Members present:                                                             Ted Deremer
                                                                                            Edward McDonnell
                                                                                            Richard Dodson
                                                                                            Jim Giulitto
                                                                                            John Juergensen-Alternate

Absent Member:                                                               Gerald Werner

Zoning Data Coordinator:                                               Joni Poindexter

APPEAL #1862 – Fredrick & Kristin Zalenski, property owner, 5375 South Island Dr. NW, Canton, Ohio 44718 requests a variance for a 7 ft. right side yard setback where 25 ft. is required and an 8-1/2 ft. front yard setback where 40 ft. is required in Art. IV Sect. 401.6 of the zoning resolution.  Property located at 5375 South Island Dr. NW, Sect. 23NW Jackson Twp.  Area zoned R-1.

Mr. Deremer read the file application signed by Fredrick Zalenski with reasons being as stated by the applicant, “due to lot size and current configuration of space there are no practical options either physically or monetarily beyond extending current garage out towards the street”.  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 Fred Zalenski, 5375 South Island Dr. NW.

Mr. Zalenski stated that he would like a variance within 7 ft. of the road to add onto the existing garage.  They do not have a basement and need more room for storage.  There is no other option to extend in any other direction because of the way the lot is situated.  Currently the existing home is within the 25 ft. setback requirement from the street right of way.  Mr. Zalenski stated that there are three homes on the street that are within 7 ft. of the street right of way; one is within 3-1/2 ft. of the right of way, one is right on the right of way, and one is about 7 ft. from the right of way.

Mr. Deremer asked if the proposed addition is for a garage.

Mr. Zalenski stated that it is for a garage with storage space and a mud room.

Mr. Deremer stated that the property is located at an intersection and asked if there would be a visual problem with the addition.

Mr. Zalenski stated that it doesn’t appear that there would be any obstruction as far as line of site from the stop sign.

Mr. McDonnell asked if the setback measurements were taken by a surveyor.

Mr. Zalenski stated that someone from the zoning department measured the setback distance.

Ms. Poindexter stated that Ron Revlock visited the property and measured the correct setbacks.

Mr. McDonnell asked if there is anywhere the addition could be put on the property, although it may not be practical, and meet the zoning requirements.

Mr. Zalenski stated that he is not sure because he is not familiar with all the zoning requirements.
Mr. McDonnell asked if the addition could be put next to the deck in the rear.

Mr. Zalenski stated he doesn’t think it would be practical or possible to put it against the deck because they want to use the addition as a garage along with storage space.

Mr. McDonnell asked how many garages are currently on the property.

Mr. Zalenski stated that he has a garage that can only accommodate one vehicle.

Mr. McDonnell asked what the dotted line is that is shown on the site plan along the front of the property.

Mr. Zalenski stated that he is not sure.

Mr. Deremer asked if it could be a driveway for someone to pull off the road.

Mr. Dodson stated that it could be part of the asphalt drive because he drove by the property and it looked like the asphalt goes all the way to the road.

Mr. Zalenski stated in looking at it again he believes Mr. Dodson is right; the dotted line does represent the asphalt drive.

Mr. Zalenski stated because of the size of the lot and uniqueness of the neighborhood, he doesn’t think the addition would be out of place because there are three or four other homes on the street that are closer than what he is asking for.

Mr. Deremer asked if the entrance would be off of Island Dr.

Mr. Zalenski stated yes.

Mr. Deremer asked if a car could be parked in front of the garage with the way the existing structure is.

Mr. Zalenski stated yes.

Mr. Deremer asked if a car could be parked in front of the garage with the new addition.

Mr. Zalenski stated yes.

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 he visited the property and paced off the addition and it appears that it will not interfere with traffic so he does not have a problem with the appeal.

Mr. McDonnell stated that he disagrees with Mr. Zalenski because it is possible to put the addition next to the deck and not violate zoning although it is not practical.  Mr. McDonnell stated that his only concern was visual clearance of the lot.  Eight and one half feet is significant but not that significant for Island Dr. and the side yard setback is not that uncommon for the Lake Cable area.  Mr. McDonnell stated that he does not have a problem with the appeal as long as the visual site distance is clear and unobstructed.

Mr. Dodson made a motion to approve appeal #1862 as requested.

Mr. Juergensen seconded the motion.

The vote was: Mr. Juergensen-yes, Mr. Giulitto-yes, Mr. Dodson-yes, Mr. McDonnell-yes, and Mr. Deremer-yes.
Mr. McDonnell recused himself from appeal #1863.

APPEAL #1863 – Thomas & Marisa Stoll, PO Box 39044, Canton, Ohio 44735 agent for Fred & Carol Clark, property owner, 5319 S. Island Dr. NW, Canton, Ohio 44718 requests a variance for a 6,987 sq. ft. substandard lot where 7,500 sq. ft. is required in Art. III Sect. 303.5 and a 30 ft. front yard setback where 40 ft. is required in Art. IV Sect. 401.6 of the zoning resolution.  Property located at 5325 S. Island Dr. NW, Sect. 23NW Jackson Twp.  Area zoned R-1.

Mr. Deremer read the file application signed by Fred & Carol Clark.  There was no reason for the appeal written on the application.  The file contained a tax map of the property in question, an old and new survey of the property, and a site plan showing the location of the proposed home.

Mr. Deremer stated that there is note attached to the file and asked Ms. Poindexter to explain what the note represented.

Ms. Poindexter stated that a lot split was being done on the property and the applicant was purchasing more acreage from another property to make an already substandard lot less substandard.  However, the lot was still going to be under the 7,500 sq. ft. minimum lot size so they needed to come before the board to build.  Since the appeal was filed a new survey has been done and they have purchased more property to meet the 7,500 sq. ft. requirement so they no longer need a variance for the minimum square footage on a substandard lot.

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

Mr. Deremer swore in Marisa Stoll, 8141 Abbington Ct. and Tony Zaratsian, 3572 South Arlington Rd. NW.

Ms. Stoll stated that she is requesting to move her home 10 ft. closer to the street in order to keep it in line with the other homes on the street.

Mr. Deremer asked if the home would be brand new.

Ms. Stoll stated yes, they have already removed the old home that existed on the property.  The property has been resurveyed with a new legal description so it now meets the minimum 7,500 sq. ft. requirement.

Mr. Deremer asked what would be the square footage of the new home.

Ms. Stoll stated that the home would be 3,000 sq. ft.

Mr. Dodson asked how the house compares with the properties on the other side.

Mr. Zaratsian stated that house will not be any closer than the existing homes on the street.

Mr. Giulitto stated if the house were moved back 10 ft. to meet the 40 ft. front setback, then it would only be 21 ft. from the lake.

Mr. Deremer asked if a 30 ft. setback is similar to the other homes on the street.

Mr. Zaratsian stated yes.

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 the appeal to public input.

Mr. Dodson stated that he looked at the lot and based on what he could eye ball, it looked like it is in conformity with the line between the road and the existing homes.  In the Lake Cable area it is critical to the neighbors that the view of the lake not be obstructed so he thinks the home would be very much in conformity with the other homes in the area and has no problem with the appeal.

Mr. Giulitto agreed with Mr. Dodson and stated that a 30 ft. setback would flow with the neighborhood and is not inappropriate so he does not have a problem with the appeal.

Mr. Deremer agreed with the other board members and stated that he is glad to see that the square footage deficiency was taken care of.  Mr. Deremer stated that he does not have a problem with the request.

Mr. Dodson made a motion to approve appeal #1863 for the 30 ft. front yard setback.

Mr. Giulitto seconded the motion.

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

APPEAL #1861 – Bricker & Associates, Clint Baggette, 8188 Corporate Way, Suite 105, Mason, Ohio 45040 agent for The Schroer Group, Gerald Schroer Jr., property owner, 7235 Whipple Ave. NW, North Canton, Ohio 44720 requests a conditional use permit for a Congregate Living Facility where a conditional use permit is required in Art. IV Sect. 401.3 of the zoning resolution.  Property location is 5.6 acres, more or less, on the south side of Fulton, 223 ft., more or less, west of Foxchase NW, Sect. 22NW Jackson Twp.  Area zoned R-R & R-1A.

Mr. Deremer read the file application signed by Clint Baggette with reasons being as stated by the applicant, “Property is currently split zoned with the north half of the property being zoned R-R, and the south half of the property being zoned R-1A, requiring a CUP for our new I-2 nursing facility.  A CUP was granted last year, but the building area and a portion of the occupancy have changed requiring resubmittal.”

The file contained a tax map of the property in question, a notice of subdivision action from Stark County Regional Planning for conditional approval, a revised and original site plan, and a general site location map.

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

Mr. Deremer swore in Gerald Schroer, 7232 Hills & Dales Rd. NW.

Mr. Schroer stated that there has been a change in the design of the facility and the use of the building.  Originally when they proposed the building and it was approved for a conditional use permit on June 17, 2002, the facility was going to be a skilled and assisted living facility next door to each other.  This is what is shown on the original site plan.  They have since changed the plan and the building will be a 100% skilled nursing facility, which has shortened the actual assisted living wing and made the room’s skilled nursing instead of assisted living.

Mr. Deremer asked if the structure would actually be smaller than originally requested and have a uniform use.

Mr. Schroer stated yes.

Mr. Deremer asked if part of the design allows for expansion in the future if needed.

Mr. Schroer stated that the design allows for growth but they do not intend to do this.

Mr. McDonnell asked what has changed with the original verses the revised plan.  For clarification purposes he referred to the northern building as #1, the center building as #2, and the southern building as #3.  Mr. McDonnell asked if building #3 is any closer to the side (west) property line than the original proposed building.

Mr. Schroer stated that he believes it is actually further away.

Mr. McDonnell asked if building #3 is any closer to the rear (southern) lot line than the original proposed building.

Mr. Schroer stated that he doesn’t believe so.

Mr. McDonnell asked if the only change is going from skilled and assisted to skilled nursing only.

Mr. Schroer stated yes.

Mr. McDonnell asked Mr. Schroer to define skilled nursing verses assisted living.

Mr. Schroer stated that assisted living is a lighter care and doesn’t necessarily have to have 24 hour nursing care.  Skilled nursing care has to have a registered nurse on duty 24 hours a day.  Assisted living is not licensed by the State of Ohio and skilled nursing is.  Skilled nursing is a higher level of care than assisted living.

Mr. McDonnell asked, other than the change in the size of building #3 and the change in use from skilled nursing and assisted living to skilled nursing only, is there any other changes to the revised plan verses the original plan.

Mr. Schroer stated no.

Mr. McDonnell asked if there has been any change in the location of the buildings other than building #3 being smaller.

Mr. Schroer stated that building #1 and #2 have been stationary the whole time.

Mr. McDonnell asked if there has been any change in the parking on the revised plan verses the original plan.

Mr. Schroer stated that he doesn’t believe so.

Mr. McDonnell stated that it appears on the revised plan that there is less parking on the south side of building #3 than was originally proposed.

Mr. Schroer apologized and stated this is correct.

Mr. Schroer stated that he had a conversation with the neighbor, Mr. Krew, about adding some extra bushes around the air conditioning unit.

Mr. McDonnell asked if there has been any change in the entrance and exit drives.

Mr. Schroer stated that after the original meeting he met with a neighbor that had a concern about the location of the drive coming out of the property and the lights of cars pointing into his house.  They presented an option of moving the drive but the neighbor chose to keep it where it was proposed because the lights would go into his garage and not into his home so the driveway entrance and exits are the same as the previous plan.

Mr. McDonnell asked Mr. Schroer to mark on the revised plan where the emergency exits are located on building #3.
Mr. Schroer marked the emergency exists for building #3 on the revised plan and stated that nothing has changed on building #1 and #2.

Mr. McDonnell asked if it is Mr. Schroer’s testimony that where the “X’s” are marked on building #3 is where the emergency exits are located.

Mr. Schroer stated yes, but if for some reason they are not correct he would notify the board tomorrow.

Mr. McDonnell stated with a conditional use permit, it is his understanding that construction has to begin within one year and asked Ms. Poindexter what is the length of a conditional use permit.

Ms. Poindexter stated that the conditional use permit has to be picked up within one year from the date of approval.  Once the conditional use permit is pickup up and a zoning certificate is issued construction must be started within one year.  With this conditional use, even if the plan wouldn’t have changed, they would have had to come back to the board because a year had passed since the conditional use permit was granted by the board and it had not been obtained.

Mr. McDonnell stated that his question was answered which basically was, has the previous conditional use permit expired because it hadn’t been executed within the time limit and Ms. Poindexter’s answer is that it had expired because it was not executed.

Ms. Poindexter stated that this is correct.

Mr. McDonnell reviewed the criteria for the conditional use permit, section 431.2 of the zoning resolution.

Mr. McDonnell asked if it would be detrimental to the property values in the immediate vicinity.

Mr. Schroer answered, “No.”

Mr. McDonnell asked if it is Mr. Schroer’s belief that it will not adversely affect the existing use of the adjacent property owners.

Mr. Schroer stated that he doesn’t believe it will.

Mr. McDonnell asked if it will be designed and constructed so 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 and stated if he recalls, Mr. Schroer’s testimony was that it has not changed from the last time.

Mr. Schroer replied, “Correct.”

Mr. McDonnell asked if it met all the requirements that last time.

Mr. Schroer stated yes.

Mr. McDonnell asked if it would meet the requirements for EPA for stormwater runoff and if it is applicable in this situation because he assumes it is.

Mr. Schroer stated that he believes so because they actually have a stormwater runoff plan.

Mr. McDonnell stated that the landscaping requirements in “E” are not applicable because it is a residential area as opposed to a commercial area and asked if it would be constructed and maintained in a neat, orderly and safe condition.

Mr. Schroer stated, “Certainly.”

Mr. McDonnell reviewed section 431.3 of the zoning resolution.

Mr. McDonnell asked if the facility would operate 24 hours a day.

Mr. Schroer stated yes.

Mr. McDonnell asked if there is any change from what was originally proposed.

Mr. Schroer stated no.

Mr. McDonnell stated that the property is more than one acre so the point of access is more than 100 ft. from the intersection of two arterial streets, which in this case would be Fulton and Wales Rd.  Mr. McDonnell asked if the drive is more than 50 ft. from where the road comes out of Nobles Pond.

Mr. Schroer stated yes.

Mr. McDonnell asked if any of the lighting has changed from the initial proposed plan.

Mr. Schroer stated that they have worked with the neighbors and the lighting hasn’t changed.  They have directed the light away from the east property line.

Mr. McDonnell asked Mr. Schroer to describe some of the lighting in the parking areas.

Mr. Schroer stated that it is their intent in the eastern parking lot to have the lights shine away from the homes.  The actual light is the Noble’s Pond Community design with a back drop so the actual light does not shine out.

Mr. McDonnell asked if it is Mr. Schroer’s testimony that the back of the light will be shielded.

Mr. Schroer stated yes.

Mr. McDonnell asked Mr. Schroer if he would have a problem if this was a condition of the permit.

Mr. Schroer stated no.

Mr. McDonnell stated that one of the requirements is that all outside lighting shall be shielded from adjacent properties.

Mr. McDonnell asked if there would be any floodlights, searchlights, or loudspeakers.

Mr. Schroer stated no.

Mr. McDonnell asked if the trash receptacles would be adequately screened.

Mr. Schroer stated the trash receptacle will be located at the northeast corner and would be enclosed.

Mr. McDonnell asked if the grading and surface drainage has been prepared by a registered engineer.

Mr. Schroer stated yes.

Mr. McDonnell asked if the property is more than three acres.

Mr. Schroer stated yes, it is about 5.6 acres.
Mr. McDonnell reviewed section 431.6(G) of the zoning resolution.

Mr. McDonnell asked if the congregate living facility is independent living with congregate dining facilities, congregate living, assisted living, or nursing home.

Mr. Schroer stated that it would be a nursing home, which falls under the definition of a congregate living facility.

Mr. McDonnell stated that the property is not located on a residential street and Mr. Schroer indicated on the plan where the emergency entrances and exits are located.

Mr. McDonnell asked if the building would be sprinkled.

Mr. Schroer stated yes.  The building will also have smoke detectors and they have met with the fire prevention people of the township and they made a recommendation as to where to place the hydrants.

This concluded the criteria for the conditional use permit.

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 made a motion to incorporate the file from appeal #1780, which is the original appeal, into appeal #1861 because it has the background and landscaping plan.

Mr. Dodson seconded the motion.

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

Mr. Deremer closed this appeal to public input.

Mr. Dodson stated that he believes all of the criteria for the conditional use permit have been met so he does not have a problem with the appeal and suggested that it be granted.

Mr. Juergensen agreed with Mr. Dodson.

Mr. Deremer stated that it appears the applicant did their homework and met with the property owners before the original hearing to address any concerns.  Mr. Deremer stated that the organization running the home is a professional organization and has several facilities within the community and United States.  Mr. Deremer stated that he does not have a problem with the request as presented.

Mr. McDonnell made a motion to approve appeal #1861 as requested.

Mr. Dodson seconded the motion.

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

Mr. Deremer asked if there were any comments on the minutes from June 26, 2003.

Mr. Giulitto stated that the sentence on bottom of page two in his comments should read “Sometimes you have to look between the lines and see what is practical” not “Sometimes you have to look behind the lines and see what is practical.”

Mr. McDonnell made a motion to approve the minutes from June 26, 2003 as amended.
Mr. Juergensen seconded the motion.

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

Mr. Juergensen made a motion to adjourn the meeting.

Mr. Giulitto seconded the motion.

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

Respectfully submitted,

Joni Poindexter
Zoning Data Coordinator
Clerk/Secretary