Members present:                                                               Ted Deremer
                                                                                               Edward McDonnell
                                                                                               Richard Dodson
                                                                                               John Juergensen-Recused from appeal #1926

Absent Member:                                                                  Jim Giulitto

Zoning Data Coordinator:                                                  Joni Poindexter

APPEAL #1924 – William & Maryann Gaynor, property owner, 5459 Highpoint Circle NW, Canton, Ohio 44718 requests a variance for an accessory building in the front yard area at a 29-1/2 ft. setback where accessory buildings are not permitted in the front yard area per Art. IV Sect. 401.11 of the zoning resolution.  Property located at 5459 Highpoint Circle NW, Sect. 23NE Jackson Twp.  Area zoned R-1.

Mr. Deremer read the file application signed by William Gaynor with reasons being as stated by the applicant, “The layout of the land precludes me from meeting the normal setbacks.”  The file contained a tax map of the property in question, two pages showing the topography of the land, a plat survey dated September 1955, and a package of nine letters signed by surrounding neighbors regarding being in favor of the request which was kept in the file but was not read into the record because it was not sworn testimony.

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

Mr. Deremer swore in William Gaynor, 5459 Highpoint Circle NW, Canton, Ohio 44718.

Mr. Gaynor stated that basically he would like to put a shed on the side of his property.  He owns ¾ of an acre of land and the property is divided in such a way that the off set to the right of it is substantial.  Mr. Gaynor presented five photos showing the lay of the land and explained what they represented.

Mr. Gaynor stated in order to put a shed on the property to accommodate the zoning regulations he would have to cut down two trees and put it on stilts, so the variance is to put it on the flattest piece of land that is available.  The shed is 8 x 12 ft. made of vinyl construction with a cost of about $3,000 and will have a foundation.

Mr. Deremer marked the photos presented by Mr. Gaynor as exhibits one through five.

Mr. Gaynor stated that the property used to be an orchard with apple trees along the entire incline.  Most have been cut down but there are still several that are standing which precludes him from putting the shed where it should be.

Mr. Deremer asked if the front door of the home faces Highpoint.

Mr. Gaynor stated yes.  The home sets back approximately 75 ft. from the road and the shed will not be seen because of the fall of the land.  Mr. Gaynor stated that he contacted the adjacent property owners and no one objected to the variance.

Mr. McDonnell asked if the shed is already on the property.

Mr. Gaynor stated yes because they had to get it off of Home Depot’s property, but it is not on a permanent foundation.

Mr. McDonnell asked how far the shed would be from Highpoint.
Mr. Gaynor stated that it would be 29-1/2 ft. to be exact.

Mr. McDonnell stated that the front yard is anything closer than 75 ft. to the road because of the way the house sits and asked why the shed couldn’t be anywhere along Overlook which would be the side yard or in the back yard.

Mr. Gaynor stated that he could put it in the back yard but if looking at the lay of the land it would have to sit 5 ft. off the patio.  Mr. Gaynor stated that he is asking for the proposed location because he plans on using most of it to store gardening tools and it will be close to the garden.

Mr. McDonnell asked why the shed couldn’t be put 75 ft. back from Highpoint.

Mr. Gaynor stated that it would have to sit on stilts in order to accommodate the topography of the land because there is no flat spot.

Mr. Deremer asked Mr. Gaynor if he planned on putting in any more plantings around the shed because it looks like it is kind of tucked into the trees.

Mr. Gaynor stated that there is very little light where the shed would be located so he would not be adding anymore plantings around it.  The fall of the land 20 ft. back from Highpoint Circle probably drops 8 ft. and the shed height is about 10 ft. so there would only be 2 ft. sticking up beyond the road line.  If the shed were put 75 ft. from Highpoint then one side would have to be elevated by about 4 ft.

Mr. Deremer asked if Mr. Gaynor is saying that there is no flat spot in that area.

Mr. Gaynor stated that he rolled a tractor twice on the property.

Mr. Deremer asked if anyone else in the audience wanted to speak in favor of this appeal.

Mr. Deremer swore in Maryann Gaynor, 5259 Highpoint Circle.

Ms. Gaynor stated that their property is the second highest property in Jackson Township and only a small peak of the shed will be seen from the neighbor’s property.

Mr. McDonnell asked how far the shed would sit from Overlook.

Ms. Gaynor stated that it is further from Overlook than from Highpoint.

Mr. Gaynor stated that it is about 64 ft. from Overlook and Ms. Gaynor agreed.

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 looked at the property and believes there is a practical difficulty with putting the shed in the side yard.  Mr. McDonnell stated that his original concern was if the shed was going to be seen from Overlook but with it being on a corner if the shed were moved back 45 ft. nothing would change and it would still be visible from Overlook only back further.  Mr. McDonnell stated that he thinks the applicant’s testimony demonstrated a practical difficulty and it will meet the rest of the requirements so he does not have a problem with the request.

Mr. Dodson stated that he also looked at the property and agrees with Mr. McDonnell’s comments.  The lot is usually shaped and there is a dramatic drop in the land so he does not have a problem with the appeal.

Mr. Deremer agreed with the other board members and stated that it is very rare to put a shed in front of a residence but this is an extreme case so he does not have a problem with the variance as requested.
Mr. Dodson made a motion to approve appeal #1924 as requested.

Mr. Juergensen seconded the motion.

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

APPEAL #1925 – Majorie A. Woodward Stevens, property owner, 8283 Roush St. NW, Massillon, Ohio 44646 requests approval of the BZA for a 5,000 sq. ft. substandard lot (parcel #1606265) to be used for residential purposes where approval is required for a residential substandard lot that is less than 7,500 sq. ft. in Art. III Sect. 303.5 of the zoning resolution & a variance for a 10,000 sq. ft. lot where 14,500 sq. ft. is required in Art. IV Sect. 401.5 of the zoning resolution.  Property location is parcel #1606265 Roush St NW, 50 EX E ½ Highlandview Farms Allotment & 8283 Roush NW, Sect. 32NW Jackson Twp.  Area zoned R-1.

Mr. Deremer read the file application signed by Majorie Stevens with reasons being as stated by the applicant, “For construction of new home.”  The file contained a tax map of the property in question, a sketch of the proposed residence for the 5,000 sq. ft. lot, and a photo copy of a similar residence showing the front view.

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

Mr. Deremer swore in Majorie Stevens, 8283 Roush St. NW, Massillon, Ohio 44646.

Ms. Stevens stated that they are selling their house and the land beside them.  Schalmo builders has expressed that they would like to build a home on the lot and she thinks the lot is big enough for a home and won’t bother anybody.

Mr. Deremer asked if Ms. Stevens home is on the existing parcel.

Ms. Stevens stated that the smaller parcel will be separate from where they currently live.

Mr. Deremer asked Ms. Steven if she would move into the new house or be moving elsewhere.

Ms. Stevens stated that they would be moving somewhere else.

Ms. Deremer asked how long they have owned their residence.

Ms. Stevens stated 28 years.

Mr. Deremer asked if the property was bought as a combined parcel when the house was initially purchased.

Ms. Stevens stated that the parcels are two completely separate lots with separate taxes.

Mr. McDonnell asked Ms. Stevens if there is currently a house at 8283 Roush which is a 10,000 sq. ft. parcel.

Ms. Stevens stated yes.

Mr. McDonnell asked if the house would remain on the parcel.

Ms. Stevens stated yes.

Mr. McDonnell asked if the proposed house would be on parcel #1606265 which is the parcel that is 5,000 sq. ft.

Ms. Stevens stated yes.

Mr. McDonnell asked Ms. Stevens if she is selling both parcels at the same time or if they would be split.

Ms. Stevens stated that the house sell is contingent on the lot selling and the lot sell is contingent on the house selling.  They won’t sell unless they both sell.

Mr. McDonnell asked if they would end up having two houses where there is now one house.

Ms. Stevens stated yes.

Mr. McDonnell asked how the proposed house would be situated on the smaller lot.

Ms. Stevens stated that she did not know.  He would have to ask the representative of Mr. Schalmo.

Mr. Deremer swore in Tom Babetski, 150 Spruce Dr. NW.

Mr. Babetski stated that in the general neighborhood there are other homes that are built on 50 x 100 ft. lots so this would not be something that is an isolated incident.

Mr. Deremer asked Mr. Babetski if he is part of the sale.

Mr. Babetski stated that he is Ms. Steven’s agent and a township resident.

Mr. Deremer asked if the lot was ever considered one piece or if it has always been a separate parcel.

Mr. Babetski stated as far as he knows it has always been two parcels.  There are many areas in the neighborhood that are basically the same way where the house sits on one section of the lot and there is an additional parcel next to it.

Mr. Deremer swore in Jerry Smeltzer, 464 Etheridge Blvd., Canal Fulton, Ohio 44614.

Mr. Smeltzer stated that he is a representative of Schalmo Builders.  Mr. Smeltzer gave the board two photos and stated that exhibit #1 is a photo of the lot and exhibit #2 is a photo showing a home located on Plymouth that is three streets away from the property and is the same size lot as the property in question.

Mr. Deremer asked if the home on Plymouth was constructed by Schalmo Builders.

Mr. Smeltzer stated yes.

Mr. Deremer asked if a variance was required to build the home.

Mr. Smeltzer stated yes.  The lot was platted in 1932.  The house is small but it fits on the lot within a price range of what is in the neighborhood.

Mr. McDonnell asked when the house on Plymouth was built.

Mr. Smeltzer stated that the house was built in late 2003 and was sold and occupied in March of 2004.

Mr. McDonnell asked if Mr. Smeltzer had said that there was a variance for the house on Plymouth.

Mr. Smeltzer stated that he is sure there was but he didn’t attend.  It is the same situation but a different allotment.

Mr. McDonnell asked if it is Mr. Smeltzer’s testimony that the house on Plymouth is only three or four streets from the property in question.

Mr. Smeltzer stated yes.

Mr. McDonnell asked if any other variances other than the size of the lot would be required if the house were built on the lot.

Mr. Smeltzer stated that the minimum lot width is 80 ft. and they have 50 ft. and the side setbacks are 10 ft. and they are asking for a 5 ft. setback.

Mr. McDonnell stated if the variance is granted to build on the substandard lot then they are basically looking at getting more variances.

Mr. Smeltzer stated that he didn’t realize they weren’t included in the original variance.

Mr. Deremer stated that they were not.

Mr. McDonnell asked if a house could be built on the lot without additional variances.

Mr. Smeltzer asked if the minimum lot width was included in the variance.

Mr. Deremer stated that they only thing before the board is the square footage of the lot.

Mr. McDonnell stated that there is an 80 ft. minimum lot width at the 100 ft. setback so he would need a variance because the lot only goes back 50 ft.

Mr. Deremer stated that he would not need a variance if looking at section 401.7 so that’s why a variance isn’t requested.

Mr. McDonnell asked if what Mr. Smeltzer is telling him is that the house could be built and no additional variances would be needed and there would be a 5 ft. setback.

Mr. Smeltzer stated yes.

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

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

Mr. Deremer swore in Richard Swineford, 8319 Roush NW.

Mr. Swineford stated that a 50 ft. lot is too small to build on.  You can’t walk around the one side of the home on Plymouth and the driveway is almost on the property line.  Mr. Swineford stated that 5,000 sq. ft. where the minimum is 7,500 sq. ft. is 2/3 of the required square footage and thinks it is totally out of place to build a house on the lot.

Mr. Deremer stated that the only variance is the square footage of the property and because it was platted before 1959 it is allowed a 5 ft. side yard setback.

Mr. Swineford stated that he thinks a 5,000 sq. ft. lot for any house is too small.

Mr. Deremer asked Mr. Swineford if he thinks it’s too small even if the house fits the lot.

Mr. Swineford stated that he doesn’t know what kind of house they are talking about.

Mr. Deremer stated that it would be exactly as shown on Plymouth.

Mr. Swineford stated that there is no room to walk around the house on Plymouth and he doesn’t think it is conducive to proper building or that a home should be squeezed on a substandard size lot.

Mr. Deremer asked if Mr. Swineford’s home is built the same way.

Mr. Swineford stated that he has one and one half parcels and his house is in the middle of both parcels with 150 ft. of frontage.

Mr. Deremer asked if the house on 8251 Roush is split into two parcels.

Mr. Swineford stated that the owner of the house at 8251 also owns an additional parcel so they have 150 ft. of frontage.

Mr. McDonnell stated that Mr. Swineford had said that he lives at 8319 and has two lots which are 100 and 50 ft. wide and there is a 50 ft. lot between him and 8283 Roush.

Mr. Swineford stated that the lot between him and 8283 Roush belongs to the owner of 8290 Milmont.

Mr. McDonnell asked if anything is currently built on that lot.

Mr. Swineford stated no.

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

Ms. Stevens stated that the lot beside Mr. Swineford runs from Milmont to Roush.  Mr. Swineford’s house is built on a 50 ft. lot and he got a variance to put a garage on the back of his lot which boarder’s her lot.  Ms. Stevens stated that by building on the lot it would not bother Mr. Swineford’s lot in any way and or hurt the neighbors.

Mr. Deremer closed this appeal to public input.

Mr. Dodson stated that the he is not sure why the second variance is being proposed because the house exists and is not going to be torn down.  It is just being sold.  He guesses that the home construction was made before the resolution came into effect or it was built in compliance with the resolution at the time it was built.  With regards to the first variance he understands the small lot would be worth more as a building lot but the board is required to find a practical difficulty of some sort other than the fact that the lot was platted sixty or seventy years ago and he doesn’t see one.  Mr. Dodson stated that he thinks it is an overbuilding situation and violates the spirit and intent of the zoning resolution.

Mr. Juergensen stated that he too does not know why the second variance is required.  With respect to the 5,000 sq. ft. lot he agrees with Mr. Dodson that this is an overbuilding situation and the simple fact that the lot was platted several decades ago does not constitute a practical difficulty.

Mr. Deremer stated that there is a “Z” across the two properties and normally zoning wise that is considered one parcel.  This is why there are two variance requests.

Mr. Juergensen asked if in order to sell the lot individually if the board would have to approve both variances.

Mr. Deremer stated yes because they are both substandard when they split them.

Mr. Juergensen stated that 10,000 sq. ft. to 14,500 is a large variance from what the requirement is and he doesn’t see a practical difficulty associated with the land to warrant the variance.

Mr. Deremer agreed with the other board members and stated these are older lots and people were buying one and one half lots at a time.  Mr. Deremer stated that he doesn’t think it would be good for the neighborhood to split the lots apart for a house to be built.

Mr. Juergensen made a motion to deny appeal #1925 as requested.

Mr. Dodson seconded the motion.

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

Mr. Juergensen recused himself from appeal #1926.

APPEAL #1926 – Metropolitan Land Co., property owner, 6976 Promway Ave. NW, North Canton, Ohio 44720 and Jack Stiner, Trustee, property owner, 4262 Portage St. NW, North Canton, Ohio 44720 requests a variance for a zero (0 ft.) parking and landscaping setback along the east property line of 4300 Portage (parcel #1619762) and the west property line of 4262 Portage St. (parcel #1615359) where a 5 ft. parking & landscaping setback is required in Art. IV Sect. 411.8 of the zoning resolution.  Property located in Sect. 12SE Jackson Twp.  Area zoned I-1.

Mr. Deremer read the file application signed by R.J. Guenther with reasons being they need parking because of lost frontage due to the street widening by county/city.  The file contained a tax map of the properties in question, a page showing the existing parking, a page showing the proposed street widening & relocation of parking along the property line, and two pages showing an ariel view of the properties in question from the Auditor’s website.

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

Mr. Deremer swore in Ralph Guenther, 337 Gaslite Circle, North Canton, Ohio.

Mr. Guenther stated when the consulting firm approached him regarding the widening of the street the biggest question that he had was what was going to happen with his parking.  They are loosing 17 ft. for the street right of way plus a 10 ft. easement to work on the road for two years.  This takes away all of the parking across the front.  Mr. Guenther stated that they would like to put parking in between the two properties which is currently a lawn strip.  Mr. Guenther stated that Jack Sanford, owner of Cagney’s next door, is also here this evening and is in favor of the request.

Mr. Deremer asked how wide the existing grass strip is at this time.

Mr. Guenther stated that it is 10 ft. on each side for a total of 20 ft.  They would like to take the grass strip out and join the two parking lots so it would increase the parking for both properties; however, he is loosing 10 to 14 parking spaces on his property for the road widening.  Mr. Guenther stated of the 27 ft. being lost he will get 10 ft. of it back in two years when the construction is done.

Mr. Deremer asked if the road is being widened on both sides.

Mr. Guenther stated that it would not be widened on the north side because Sylvester’s is on the property line along the street.  This is the reason the 25 ft. is coming off of his side.

Mr. McDonnell asked if Freedom Ave. is also going to be widened.

Mr. Guenther stated no.  There will be a 10 ft. easement for two years for the construction of the road widening that he will get back after the road is finished.

Mr. McDonnell asked if the parking would be permanently lost along Portage and the parking along Freedom would be lost for two years.
Mr. Guenther stated yes.

Mr. McDonnell asked if the request is to allow parking along the side due to the lost parking in the front.

Mr. Guenther stated yes.  Currently there are three parking spaces along the grass strip on the side that will go away if the variance is granted and the area will be blacktopped and the two parking lots joined together.

Mr. Deremer asked if they agree that each can use the other’s parking area if needed.

Mr. Guenther stated yes.

Mr. Deremer asked if anyone else in the audience wanted to speak in favor of the appeal.

Mr. Deremer swore in Jack Sanford, 4984 Searls Rd. NW.

Mr. Sanford stated that they are going to take away parking which would hurt Mr. Guenther’s business so he agreed to the request.

Mr. Deremer asked if they would also be taking some frontage of Cagney’s property.

Mr. Sanford stated yes.

No one else in the audience spoke in favor of the 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 he sees a practical difficulty not caused by the owner of the property and thinks the variance is the only logical solution to the problem.

Mr. McDonnell agreed with Mr. Dodson and stated that he too thinks there is a practical difficulty so he does not have a problem with the request.

Mr. Deremer agreed with the other board members and stated that taking away 1/3 of the parking area due to the expansion is a practical difficulty.

Mr. Dodson made a motion to approve appeal #1926 as requested.

Mr. McDonnell seconded the motion.

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

APPEAL #1928 – Terry Repak, 4000 Embassy Prkwy, Akron, Ohio 44333 agent for ART Investments LLC, property owner, 3700 Embassy Prkway, Akron, Ohio 44333 requests a variance for 5 shade trees and 75 shrubs along the west frontage where 22 trees and 88 shrubs are required and no screening where screening is required when across from residentially zoned property per Art. IV Sect. 411.9 of the zoning resolution.  Property located on the northeast corner of Waywood & Port Jackson, Sect. 2NE Jackson Twp.  Area zoned I-1.

Mr. Deremer read the file application signed by Terry Repak.  The file contained a tax map of the property in question, a site plan of the proposed property dated 6/29/04, and a landscaping plan dated 6/25/04.

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

Mr. Deremer swore in Terry Repak and James Lamb, 4000 Embassy Prkwy, Suite 400, Akron, Ohio 44333.

Mr. Repak stated that they are asking for a variance for the number of street trees from the zoning code along Waywood and Port Jackson which amounts to about 850 linear feet when totaled.  Mr. Repak explained the site plan and stated that Port Jackson Ave. is along the left side of the drawing and Waywood is along the bottom of the plan.  Mr. Repak stated that there is an area for the new extended runway for the airport that is un-buildable.

Mr. Repak stated that they would like to build a day care facility with a capacity of 74 children ranging from infants to kindergarten with 10 staff members.  The driveway would be to the north to allow for parking and a drop off area between the parking area and the day care building and there would be a fenced playground area for the children.

Mr. Repak stated that there is a 60 ft. wide easement that is “L” shaped across most of the setback area.  This easement is for a high pressure gas line that is 6 inches and they aren’t permitted to do anything in the easement but plant grass.

Mr. Repak stated that dark area as shown on the plan is a slope easement that was granted when Port Jackson was extended down to Waywood and also when Waywood was extended across.  The change in elevation to the intersection is more than 20 ft. and it is impractical to plant anything on it due to the steepness of the land.  Mr. Repak stated that they are asking for a variance for the trees because between the gas easement and the change in elevation they are able to plant trees at the driveway entrance for the first 125 ft. or so and technically they could plant some trees to screen the parking lot from the residential area to the south, but they also have a storm water retention basin because the site is too far away from the existing storm water system on Port Jackson Ave.

Mr. Repak stated that there is a building restriction line where the FAA will not allow structures to be located in other than a fenced in playground area.

Mr. Repak stated between Waywood and the parking lot will be four separate fences because there is a fenced in walkway and two fenced in play areas so in effect the parking lot will be screened anyhow.  There may not be a practical difficulty but the owner preferred that there not be any screening in front of the building because this is where all the classrooms are and they feel the kids would like to see what’s going on with all the construction equipment and the airplanes landing.

Mr. Dodson asked what a slope easement is because he never heard this term before.

Mr. Repak stated that when the road was built they had to cut away the ground because the road is high on one side and slopes way down.  They had to build a gradual slope at a certain angle and it is quite steep.  They can’t do anything in that area because that section is dedicated to the transition from high ground to low ground.

Mr. Deremer asked if the area could be taken out if they wanted to do so.

Mr. Repak stated no because it is part of the easement.

Mr. Repak stated that the ground on top of the hill is basically flat and they can’t change the grade in the gas easement area at all because the easement is only about 3 ft. below grade.

Mr. Repak gave the board four photos and stated that exhibit #1 and 2 shows the intersection taken from Waywood to the east, exhibit #3 is looking south on Port Jackson at Center Ice and exhibit #4 was taken from the Center Ice parking lot looking south and east across the intersection to the residential area.

Mr. Repak stated that they are asking to reduce the quantity of trees and shrubs that are required and only provide trees and shrubs on the northwest corner of the property where the curb cut would be in the area which is really the only area that it is practical to locate them.

Mr. Lamb stated that there is no landscaping requirement inside the property except the islands.  However, they have taken some of the money that would have normally been spent for trees along the frontage and put it into landscaping within the property.

Mr. Juergensen asked who the sloped area belonged to.

Mr. Repak stated that he thinks it belongs to the county but doesn’t know for sure.

Mr. Juergensen asked if nothing can be planted there because it is a slope easement.

Mr. Repak stated yes.

Mr. Lamb stated that it also is not practical to plant anything on something that is that steep and they are not permitted to dig in the area.

Mr. McDonnell asked if it is Mr. Repak’s testimony that they are not allow to dig or put any of the trees and shrubs in the slope easement area.

Mr. Repak stated yes, it is his understanding that they have to stay away from the easement.

Mr. McDonnell asked if it is Mr. Repak’s testimony that what is depicted on the plan represents the slope easement.

Mr. Repak stated yes.

Mr. McDonnell asked if the dotted lines surrounding the gas line is where nothing can be planted.

Mr. Repak stated that they could put small shrubs in that area but they can’t put any trees or fencing.

Mr. McDonnell asked what the slope elevation is along Waywood and if cars in the parking area could be seen from Waywood.

Mr. Repak stated that it is 18 to 20 ft. and there is fencing and playground equipment so if any cars are seen from Waywood it is only through the fence and playground equipment.

Mr. Deremer asked if anything is permitted in the flight restriction area for the airport.

Mr. Repak stated that he doesn’t know, but he does know that this building, Liquid Controls building and The American Benefits building do not have any parking lot lights in the flight restriction area and they have to put navigation lights on their building because it is technically on airport property.

Mr. Deremer asked if any of the street trees had to be removed if they would be moved somewhere else.

Mr. Repak stated yes, they would not reduce the number of trees.

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

Mr. Juergensen stated that he believes a practical difficulty has been demonstrated with the gas line easement and the slope easement but perhaps the board could require some trees in the southeast corner to block some of the view from Waywood through to the parking lot.  Other than that he does not have a problem with the appeal.

Mr. McDonnell concurred with Mr. Juergensen regarding the gas line easement and stated that he’s never heard of a slope easement but it makes sense.  Regarding his questions as to Waywood and if the parking lot is visible, as he reads the section that applies it indicates where parked cars will be visible from the public street.  If they are not visible then the screening is not required.  Mr. McDonnell stated that he thinks the intent of the resolution has been met and he does not have a problem with the request.

Mr. Deremer agreed with the other board members and stated that the slope easement is for line of sight.  Some of the photos show the cars stopped further back away from Waywood and if adjusted to be steeper then it would interfere with someone trying to look down Waywood to see what was coming.  Mr. Deremer stated that he thinks the reduction in the landscaping is minimal and they have met the resolution the best they can so he does not have a problem with the request.

Mr. McDonnell made a motion to approve appeal #1928 as requested.

Mr. Juergensen seconded the motion.

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

Mr. Deremer stated that there is a typo error on page three paragraph six in the minutes from the meeting held May 13, 2004.

Mr. McDonnell made a motion to approve the minutes from May 13, 2004 with the typo error corrected and Mr. Juergensen seconded the motion.

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

Mr. Deremer asked if the board had any comments or a motion on the minutes from the meeting held May 27, 2004.

Mr. Juergensen made a motion to approve the minutes from May 27, 2004 and Mr. McDonnell seconded the motion.

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

Mr. Deremer asked if the board had any comments or a motion on the minutes from the meeting held June 10, 2004.

Mr. McDonnell made a motion to approve the minutes from June 10, 2004 and Mr. Dodson seconded the motion.

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

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

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

Respectfully submitted,

Joni Poindexter,
Zoning Data Coordinator
Clerk/Secretary