Members present:                                                        Ted Deremer
                                                                                        Edward McDonnell
                                                                                        Richard Dodson
                                                                                       Jim Giulitto
                                                                                       John Juergensen
 
Absent Member:                                                          Eric Oldroyd
Zoning Inspector:                                                         Joni Poindexter
Zoning Date Coordinator:                                          Andrea Paumier
 

Appeal 2075 – Jenco Construction, 90 16th St. SW Suite B, Barberton, OH 44203 agent for property owner, North Canton Commerce One, C/O Ohio Realty Advisors, 3623 Brecksville, Richville, OH 44286 request a variance for a 2.67 ft. north parking setback with no landscaping where 20 ft. with landscaping is required per Art. IV Sect. 411.8 & 411.9 of the zoning resolution. Property located at 7500 Freedon, Sect. 12NE Jackson Twp. zoned I-1.

Mr. Deremer read the application and contents of the file.

Mr. Deremer swore in Brian Lovette, 1400 22nd St. NE, Canton.

Mr. Lovette stated that the site plan noted A-1, there is in fact, according to the code, more parking spaces then what is required for this particular building, however that is still not enough parking spaces. As you can see from that site plan, they are in the process of adding on 12,000 sq. ft. to this building. More square footage means more employees. Materials are staged in parking spots because of the lack of space. Having those materials staged there also means that employees are double parking at times. By adding this parking area to the north side, this will help the parking situation. As far as the landscaping, the design from Mr. Mosyjowski gives one in such that it does slope from the building down towards the existing ditch that is in place. There isn’t a drainage pattern in place. This is the most logical and most cost effective design.

Mr. Deremer asked if the drainage pattern already existed.

Mr. Lovette stated yes, it naturally slopes into that ditch.

Mr. McDonnell asked what the existing business here.

Mr. Lovette stated it is an architectural, metal business. Manufacture of curtain wall systems for high rise buildings and casinos.

Mr. McDonnell asked if they needed more parking because of future employment.

Mr. Lovette stated that there will be additional employment because of the 12,000 sq. ft. addition. The hiring of 2-3 employees isn’t a major factor in the reason for the parking variance. They do not have the parking space for the employees. According to the code, enough spaces are shown but because of the work over flow and the deliveries a lot of the material is stored in the parking lot.

Mr. McDonnell stated if he was correct in saying that they are adding onto the existing building.

Mr. Lovette stated yes.

Mr. McDonnell asked where the front of the building is located.

Mr. Lovette stated that the building faces the west.

Mr. McDonnell asked Ms. Poindexter why is it a 5 ft. setback for the side yard opposed to a 20 ft. setback.

Ms. Poindexter stated when you abut a street you require a 20 ft. parking setback even though it is a side yard, as opposed to a 5 ft. setback. If there was not a street there it would be a 5 ft. setback for the side yard.

Mr. McDonnell asked if Ms. Poindexter was referring to Section 411.8 (C), page 67.

Ms. Poindexter stated that is correct.

Mr. McDonnell asked Mr. Lovette if there are enough parking spaces for the employees if this company doesn’t store the material outside.

Mr. Lovette stated yes, but Mr. Lovette wouldn’t call it “storage”, the company has deliveries daily. The materials are “staged” outside, which are moved inside daily.

Mr. McDonnell asked if the parking area would be reduced due to the 12,000 sq. ft. addition.

Mr. Lovette stated no.

Mr. Deremer asked what is to stop this company to use this additional parking, if approved, for storage or staging of the materials.

Mr. Lovette stated he is unable to answer Mr. Deremer’s question.

Mr. McDonnell asked what side of the existing building the addition is being built.

Mr. Lovette stated the addition is being constructed on the south side of the building.

Mr. McDonnell asked if there is currently concrete where they are staging a lot of the material.

Mr. Lovette stated yes.

McDonnell asked if there is currently any parking where the addition is being built.

Mr. Lovette stated no it is currently gated.

Mr. McDonnell asked why is a variance being requested on the north side when the addition is on the south side and parking is not currently occurring on the south side. But you’re asking for a variance on the north side for more parking and the company is only adding 2-3 more employees.

Mr. Lovette stated that there is currently a parking disaster. The companies efforts are to correct this problem on top of the fact that there currently isn’t an accessible entrance to the facility and in approval of the variance there will be two accessible entrances. As the parking is now, there is roughly eleven steps from the handicap parking to the building. The Stark County Building Department was willing to allow the company to place handicap accessible parking next to the addition, but this area is gated, a lot of materials, and there is constantly tow motors and equipment running in and out.

Mr. Lovette stated he understands the questioning of why ask for a north side parking variance when the buildings addition is being constructed on the south side of the building, but as you see in the photograph and site plan A-1, the company is running out of room.

Mr. McDonnell asked if anyone has investigated the possibility of leasing the black top area for parking.

Mr. Lovette stated that the area Mr. McDonnell is asking about is actually a gravel parking lot with a small section on the east side that is asphalt, which is heavily traveled by truck drivers.

Mr. McDonnell asked if he was correct in saying that part of the problem is the company staging material all over the property, if the Board grants the variance, what is to stop the company to start staging materials over the existing black top and having the same parking problem as they have now.

Mr. Lovette stated that the materials would not be staged there due to the parking problem and additional pressure  from the employees.

Mr. Giulitto asked Mr. Lovette if some of the employees park in the open black top lot now.

Mr. Lovette stated no.

Mr. Giulitto asked what percentage of the existing parking lot is being used to stage material now.

Mr. Lovette stated about fifteen to twenty percent.

Mr. Deremer asked on the existing property, where is the parking supposed to be.

Mr. Lovette stated parking is supposed to be on the west side.

Mr. Deremer stated that the company basically wants to take the parking from the west side and move it to the north side.

Mr. Lovette stated yes.

Mr. McDonnell asked if there is currently landscaping on the north side where the variance is being requested.

Mr. Lovette stated no.

Mr. McDonnell asked if the setback is currently 20 ft.

Mr. Lovette stated that is correct.

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

No one in the audience spoke in opposition of the appeal.

Mr. McDonnell asked Ms. Poindexter there currently isn’t landscaping on the north side, is that because previous zoning regulations didn’t require landscaping.

Ms. Poindexter stated she believed so, otherwise landscaping would have been required there.

Mr. Deremer closed this appeal to public input.

Mr. Deremer stated that if the appeal were to be granted for the parking setback, some conditions should be set that the north parking be used for parking only and not for staging of any materials of any sort.

Mr. McDonnell asked Mr. Deremer if he stated that the north side of the building is currently black top.

Mr. McDonnell states that he believes that landscaping will interfere with the natural flow of water into the drainage ditch. Mr. McDonnell stated he has no problem with the lack of landscaping but what he is questioning is the variance for a ninety percent parking setback.

Mr. McDonnell agreed with Mr. Deremer that if the appeal is granted for the parking setback, conditions should be set that not only the north side be reserved for parking only and not staging of materials but none of the parking indicated on the plans shall be used for staging material. It shall be dedicated and reserved only for parking since lack of parking is part of the problem.

Mr. Giulitto agrees with Mr. McDonnell and that his biggest concern is as well, the staging of materials on the parking variance. As long as the Board puts these conditions into the variance, he has no problem approving the variance.

Mr. McDonnell asked if the issue can be divided into two variances, one being the north parking setback and two being the landscaping.

Mr. Deremer does not agree, they are one in the same.

Mr. McDonnell made the motion to approve appeal No. 2075 with the condition that all parking spaces and all area for parking as designated in the plans that were submitted to the Board this evening shall be restricted to parking only and shall not be used for staging of any material, product, etc.

Mr. Juergensen stated that the conditions should also include the two ft. of green space be maintained along the street frontage.

Mr. McDonnell stated that condition number two will be all area between the north parking area as indicated in the plans shall remain grass and green space between the parking area and the road.

Mr. Dodson seconded the motion.

The vote was: Mr. Juergensen – Yes, Mr. Giulitto – Yes, Mr. Dodson – Yes, Mr. McDonnell – No, and Mr. Deremer – Yes.

Appeal 2076 – Brian Earlenbaugh, agent for property owner Lindsey Snyder, 3254 Bloomsbury Cir. NW, Canton, Oh 44708, request a variance for a zero ft. setback where a 5 ft. setback is required from the street right of way for fencing per Art. IV Sect. 401.11 of the zoning resolution. Property owner located at 3254 Bloomsbury Cir., Sect. 34NW, JacksonTwp. zoned R-1

Mr. Deremer read the application and contents of the file.
 
Mr. Deremer swore in Brian Earlenbaugh, 3254 Bloomsbury Cir., Canton.

Mr. Earlenbaugh stated that he would like to construct a fence along the rear of the property. This property previously had a fence that was seven ft. from the road when it was a rental property. The renters were evicted and at that time took the fence down with a chain saw.

Mr. Earlenbaugh stated that the fence he would like to construct would actually be eleven ft. from the road. So there will be eleven ft. in between the road and the fence.

Mr. Giulitto asked if he was correct in saying that Mr. Earlenbaugh stated that this fence will be the same grade as the neighbors. Please elaborate.

Mr. Earlenbaugh stated the neighbor’s fence is actually right on his property line as well. There is actually an area of landscaping island that he will be taking out in order to construct the fence. He stated that he will be eliminating landscaping so the fence will run concurrent with the neighbors fence.

Mr. Giulitto asked Mr. Earlenbaugh if his neighbor’s fence and his fence would be the same distance from the road.

Mr. Earlenbaugh stated yes.

Mr. McDonnell stated that the fence will be eleven ft. from the road but the road right of way is obviously wider then the edge of the road.
Mr. Earlenbaugh stated that is correct. My property is the only one to face Harris Ave.

Mr. McDonnell asked Mr. Earlenbaugh if the neighbor being referred to is on the corner of Twickenham and Harris.

Mr. Earlenbaugh stated yes.

Mr. McDonnell stated that the neighbor currently has a fence.

Mr. Earlenbaugh stated yes, it is on Harris.

Mr. McDonnell asked if the neighbor’s fence was currently eleven feet off the road.

Mr. Earlenbaugh stated yes.

Mr. McDonnell asked Mr. Earlenbaugh if he had to meet the five ft. setback, how far from the road would the fence be.

Mr. Earlenbaugh stated it would be another five feet, so the fence would be sixteen feet off the road.

Mr. McDonnell asked what the problem is with the fence being sixteen feet from the road.

Mr. Earlenbaugh stated that the problem is that the extra five feet would be a large chunk of his property. He stated he has two small children, five and three and going another five feet in takes up a lot of the property.

Mr. McDonnell asked Ms. Poindexter here is testimony that the neighbor has a fence that does not meet the setback, has the regulation changed or is the neighbor in violation of the setback.

Ms. Poindexter stated that the fencing regulations have changed, she believes that in 98’ or so the regulation was not in the zoning regulation book. Since the date is unknown to when the neighbor constructed the fence and Ron Revlock went to that property to investigate the fence and he stated that the fence has been there for a while. So a violation was not sent to the neighbor.

Mr. McDonnell stated that to his understanding that for many years there was not any zoning regulation to where the fence had to be. The fence could be constructed right on the property line.

Ms. Poindexter stated this is correct, and as of now the fence can go right on the property line, but the zoning regulation also states the fence has to be five feet from the road right of way.

Mr. McDonnell asked if he was correct in saying that if Mr. Earlenbaugh wanted to construct a fence between his neighbor on Twickenham and Harris he could put the fence right on the property line.

Ms. Poindexter stated that is correct.

Mr. McDonnell stated that the reason the Board is meeting for this fence variance is because of the road right of way.

Ms. Poindexter stated that is correct.

Mr. Deremer stated there are corrections to be made to the contents of the file previously read. The decision being appealed: Construction of a fence on the property line. The fence would not be at a five ft. variance but is a zero ft. variance. Per Art. IV, Sect. 401.11.

Mr. Juergensen asked Mr. Earlenbaugh what the fence would be constructed out of.

Mr. Earlenbaugh stated the fence material is vinyl, six ft. privacy fence.

Mr. Deremer stated that he noticed that his property is located on a cul-de-sac, what is odd about the shape of this property compared to everyone else’s.

Mr. Earlenbaugh stated that the only significant difference is that his property is the only one that faces Harris Ave. which is a forty mile an hour road.

Mr. Giulitto asked Mr. Earlenbaugh how long he has lived in this home.

Mr. Earlenbaugh stated since August of 2006.

No one else spoke in favor or the appeal.

No one else spoke in opposition of the appeal.

Mr. Juergensen asked Ms. Poindexter if he was correct in saying that as far as to her knowledge there is no variance given to the neighbor for his fence.

Ms. Poindexter stated that is correct.

Mr. Deremer closed the appeal to public input.

Mr. Juergensen stated that there is no testimony stating that the neighbor is in violation and since Mr. Earlenbaugh would like to construct the fence to match the depth of the neighbor’s fence. He also stated that Mr. Earlenbaugh made an interesting point about the safety issue regarding Harris Ave.

Mr. Dodson made a motion to approve appeal no. 2076

Mr. Juergensen seconded the motion.

The vote was: Mr. Juergensen – Yes, Mr. Giulitto – Yes, Mr. Dodson – Yes, Mr. Mc. Donnell – Yes, and Mr. Deremer – Yes

Appeal 2066 – Thomas Winkhart, 825 S. Main St., N. Canton, OH 44720, agent for Campbell Oil Co., 611 Erie St. S, Massillon, OH 44646, property owner, requests a variance for a 5 ft. rear building setback where 16 ft. is required and a zero ft. setback for a detached dumpster enclosure where 5 ft. is required per Art. IV Sect. 411.5 & 411.10 of the zoning resolution. Property located at 5508 Wales NW, Sect. 21NE Jackson Twp.
Zoned B-3. This appeal was originally continued March 22, 2007.

Mr. Giulitto recused from appeal no. 2066.

Mr. Deremer read the application and contents of the file

Mr. Deremer swore in Attorney Thomas Winkhart, 7008 Victoria Court.

Mr. Winkhart stated that Campbell Oil is currently the owner of a 0.69 acre parcel at the North east corner of Fulton and Wales. Campbell Oil owns and operates the Bell store, Marathon gas station that also contains a Subway restaurant.

Mr. Deremer marked the site plan provided by Mr. Winkhart as exhibit 1. This is the most current plan/layout from Campbell Oil.

Mr. Winkhart stated that the current site plan shows four entrances. Two on Wales and two on Fulton. As part of the intersection project, ODOT has taken away one of those access points on both Wales and Fulton and has limited the Fulton access to a right turn in, right turn out only, and that is shown on site plan labeled exhibit 1. Also, the township was able to acquire an extra $800,000 towards this project, which the township is paying for almost exclusively. In consideration to that $800,000 agreed to allow the construction of a three foot wide concrete median strip that will extend from the intersection along Fulton going to the east to a point somewhere in front of Dad’s Car Wash. As part of the safety litigation dollars that the township was able to acquire for this concrete strip the property owners on the north side of Fulton take a significant hit from the access stand point because by design it will impede any kind of traffic flowing out of those properties onto Fulton going to the east and will also limit any left hand turns off of Fulton of traffic traveling east going into both the shopping center access point and also the Campbell Oil service station and convince store facility. Campbell Oil is the only property owner that has not settled with ODOT in this matter because of reconstruction of the facility. Campbell Oil is not opposed to the intersection project. Traffic pulling in and out of the service station creates an unsafe situation at certain parts of the day. ODOT is going to be adding two and three lanes to the current Fulton road area around this gas station. As part of this, ODOT is acquiring a portion of Campbell Oil’s frontage along both Wales and Fulton. Campbell Oil has a relationship with Buehler’s for gas cards for grocery points. The variance is necessary to avoid the hardship or practical difficulty created as a result of the intersection widening project and to allow Campbell Oil to continue to provide these necessary services at the heart of our Township. The proposed plan, which is changes since the application was submitted, is to demolish the existing canopy and the existing store and reorient the store from an east, west orientation to a north, south orientation. In our experience in this type of business, having a pump orientation that is out in front of the building creates a better traffic flow on the already limited site. ODOT has approved the curb cuts that are shown on the site plan labeled exhibit 1. Campbell Oil was able to accomplish a deal with the owner of Foxboro Square shopping center. Both Campbell Oil and Foxboro Square are prepared to enter into a ground lease agreement to the east of the proposed store in exhibit 1, the area surround by the black doted line. That is a 30 foot area of property that is actually on the Foxboro Square proper parcel. The ground lease contemplates leasing that 30 foot strip from them. By adding the ground lease Mr. Winkhart stated that he believed that by taking away from the need for the variance because that would give Campbell Oil more then enough room on the east side of the building. In a meeting with Ms. Poindexter, Mr. Winkhart was corrected that the 30 foot strip of parking will not be intergraded into the fee simple parcel that Campbell Oil owns. Therefore, while Campbell Oil will be controlling that parcel, it does not take away the need for the variance. As you can see in exhibit 1, Campbell Oil is proposing to move the dumpster to that piece of property to strike that as parking along that side of the building. Also, as part of the deal with Foxboro Square, Campbell Oil will pave an area that is shaded a dark grey in exhibit 1, all the way out to the access driveway. Also with the ground lease, an access easement agreement between the two parcels which you can see on the far south side of the Campbell Oil property on exhibit 1. A diesel fuel pump will also be added to the new building in hopes that it will be used for Township fire and rescue vehicles. The ground lease is not signed by either party at this point due to the variance request in question.

Mr. Dodson asked Mr. Winkhart what the term is for the ground lease.

Mr. Winkhart stated that it is a 20 year lease agreement with our ability to extend.

Mr. Juergensen asked if the ODOT widening the intersection is in turn leading Campbell Oil to change the layout of the property and building to basically tear down and rebuild it and because of that you need the variances.

Mr. Winkhart stated yes, Campbell Oil was not seeking to rebuild the store.

Mr. Juergensen stated that the dumpster is being proposed to be located on the Foxboro Square property and not Campbell Oil’s property.

Mr. Winkhart stated that is correct, because of the lease agreement Campbell oil is allowed to place the dumpster there.

Mr. Winkhart stated that the dumpster variance was submitted with the original application and site plan. With the new ground lease agreement the dumpster variance part of the appeal is being revoked by the property owner, Campbell Oil.

Mr. Juergensen stated that the only variance in question is the 5 foot rear building setback where 16 feet is required.

Mr. Winkhart stated that is correct.

Mr. McDonnell asked how much on Wales, the frontage being lost due to the widening project.

Mr. Winkhart stated it varies from 5-10 feet.

Mr. McDonnell asked Mr. Winkhart how much square footage will be lost due to the widening.

Mr. Winkhart stated 175 sq. ft. on Wales and 175 sq. ft. on Fulton.

Mr. McDonnell asked if the new store will be bigger then the existing building.

Mr. Winkhart stated that the new building plans aren’t finalized, but the plan is to build a bigger store.

Mr. Deremer asked Mr. Winkhart if he knew what the setback was on the north side of the property from the store.

Mr. Winkhart stated it is 5 feet on both the east and north side.

Ms. Poindexter stated that the application that was submitted was just for the rear.

Mr. Winkhart stated that he believes Ms. Poindexter and himself looked at this predicament very closely and because of the street frontage on both sides, both can be considered the rear.

Mr. Deremer stated that the address is off Wales.

Mr. Deremer read the application again.

Mr. Winkhart stated that both can be considered rear because the property in question is a corner lot.

Mr. Deremer stated that on corner lots you can designate the front. In this case the frontage is Wales.

Ms. Poindexter stated that to her understanding the 16 ft. variance was on the east side.

Ms. Poindexter stated that she does not recall discussing the variance of the north side with Mr. Winkhart.

Mr. Deremer marked the ground lease as exhibit 2.

Mr. McDonnell stated that the Board has no authority to grant the north side variance at this time since that part of the application was not advertised. The Board may consider both the variances at a later date, or continue with the rear variance as the application states at this time.

Mr. Winkhart asked if Campbell Oil can in fact elect which is the rear property since this is a corner lot.

Mr. Deremer stated that it would still be a 16 foot variance for either side. The premises being effected is shown as 5508 Wales.

Mr. Winkhart stated that the Boards decisions at this time would be limited to the east property line. So if we switch the address, which we can clearly do, then that would not change this decision.

Mr. Juergensen stated that paragraph 8 of the ground lease agreement indicates that the leaser has the right to terminate the lease at any time for good or no reason.

Mr. Winkhart stated that is correct.

Mr. Juergensen stated that his concern is if the Board would grant the variance, and the leaser terminates the lease. So there is no guarantee that this will stay parking spaces.

Mr. Winkhart stated that is correct. The parking spaces are not needed to comply with  zoning.

Mr. Juergensen stated that is his concern, that the litigating factor which is the ground lease agreement can be revoked by the leaser at anytime.

Mr. Winkhart requests that the variance as stated on the application be continued at this time, because of ODOT, Campbell may need to apply for another variance with the landscaping.

Mr. Juergensen asked Mr. Winkhart what the reason is for having the building 16 feet from the east property line.

Mr. Winkhart stated that because of the modification of the access points of the building,  the building would be much smaller then proposed.

Mr. Juergensen asked that if ODOT did not take part of the property for the intersection project would Campbell Oil then be able to comply.

Mr. Winkhart stated that the problem is more with where ODOT allows the entrances and exits.

Mr. Juergensen asked if he was correct in saying that the property right now is in compliance.

Mr. Winkhart stated yes.

Mr. McDonnell asked Mr. Winkhart if the size of the building has not been determined yet, then how would the Board know that a variance of 5 ft. from the rear is required as opposed to a variance or 7 plus feet or no variance at all.

Mr. Winkhart stated that the reason he said the building has not been designed yet is because ODOT has not taken their land yet. The parking lot may need to be further back from Wales and Fulton based on an approvable landscape plan.

Mr. McDonnell asked when Campbell Oil will find out how much ODOT is going to take.

Mr. Winkhart stated that they have the deeds, and know what they are going to take. The question is what will be approved by way of the landscape plans by the Township. The land is currently .7 acres and getting smaller.

Mr. Deremer asked Mr. Winkhart if the new orientation as proposed, is this a more modern layout.

Mr. Winkhart stated yes, it is more consistent with the facility that has been constructed on Traphagen and Wales. Of course there will not be a car wash.
Mr. Juergensen stated that it may be less then an 11 ft. variance, it could be 6 or 7 ft. from the property line, it just would not be closer then 5 ft.

Mr. Winkhart stated that is correct.

Mr. Winkhart stated that on the north side of the building there is an AT&T vault that sits right at the property line, all the wires and such lead west towards a utility pool and that vault can not move.

Mr. Deremer asked if anyone would like to speak in favor of the appeal.

No one else in the audience spoke.

Mr. Deremer asked if anyone would like to speak in opposition of the appeal.

Mr. Winkhart asked Mr. Deremer that it be stated in the records that there is no one else in the audience.

Mr. Deremer closed to public input.

Mr. Juergensen stated that he understands the variance request due to ODOT and the widening of the road. It is to Mr. Juergensens understanding that the existing building is in compliance but with ODOT taking some of the property, it does create difficulty in the reconstruction of the property. Concern is that the leaser may revoke the ground lease at any given time.

Mr. McDonnell stated that he understands the practical difficulty with regards to the taking by ODOT of the property, and losing 3,000 – 3,500 sq ft. is a lot for that already small piece of property. Mr. Mcdonnell stated that he also understands Mr. Juergensens concern with the lease agreement.

Mr. McDonnell stated that he is having difficulty approving with no dimensions of the new building.

Mr. Deremer stated that based on what is being presented to the Board, he agrees the 5 ft. variance on the east side is justifiable.

Mr. Juergensen made a motion to approve appeal no. 2066 relating to the 5 ft. rear setback where 16 ft. is required, motion referring to the east property line, subject to the condition of the ground lease, which was presented to the Board just tonight is fully executed by both parties prior to the issuance of a permit.

Mr. Dodson seconded the motion.

The vote was: Mr. Juergensen – Yes, Mr. Dodson – Yes, McDonnell – Yes, Mr. Deremer – Yes.

Mr. Juergensen made a motion to adjourn the meeting.

All was in favor.

Respectfully Submitted,

Andrea Paumier
Zoning Data Coordinator