Members present:
Ted Deremer
Edward McDonnell – recused Appeal #2020
Richard Dodson
Jim Giulitto
John Juergensen
Alternate member:
Eric Oldroyd
Zoning Inspector:
Joni Poindexter
Zoning Coordinator:
Lori Foutz
APPEAL #2019 – David Seibert, 7665 Driftwood Circle NW, North Canton, OH 44720, property owner, request a variance for a 23 ft. corner lot, side yard setback where 25 ft. is required per Art. IV, Sect. 401.6 of the zoning resolution. Property location is 7665 Driftwood Circle NW, North Canton, Sect. 4NW Jackson Twp. Area zoned R-R.
Mr. Deremer read the application signed by David Seibert and the reason for the appeal as listed in the file. The file contained a site plan reflecting the proposed addition. Also in the file was an aerial view of the parcel and adjoining parcels.
Mr. Deremer swore in Mr. David Seibert, 7665 Driftwood Circle, NW, North Canton, and Gale Jackson, 828 W. Nassau St, East Canton, contractor, to speak on behalf of the application.
Mr. Seibert stated he wanted to build the garage even with the existing garage that is already in place. He wants to keep it in line with the rest of his house. If he moves the garage over 2 ft. he would be loosing some garage space. He has lived there for 33 years.
Mr. Deremer clarified the proposed addition will be in line with the existing house.
Mr. Seibert stated that was correct.
Mr. McDonnell asked if the existing garage was 23 ft. from the street.
Mr. Seibert stated that was correct.
Mr. McDonnell asked Mr. Seibert and Mr. Jackson to show him on the map exactly where the proposed addition would be.
Mr. Dodson stated he feels this is a minimal variance and the existing house sits 23 ft. from the property line. He doesn’t feel adding the new addition at the same distance will be a problem.
Mr. Giulitto stated he concurs with Mr. Dodson.
Mr. McDonnell stated he feels the practical difficulty has been met and was not caused by the applicant. He feels the building was constructed in error and it is impractical to require the garage be built over 2 ft. from the rest of the house.
Mr. Deremer stated he agrees, however, he is not sure the home was built in error. They may have been in compliance with zoning when the house was built. He believes they used to require 15 ft. from the corner and that was changed to 25 ft. He agrees this is a minimal variance and does not have a problem approving.
No one else in the audience spoke in favor or opposition of this application. The meeting was closed to public input and the board deliberated.
Mr. Juergensen made a motion to approve appeal #2019 as requested.
Mr. Giulitto seconded the motion.
The vote was: Mr. Juergensen-yes, Mr. Giulitto-yes, Mr. Dodson-yes, Mr. McDonnell-yes, and Mr. Deremer-yes.
APPEAL #2021 – Brian Ihrig, Jackson Select Soccer, 7794 Daytona St NW, Massillon, OH 44646, applicant, Jackson Township Trustees, 5735 Wales Ave NW, Massillon, OH 44646, property owners, request a variance to allow 50 banners for 90 consecutive days twice per year for a 5 year period where one banner for 30 consecutive days every 6 months is permitted per Art. V, Sect. 504.2 of the zoning resolution. Property location is Stuhldreher Street Fields, Sect. 33NE Jackson Twp. Area zoned R-R.
Mr. Deremer read the application signed by Brian Ihrig and the reason for the appeal as listed in the file. The file contained a site plan of the property. Also in the file was an aerial view of the parcel and adjoining parcels.
Mr. Deremer swore in Mr. Brian Ihrig, 7794 Daytona St NW, Massillon, to speak on behalf of the appeal.
Mr. Ihrig stated this appeal is identical to the appeal they requested in 1999 for baseball. Youth sports are self funded and they have seen increases in cost. They have been running self sufficient based on fees of participants, but now they are seeing a deficit. The deficit is directly related to the cost of league fees, escalating insurance costs, and as a non profit entity they have a number of players playing without fees because of a financial hardship. The purpose of the banners is for sponsorship. He is asking for 50 banners but he anticipates 20 banners. The size of the banners will be 2’x4’ and the smallest 2’x3’. The fence consists of 60 sections, in rows of 20, 5 ft. in height, and 9½ ft. wide. The full 50 banners would fill up 13 of the 60 panels. He has been working with Dave Ruwadi and the banners would have wind slits on them. They will arrange the banners so they are esthetically pleasing and will not be facing the roadway.
Mr. Deremer asked if they would be uniform in color.
Mr. Ihrig stated that they would.
Mr. McDonnell asked the how many sections there are from east to west.
Mr. Ihrig stated 20 sections.
Mr. McDonnell asked how many sections from north to south.
Mr. Ihrig stated 3 sections.
Mr. McDonnell asked the height.
Mr. Ihrig stated they are 5 ft. high.
Mr. McDonnell clarified the letters will be facing the soccer fields and the back of the banner will be facing the street. He questioned what fields he is referring too when he talks about the baseball and softball fields and the similarity.
Mr. Ihrig stated if you go west to east you can see the banners from Fulton.
Mr. McDonnell asked how high that fence is.
Mr. Ihrig stated he is not sure but he believes it is 5 feet.
Mr. McDonnell stated he feels there is a significant difference between this request and the baseball request because of the size of the fence. If this fence is filled with 50 banners, 2’x 4’ in size, that is a total of 400 sq. feet. That would be twice the size as a bill board that is permitted in a residential district.
Mr. Ihrig stated they would use the lower section of panels, which would be 12½ panels. The fence has 20 sections across, 3 rows high, each row is 5 ft. high, and each section is 9½ ft wide.
Mr. Juergensen asked when the season runs.
Mr. Ihrig stated it runs in two seasons. Fall season starts later in August and runs into late October. The spring season begins the second week of April and runs until June.
Mr. Juergensen asked why they need 90 days.
Mr. Ihrig stated 3 month for each season. It really isn’t a full 90 days, he is just asking for that because he did not have exact dates when he submitted his application.
Mr. Juergensen asked if they set a price for the banners and if they know how many they will need.
Mr. Ihrig stated they are projecting they need 15, but 17 is the number they would like. They have 4-5 potential sponsors, but no firm commitment to date.
Mr. Deremer asked if they would even have room for 50 banners.
Mr. Ihrig stated yes they would have room. The fence is actually a backstop and they intend to use the bottom 20 panels.
Mr. McDonnell asked what the difference is between a panel and a section.
Mr. Ihrig stated you have posts that run vertically that are 15 feet high and every 9½ feet apart. After 5 ft. there is another horizontal post.
Mr. McDonnell asked how many vertical sections are there 9½ feet apart.
Mr. Ihrig stated there are 20 sections.
Mr. McDonnell stated that would make it 190 feet long.
Mr. Deremer asked what the color of the signs will be.
Mr. Ihrig stated they will be white.
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. Giulitto asked Ms. Poindexter what type of restrictions the board put on the baseball request in 1999.
Ms. Poindexter stated the request for 50 banners was granted for 5 years, for 180 consecutive days each.
Mr. Juergensen stated he has some reservations about the number of signs requested and the number of days asked for. The applicant stated they are asking for 50 banners, however, they only need 17. He feels they need to put a restriction on the appeal for the number of banners and limit the banners to the length of the season, not to exceed 90 days. He also stated he doesn’t feel the spirit and intent of the regulation would be violated if they granted the variance.
Mr. McDonnell stated he agrees with Mr. Juergensen concerning the spirit and intent of the regulation. He is not concerned as much with the number of banners, as he is with the placement of the banners. He doesn’t feel it is appropriate to have the banners 15 ft. high. There could potentially be 400 sq. ft. of signage which is the size of two billboards and that is not permitted in a residential area. He would like to add a condition to the appeal, if granted, that would restrict them to the first 5 ft. of the fence. He also agrees that a condition of a maximum of 90 days twice a year and only during the length of the season should be added.
Mr. Deremer stated it was the applicants testimony they would use the lower section of the panels for the banners. If the board approves the appeal, it is approved based on the testimony given by the applicant. He does agree that a restriction should be added the banners can be displayed for the length of the season, not to exceed 90 days.
Mr. McDonnell made a motion to approve appeal #2021 with the following conditions: size of banner not to exceed 8 sq. ft., banners restricted to 5 ft. from ground level, and twice per year for length of season not to exceed 90 days.
Mr. Juergensen seconded the motion.
The vote was: Mr. Juergensen-yes, Mr. Giulitto-yes, Mr. Dodson-yes, Mr. McDonnell-yes, and Mr. Deremer-yes.
APPEAL #2020 – Andy Lester, EGC Construction, 30 West Fourth St, Newport, KY 41071, applicant, Ron Ginther, Stark Federal Credit Union, 3426 Cleveland Ave, NW, Canton, OH 44709, property owner, request a conditional use permit for a banking facility with drive thru and ATM drive up where a conditional use permit is required per Art. IV, Sect. 411.3 of the zoning resolution. Property location is 4100 Dressler Rd, Canton, OH, Sect. 25NW Jackson Twp. Area zoned B-1.
Mr. Deremer read the application signed by Andy Lester and the reason for the appeal as listed in the file. The file contained an 11x17, and full size, site plan of the property (C1c), a drawing of the front drive thru (A2a), and a drawing of the side elevation (A3a) all prepared by EGC. Also in the file was an aerial view of the parcel and adjoining parcels.
Mr. Deremer swore in Shaun Anderson, Architect, 30 W. Fourth, Newport KY 41071, to speak on behalf of the application.
Mr. Anderson stated they want to add a drive thru on the north side and an ATM on the south side of the existing building. He referred to the site plan showing the proposed changes. On the south side they would have a bump out of 4 ft. for the ATM to allow room for the existing gas meter. There also will be a new stacking lane. On the north side will be two drive-thru lanes with two stacking lanes. They will be at 18 ft. from setback on this side. The building is two stories in the center.
Mr. Deremer asked if it is common to separate the ATM from the drive thru lanes.
Mr. Anderson stated in this case it was practical to split the two to keep the traffic flow around the building. Since it is an existing building, it is not uncommon.
Mr. Deremer asked if he could describe the neighbors around him.
Mr. Ron Ginther, was sworn in to describe the neighbors on each side of the building. Mr. Ginther stated on the south side is a medical building and south of that is Ohio Legacy Bank. To the north is a parking lot then Buckingham Doolittle.
Mr. Juergensen read through the general criteria for all conditional use permits in Section 431.2.
A. Will not be detrimental to property values in the immediate vicinity. RESPONSE: No.
B. Will not restrict or adversely affect the existing use of the adjacent property owners. RESPONSE: No.
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: Yes.
D. Will meet all requirements for EPA for storm water runoff, when applicable. RESPONSE: Yes.
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, not changing anything existing.
F. Will be constructed and maintained in a neat, orderly and safe condition. RESPONSE: Yes
Mr. Juergensen 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 for ATM will be 24 hours a day and the drive thru will be same hours as the bank.
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: This parcel is more than one acre and meets the criteria.
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: There will be additional lighting added under the drive
thru and at the ATM, but will be directed downward to shield from adjacent
properties.
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.
5. All trash receptacles shall be adequately screened. RESPONSE: No.
6. Grading and surface drainage provisions shall be prepared by a registered engineer and reviewed or approved by the Stark County Subdivision Engineer. RESPONSE: Yes.
Mr. Juergensen referred to Section 431.6 (I) for drive-thru facilities.
1. Such facilities shall be located on an arterial or collector street in an area least disruptive to pedestrian or vehicular traffic. RESPONSE: No.
2. Any proposed loud speaker system shall be approved as part of the development plan. RESPONSE: Correct.
Mr. Deremer clarified that other than the ATM the hours of operation for the drive thru will be the same hours as the bank.
Mr. Anderson stated that was correct.
Mr. Giulitto questioned the lighting at the ATM. He verified there would be more lighting at the ATM then at the drive thru.
Mr. Anderson stated that is correct. For safety issues there will be more light at the ATM. He also stated fortunately from that side they are 40 ft. from the property line so that will help shield the light from the adjacent property. They will also direct the light away from the adjacent properties.
Mr. Oldroyd asked when the original building was built if it was designed for an ATM and drive thru.
Mr. Anderson stated they had a plan to add-on to the back of the building. For security reasons they decided to add the ATM in the front of the building. Also, if they would have kept the ATM and drive thru together, it would have put them too close to the side property line. They felt it made more sense to split them and add them to the front of the building.
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. Juergensen stated he feels the applicant met all the requirements for the conditional use permit and he is in favor of the application.
Mr. Dodson stated he agrees with Mr. Juergensen.
Mr. Oldroyd stated they have not been presented with any evidence to deny this application and he is also in favor of the appeal.
Mr. Giulitto made a motion to approve appeal #2020 as filed.
Mr. Juergensen seconded the motion.
The vote was: Mr. Oldroyd-yes, Mr. Juergensen-yes, Mr. Giulitto-yes, Mr. Dodson-yes, and Mr. Deremer-yes.
Mr. Deremer asked if there were any comments or a motion on the minutes from the meeting of February 9, 2006. All members were present. Mr. Deremer recused himself for appeal #2015 only.
Mr. Giulitto stated on page 1, the spelling of Hills & Dales is incorrect.
Mr. McDonnell made a motion to approve the minutes from March 9, 2006 meeting with above correction.
Mr. Oldroyd seconded the motion.
The vote was: Mr. Juergensen-yes, Mr. Giulitto-yes, Mr. Dodson-yes, Mr. McDonnell-yes, and Mr. Deremer-abstain.
Respectfully submitted,
Lori Foutz
Zoning Coordinator