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

Zoning Data Coordinator:                                                        Joni Poindexter

APPEAL #1921 – Richard & Karen Kaufman, property owner, 5459 East Blvd. NW, Canton, Ohio 44718 requests a variance for an accessory building to be located 3 ft. from the principal building in the front yard area at a 3 ft. 9 in. south (left) side yard setback where accessory buildings are not permitted in the front yard and must have at least a 10 ft. side yard setback with 15 ft. between buildings per Article IV Sect. 401.11 of the zoning resolution.  Property located at 5459 East Blvd. NW, Sect. 23NE Jackson Twp.  Area zoned R-1.

Mr. Deremer read the file application signed by Richard Kaufman with reasons being as stated by the applicant, “To build a detached, two car garage.”  The file contained a tax map of the property in question, a site plan showing the proposed location of the addition and a site plan showing current property dated May 12, 2004.

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

Mr. Deremer swore in Richard Kaufman, 5459 East Blvd. NW.

Mr. Kaufman stated that a few years ago he converted his existing garage into a master suite and his intention was to build a new garage along the south property line for accessibility.  There is no access to the rear of the property due to the location of the lake and there are two high pressure gas lines along the front of the property so the only place to put the garage without infringing on the gas lines is where it is shown on the drawing.  Mr. Kaufman stated that the garage would be within the existing boundaries of the current house.

Mr. Deremer asked Mr. Kaufman if he is saying that the setback on the proposed garage would be no greater than what currently exits.

Mr. Kaufman stated that the existing garage is parallel to the existing setback.

Mr. Deremer asked why the garage couldn’t be attached to the house.

Mr. Kaufman stated that it could be attached but detached is the cheapest way to go because if it were attached they would have to tie into the existing roof line, tear out some walls, and replace windows with doors.

Mr. Deremer stated that the variance for 15 ft. between buildings would be eliminated by attaching the garage, but they are still restricted by the gas line.

Mr. Kaufman stated that the architect tried to shoehorn it in there the best he could so they would have the minimum amount of width and depth to put two cars in the garage, but the gas line was the big kicker.

Mr. McDonnell stated that two variances would be eliminated, 15 ft. between buildings and a detached building in the front yard area, if the garage were attached.  Mr. McDonnell asked why the garage needed to be attached.
Mr. Kaufman stated that it doesn’t need to be detached.  It could be attached but the way his architect explained it to him, in order to attach it they would have to tie into the existing roof and the kitchen area that has a flat roof.  Mr. Kaufman stated that it is more expensive to tie into the roof so it matches the house and he would lose his 3 ft. walkway to the lake if the garage were attached.

Mr. McDonnell stated by having the garage detached it creates two variances and part of the reason why there needs to be 15 ft. between buildings is for fire purposes.

Mr. Kaufman asked if the whole deal of the accessory building would be gone if he were to attach it.

Mr. McDonnell stated yes.  The 15 ft. between buildings and the building in the front yard area would be eliminated.  Mr. McDonnell stated the reason he asked if the building could be attached is because in his opinion the two variances are extreme.

Mr. Kaufman asked if he would have to come back to the board and start the whole process over again for the side yard setback if he attached the garage.

Mr. Deremer stated that the application can be modified to a lesser request.

Mr. Kaufman stated that he really doesn’t want to spend the extra money but wants to get the garage built, so if it is necessary to eliminate two of the variances then he will withdraw them and attach the building.

Mr. Deremer stated as long as the garage is hooked to the house it is considered attached.

Mr. McDonnell asked Mr. Kaufman if it is his testimony that the house currently sits 3 ft. 9 inches from the south property line and the garage would sit no closer.

Mr. Kaufman stated yes.  He had a survey done to make sure this was the correct setback.

Mr. Deremer stated that the applicant has made a modification to the request to attach the garage to the house in some way and it will not be any closer to the south lot line than what currently exists.

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. Deremer stated that a modification has been made to eliminate the two variances related to the accessory building classification.  The only remaining variance is a 3 ft. 9 inch south side yard setback.

Mr. Dodson stated that Lake Cable normally likes to leave 10 ft. between houses, but in this case the house is already there at a 3 ft. 9 inch setback.  He presumes the house has been there longer than zoning, so he doesn’t see where the variance would hurt anything and thinks there is a practical difficulty due to the configuration of the lot.  Mr. Dodson stated that he does not have a problem with the appeal if the garage is attached.

Mr. McDonnell agreed with Mr. Dodson and stated if the garage is attached it will be no closer than what is already there.  The gas lines themselves can be a practical difficulty, so he does not have problem with the request for the side yard setback.

Mr. McDonnell made a motion to approve appeal #1921 as modified for a 3 ft. 9 inch south side yard setback where 10 ft. is required.

Mr. Dodson seconded the motion.

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

APPEAL #1923 – Jackson Sideliners/Raymond Freidman, 6282 Irvine Circle NW, Canton, Ohio 44718 agent for Diane Varavvas, property owner, 63 West Drive, Hartville, Ohio 44632 requests a variance for an 80 sq ft. off premises temporary sign for a period of five years where a 40 sq. ft. temporary sign is permitted for a period of 30 consecutive days within a six month period per Art. V Sect. 504.2(A)3 of the zoning resolution.  Property location is .55 acres on the east side of the intersection of Wales Ave. and Mudbrook St., Sect. 16SE Jackson Twp.  Area zoned B-3.

Mr. Deremer read the file application signed by Raymond Freidman with reasons being a temporary sign is only permitted for 30 days once every six months and the maximum sign size is 40 sq. ft.  The file contained a tax map of the property in question, a rendering showing the design of the sign, a letter dated May 19, 2004 addressed to the Jackson Township Trustees from Raymond Friedman asking for a waiver of the variance fee and a letter addressed to Raymond Friedman dated June 7, 2004 from Diane Varavvas regarding permission to display the sign.

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

Mr. Deremer swore in Raymond Freidman, 6282 Irvine Circle NW, Canton, Ohio 44718.

Mr. Freidman stated that he is asking for a variance for the sign for the Jackson Football team which is currently in the position as shown on the map and has been there since the last appeal.  He is asking for a renewal because originally they requested 5 years, but it was only approved for 2 years.

Mr. Deremer asked if it would be the same sign in the same location.

Mr. Freidman stated yes.  They have added landscaping around the sign to spruce it up some.

Mr. McDonnell asked what the Sideliner’s do.

Mr. Freidman stated the Sideliner’s are a non-profit football booster club.  All the money that is raised during the course of the year goes back to the team or other projects for the school system.  They provide scholarships for the students and feed the team.  They do not pay for uniforms but they do pay for other equipment if it falls within the guidelines of the bylaws and sometimes they share in the cost of buses for some of the away games and have helped to purchase the bear’s head for the football games.

Mr. McDonnell asked why they want to put the sign at the corner of Wales and Mudbrook as opposed to in front of the school.

Mr. Freidman stated that they talked about this when the sign was requested the last time and basically there was some concern that Fulton Rd. is not centrally located in front of the school so the sign wouldn’t be seen and there was also some talk about the road being widened.  Mr. Freidman stated the sign as proposed is centrally located and can be seen from the main highway and is right outside the stadium.

Mr. Deremer stated that the stadium does not sit at the high school.

Mr. Freidman stated that is correct.

Mr. McDonnell stated that the reason he is asking some of the questions is because they have had other booster clubs for the teams come in and ask for a variance to allow their sign like what is at the corner of Fulton and Wales Rd.  More booster clubs are requesting signs because they were told that they weren’t allowed to put the sign on school property.  Mr. McDonnell asked if the sideliners could put their sign on the school property if they wanted to.

Mr. Freidman stated that he does not know.

Mr. Giulitto asked how many years the sign has been on the property.
Mr. Freidman stated he believes it has been there 2 years since the original variance.

Mr. Juergensen asked if the sign is displayed all year.

Mr. Freidman stated yes.

Mr. Juergensen asked why it is not taken down at the end of the football season.

Mr. Freidman stated that the sign is large with posts that are in the ground and may be concreted in.

Mr. Deremer stated that in the letter that was written to the township he noticed that the variance was originally granted in November of 2001, so it has been 2-1/2 years.

Mr. Freidman stated that he didn’t know anything about the sign variance until he received a letter from the zoning department because Mr. Konovsky took care of it the last time.

Mr. Deremer asked if there had been any discussion with the school board about putting up a sign that could be shared by all the sports.

Mr. Freidman stated to his knowledge they have not had that discussion within the last 2-1/2 years but he knows there is a basketball and lacrosse sign on the corner of Fulton and Wales Rd.

Mr. Deremer stated that their signs come down at the end of the season so they rotate.

Mr. Freidman stated that the sideliners sign is also used for advertising fund raisers.

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

Mr. Deremer swore in Jeff Heitger, 5850 Wales Rd. NW.

Mr. Heitger stated that he is not really opposed to the request.  He owns the property directly next to where the sign is located and has been told by Ms. Varavvas that the property may be for sale and he is looking at possibly purchasing it so he would like to know what would happen to the sign if the road were widened or if he purchased the property.

Mr. Deremer stated that the variance goes with the land.

Mr. Heitger asked if he would be stuck with the sign for 5 years if he purchased the land.

Mr. Deremer stated that would be between the Mr. Heitger and the sideliners.  If the variance is granted it runs with the property but the agreement could always be revoked in a private agreement that the township has no party to.

Mr. Heitger stated that he does not have a problem with the sign but wanted to know what would happen if the property sold or if the road was widened.

Mr. Dodson stated if the variance were granted it runs with the land but there is no reason why the owner couldn’t throw the tenant off the property at any time unless a lease was signed.

No one else in the audience spoke in favor of or in opposition to the appeal.

Mr. Freidman stated that he signed a letter from Ms. Varavvas that said, ‘If circumstances should require the sign be removed, I will notify you.  After you receive written notification you will have thirty (30) days to remove the sign’.  Mr. Freidman stated that he agreed to this and is aware that this could happen.

Mr. Deremer closed this appeal to public input.

Mr. McDonnell stated that Mr. Deremer is right if the variance is granted it goes with the land but if the land is owned by someone else when talking about temporary sign variances the board has always been clear that if the variance is granted it does not take away the right of the property owner and the property owner can terminate it at any time.

Mr. McDonnell stated some of the reasons he asked some of the questions he did is because the board has had a number of other sports come before the board to the point where it’s like a monster has been created.  The sideliners, basketball, and lacrosse team have all asked for a sign and it would be difficult to tell one booster club no and other ones yes.  Mr. McDonnell stated that it seems like the township is being asked to solve a situation that should be solved between the booster groups and the school system.  He is not suggesting that they pull the rug out from under the sideliners but thinks 5 years is a little bit long.  Mr. McDonnell stated that he would prefer to see one or two years to give the booster clubs the opportunity to talk to the school and see if there is an agreement that can be reached for a sign.

Mr. Juergensen stated that he is not sure the sign is temporary if it is permitted for 5 years and is cemented in the ground.  He doesn’t think the fact that it is up all year makes it a temporary sign.  The resolution provides 30 days within a six month period and this is going to be up every day within two six month periods or the entire year.

Mr. Giulitto stated that he looks at this as community involvement in supporting the kids and doesn’t see what is so magic about the 2 year time period.

Mr. McDonnell stated 2 years is out of fairness because all the other groups were given one or two years at the most.  Mr. McDonnell stated that he would like to be consistent with everybody in all fairness.  The basketball sign came down so the lacrosse team could put their sign up.  Conditions were put on other signs so he thinks similar conditions should be put on this sign.

Mr. Giulitto stated that he agrees the board should be fair but this sign is not located where the other signs are located.  This sign is a different animal so if the board is suppose to look at everything individually like they say they do he thinks by placing a 2 year limit it will come back 2 years from now just as the others will come back.

Mr. Deremer stated that 2 years were originally approved to maintain somewhat of a temporary sign status.  Five years seems more of a permanent sign.  They have activities that run year round so it is used for those as they go through the season.  Mr. Deremer stated that it may cause them to come back to the board in a shorter period but he doesn’t think it imposes a hardship on the organization and thinks 5 years is a little excessive.

Mr. McDonnell made a motion to approve appeal #1923 for a period of two (2) years.

Mr. Dodson seconded the motion.

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

APPEAL #1922 – Chick-Fil-A/Thomas Breeden, 801 Corporate Dr. 4th FLR, Lexington, KY 40503 agent for CNL Restaurants Investments, Inc., 450 South Orange Ave. 10th FLR, Orlando, FL 32801 requests a variance for a 5.5 ft. front parking setback where 20 ft. is required in Art. IV Sect. 411.8 of the zoning resolution.  Property located at 5419 Dressler Rd. NW, Sect. 24NW Jackson Twp.  Area zoned B-3.

Mr. Deremer read the file application signed by Thomas Breeden with reasons being as stated by the applicant, “Existing curb lines can be maintained & travel paths between parking areas existing can be maintained.  Existing green area will be planted with landscaping material & screening as required.  Maintaining existing curb lines facilitate developer meeting parking requirements.  The file contained a tax map of the property in question, two large maps dated received May 19, 2004 by GRW Engineers, a large site plan showing the proposed Chick-Fil-A dated June 2, 2004 by GRW Engineers, and comments from the Jackson Township Fire Department.

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

Mr. Deremer swore in Joe Tribble, 704 West Park Dr., Powell, Ohio 43065.

Mr. Tribble stated that he is a private consultant and a member of the Chick-Fil-A project team.  Chick-Fil-A is proposing a 4,500 sq. ft. restaurant on the southern 1.45 acres of a 3.73 acre tract on the west side of Dressler north of Everhard Rd.  The site has a drive thru with one access off of Dressler.  The northern part of the site, which is 2.3 acres, will remain in its current condition as an asphalt parking lot.  Mr. Tribble stated adjacent to Dressler are parking spaces that are 5.5 ft. from the road right of way and this is the same distance that currently exists and was in place when the existing site was built.  They are requesting a variance from the 20 ft. requirement for the parking setback.  This would maintain the existing relationship between Dressler Rd. and the existing parking and allows them to have a more efficient parking layout on their site and provides better traffic flow.  Mr. Tribble stated that there are two connections between their site and the 2.3 acres that allows a better traffic connection with the existing parking lot that will remain in place and they have approval from Stark County Regional Planning.

Mr. Deremer asked what the existing structure is that is located on the property.

Mr. Tribble stated that it is the Thirsty Dog restaurant which will be torn down.

Mr. McDonnell stated that the building and site plan are not issues before the board because the request is only for the front parking setback and if he understands correctly the 5.5 ft. front parking setback currently exists.

Mr. Tribble stated that the existing parking is currently located 5.5 ft. from the right of way.

Mr. McDonnell asked Mr. Tribble if he knew where the existing parking is for Bob Evans that is located to the south of the property.

Mr. Tribble stated no, but he does have some photos that may show the parking.

Mr. Deremer stated that the survey does not show the parking for Bob Evans but does show the curb line which appears to be along the same line as where the existing parking is.

Mr. Tribble stated in looking at the photos they do not show the Bob Evans area.

Mr. Deremer asked if they are planning a new drive entrance.

Mr. Tribble stated yes.  The new driveway entrance will move about 100 ft. north of where the current drive entrance is and the current drive entrance will be taken out.

Mr. Tribble explained where the property lines are on the map and what portion would be used for the Chick-Fil-A restaurant and stated that there is no proposal to split the property at this time.

Mr. McDonnell stated that he is trying to find a practical difficulty to justify the variance.  Somewhere he heard that it would stay in line with the existing setbacks.  Mr. McDonnell asked why they can’t meet the 20 ft. parking setback.

Mr. Tribble stated that the building as proposed and with the 5.5 ft. setback where the current parking is allows them to fit the building on the property with the required amount of parking spaces.

Mr. McDonnell asked if the parking spaces would be any closer to the road than Bob Evans parking spaces.

Mr. Tribble stated that he didn’t know.

Mr. McDonnell asked if the parking spaces would be any closer than the current parking area to the north of the proposed Chick-Fil-A.

Mr. Tribble stated that they would be the same if he is talking about what would be the residual acreage after this is developed.

Mr. McDonnell stated that he is talking about the current parking spaces that exist along the same side of Dressler.

Mr. Tribble stated that they are the same distance.

Mr. McDonnell asked if it is Mr. Tribble’s testimony that the parking currently exist.

Mr. Tribble stated yes.  Basically they are putting in a new entrance with new curbing to connect with the existing curbing and the parking spaces.

Mr. McDonnell asked if it is correct that what is to the north currently exists.

Mr. Tribble stated yes.

Mr. Deremer stated that he has a memo that was sent to Stark County Regional Planning by John Phillippi, Zoning Administrator, on May 27, 2004.  His comments were, ‘the property is zoned B-3 and comprises a portion of the current site of the Thirsty Dog Brewing Company.  The BZA will consider a request on June 10th to allow the current 5.5 ft. parking setback where 20 ft. is required.  The site plan will meet the zoning if the variance is approved.  A revised site plan must be submitted that provides for a 30 ft. driveway width at the northeast corner of the site.  This will eliminate one parking space and the destination of the fire lanes to be coordinated with the fire prevention bureau’.

Mr. Tribble stated that the revised drawing that was received on June 2, 2004 is the revised drawing and shows the 30 ft. driveway width.

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

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

Mr. Deremer swore in James Bauder, 6106 Armistice Ave. NW, Canton, Ohio 44718.

Mr. Bauder stated that he understands the traffic flow will be 30 ft. between the building and the parking area but the map he has shows 28 ft.

Mr. Deremer stated that the map has been revised so there is a 30 ft. driveway width.

Mr. Bauder stated that he thought Bob Evans was wider than this property.

Mr. Deremer stated that it is the same setback as the current parking.

Mr. Bauder stated that he thinks turning left will cause a problem.
Mr. Deremer stated by moving the driveway to the north it will help the turning left situation compared to what is there now.

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

Mr. Deremer closed this appeal to public input.

Mr. Deremer stated that the only thing the board is looking at is the 5.5 ft. front parking setback.

Mr. Dodson stated that he looks at this a little bit like a non-conforming use because the parking is going to be where it is now and instead of taking over the old building they will be demolishing it and putting up a new building.  Mr. Dodson stated that the parking will be no closer to the road than the existing parking on the adjacent parcel and he doesn’t think it will interfere with traffic so he does not have a problem with the appeal.

Mr. McDonnell stated that he thinks this is similar to Max & Erma’s on Everhard Rd.  The applicant, if they took over the existing building, would be in compliance.  The only reason the new requirement is in effect is because they want to build a new building.  Mr. McDonnell stated that a practical difficulty is created by having to meet the new requirement because they are in the middle of all the other properties and esthetically it wouldn’t look right so he does not have a problem with the appeal.

Mr. Giulitto made a motion to approve appeal #1922 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. McDonnell made a motion to adjourn the meeting.

Mr. Dodson 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