Members present:                                                        Ted Deremer
                                                                                        Edward McDonnell
                                                                                        Richard Dodson
                                                                                        John Juergensen
Zoning Inspector:                                                          Joni Poindexter

Absent members:                                                        Jim Giulitto and Eric Oldroyd (Alternate)

Appeal 2062 – John Weber, 3405 Lindbergh NW, Canton, OH 44718, property owner, requests a variance for a fence height of 6 ft. in the front yard where 4 ft. is permitted per Art. IV Sect. 401.12F of the zoning resolution.  Property located at 3405 Lindbergh NW, Sect. 25SE Jackson Twp.  Area zoned R-R.

Mr. Deremer read the file application signed by John Weber and reason for the appeal.  The file contained a tax map of the property in question along with surrounding properties and four photos, exhibit #1, taken by the applicant.

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

Mr. Deremer swore in John Weber, 3405 Lindbergh NW, Canton, Ohio 44718.

Mr. Weber stated the variance is for a 6 ft. in height fence where 4 ft. is permitted.  There is a fence along the north side of the house that is 6 ft. and there is no fence along the south side. He had an advisor look at the house and they said for the house to be best for selling would be to put a fence along the south side to match the north side.

Mr. Weber stated the fence on the north side is 6 or 7 ft. and has been there for a while and basically he wants to match it.  He was told three years ago by Sergeant Lyons to put a fence up because they have a handicapped son who has numerous disabilities and they have already had people call MRDD to have them investigated because of his son.  Mr. Weber stated this is how the police got involved.  Sergeant Lyons and Sergeant Hammer told him to put a snow fence up to see if they would like it.  They did this and in December the police Chief called him and said with the deal of the people and his son, that maybe he should put a fence up.  This is when he called zoning and check on the requirements to apply for a variance.  Mr. Weber stated before applying for the variance he contacted Lt. Rudy and asked him if he would back him up on this and he said that he would.  Mr. Weber stated that it is not a spite fence but was recommended by the police.

Mr. Deremer asked how much of the fence is on the other side.

Mr. Weber stated 287 ft. on the north side.  Mr. Weber stated the reason he is putting the fence on the west and back side is because Regal built an allotment next to his and put a retention pond in which is only about 8 ft. from his property.

Mr. Deremer asked why they need a 6 ft. fence as opposed to 4 ft.

Mr. Weber stated to balance off the other side.  He has 178 ft. in the front and 6 ft. will balance it off.

Mr. Weber stated that the people who advised him said if he puts up a 4 ft. fence it would be offset.

Mr. Deremer stated that it looks like a portion of the current fence was reduced.

Mr. Weber stated about 5 ft. from the end is reduced and they would do the same thing.

Mr. Deremer asked if the fence would be only on the south side.

Mr. Weber stated yes.

Mr. Deremer asked if the fence would go along the front.

Mr. Weber stated that there would be nothing along the front at this time, but if they put a fence up later it would be an open fence.

Mr. McDonnell asked if the rear of the property is the west side.

Mr. Weber stated yes.

Mr. Weber stated the existing fence is the neighbors next door.

Mr. McDonnell asked if he is correct in stating that the fence on the north side belongs to the neighbor.

Mr. Weber stated yes.  It has been up for a while.

Mr. McDonnell asked if they want to put a fence along the south side to match the north side.

Mr. Weber stated yes.

Mr. McDonnell asked if they are only talking about a variance along the south side of the property.

Mr. Weber stated yes.

Mr. Deremer asked if anyone would have trouble pulling out of the driveway with a fence 6 ft. in height.

Mr. Weber stated no.  No one has complained about the fence to the north of them.

Mr. McDonnell stated that there has been testimony that the fence along the north side belongs to someone else and asked if there is a variance on file for the fence.

Ms. Poindexter stated that zoning investigator, Ron Revlock, looked at the fence and it appeared that it had been there a long time.  We have no way of knowing or proving how long the fence had been there and there is nothing on record regarding the fence so we don’t know if it was put up before the regulation.

Mr. McDonnell asked if a permit is needed for a fence.

Ms. Poindexter stated no.

Mr. McDonnell stated that Mr. Weber had mentioned that the police recommended he put up a fence and asked if they gave him any recommendation on the height.

Mr. Weber stated when he went to see Lt. Rudy, Lt Rudy told him he didn’t see any problem with it being the same height as the fence to the north.

No one else spoke in favor or in opposition to the appeal and it was closed to public input.

Mr. Dodson stated that he has a problem with seeing a practical difficulty.

Mr. Deremer stated that one thing everyone should recognize is if the variance is granted it stays with the land, so if someone has a special need it can’t be used for a basis to granting the variance. He too has a little trouble with the variance because 4 ft. is for safety reasons so people can see when pulling out of a driveway.  The argument to match the existing fence is a viable one if it was Mr. Weber’s fence, but he doesn’t see a true hardship for the variance.

Mr. McDonnell made a motion to approve appeal #2062 as requested and Mr. Dodson seconded the motion.

The vote was: Mr. Juergensen-no, Mr. Dodson-No, Mr. McDonnell-No, and Mr. Deremer-No.

The variance request was denied.

Appeal 2063 – Dennis Bates, 1928 Diamond St. NE, Canton, OH 44721 agent for Dawn Feddrich, 6161 Portage NW, North Canton, OH 44720, property owner, request a variance for an accessory bldg. in the front yard where permitted in the rear or side yard per Art. IV Sect. 401.11 of the zoning resolution.  Property located at 6161 Portage NW, Sect. 10SE Jackson Twp.  Area zoned R-R.

Mr. Deremer read the file application signed by Dennis Bates and the reasons for the appeal.

Mr. Deremer swore in Dennis Bates, 1928 Diamond St. NE, Canton, Ohio 44721.

Mr. Bates stated that they would like to construct a 24 x 36’ garage on the property that would be 120 ft. from the street.

Mr. Deremer asked if this would be a new structure.

Mr. Bates stated yes.  A carport and garage were removed last year and a new 3 bedroom addition was added.

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

Mr. Bates stated there is a water well to the side and rear of the house.  Mr. Bates explained where the water well and sewer line is on the property.

Mr. McDonnell asked why the garage couldn’t be attached to the front of the house.

Mr. Bates stated the entrance is located in the front and it would take away from the house.  There are also windows located along the front of the house.

Mr. McDonnell asked why it couldn’t be attached to the side of the house.

Mr. Bates stated because of the sewer line.

Mr. McDonnell stated that they are not sure the sewer line presents a practical difficulty.  If the garage were moved to the east and attached to the house then the sewer line may not be a problem and a variance would not be needed.

Mr. Deremer asked if there are trees on the property.

Mr. Bates stated yes and showed the board where the trees are located.

Mr. Deremer swore in Jason Feddrich, 6161 Portage St. NW.

Mr. Feddrich stated that he is in favor of the appeal.  He doesn’t want the garage in front of the house because there is a porch in the front and along the west side with glass surrounding it.  He also doesn’t want to attach it to the house because of fumes from the vehicles.

Mr. Deremer asked if the trees on the property are large.

Mr. Feddrich stated yes.

Mr. McDonnell stated that it may not be practical to put it in front of the house but he doesn’t know why they can’t attach it to the west side.

Mr. Feddrich stated that there are three big trees and a water well on the property and he doesn’t want the door facing Portage.

Mr. Deremer asked if it would be tight for a vehicle to swing in from the east.

Mr. Feddrich stated yes.

Mr. Deremer swore in Terry Yost, 6199 Portage NW.

Mr. Yost stated that he is in favor of the appeal.  The property sits far back from the road.  If put along the west side of the house there are trees that would have to be removed.  He doesn’t see a problem with the variance.

No one else in the audience spoke in favor of or in opposition to the appeal.  Mr. Deremer closed this appeal to public input.

Mr. Dodson stated that he is not sure where he stands on the issue but anytime construction is taking place there is a possibility that trees have to be removed.

Mr. Juergensen stated that he agrees with Mr. Dodson and believes it is possible to put the garage somewhere else on the property.  He doesn’t think the board has seen enough evidence to constitute a practical difficulty.

Mr. McDonnell stated the board is required to find a practical difficulty.  There may be one regarding attaching the garage to the front of the house but there may not be one to attach it to the side of the house.  Mr. McDonnell stated that he is not sure all options have been addressed and he agrees with the other board members that there may not be enough evidence to grant the variance.

Mr. McDonnell made a motion to approve appeal #2063 as requested and Mr. Dodson seconded the motion.

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

The variance was denied.

Appeal 2064 – Hammontree & Assoc., 5233 Stoneham Rd., North Canton, OH 44720 agent for Deville Dev., 3951 Convenience Cir. NW, Canton, OH 44718, property owner, requests variance for a 5 ft. front 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 4635 Belden Village NW, Sect. 24NW Jackson Twp.  Area zoned B-3.

Mr. Deremer read the file application signed by Jennifer Schumacher, contents of the file, and the reasons for the appeal.

Ms. Schumacher stated that they are proposing to add an addition to the exiting building.  With the existing configuration on the site they would like to continue the same flow and traffic pattern.  There is an existing sanitary line running along the property which consists of a 10 ft. easement on either side.  This is the reason for the request of no landscaping.  Ms. Schumacher read a letter submitted by Gary Connor, Stark County Engineers office, which stated no trees, shrubs, etc, shall be planted in the easement.

Ms. Schumacher stated that there are some green areas shown along the west side of the parcel.

Mr. Deremer asked if the existing parking is right up against the curb.

Ms. Schumacher stated yes.  It is the pretty much the same in the Belden Village area so they are not changing the area.  There is a little jog in the parking.

Ms. Schumacher stated currently the parcel is paved.  With the addition, some of the paved area will be green space.  There will be green areas in the front and along the west side.

No one else spoke in favor of or in opposition to the appeal and it was closed to public input.

Mr. McDonnell stated there are two issues, one is the landscaping and they have a letter from Mr. Connor regarding the landscaping not being permitted in the easement.  The other is the 5 ft. setback.  The practical difficulty is they would be holding the property owner to a higher standard than the other properties in the area.

Mr. Dodson and Mr. Juergensen agreed with Mr. McDonnell.

Mr. Dodson made a motion to approve appeal #2064 with the condition the green areas be installed and Mr. Juergensen seconded the motion.

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

The variance was approved.

Appeal 2065 – Joe Kovarek, 6759 Promway NW, North Canton, Ohio 44720, agent for JMK Realty, 6746 Promway NW, North Canton, Ohio 44720, property owner, requests a variance for a 45 ft. front yard setback where 50 ft. is required and a 20 ft. north side yard setback where 25 ft. is required for principal bldg. per Art. IV Sect. 411.5 of the zoning resolution.  Property located at 6746 Promway NW, Sect. 12 SE Jackson Twp.  Area zoned I-1.

Mr. Deremer read the file application signed by Joe Kovarek, file contents, and the reasons for the appeal.

Mr. Deremer swore in Joe Kovarek, 6750 Freedom NW, North Canton, Ohio 44720.

Mr. Kovarek stated that he owns a trucking and landscaping company and would like to build a building for the equipment.  Legally they can only put up a 45 ft. deep building and they need 50 ft. due to the size of the equipment.  This is the reason for the 5 ft. front variance.

Mr. Kovarek stated a storm drain is along the south end of the property so they had to move the building 5 ft. to the north property line.  This is the reason for the 5 ft. side variance.

Mr. McDonnell asked what is currently on the lot.

Mr. Kovarek stated they previously received approval for an addition to the existing building, which is only 20 ft. from the road, but they have decided to remove the existing building and build a new one.

Mr. McDonnell asked what is to the rear of the property.

Mr. Kovarek stated Timberlands Tree Service.

Mr. McDonnell asked why they are asking for a front variance as opposed to a rear variance.

Mr. Kovarek stated that part of the property was in a flood zone, which is pretty much where the existing building currently is and all of Russo’s property.  It goes back along Timberlands property line so part of that was filled in.  They have to compensate for what they filled in and have a drainage area that is about 2 ft. deep by 45 ft. long and 15 ft. wide.

Mr. McDonnell asked if Mr. Kovarek is saying the low lying area is in the rear.

Mr. Kovarek stated yes.

Mr. McDonnell asked why the building needed to be 50 ft. deep.

Mr. Kovarek stated one of his vehicles is 46 ft. and there are two trucks with trailers that are 47 ft. in length.  Mr. Kovarek stated they would also have an office in the building.

No one else in the audience spoke in favor of or in opposition to the appeal and it was closed to public input.

Mr. Juergensen stated that he did not have a problem with the request and the variance is minimal.

Mr. Dodson stated the current building is only 20 ft. from the street so he doesn’t have a problem with the new building being setback 40 ft.

Mr. Juergensen made a motion to approve appeal #2065 as requested and Mr. Dodson seconded the motion.

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

The variance was approved.

Mr. Juergensen made a motion to adjourn the meeting and Mr. McDonnell seconded.  All was in favor.

Respectfully submitted,

Joni Poindexter,
Zoning Inspector