Members present:                                                 Ted Deremer
                                                                                Edward McDonnell
                                                                                Gerald Werner
                                                                                Richard Dodson
                                                                                Jim Giulitto

Zoning Data Coordinator:                                    Joni Poindexter

APPEAL #1788 – Nick Kimpean of 1233 Stuart NW, Massillon, Ohio 44646 agent for Dave and Donna Paola, property owner, of 7861 Mudbrook NW, Massillon, Ohio 44646 requests a variance for a 5 ft. west side yard setback for an accessory building where a 10 ft. side yard setback is required in Art. IV Sect. 401.11 of the zoning resolution.  Property located at 7861 Mudbrook NW, Sect. 16SW Jackson Twp.  Area zoned R-R.

Mr. Deremer read the file application signed by David Paola with reasons being as stated by the applicant; “This is the only spot that suits the construction.  The grade of the property precludes using the north side of the driveway and the cost to construct here would be prohibited due to the slope of the yard”.

The file contained a tax map of the property in question and surrounding properties, and a schematic of the property by Buckeye Surveying Services, Inc. dated June 12, 1995 showing the proposed location of the garage.

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

Mr. Deremer swore in Nick Kimpean of 1233 Stuart NW, Massillon, Ohio 44646.

Mr. Kimpean presented exhibit #1, 2, 3, & 4 and explained the location of the proposed garage and how the grade of the property slopes down.

Mr. Kimpean stated that if the garage were moved further back it would add 20 to 30% onto the construction of the garage and there is a lot of trees that would have to be cleared.  Mr. Kimpean stated that if the garage were further back he does not believe it would be usable because of the steep grade and not being able to get in and out in the wintertime.

Mr. Kimpean presented several photos and explained what they represent.

Photo #1 shows where the excavation would be and the existing driveway and that the garage would be located where the pile of dirt is shown in the photo.

Photo #2 shows the stake along the property line.

Photo#3 shows the stake along the other side of the property.

Photo#4 shows how steep the grade of the property is.

Photo#5 shows the trees that are on the property.

Mr. Kimpean stated that the most affected would be Mr. & Mrs. Meisenhelter who own the property behind the Paola’s.  Mr. Kimpean read a letter from Mr. & Mrs. Meisenhelter that stated they have no objection to the request.

Mr. Deremer marked the letter as exhibit #5.

Mr. Kimpean stated that there is a two-car garage on the property that is attached to the home but the Paola’s need more space for their vehicles and storage.

Mr. Deremer asked if the garage would abut the existing driveway and there would be no other concrete added.

Mr. Kimpean stated this is correct other then the slab of cement inside the garage.

Mr. Kimpean stated that the garage would mirror the home and look like it was built along with the house.

Mr. McDonnell asked Mr. Kimpean if he knew how much greater the grade in the back is then on the side.

Mr. Kimpean stated that it is about 1/3 greater.

Mr. Deremer stated that if the garage were faced toward the street then basically there would be two stories.

Mr. Kimpean stated yes if the gable end was facing the street, but they want the two gables facing each other so the shingles are seen from the street.

Mr. Deremer stated that it looks like there are a lot of trees on the property.

Mr. Kimpean stated that there are a lot of trees on the property.

Mr. McDonnell asked if Mr. Kimpean is saying that if the garage were built on the north side of the house then it couldn’t be built at the end of the driveway and would have to be built away from the driveway because of the grade.

Mr. Kimpean stated correct.

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

Mr. Deremer closed this appeal to public discussion.

Mr. Werner stated that he does not think that a practical difficulty has been shown but ascetically where they want to put the garage is the best location and it would look nice.  Mr. Werner stated that he has no problem with this appeal.

Mr. McDonnell stated that they are not overbuilding the property and the garage could only be put on the north side or the west side of the driveway and the grade on the north side is greater than the grade on the west side.  Mr. McDonnell stated that it would be impractical to put it on the east side of the house or in front of the house.
Mr. Deremer stated that he agrees with Mr. McDonnell.  The most economical and best location is where it is requested and it is not oversized.  Mr. Deremer stated that he does not see a problem with the appeal.

The board had no further comments.

Mr. McDonnell made a motion to approve appeal #1788 as requested.

Mr. Werner seconded the motion.

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

APPEAL #1789 – Thomas & Jane Mottice, property owner, of 5829 Courtland NW, Massillon, Ohio 44646 requests a variance for a 10 ft. rear yard setback for an accessory building where a 15 ft. rear yard setback is required in Art. IV Sect. 401.11 of the zoning resolution.  Property located at 5829 Courtland NW, Sect. 16SW Jackson Twp.  Area zoned R-R.

Mr. Deremer read the file application signed by Thomas Mottice with reasons being that the original shed was destroyed in the tornado and they would like to build a larger storage building that would not fit in the original location due to the septic system and trees.

The file contained a tax map of the property in question and surrounding properties and a sketch showing the location of the proposed building and future addition for the home.

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

Mr. Deremer swore in Thomas Mottice of 5829 Courtland NW, Massillon, Ohio 44646.

Mr. Mottice stated that they need more storage space and the old shed was damaged due to the tornado.  Mr. Mottice stated that the septic system and leach bed is on the south side of the property.

Mr. Mottice stated that they would like to add an addition to their home in the future and the required setback between the principal building and accessory buildings is 15 ft.  This is why the accessory building needs to be further back from the existing home.

Mr. Mottice stated that the accessory building would be 16 x 20.  To maintain 15 ft. from the home including the future addition, with the trees, septic system, and leach bed, the proposed location is the only feasible place to put the accessory building.  Mr. Mottice stated that their home is located on a corner lot.

Mr. Deremer asked if there would be a problem if the addition were along the other property line.

Mr. Mottice stated that it could meet the 10-ft. requirement but would be in the septic area.

Mr. Mottice stated that the existing shed sits right at the edge of the leach bed lines so it would be a problem to put a larger building in the same location.

Mr. Dodson asked how far the existing shed is from the property line.
Mr. Mottice stated that it is about 5 ft.

Mr. McDonnell asked Mr. Mottice if he had any plans for the future addition.

Mr. Mottice stated no but the idea is to add a bedroom and a garage and to turn the existing garage into a family room.  Mr. Mottice stated that he is not sure when the addition would be built but he is trying to plan ahead.

Mr. Deremer asked if the driveway would change with part of the addition being a garage.

Mr. Mottice stated that he would continue the driveway around so it would be shaped like a “U”.

Mr. McDonnell asked why the accessory building had to be 16 x 20.

Mr. Mottice stated that they need more storage space.  At this time they have a two-car garage but it can only be used for one car because of storage.

Mr. Deremer asked what is along the backyard of the neighboring home.

Mr. Mottice stated that there is a swimming pool and a fence.  It was a former tree area but many of the trees were lost in the tornado.

Mr. Mottice stated that the neighbors have no objection to the request.

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

Mr. McDonnell stated that he thinks there could be an argument as to if the applicant has shown a practical difficulty with regards to putting the shed somewhere else in the backyard.  Mr. McDonnell stated that it appears the primary reason why the request is for 5 ft. is because of the proposed future addition and to maintain 15 ft. between the principal building and the accessory building.

Mr. McDonnell stated that what the board has to look at is if a hardship was created by the applicant and this is what he is wrestling with.  Mr. McDonnell stated that at this point he sees the applicant creating his own problem.

Mr. Deremer stated that he could see where Mr. McDonnell is coming from but it could be looked at another way because Mr. Mottice does have a plan in mind and they are going to use the accessory building before the addition.  They are trying to put it in the best location to get the maximum build out of the lot.  Mr. Deremer stated that it couldn’t go on the other side of the lot because of the septic system.  Mr. Deremer stated that he believes there is some proof of a hardship based on the septic system and future growth.

Mr. Werner stated that Mr. Mottice has been honest as to what he wants to do and did not have to say anything about a future addition.  Mr. Werner stated that he has no objection to the request.

Mr. Dodson stated that he agrees with Mr. McDonnell.  This may be the logical place to put the building but there is a reason for the 15-ft. requirement and he sees a huge backyard.  Mr. Dodson stated that he would have a hard time approving this request and not others.  Mr. Dodson stated that he thinks the addition could be put somewhere else.
The board had no further comments.

Mr. McDonnell made a motion to approve appeal #1789 as requested.

Mr. Werner seconded the motion.

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

Mr. Deremer asked if the board had any comments on the minutes from May 23, 2002.

The board had no comments on the minutes from May 23, 2002.

Mr. Giulitto made a motion to approve the minutes from May 23, 2002.

Mr. Dodson seconded the motion.

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

Mr. McDonnell made a motion to adjourn the meeting.

Mr. Dodson seconded the motion.

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

Respectfully submitted,

Joni Poindexter
Zoning Data Coordinator
Clerk/Secretary