Members present:                                                            Ted Deremer-Absent for #1985
                                                                                            Edward McDonnell-Absent for #1985
                                                                                            Richard Dodson
                                                                                            John Juergensen
                                                                                            Jim Giulitto
Alternate Member:                                                            Eric Oldroyd

Zoning Inspector:                                                             Joni Poindexter

                                                                                           Mr. Dodson served as Chairman for appeal #1985.

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 stated that this appeal was continued from July 14, 2005.  The board received a legal opinion as to the board’s authority to allow a use where such a use is not permitted per the zoning.  Mr. Dodson stated that the opinion of the assistant law director, David Ferrell, is that when you have a use variance as opposed to an area variance, the board simply does not have the authority to grant a use in an area where such use is not permitted.  Mr. Dodson stated that Mr. Ferrell cites section 803.5 and he would note also section 702.8.  Mr. Dodson stated that he does not think the board has to power to grant what is being requested.

Mr. Juergensen stated that he thinks Mr. Dodson is correct.  According to section 803.5E use variances are prohibited.  If the applicant would park the vehicles on the empty lot then the principal use is a parking lot and this is not permitted in this particular zoning district and the board, according to the resolution, does not have the authority to grant a use variance to allow a parking lot.  Mr. Juergensen stated if this were a park or a playground as a principal use on the lot then in his opinion they could park their vehicles as an accessory use.

Mr. Oldroyd stated that his thought goes toward the well being on the property.  There is no way for this property to be, or for them to comply because they never could put a residence on the property.  Even if they desired to move out of the home they are in and build on the site in question it is impossible to do so.  Mr. Oldroyd stated that basically the property could be used for no purpose whatsoever, except for a well.

Mr. Juergensen made a motion to deny appeal #1985.

Mr. Giulitto seconded the motion.

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

Mr. Dodson explained to Mr. & Mrs. Hammer that a few years ago the trustees took some of the board’s power away which included the power to allow a use on a particular property where the use itself is not allowed so the consensus of the board is that it is not a judgment call, but they don’t have the power to do it.

Mr. Dodson stated that the applicant could file an appeal in the court of common pleas within 30 days if they feel the board made an error in their decision.

APPEAL #1988 – Gus Kabbara, 4125 Martindale Rd. NE, Canton, Ohio 44705 agent for MANF Enterprises Inc., property owner, 4360 Fulton Rd. NW, Canton, Ohio 44718 requests a variance for a 10 ft. rear parking setback where 20 ft. is required per Art. IV Sect. 411.8(D) of the zoning resolution.    Property located at 4360 Fulton Rd. NW, Sect. 25SE/NE  Jackson Twp.  Area zoned B-1.

Mr. Deremer read the file application signed by Gus Kabbara with reasons being as stated by the applicant, “need additional parking spaces to accommodate elderly patients.”  The file contained a tax map of the property in question and surrounding properties, a list of reasons for the request, a site plan showing the existing parking and one showing the proposed parking, and a letter stating the reasons for the request.

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

Mr. Deremer swore in Gus Kabbara, 6615 Knightsbridge Rd.

Mr. Kabbara stated that the owner occupies the building and the reason for the appeal is what is described in his letter.  Mr. Kabbara stated that the normal side and rear yard setback is 5 ft. but expands to 20 ft. when it abuts a residential zoned property.  The abutting property to the south is zoned R-R, but there is a required open space area 10 to 12 ft. wide at its narrowest making the effective property line as it stands now about 38’ 8” from the curb of the existing parking.

Mr. Kabbara stated that the open space area is overgrown with wild vegetation that hides the view of the clinic from any of the rear yards of the residences.  Mr. Kabbara presented a photo taken from the residential property facing the commercial property and the existing wall, which was marked as exhibit #1.  Exhibit #2 shows where the open space is located on the adjoining property.

Mr. Kabbara stated that the slope of the property allows for a walk out lower level.  This is where some of the doctors are located as well as on the main level.  When the ambulance brings elderly patients they have to stop in the middle of the lane and then take the patients by wheelchair to the area where they are examined.  There are no parking spaces for cars when bringing people to the lower level of the building so people have to be dropped off and the cars driven to the front portion of the building to park and then people have to walk around to the lower level which creates a safety hazard.

Mr. Kabbara stated that the variance does not significantly change the zoning resolution or the B-1 area and will comply with public safety, which is the primordial intent of the zoning resolution.  It will not harm the esthetics of neighboring properties and the existing landscaping and shrubbery buffer area will still shield the residential area from the B-1 area.

Mr. Kabbara stated that the parking area cannot be placed anywhere else on the property because of the exigencies of the retaining pond required by the County Development Engineer, the steep slope of the property itself requiring retaining walls, the practical difficulty created by all the combined existing easements of the Power Company, the slope of the property, and the future requirements for the Jackson Township enlargement of the right of way for Fulton Dr. for a four lane widening planned for 2006.

Mr. Deremer asked if the original layout was always a two story building.
Mr. Kabbara stated yes.  The only problem is there is no interior access to get from the main floor to the lower floor.

Mr. Deremer asked what is specific to the property.

Mr. Kabbara stated that there is almost 22 ft. of setback with the open space to the residential property line.  The landscaping would be moved back and a retaining wall built.

Mr. Deremer asked if the retaining wall will be to the face of the parking area.

Mr. Kabbara stated that the retaining wall will be 10 ft. from the property line and is needed because the property slopes down almost at a 30 degree angle.

Mr. McDonnell asked what the practical difficulty is with the property to allow the variance.

Mr. Kabbara stated that the slope of the property is the most difficult part.  People have to go down a nasty slope to the get into the lower portion of the building and it isn’t practical for ambulances.

Mr. McDonnell asked if there is an entrance in the rear.

Mr. Kabbara stated yes.

Mr. McDonnell asked if he is correct is stating that there is a walk out basement with double doors and there is somewhere to stop while unloading the patient and then the vehicle has to go back up top to park.

Mr. Kabbara stated yes.

Mr. McDonnell asked how this is different from what is done at Mercy Hospital when dropping a patient off at the door and then go to the parking area to park.

Mr. Kabbara stated that people usually walk through covered walkways to get into the hospital.  In this case the slope and sidewalk itself makes it almost hard and dangerous to walk around.

Mr. McDonnell asked if there is anyway to get from the upper level to the lower level within the building.

Mr. Kabbara stated no.

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

Mr. Deremer stated that he understands the need for the additional spaces that are being requested and it would make the property function better.  The slope of the property is the biggest point in the fact that it is a two story building with a main entrance on the bottom level and the upper level has a separate entrance with no way to get from the top floor to the bottom as was testified.  Mr. Deremer stated that he believes there is a need for the parking, it will not impact the residential property behind it, and they are proposing additional landscaping and a retaining wall.

Mr. McDonnell stated that he shares some of Mr. Deremer’s thoughts but the slope is common to other properties in the area and the use of the building cannot be taken into account.  Mr. McDonnell stated that he thinks there may be another way to solve the problem such as putting in an elevator.

Mr. Giulitto stated that he agrees with Mr. Deremer.  The slope is the deterrent as to why they want the parking spaces and the difficulty in getting to the bottom portion of the building.  Mr. Giulitto stated that he doesn’t think it is fair to compare this building with Aultman Hospital or Mercy because it is not the same entity in any respect.  It is an office building that patients frequent and they don’t have the advantage of valet parking and other things that hospitals provide.  Mr. Giulitto stated that he thinks it is more of a safety issue for the patients.

Mr. McDonnell stated if the appeal is granted he would like to see a condition that the landscaping be done as shown on the site plan.

Mr. Giulitto made a motion to approve appeal #1988 with the condition that the landscaping will be done as noted on the plan that was submitted to the board.

Mr. Juergensen seconded the motion.

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

APPEAL #1990 – Scheetz Building Corp., 8060 Frank Rd. NW, North Canton, Ohio 44720 agent for Dennis Nash, property owner, 6421 Corrine Dr., Canton, Ohio 44718 requests a variance for an 8 ft. front yard setback where 40 ft. is required and a 5 ft. left and right side yard setback where 10 ft. is required per Art. IV Sect. 401.6 of the zoning resolution.  Property located at 5340 Island Dr. NW, Sect. 23NW Jackson Twp.  Area zoned R-1.

Mr. Deremer read the file application signed by Jeff Scheetz with reasons being as stated by the applicant, “Lake setback prohibits any depth to house.  Deed restriction is 50 ft. back for the shore line.”  The file contained a tax map of the property in question and a site plan showing the proposed location of the residence.

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

Mr. Deremer swore in John Scheetz, 5404 Pennisula Dr. NW.

Mr. Scheetz stated that there is a deed restriction for the property that is 50 ft. back from the shoreline.  Mr. Scheetz presented exhibit #1 that shows the actual build-able space on the lot.

Mr. Scheetz stated that once you take the 50 ft. setback from the shoreline and the 40 ft. front setback from Island Dr. that only leaves about 15.25 ft. along the east side and 46.50 ft. on the west side.

Mr. Scheetz stated that Mr. Nash tried to get the neighbor to let him build back further, but the neighbor did not want to do that because he was afraid that it would block his view.

Mr. Scheetz stated that they are also asking for a 5 ft. side yard setback where 10 ft. is required.

Mr. Scheetz presented exhibit #2 which consisted of 15 photos of homes in the area.  Exhibit #3 consisted of three photos of homes recently built in the area and exhibit #4 is a photo of the shoreline.  Mr. Scheetz stated that the house would be 2,500 to 2,700 sq. ft., so the house is not really large.

Mr. Deremer asked if the garage would be in the front.

Mr. Scheetz stated yes.

Mr. Dodson asked if the home was approved by the Trustees of Lake Cable.

Mr. Scheetz stated that they don’t approve anything.  He spoke to Mr. Gibbin’s and he suggested that they talk to the neighbor and if the view wasn’t blocked and the neighbor agreed then they could move back, but the neighbor didn’t want to agree.

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

Mr. Dodson stated that Lake Cable likes to keep at least a 5 ft. side yard setback and this is a typical Lake Cable situation, so he doesn’t have a problem with the request.

Mr. Dodson made a motion to approve appeal #1990 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.

APPEAL #1989 – Hammontree & Associates, 5233 Stoneham Rd., North Canton, Ohio 44720 agent for Canton Temple of Praise, property owner, 2800 Woodlawn Ave. NW, Canton, Ohio 44708 requests a conditional use permit for a church where a conditional use permit is required per Art. IV Sect. 401.3 of the zoning resolution.  Property located at 2800 Woodlawn NW, Sect. 36NE Jackson Twp.  Area zoned R-4.

Mr. Deremer read the file application signed by Edwin Nelson with reasons being a building expansion to the church in which a conditional use permit is required.  The file contained a tax map of the property in question and a site plan of the property.

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

Mr. Deremer swore in Nathan Page, 5233 Stoneham Rd.

Mr. Page stated that the church is expanding with an approximate 36,000 sq. ft. addition with a parking lot, softball field and picnic addition on the side.

Mr. Deremer asked if everything is in compliance regarding setbacks.

Mr. Page stated yes.  The existing parking is actually on the property line along the north side and the proposed parking will have the correct setback requirement.

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

Section 431.2
Mr. McDonnell asked if it is Mr. Page’s testimony that it will not be detrimental to property values in the immediate vicinity.

Mr. Page stated yes.

Mr. McDonnell asked if it is Mr. Page’s testimony that it will not restrict or adversely affect the existing use of the adjacent property owners.

Mr. Page stated yes.

Mr. McDonnell asked if it is Mr. Page’s testimony that it will 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. Page stated yes.

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

Mr. Page stated yes.

Mr. McDonnell stated that item “E” is not applicable.

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

Mr. Page stated yes.

Section 431.3C
Mr. McDonnell asked what the hours of operation will be.

Mr. Page stated that he is not aware of the hours.  The representative from the church can answer that question.

Mr. McDonnell stated that the property is more than one acre and all points of vehicular entrance and exists shall be located no closer than 100 ft. from the intersection of two arterial streets or 50 ft. from the intersection of an arterial street and a local or collector street.

Mr. Page stated that it is about 1,400 ft. from the intersection.

Mr. McDonnell asked if there would be any additional lighting.

Mr. Page stated yes, but it will be no different than what is currently there.

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

Mr. Page stated no.

Mr. McDonnell asked if any trash receptacles would be added and if so would they be screened.

Mr. Page stated yes.  They will be screened.
Mr. McDonnell asked if the grading and surface drainage provisions had been prepared by a registered engineer.

Mr. Page stated yes.  They are reviewed and approved by a subdivision engineer and at this time they have conditional approval.

Section 431.6F
Mr. McDonnell asked if it is correct that the facility is located on an arterial street, being Woodlawn Ave., and it does have access to the arterial without going through a residential area.

Mr. Page stated yes.

Mr. McDonnell asked if there are outdoor children activities.

Mr. Page stated yes.  They are enclosed with a fence.

Mr. McDonnell asked what the height of the current and proposed building is.

Mr. Page stated that the current height is approximately 30 to 35 ft.  The new portion will have a design of about 40 to 41 ft.

Mr. McDonnell asked Mr. Page to mark the emergency entrances on the plan.

Mr. McDonnell stated that this concluded the criteria except for a few questions that a representative from the church could answer.

Mr. Deremer swore in Paul Shanor, representative of the church.

Mr. McDonnell asked Mr. Shanor what the hours of operation would be.

Mr. Shanor stated the day care hours would be 6 a.m. to 6 p.m.  The office hours for the church operation would be 9-5 Monday through Friday.  Services would be Sunday at 9 a.m. and 11 a.m. and then Sunday and Wednesday evenings.

Mr. McDonnell asked if the lighting would be any different than what is currently on the church.

Mr. Shanor stated that there will be more lighting but the same that currently exists and it is shielded from the adjacent properties.

Mr. McDonnell asked if there is only one trash receptacle.

Mr. Shanor stated yes.  It cannot be seen from the street.

Mr. McDonnell asked if it is fenced.

Mr. Shanor stated no.  It is just sitting at the back of the parking lot.

Mr. McDonnell stated that all trash receptacles shall be adequately screened so he will leave it up to the board if being at the back of the building is adequately screened.

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 believed the criteria had been met and normally when met the conditional use is granted.

Mr. McDonnell concurred with Mr. Dodson.

Mr. McDonnell made a motion to approve appeal #1989 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. Giulitto made a motion to adjourn the meeting.

Mr. Juergensen 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 Inspector