Members present:                                             Edward McDonnell
                                                                            Gerald Werner
                                                                            Richard Dodson
                                                                            Jim Giulitto

Absent Member:                                               Ted Deremer

Zoning Administrator:                                     John Phillippi

Zoning Data Coordinator:                             Joni Poindexter

Mr. McDonnell, Vice Chairman, acted as chairman due to the absence of Mr. Deremer.

APPEAL #1784 – Richard & Deborah Raines, property owner, of 8362 Arlington Rd. NW requests a variance to allow the parking of a semi truck (no trailer) that is greater than 9,000 lbs. GVW on the property located at 8362 Arlington Rd. NW, Sect. 4NW Jackson Twp. Area zoned R-R.

Mr. McDonnell read the file application signed by Richard Raines with reasons being that the unit must be plugged in during cold weather, security of unit, it is their livelihood, and the truck is the main reason for purchasing a home on the main road as opposed to living in an allotment.

The file contained a tax map of the property in question, two black & white photos of the property showing the location of the truck, a notice of zoning violation dated 4/2/02, and a stop order dated 5/13/02.

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

Mr. McDonnell swore in Debra & Richard Raines of 8362 Arlington Rd. NW, North Canton, Ohio 44720.

Ms. Raines stated that they are in front of the board asking for the allowance of the commercial vehicle to be parked on the property. When they purchased their home in 1994 they specifically went to the zoning department to make sure the parking of the truck was permitted because this is their livelihood. Ms. Raines stated that it was permitted and this is the reason that they purchased the home. Ms. Raines stated that the rules have changed and this is why they were notified of a violation and are asking for a variance.

Ms. Raines stated that she submitted the photocopies that are in the file and would like to present the originals to the board.

Mr. McDonnell marked the photos as exhibit #1 and #2.

Ms. Raines stated that they had just put a substantial addition on their home that includes 3 rooms and they plan on staying because they like it very much but it all hinges upon her husband’s employment and the truck being permitted to be on the property. Ms. Raines stated that it would create a hardship if the truck were not permitted, especially in the wintertime when the engine block needs to be plugged in and security reason. Ms. Raines stated that they would have to pay to have the truck secured somewhere else and this would add onto the length of the day by adding on time to get to the truck when now its right there.

Mr. Raines stated that he sees a lot of sand & gravel haulers and consolidated freight trucks going up and down the road and he asked Mr. Revlock if this was OK. Mr. Raines stated that he checked with zoning before purchasing the home to see if it was OK to park the truck on the property. Mr. Raines stated that he knows the laws were changed but there are about three trucks that go in and out of Orchardway.

Mr. Raines stated that if he can’t park the truck at home then the only place that he knows of is in Hudson and this would add on an extra hour to his work day besides having to pay to have the truck parked.

Ms. Raines stated that none of the neighbors have ever complained about the truck.

Mr. McDonnell asked if Mr. Raines owns the truck.

Mr. Raines stated yes. He has been the owner and operator for 22 years.

Mr. McDonnell asked Mr. Raines if he had investigated other places to park the truck.

Mr. Raines stated that the company that he is leased to doesn’t have any room to park the truck and he can’t park it at the truck stop because of security.

Ms. Raines stated that their home has a security system and in the wintertime the truck requires being plugged in to keep the engine warm. Ms. Raines stated that the truck is parked to the side of the home as indicated in the photos that were presented.

Mr. Raines stated that he does not work on the truck at his home.

Mr. Werner asked Mr. Raines if he leaves at all times of the night.

Mr. Raines stated that his day usually starts at midnight or two in the morning and runs until 7 or 8 in the evening. Mr. Raines stated that if he has a local delivery that’s due at 7 a.m. then he might not leave until 6 a.m.

Mr. Werner asked Mr. Raines if the truck is started and runs for a while before leaving in the wintertime.

Mr. Raines stated that it depends how cold it is. If it’s below 10 degrees he may let the truck run for 20 minutes. Mr. Raines stated that the neighbors told him that they do not hear the truck.

Mr. Werner asked Mr. Raines if he ever brings the trailer home.

Mr. Raines stated no. There is a terminal on Massillon Rd. and this is where the trailer is kept sometimes.

Mr. Werner asked if Mr. Raines drops the trailer off and brings the tractor home and then has to go back to get the trailer.

Mr. Raines stated yes.

Ms. Raines stated that he truck was purchased new so it is not an eyesore.

Mr. McDonnell asked if there is a practical difficulty or anything that separates Mr. Raines situation from anyone else who is engaged in the same type of business.

Ms. Raines stated that they live on Arlington, which is a main road and feels this is a big difference as opposed to being in an allotment and disturbing neighbors in a quiet residential area. Ms. Raines stated that they are located in a rural residential area on Arlington.

Mr. Raines stated that he runs mainly in Ohio but has been looking for another company to lease with. One that he has in mind is out of California and he may start driving long distance so the truck would not be in and out as much.

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. McDonnell closed this appeal to public discussion.

Mr. Werner stated that he understands Mr. & Ms. Raines situation but on the other hand the wisdom of the Trustees is to not allow the parking of the truck in a residential area. What bothers Mr. Werner is that Mr. Raines will be going in and out at different times of the night and in the wintertime the truck would be running for a while before leaving. Mr. Werner stated that this could be detrimental to the neighborhood.

Mr. Dodson stated that if this was an application that was made after the zoning requirement changed and the applicant started parking his semi in violation it would be a different situation. They are on a main road and no one is complaining about the truck but most critically, they made sure that this was permitted at the time they purchased their home. Mr. Dodson stated that he has a lot of sympathy for their position.

Mr. Giulitto stated that he concurs with Mr. Dodson. They made an effort before purchasing the home to check with zoning to make sure this was permitted and they were given the OK. Mr. Giulitto stated with no neighbors attending the meeting in opposition, this tells him that they are OK with it or they don’t really care about it. Mr. Giulitto stated that he thinks the variance should be granted.

Mr. McDonnell stated that he sees merit in what everyone is saying but his concern is that he does not see that the applicant has shown a practical difficulty that applies to them verses other people in the township that are engaged in the same activity. Mr. McDonnell stated that his other concern is that the variance runs with the property, not the owner. If Mr. & Ms. Raines were to move the variance would remain. Mr. McDonnell stated that on this basis he has some problem with the variance.

The board had no further comments.

Mr. Dodson made a motion to approve appeal #1784 as requested.

Mr. Giulitto seconded the motion.

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

Mr. McDonnell stated that there is a tie vote that results in a denial.

Mr. McDonnell stated that if they do not agree with the board’s decision they can appeal to common pleas court within 30 days.

Mr. Raines asked if the truck would have to be removed immediately.

Mr. Phillippi stated that they would have 30 days from the board’s decision to remove the truck.

APPEAL #1785 – Mel Wacker Sign Co. of 13076 Barrs Rd. SW, Massillon, Ohio 44647 agent for Chubby’s, Lessee, of 5326 Fulton Rd. NW, Canton, Ohio 44708 and Ivanho Inc., property owner, of 3760 Cleveland Ave. NW, Canton, Ohio 44709 requests variance for (2) 12 sq. ft. off premises directional signs with a height of 7 ft. where the maximum permitted size is 6 sq. ft. with a height of 3 ft. and an off premises directional sign is not permitted in Art. V Sect. 501.7 & 502.1 of the zoning resolution. Property located at 5326 Fulton Rd. NW, Sect. 23SE Jackson Twp. Area zoned B-3.

Mr. McDonnell read the file application signed by Deanna Workinger with reason being that they want to install two single face directional signs back to back on an existing pole sign.

The file contained a tax map of the property in question and surrounding properties, a sketch of the proposed sign, and a site plan of the proposed property. The reason for the appeal as written by the applicant is attached to the application.

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

Mr. McDonnell swore in Deanna Workinger of 13076 Barrs Rd. SW, Massillon, Ohio 44647.

Ms. Workinger stated that they would like to put a directional sign under the existing sign that was installed on the property for visual identification from Fulton Rd. Ms. Workinger stated that they felt that this was the best location for the sign so it could be seen and direct people to the apartments.

Ms. Workinger stated that the size of the sign was selected to keep it uniform with the existing sign and the height is so people can see around the sign because it is in the parking lot drive thru area.

Mr. McDonnell asked Ms. Workinger if she could speak to the reasons why the sign is required.

Ms. Workinger stated that there is no road frontage from Fulton, which is a very busy road, and people do not know where they are located. This could cause traffic problems if people are stopping to look for the property.

Mr. McDonnell asked Ms. Workinger if she has a feel for a practical difficulty or a significant disadvantage.

Ms. Workinger stated that Carolyn from Lake Cable is present and possibly could answer this. Ms. Workinger stated that she does not know if they are loosing business because she is not with the property. Mr. Workinger stated that from experience, if people can’t find the apartments they are not going come to them.

Mr. McDonnell asked what is the reason for the size of the sign.

Ms. Workinger stated that the width is 6 ft. and in order to get nice size lettering on it they had to make it 2 ft. in height for readability.

Mr. Giulitto asked if it is correct that the top part of the sign is lit at night.

Mr. Workinger stated this is correct.

Mr. Giulitto asked if the additional sign would also be lit.

Ms. Workinger stated yes.

Ms. McDonnell swore in Carolyn Kothmayer, Administrator of Applegate Property Management. Ms. Kothmayer stated that she manages the Lake Cable Village Apartments.

Ms. Kothmayer stated that Lake Cable Village Apartments is an apartment community behind Chubby’s with 600 units. Ms. Kothmayer stated that the apartments are the only thing back there so the road is like a driveway and people cannot tell that it is a road.

Ms. Kothmayer stated that the apartments are difficult for people to see from Fulton Rd. therefore it is difficult to find. Ms. Kothmayer stated that a sign would increase the visibility for leasing purposes and would be a service to the residents.

Ms. Kothmayer stated that the sign would have an arrow and feels that it would be a tremendous help in locating the apartments.

Mr. McDonnell asked if the families who live in the apartments need the sign.

Ms. Kothmayer stated not personally, they know where they live.

Mr. McDonnell asked if the people who visit them need the sign to find them.

Ms. Kothmayer stated that with good directions people could probably find it.

Mr. McDonnell asked if the people who are looking to lease or rent need the sign to find the apartments.

Ms. Kothmayer stated that if they call first they could get directions.

The board had no further questions and Ms. Kothmayer had no further comments.

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. McDonnell closed this appeal to public discussion.

Mr. McDonnell stated that it is a nice looking sign and he understands the reasons for the sign. The problem is that to him it is more of a destination stop as opposed to an impulse stop. Mr. McDonnell stated that it is his opinion this is more of a marketing tool and in not truly directional. Mr. McDonnell stated that although it is less obtrusive by sharing the pole with other facilities, the variance stays regardless of whether the ice cream and car wash business is there or not.

Mr. McDonnell stated that in his opinion the sign does not meet the definition of a directional sign and he will vote against the variance unless someone had some ideas that he has overlooked.

Mr. Giulitto asked Mr. Phillippi if the sign itself meets all the sign regulations regarding the sign size.

Mr. Phillippi stated that he has not looked at the dimensions of the lot to determine this but can quickly find out by looking at the lot size and doing the math.

Mr. Phillippi figured the permitted size and stated that the size would meet the regulations because a sign of 200-sq. ft. would be permitted and the entire sign is well under this.

Mr. Werner stated that he believes the sign is more of a marketing tool than a directional sign. Like the applicant said, people know where they live and when someone inquires how to get there they can be given directions. Mr. Werner stated that he would not be in favor of the appeal.

The board had no further comments.

Mr. Werner made a motion to deny appeal #1785.

Mr. Dodson seconded the motion.

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

Mr. McDonnell stated that the appeal has been denied.

Mr. McDonnell stated that if they do not agree with the board’s decision they can appeal to the common pleas court within 30 days.

APPEAL #1786 – Jackson Fastpitch Association of 8880 Margaret St. NW, Massillon, Ohio 44646 agent for Jackson Township Trustees, property owner, 5735 Wales Ave. NW, Massillon, Ohio 44646 requests a variance to allow 50 banners for 180 days each year for 5 years where 30 days is permitted every 6 months in Art. V Sect. 504.2 of the zoning resolution. Property location is Field #15 Jackson Township North Park, Sect. 21NW Jackson Twp. Area zoned R-R.

Mr. McDonnell read the file application signed by Joanne Tipton with reason being the banners are not visible from the road and are the main fundraising activity for the Jackson Fastpitch Association, which is dedicated to the youth of Jackson Twp.

The file contained a letter to the Jackson Township Trustees from Craig Snee requesting that the variance fee be waived, a tax map of the property in question, a map of the Jackson Township North Park showing the location of the field, and a drawing of the field fence for the proposed banners.

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

Mr. McDonnell swore in Joanne Tipton of 8880 Margaret St. NW, Massillon, Ohio 44646.

Ms. Tipton stated that she is the Vice President of Jackson Fastpitch, which is a new organization that is two years old with 150 girls in the association.

Ms. Tipton stated that they are non-profit and their major fundraiser is the advertising banners that are sold and put on the home run fence. Ms. Tipton stated that if they are not able to sell the signs then the increase in cost to each girl would be doubled and end up being $200.

Ms. Tipton stated that the signs would only face into the field and would not be seen from the road. The other organizations that play ball such as the JBA and the high school also sell signs on their home run fence as a fundraiser.

Mr. McDonnell asked if the sketch in the file is the home run fence.

Ms. Tipton stated that the fence was erected within the past year and the sketch is the schematic for the fence.

Mr. Giulitto asked what part of the fence the signs would be put on.

Ms. Tipton stated that there are 39 banners on the outfield part of the fence and it is full. However, the banners could run down the side of the fence but not too far because people need to see the game.

Mr. McDonnell asked what the banners are made of.

Ms. Tipton stated that they are purple with gold lettering and are 8 ft. wide and 4 ft. in height. Ms. Tipton stated that the banner are professionally made by Pro-decal.

Mr. McDonnell asked if the request for 50 banners is to allow for expansion.

Ms. Tipton stated yes.

Mr. McDonnell asked why the banners needed to be up for 180 days.

Ms. Tipton stated that the season varies according to the age of the players. Some teams start in April and tournaments could run until September and they would like to have the signs up during all the playing time.

Mr. McDonnell asked why the request is for five years.

Ms. Tipton stated that this is what the boys did and she copied from them.

Mr. Werner stated that Ms. Tipton had stated that other teams do the same thing and asked if the other teams take theirs down and then Ms. Tipton puts her signs up.

Ms. Tipton stated no; they have their own field.

Mr. Phillippi stated that the five-year time period was suggested by the BZA when the boy’s organization came in for a variance. Instead of coming in every year and asking for a variance, it was suggest that they asked for a period of five years to have the signs.

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. McDonnell closed this appeal to public discussion.

Mr. Dodson stated that he understands that they have to consider each application on its own merits but in this case the only difference he can see from what they’ve done in the past is that it is a women’s fastpitch association. Mr. Dodson stated that he would have a hard time saying no to this group when other people do the same thing.

Mr. Werner stated that he agrees with Mr. Dodson and everything is in good gesture.

Mr. McDonnell stated that he agrees with the other board members. The 180 days and five year time period make sense. Mr. McDonnell stated that organizations like this have to be able to plan for the future and can’t go season to season wondering if they are going to have the funds to operate. The five-year time period also gives the applicant the opportunity three or four years down the road to come back and apply for another five years to being at the expiration of the first five-year time period. Mr. McDonnell stated that this is a good cause and makes sense to him.

Mr. Dodson made a motion to approve appeal #1786 as requested.

Mr. Werner seconded the motion.

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

Mr. McDonnell stated that the appeal has been approved.

The board went off record for five minutes.

The board went back on record.

APPEAL #1787 – Mark Steiner of 12000 Arnold Rd., Orrville, Ohio 44667 agent for Dayspring Christian Fellowship Inc., property owner, of 733 W. Maple St., North Canton, Ohio 44720 requests a conditional use permit for a church where a conditional use permit is required in Art. IV Sect. 401.3 of the zoning resolution. Property location is 3.83 acres on the east side of Wales, 840 ft., more or less, south of Portage St., Sect. 15NW Jackson Twp. Area zoned R-R.

Mr. McDonnell read the file application signed by Mark Steiner with reasons being that a conditional use permit is required for a church in an R-R district.

The file contained a tax map of the property in question and surrounding properties, an 11 x 17-inch copy of the site plan, a full size copy of the site plan, and the responses to the criteria for the conditional use permit.

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

Mr. McDonnell swore in Mark Steiner of 12000 Arnold Rd., Orrville, Ohio 44667.

Mr. Steiner stated that he is the Co-Chairman for the building committee for the project. Mr. Steiner stated that the church has been meeting at Stark State College for about 10 years and has an attendance of about 100 people.

Mr. Steiner stated that he feels the property in question is good for the development of a church and they have been working with the zoning department to obtain the property permits.

Mr. Steiner stated the large drawing was prepared by Mr. McCullough and the answers to the criteria for the permit speaks to Mr. McCullough being a registered engineer and preparing the drawing.

Mr. McDonnell asked Mr. Phillippi if he has reviewed the plan and if it meets all the setback requirements.

Mr. Phillippi stated that he had reviewed the plan and it meets all the setbacks for the building and parking.

Mr. McDonnell asked if the amount of required parking spaces have been met.

Mr. Phillippi stated that there are 84 parking spaces shown but the parking requirement is based on the seating capacity which in not shown on the plan.

Mr. Steiner stated that the maximum capacity would be 225 to 250.

Mr. Phillippi stated that the maximum seating permitted for 84 parking spaces would be 252.

Mr. McDonnell asked if 250 would be the maximum seating.

Mr. Steiner stated yes. There would be maximum of 250 seats.

Mr. McDonnell stated that the landscaping, being in an R-R area is not required.

Mr. Phillippi stated this is correct. Landscaping is not a requirement in the R-R district.

Mr. McDonnell asked Mr. Phillippi if he is aware of anything that does not meet the zoning requirements.

Mr. Phillippi stated that the design requirements are met however there are some other requirements that will have to be complied with. One is the submission and approval by the Stark County Regional Planning Commission (RPC). Mr. Phillippi stated that one of RPC’s conditions is that there is an approved drainage plan prepared by a registered engineer. The driveway entrance would also require approval from the State.

Mr. McDonnell asked if Mr. Phillippi looked at the driveway entrance with relationship to the intersection of Portage and Wales.

Mr. Phillippi stated yes. It meets all of the township standards regarding the distance and driveway width.

Mr. Steiner stated that they have made application to the State but have not heard back from them yet.

Mr. McDonnell stated that Mr. Werner would review the criteria for the conditional use permit.

Mr. Werner review section 431.2 and Mr. Steiner answered as follows:

431.2(A)-Will not be detrimental to the neighboring property values.
(B)-The proposed facility should not restrict or adversely affect the existing use of adjacent property owners.
(C)-Application has been made to the State of Ohio for an entrance drive onto Wales Road to meet state requirements.
(D)-They agree to meet EPA requirements if applicable.
(E)-The property will be landscaped to enhance visual appeal and will satisfy any requirements that may apply.
(F)-The facility will be constructed and maintained according to standard safety requirements.

Mr. McDonnell stated that he would like to point out as Mr. Phillippi indicated that section 411.9 regarding landscaping does not apply for a Rural Residential District.

Mr. Werner reviewed section 431.3 and Mr. Steiner answered as follows:

431.3(A&B)-They agree to all the conditions set forth in A and B.

(C-1)-They anticipate the facility will be used in a manner considered to be normal hours for a church building.

Mr. McDonnell asked what the hours would be.

Mr. Steiner stated they would have Sunday morning and evening services as well as mid-week evening services. Mr. Steiner stated that the pastoral staff and secretary would have offices in the building.

(C-2)-The proposed vehicular entrance location exceeds the minimum footage set forth in 2A &B.

(C-3)-Outside lighting will be used as needed to maintain facility security.

Mr. McDonnell asked what type of lighting would be used for the parking lot.

Mr. Steiner stated possibly a pole light at the end of the parking areas with soft lighting.

Mr. Werner asked if it would be safe to say that it would be down lighting.

Mr. Steiner stated yes, it would be down lighting.

(C-4)-Floodlights, searchlights and loudspeakers will not be used in a manner to cause public annoyance or hazard.

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

Mr. Steiner stated no.

(C-5)-All trash receptacles will be screened from view.

(C-6)-They have employed the services for William D. McCullough P.E. to engineer grading and drainage in accordance with Stark County Subdivision Engineer requirements.

Mr. Werner reviewed section 431.6(F) and Mr. Steiner answered as follows:

    431.6(F-1)-Meets requirements.

    (F-2)-They agree but there is a question as to what is meant by Children’s activities. They do not foresee any children’s activities outside such as playgrounds. There maybe something down the road but he understands that they would have to come back before the board.

    (F-3)-The building does not exceed the 75-ft. height requirement.

Mr. McDonnell asked if this includes the steeple.

Mr. Steiner stated that there is no steeple proposed for the church.

(F-4)-They agree to this. They propose being a good neighbor.

(F-5)-The plan meets this requirement.

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

Mr. Giulitto asked if there is a day care proposed for the future.

Mr. Steiner stated no. He can’t say never but this is not proposed for the future. Mr. Steiner stated that he understands that if a day care were to be added that he would have to come back to the board.

The board had no further questions and Mr. McDonnell closed this appeal to pubic discussion.

Mr. McDonnell stated the he believes the plan meets all the requirements for the conditional use permit and will not be detrimental to the neighborhood. Mr. McDonnell stated that the drainage plan needs to be prepared and approved by the Stark County Engineer and the driveway approved by the State. Mr. McDonnell stated that he believes this is a good proposal that meets all of the requirements and sees no reason to not vote for it.

Mr. Werner stated that he agrees with Mr. McDonnell and has no problem with the request.

Mr. McDonnell stated that he see no reason to put any conditions on the permit regarding RPC approval or the drainage plan approval because it would not go forward without it.

Mr. McDonnell made a motion to approve appeal #1787 as requested.

Mr. Dodson seconded the motion.

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

Mr. Werner made a motion to approve the minutes from May 9, 2002 and Mr. Dodson seconded the motion.

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

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

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

Respectfully submitted,

Joni Poindexter
Zoning Data Coordinator
Clerk/Secretary