Members present:                                                            Ted Deremer
                                                                                            Edward McDonnell
                                                                                            Jim Giulitto
                                                                                            John Juergensen

Absent:                                                                               Richard Dodson
                                                                                            Eric Oldroyd
 
Zoning Inspector:                                                             Joni Poindexter
Zoning Coordinator:                                                         Lori Foutz

APPEAL #2037 – Theresa Flynn, 8451 Fulton Dr NW, Massillon, OH 44646, property owner, Jeffrey Sponseller, 4426 Golden Eagle Rd, Massillon, OH 44646, applicant, request a variance for a 50 ft. minimum lot width at the 100 ft. setback where 100 ft. is required per Art. IV, Sect. 401.5 of the zoning resolution.  Property located at 8451 Fulton Dr, Massillon, Sect. 20NE Jackson Twp.  Area zoned R-R.

Mr. Deremer read the application signed by Sherry Sponseller and the reason for the appeal as listed in the file.  The file contained a site plan reflecting the proposed addition, a mortgage survey prepared by Campbell & Associates dated 12/27/04, and a letter from home owner giving her permission for Jeffrey Sponseller to act on her behalf.  Also in the file was an overview map of the parcel and adjoining parcels.

Mr. Deremer swore in Jeffrey Sponseller, 4426 Golden Eagle Rd, Massillon, OH 44646, to speak on behalf of the application.

Mr. Sponseller stated he and his wife would like to buy the property that sits at 8451 Fulton Drive.  He distributed a packet to each board member.  Ideally they would like to split into two parcels and build a home on the back half of the lot.  He stated there is a house that sits in the front of the parcel.  Zoning requires you have 50 ft. of frontage and at 100 ft. back you must open up to 100 ft.  At 100 ft. back it would open up in the middle of the garage of the existing house.  His request is to open up at 250 ft. back.  He referred to the property that sits to the west of this property, and stated this is what he would like to do.

Mr. Deremer asked if the current property owner is okay with having a smaller portion of the lot.

Mr. Sponseller stated Theresa Flynn currently owns the property and also owns the home to the west.  They would buy the property as it is now if the variance is granted.

Mr. McDonnell asked what the status is of the house in the front.

Mr. Sponseller stated the house is vacant.  It is in good shape and has about 3,000 square feet.

Mr. McDonnell asked what his intent is with the existing house.

Mr. Sponseller stated they plan to buy the property and split the lot.  The will sell the existing home in front and build in the back part of the property.

Mr. McDonnell asked how he arrived at the 50 ft.  He asked why not 60 or 70 feet.

Mr. Sponseller stated opening at 60-70 ft. wide would be at mid driveway of existing house.

Mr. Deremer asked what the lot acreage would be after the lots are split.

Mr. Sponseller stated the front would be 1.42 acres and the back parcel would be 3.6 acres.

Mr. Deremer asked if he contacted Regional Planning.

Mr. Sponseller stated he is scheduled to meet with them on July 10, 2006.  The variance they need from R.P.C. is the property can not exceed 3 ½ times the average width

Mr. Giulitto asked about drainage pipes on the property.

Mr. Sponseller stated they are to the far west of the property.

Mr. Deremer asked where the sewer line runs on the property.

Mr. Sponseller drew the sewer line in red ink on the packet he handed out earlier.  It would be at 50 ft. of the new property.

Mr. Deremer marked the packet Exhibit 1.

Mr. McDonnell referred to the mortgage location survey.  He clarified the request for 50 ft. width up to 250 ft line and then 250 ft. line to 100 feet.  After this point he could not tell the remainder.  He asked what the lot width is from this point.

Mr. Sponseller stated it would be 334 ft. across the back.

Mr. McDonnell clarified they are requesting 100 ft. lot width to 400 ft. line and 220 lot width to remainder.

Mr. Sponseller stated that is correct.

Mr. McDonnell asked Ms. Poindexter if all other setbacks would be met.

Ms. Poindexter answered yes.

No one in the audience spoke in favor or opposition of the application.  The meeting was closed to public input and the board deliberated.

Mr. Deremer stated this lot is a traditional long and narrow rural lot.  Many years ago was used as a small farm versus today a single family home.  The lot is 224 ft. wide and 1,000 ft. long.  The applicant demonstrated they are able to meet the resolution with the new home.  The lot next to this one is a mirror of what will be done.  He does not have a problem with this request.

Mr. Giulitto stated he concurs with Mr. Deremer.  He also feels they have met the practical difficulty due to 100 ft. setback from road would fall in the middle of the existing garage.

Mr. McDonnell stated he would like to add conditions on the appeal if the board grants the variance.  The first condition would be approval is specific to the request made by the applicant both in testimony and mortgage survey submitted.  The other condition is that Theresa Flynn, property owner, is not obligated to sell the property if the board grants the variance.

Mr. Deremer stated he does not have a problem with the conditions added.

Mr. McDonnell made a motion to approve appeal #2037 with the following conditions: specific to mortgage survey map presented and testimony of applicant; and property owner is not obligated to sell property due to board’s decision.

Mr. Giulitto seconded the motion.

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

APPEAL #2035 – S. Frank Professional Bldg, 8060 Frank Ave NW, North Canton, OH 44720, property owners, Jon Scheetz, 8060 Frank Ave, NW, North Canton, OH 44720, applicant, request a revision to a previously approved conditional use permit #CU339 for a child day care center where a conditional use permit is required per Art. IV, Sect. 411.3 of the zoning resolution.  Property located at 6199 Frank Ave, NW, North Canton, Section 14NE Jackson Twp.  Area zoned B-1.

Mr. Deremer read the application signed by Jon Scheetz and the reason for the appeal as listed in the file.  The file contained a site plan of the property and responses to the conditional use questions from the zoning resolution book.   Also in the file was an aerial view of the parcel and adjoining parcels.

Mr. Deremer swore in Bryan Ashland, Cooper & Associates, to speak on behalf of the application.

Mr. Ashland distributed to each board member a packet of information that he is presenting to the board.

Mr. Deremer marked the packet as Exhibit 1 which contained four 8½ x 11 pages and two 11 x 17 pages.

Mr. Ashland stated he is representing Mr. Scheetz who was unable to attend the meeting.  He stated the building structure and amount of square footage will stay the same.  The interior layout of the building will change.  They are also proposing to install an outside fenced in open space area for recreation purposes.  The current child care center has 2890 office space that will be turned over to child day care.  The west side of the building is an adult day care center.  This entire building will be converted over to day care.  The entire east side would be child day care.  They are proposing the building stays the same, except for the fenced in recreation area.  They are planning to remove an existing parking lot, consisting of 11 standard parking spaces and 2 handicap, to add the fenced in recreation area.    They will eliminate 10 of the standard parking spaces and the 2 handicap spaces will remain.  They will move one of the standard parking spaces to the east side of the parking area.  The adult day care has about 5300 square feet, 12 employees, and 36 occupants which requires 11 parking spaces.  The child day care has about 8,617 square feet, 12 employees, 125 occupants which requires 22 parking spaces.  The total amount of parking spaces required is 33 spaces.  They are proposing a total of 43 parking spaces, including 3 handicap spaces.  The hours of operation will remain the same which are Monday thru Friday, 6:00 am to 6:00 pm.  All of the entrance ways will stay the same.  They have access onto Eastlake and Frank Avenue.  This facility will not impact any current signage.  He referred to the southeast corner of the building in the demo plan.  The building currently consists of 8 separate offices that will be removed.  The proposed footprint of the child day care center shows there will be 4 classrooms.  Each classroom will be broken down by age.  He reviewed with the board the other information in his packet that pertained to the current building.  He also stated there will be no changes to the exterior lighting or sound systems.

Mr. Deremer made a motion to incorporate the previously approved conditional use appeal #1881 along with appeal #2035.

Mr. Juergensen seconded the motion.

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

Mr. McDonnell asked Ms. Poindexter if they meet all other zoning setbacks.

Ms. Poindexter stated yes.

Mr. McDonnell asked Ms. Poindexter if she received any complaints about the facility.

Ms. Poindexter stated that the zoning office has not received any complaints.

Mr. McDonnell read through the general criteria for all conditional use permits in Section 431.2 and Mr. Ashland responded.

A. Will not be detrimental to property values in the immediate vicinity.  RESPONSE: Yes.

B.  Will not restrict or adversely affect the existing use of the adjacent property owners.  RESPONSE:        Yes.

C. 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 count  or state agencies where applicable.  RESPONSE:  Correct.

D. Will meet all requirements for EPA for storm water runoff, when applicable.  RESPONSE:   Will be a reduction in storm water runoff.

E. Will be property landscaped according to Section 411.9 where applicable pursuant to Chapter 411    or when specified as a condition for approval.  RESPONSE:  Yes.

F. Will be constructed and maintained in a neat, orderly and safe condition.  RESPONSE:   Yes.

Mr. McDonnell referred to Section 431.3 for specific standards for conditional uses and read through the criteria that pertained to their request under paragraph C., specific development standards:

1. The Board of Zoning Appeals may limit the hours of operation to ensure that the conditional use is compatible with the surrounding uses.  RESPONSE:  Hours of operation will remain the same.  They are 6:00 am to 6:00 pm.

2. For parcels of one or more acres, all points of vehicular entrance or exit shall be located no closer than 100 feet from the intersection of two arterial streets, or 50 feet from the intersection of an arterial street and a local or collector street.  RESPONSE:  No changes.

3. No lighting shall constitute a nuisance or in no way shall impair safe movement of traffic on any street or highway.  All outside lighting shall be shielded from adjacent properties.  RESPONSE:  No changes.
 
4. Floodlights, searchlights, loudspeakers or similar structures shall not be erected or used in any manner that will cause hazards or annoyance to the public generally or to the occupants of adjacent property.  RESPONSE:  No floodlights or loudspeakers.

5. All trash receptacles shall be adequately screened.  RESPONSE:  Will not add any new trash receptacles.  There is an existing trash receptacle on the west side of the building.

6. Grading and surface drainage provisions shall be prepared by a registered engineer and reviewed or approved by the Stark County Subdivision Engineer.  RESPONSE:  No changes.

Mr. McDonnell referred to Section 431.6 (H) day care center, adult or child and family day care type A  shall comply with the following:

1. The development plan shall indicate the dimensions of the day-care home, or center, open space areas, parking and emergency entrances or exits and other safety precautions.  RESPONSE:  Yes, floor plan is in packet of information.  Not aware of any changes with emergency exits.
2. Property shall be maintained in a neat, orderly and safe condition.  RESPNSE:  Yes.
3. All activities shall be directly related to the conditional use permit so granted, and shall be adequately and properly supervised to prevent any hazard, disturbance or nuisance.  RESPONSE:  Correct.
4. Sixty (60) square feet of outdoor open space and thirty-five (35) feet of indoor open space per occupant shall be provided. The child day care will be on the north and addition on south side.  There will be 65 children on the north side and 42 on proposed new site.  RESPONSE:  They could have approximately 105 children outside at one time.  The total inside space is 8600 square feet so the capacity is 245.
5. All outdoor activity areas shall be enclosed by a fence or wall having a height of at least five feet buy not exceeding six feet.  An entry gate shall be securely fastened.  RESPONSE:  The fence will be 6 ft. high and match the north side wood shadow box fence.
6. Additional regulations for Family Day Care Type A:
a. There shall be a minimum of 600 feet between one Type A family day care home another type A family day care home.
b. There shall be no more than one (1) on-premise sign that shall not exceed four square feet in area. RESPONSE:  No additional signage.
7. Additional regulations for day care center.  No portion of a day-care center site may be located within 600 feet of gasoline pumps, underground gasoline storage tanks, or any other storage area for explosive or hazardous materials.  RESPONSE:  There are several Dominion East Ohio Gas Mains that go across the front of the property on Frank.  These are not storage tanks.

No one else in the audience spoke in favor or opposition of the appeal.  The meeting was closed to public input and the board deliberated.

Mr. McDonnell stated the applicant has met the conditions for the conditional use permit.

Mr. Juergensen stated he concurs with Mr. McDonnell.

Mr. Giulitto made a motion to approve appeal #2035 as requested.
 
Mr. Juergensen seconded the motion.

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

Mr. Deremer asked if there were any comments or a motion on the minutes from the meeting of April 13, 2006.  All members were present except for Mr. Dodson and Mr. Oldroyd.

Mr. Giulitto made a motion to approve the minutes from April 13, 2006 meeting as written.
Mr. Juergensen seconded the motion.

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

Mr. Deremer asked if there were any comments or a motion on the minutes from the meeting of May 11, 2006.  All members were present.

Mr. Juergensen made a motion to approve the minutes from May 11, 2006 meeting as written.

Mr. Giulitto seconded the motion.

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

Respectfully submitted,

Lori Foutz
Zoning Coordinator