44646 requests a conditional use permit to hold church services where a conditional use permit is required per Art. IV Sect. 401.3 of the zoning resolution.  Property located at 7355 Mudbrook NW, Sect. 16SE Jackson Twp.  Area zoned R-R.

Mr. Dodson read the file application with reasons being for church services.  The file contained an aerial view of the property in question, the answers to the criteria for the conditional use permit, a drawing showing which rooms of the school would be utilized for the services, and a site plan by Harris Day Architects dated February 7, 2001.

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

Mr. Dodson swore in Dan Clevenger, 4831 Lindford Ave. NW.

Mr. Clevenger stated that this is a follow up to the high school.  Because the high school in under renovations they can no longer hold their services there so they are moving to the middle school.

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

Section 431.2
Mr. Juergensen asked if the use would be detrimental to property values in the immediate vicinity.

Mr. Clevenger stated no.

Mr. Juergensen asked if it would restrict or adversely affect the existing use of the adjacent property owners.

Mr. Clevenger stated no.

Mr. Juergensen asked if the use would 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 county or state agencies where applicable.

Mr. Clevenger stated yes.

Mr. Juergensen asked if it meets the requirement for storm water runoff.

Mr. Clevenger state yes.

Mr. Juergensen asked if the property is 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. Juergensen asked if it will be constructed and maintained in a neat, orderly and safe condition.

Mr. Clevenger stated yes.

Section 431.3
Mr. Juergensen asked what the hours of operation would be.
Mr. Clevenger stated Sunday morning.

Mr. Juergensen stated that he assumes the parcel is more than one acre and asked if it is more than 100 ft. from the intersection of two arterial streets of fifty feet from the intersection of an arterial street and a local or collector street.

Mr. Clevenger stated yes.

Mr. Juergensen asked if any lighting would constitute a nuisance or impart safe movement of traffic on any street or highway.

Mr. Clevenger stated no.

Mr. Juergensen stated that all outside lighting shall be shielding from adjacent properties.

Mr. Clevenger stated yes.

Mr. Juergensen asked if there are any floodlights, searchlights or loud speakers.

Mr. Clevenger stated no.

Mr. Juergensen asked if the current trash receptacles would be used.

Mr. Clevenger stated yes.

Mr. Juergensen stated that the grading in non-applicable.

Section 431.6
Mr. Juergensen asked if the use would be located on an arterial or collector street and 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. Juergensen asked if all outdoor children’s activity areas would be enclosed by a fence or wall having a height of least five feet but not exceeding six feet.

Mr. Clevenger stated yes.

Mr. Juergensen asked if an entry gate would be securely fastened.

Mr. Clevenger stated that he is not sure that is applicable but if they have one it would be securely fastened.

Mr. Juergensen stated that the school does not exceed 75 ft. and that all activities shall be directly related to the church.

Mr. Clevenger stated that they would be.

Mr. Juergensen asked if the development plan indicates 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 or in opposition to the appeal.  Mr. Dodson closed this appeal to public input.

Mr. Giulitto made a motion to approve appeal #1984 as requested.

Mr. Oldroyd seconded the motion.

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

APPEAL #1987 – Richard Friedl, 5440 Fulton Dr. NW, Canton, Ohio 44718 agent for Enclave LLC, property owner, 6929 Portage St. NW, North Canton, Ohio 44720 requests revision to a previously approved conditional use permit #CU329, appeal 10/24/02 for a PRD in an R-R district.  Property location is 83.66 acres approx. 155 ft. north of Strausser St. and 180 ft. west of Bricker St., Sect. 6SW/SE Jackson Twp.

Mr. Dodson read the file application signed by Richard Friedl.  The file contained a tax map of the property in question, a small originally approved site plan from 10/24/02 and a small and a large version of the proposed revised site plan.

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

Mr. Dodson swore in Richard Friedl, 5440 Fulton Dr, NW.

Mr. Friedl stated that in developing the detailed construction plans for the project they encountered several issues that needed to be addressed.  One is that the Ohio EPA said although there are several ponds on the property to be used for several purposes the existing ponds are right on the stream that flows through the property.  The rules are that water must be detained off the stream, not on the stream.  The purpose of that is to detain sedimentation to increase the water quality at the sedimentation basin.  They needed space for that so they had to move several of the building sites to create enough space to put in the sedimentation and water quality basins.

Mr. Friedl stated that a neighbor had a concern because they have enjoyed the open space beside them in the past and didn’t want a house right next to them so they negotiated and the neighbor purchased a five foot strip of the property.  This is why they deleted a small portion of the property.

Mr. Friedl stated in order to take the stream that flows through the property and load it into a pipe that goes into the street they needed to acquire some land as open space so it didn’t flood the neighbor.

Mr. Friedl stated that the lots were re-numbered according to the phases of the proposal and the lots were reduced from 136 to 131.

Mr. Giulitto asked when the original plan was approved.

Mr. Friedl stated that it was approved in October, 2002.

Mr. Giulitto asked if it is Mr. Friedl’s testimony that they are decreasing the lots from 136 to 131, and increasing the open space from 17.3% to 19.4 %.

Mr. Friedl stated yes.  They are also increasing the overall area.

Mr. Giulitto stated that it seems like a win-win situation.

Mr. Friedl stated that it is a less severe situation with less density.

Mr. Juergensen asked if they are still in compliance with the requirements that were set forth at the original hearing.

Mr. Friedl stated yes, they are in agreement with the conditions set forth.

Mr. Dodson swore in Joyce Royce, 9551 Strausser St. NW.

Ms. Royce stated that she is in favor of the request.

No one else in the audience spoke in favor of or in opposition to the appeal.  Mr. Dodson closed this appeal to public input.

Mr. Giulitto stated that he did not have a problem with the request because they are decreasing the lots and increasing the open space.

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

Mr. Juergensen made a motion to approve appeal #1987 as requested.

Mr. Oldroyd seconded the motion.

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

Mr. Juergensen made a motion to approve the minutes from June 9, 2005 and Mr. Giulitto seconded the motion.

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

Mr. Juergensen made a motion to adjourn the meeting and Mr. Giulitto seconded the motion.

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

Respectfully submitted,

Joni Poindexter
Zoning Inspector