Members present:                                                                Ted Deremer
                                                                                                Edward McDonnell
                                                                                                Richard Dodson
                                                                                                Jim Giulitto
                                                                                                John Juergensen
Alternate Member:                                                                Eric Oldroyd
Zoning Inspector:                                                                  Joni Poindexter

Mr. Dodson and Mr. Juergensen recused themselves from appeal #1950.

APPEAL #1950 – Ed Reynolds, property owner, 3049 Perry Dr. NW, Canton, Ohio 44708 requests a variance to allow a second dwelling on a 5.87 acre tract where no more than one principal building shall be permitted on any lot in any residential district per Art. III Sect. 302.2(B) of the zoning resolution.  Property located at 3049 Perry Dr. NW, Sect. 34SW Jackson Twp.  Area zoned R-R.  (Continued from 1/13/05)

Mr. Deremer stated that this appeal was continued from December 2, 2004 and January 13, 2005.

The contents of the file were not read into the record due to them being read into the record at the hearing on December 2, 2004.

Mr. Deremer asked who would be speaking on behalf of the appeal.

Mr. Gene Barnhart, 2805 Coventry Lane NW stated that he is representing Mr. Reynolds, who is the owner of the property.

Mr. Barnhart stated that there are two appeals for the same property.  This came about as a result of circumstances that arose at the December hearing when it was called to their attention that an official of the township questioned whether or not the board had authority to grant the application.  Mr. Barnhart stated that he personally differs with that interpretation, but it seemed prudent under the circumstances for them to also file a second application because the result can be achieved by the second application as well as the first.

Mr. Barnhart stated that he believes this is a situation which requires an affirmative vote by the board.  The property was created just short of 60 years ago by a separate person.  That was prior to the time of Jackson Zoning and the Regional Planning Commission.  Mr. Barnhart stated that Regional Planning has recognized that because they issued a notice of action that stated a site plan would not be required for the property, for obvious reasons which are this property is grandfathered.  The conditional approval of what was then the lack of a split & was the building of two properties on the same tract would be approved upon the condition that there was approval by the Stark County Board of Health and compliance with township zoning.  Mr. Barnhart stated that he thinks this removes ones of the items which might otherwise concern the board.

Mr. Barnhart showed the board a copy of the map that showed the parcel in question and stated even if the property were split it would still be larger than the required 20,000 sq. ft. and larger than any of the existing parcels in the allotment.

Mr. Barnhart stated that the existing structure dates to the early 1900’s.  The original intent was to build around the existing structure but when construction began it was found that one wall would have to be totally replaced at a cost of $85,000 to $100,000 which killed the project from the standpoint of the cost that would be incurred.  This is what prompted the initial application.  Mr. Barnhart stated that an official of the township called to the attention of Ms. Poindexter, that there appeared to be a provision in the zoning resolution that prohibited that occurrence.   Mr. Barnhart stated that this appears in section 803.5(E), which states, “The board of appeals shall have no authority to permit a use where such use is not permitted by this resolution.”  Mr. Barnhart stated that he would suggest to the board that that is subject to two interpretations.  It is subject to the interpretation that the board of zoning appeals shall not have authority to permit a use, and the word where could then be construed to him, in a location where such use is not permitted by this resolution.  Or, it could be interpreted to mean the board of zoning appeals shall not have authority to permit a use that is not permitted by this resolution.  In other words there is an ambiguity in the wording and we know that any ambiguity in the zoning resolution is resolved in favor of the owner, not in favor of the township.  Mr. Barnhart stated that he suggests the board has the authority to grant the initial application and in view of the fact that the parcel was created prior to the time of the adopting of zoning in Jackson Township that an attempt to prohibit the use of the property in a reasonable manner is an unconstitutional taking of Mr. Reynolds property.

Mr. Barnhart stated that it is not their desire to be involved in litigation, but they want to convince the board that this is not only a practical difficulty but it’s a true hardship.  Mr. Barnhart stated that the thinks the application is merited and there are two alternatives the board can take with one being the first application and the second alternative being the second application.  Either one will meet equity and justice in this case.  Mr. Barnhart stated that the property is 5.87 acres including the driveway area, is larger than the other properties in the area, and is less density than the surrounding area.  Mr. Barnhart stated that he requests this case be continued until the second case is heard because he thinks it is important that the board be given the opportunity to consider both alternatives.

Mr. Deremer asked Mr. Barnhart if he had anyone else that he would like to testify.

Mr. Deremer swore in Mr. Rodney Keim, 5367 White Tail Circle, Wadsworth, Ohio.

Mr. Keim stated that the original plan was to modify the existing structure.  The house had been remolded several times in the past with most of the additions being on one side of the house.  As they started to demolish portions of the house in order to make way to add on a rather large addition, they cut into some of the walls and found a wood and lath type construction.  Mr. Keim stated by the word wood he means sticks and branches of trees that were laid horizontally with a mud and straw mixture in between.  The wall needed to be a structurally sound wall and it was his opinion that they would have to demolish the entire wall, which was an exterior wall of the existing structure with a second floor wall above it.  Mr. Keim stated that it was his opinion that most if not all of the house that was there would have to be demolished and it would be rendered unusable and they would literally be rebuilding a new house.  This is when the owners decided to look into a different building site within the property for a whole new structure rather than remolding.

Mr. Barnhart asked how long Mr. Keim had been in the construction business.

Mr. Keim stated since 1992.

Mr. Barnhart asked Mr. Keim if he had an estimate on the age of the building.

Mr. Keim stated that he is not an expert on old structures, but it would probably be within the 1850’s to 1870 time frame and believes the actual structure may have been a barn.

Mr. Barnhart asked what the cost of construction for the new structure would be.

Mr. Keim stated that the structure is about $450,000 without the land.

Mr. Deremer stated that the board would consider Mr. Barnhart’s request for continuance.

Mr. Barnhart stated that he is asking for the continuance only until the next case, which happens to be theirs.

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

Mr. Deremer asked if anyone in the audience wanted to speak in opposition to the appeal.

Mr. Deremer swore in Wendy Lichtenwalter, 6300 Andalor St. NW.

Ms. Lichtenwalter stated that her lot is contiguous to the lane that goes back to the property in question.  Her concern is that her kitchen is at the edge of the property which is about 12 feet from the center of the lane to the center of her kitchen table.  Ms. Lichtenwalter stated that she is concerned with the traffic on the lane.

Mr. McDonnell asked Ms. Lichtenwalter if she knew how many dwellings are at the back of the lane.

Ms. Lichtenwalter stated that she believes there is the original dwelling that has been partly demolished and then another one that is halfway down the hill and then there is another structure but she thinks it is just a barn or garage.

Mr. McDonnell asked how many residential dwelling units are on the property.

Ms. Lichtenwalter stated that there were two when she moved in but if the one house is partly demolished then there is only one.

Mr. Deremer swore in Roberta McGowan, 2977 Mill Ridge Cir. NW.

Ms. McGowan stated that her property is lot #6 which is one of the larger properties.  She finds it hard to believe that this would be a hardship for Mr. Reynolds.  When you see the new home that he is going to build, instead of reconfiguring the historical structure that he doesn’t want to tear down, she finds it hard to believe how they could fathom putting this into the type of home that is being presented to be built.

Ms. McGowan stated that she is concerned, if the appeal is granted, as to what will happen with the existing structure that is partly demolished.  Ms. McGowan stated that she is also concerned if the farm property is developed that a drive could be built to Mr. Reynolds property because if so then people will use it as a cut through which will put more traffic on the lane.

Mr. Deremer swore in Tom Winkhart, 7008 Victoria Ct. NW.

Mr. Winkhart stated that he is representing Willie Moll & Gabrielle Gadella.  The lot is non-conforming and section 302.3A of the zoning code provides that any lot of record which was owned separately from adjoining lots on the effective date of this resolution or amendment thereto shall not be reduced in any manner that would increase the degree of non conformity.  Mr. Winkhart gave the board a deed as to when Mr. Reynolds took title to property that was recorded on July 19, 2000.  Mr. Winkhart stated that section 302.3 states that no more than one principal building shall be permitted on any lot in any residential district unless otherwise specifically stated in these regulations, so there is a one house per lot rule.  Mr. Winkhart stated that he doesn’t think the board has the authority to further the non conformity.

Mr. Winkhart stated that he sees this as a use variance that the applicant is asking for.  Section 803.5E states, “variances authorizing a use in a district in which such use is not specifically permitted may be granted only upon a determination by the Board of Zoning Appeals that a literal enforcement of this zoning resolution will result in unnecessary hardship to the applicant.”  Mr. Winkhart stated that in 2000 when Mr. Reynolds purchased the property, and he doesn’t know if it was his intent at the time to build a new house or to live in the century home that was there, but clearly it was a century home and he doesn’t think it is the board’s obligation to take him out of a hardship to the extent that he bought a house with mud walls that perhaps couldn’t be added onto.

Mr. Winkhart stated when looking at what is considered to be a hardship he doesn’t think any of the items apply and if the house were torn down then they could build a new home and it would be in compliance.

Mr. Winkhart gave the board a copy of the deed for the property which was marked as exhibit OE1.

No one else in the audience spoke in opposition to the appeal.

Mr. Barnhart stated that the property was created in 1945 and any further development of the parcels adjoining would be subject to the subdivision regulations.  Under this proposal the maximum usage of the lane would be by the residents of the existing home and the new home.

Mr. Barnhart stated with respect to the comments made by Mr. Winkhart, he would like to point out that the very existence of the board is to rectify circumstances where common sense suggests rectification is required.  Mr. Barnhart stated that he would suggest that the objections to the request are not any more substance than any objection to the reasonable development of property.  The testimony of the applicants building rebuts the arguments made that there is not a hardship.

Mr. McDonnell stated that the property is zoned R-R and an R-R district is zoned for one dwelling per lot with a minimum lot size of 20,000 sq. ft.  Mr. McDonnell asked if granted, would that not be the fact of rezoning by allowing 2 dwellings per lot which is permitted in the R-2 district.

Mr. Barnhart stated that argument could be made but he would suggest that argument could affectively be made with almost every decision the board makes because they modify the uses which are made even when modifying a side line.  Mr. Barnhart gave the board a copy of the deed from 1945, which was marked as complaints exhibit #1.

Mr. Deremer closed this appeal to public input.

Mr. McDonnell stated that he is bothered by section 302.3B and doesn’t think the board has the authority to allow two dwelling units on the same lot in an R-R district.  Section 401.1B defines the residential district to accommodate a single family residential dwelling.  Section 803.5E states the board of zoning appeals shall have no authority to permit a use where such use is not permitted by this resolution.  Mr. McDonnell stated that much of what the board does is to modify and authorize variances in area and distance.  Mr. McDonnell stated that he thinks legally the board does not have the authority to grant the variance because he thinks it would be rezoning.

Mr. Giulitto agreed with Mr. McDonnell and stated that he thinks it would create more problems.

Mr. Deremer agreed with the other board members and stated that no matter how big the property is only one dwelling is permitted per lot in an R-R district.  Mr. Deremer stated based on the testimony, he doesn’t believe the request is approvable.

The board agreed not to continued appeal #1950.

Mr. McDonnell made a motion to approve appeal #1950.

Mr. Giulitto seconded the motion.

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

APPEAL #1964 – Ed Reynolds, property owner, 3049 Perry Dr. NW, Canton, Ohio 44708 requests a variance to split a 5.87 acre tract into two lots having a minimum frontage of 5 ft. where 50 ft. is required and a minimum lot width of 5 ft. at the 100 ft. setback where 100 ft. is required per Art IV Sect. 401.5 of the zoning resolution.  Property located at 3049 Perry Dr. NW, Sect. 34SW Jackson Twp.  Area zoned R-R.

Mr. Deremer read the file application signed by Ed Reynolds with reasons being for lot split.  The file contained a tax map of the property in question and a site plan showing how the lot would be split.

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

Mr. Gene Barnhart, 2805 Coventry Lane NW stated that he is representing the applicant and asked that all the testimony and exhibits from appeal #1950 be incorporated into this appeal.

Mr. Barnhart submitted the Stark County Regional Planning’s comments which was marked as exhibit as #5, although there were no other exhibits submitted during this hearing.

Mr. Barnhart stated that Stark County Regional Planning gave conditional approval for two dwellings on the same tract.  The conditions are approval of the health department. and compliance with zoning.  Mr. Barnhart stated that he anticipates if the board approves the application that there could be a condition upon the approval of the Stark County Board of Health.  Mr. Barnhart submitted exhibit #6 which was a letter from the health department that specified they would be recommending approval to the board of heath at their meeting on December 8th.

Mr. Barnhart stated that the variance is to split the 5.87 acre tract into two lots.  In the past the board had received several of these types of applications, specifically the owner of Earth & Wood in the late 1980’s, where the board granted three parcels to access Huckleberry by virtue of one driveway.  Mr. Barnhart stated that both parcels will be larger than what is required and larger than any of the surrounding properties, except the one to the west.  If divided the new parcel will have a new home built on it and he believes a hardship was demonstrated by testimony in the last hearing.

Mr. Deremer swore in Mr. Reynolds, 3049 Perry Dr. NW.

Mr. Reynolds stated that he purchased the property in 1999 or 2000.  He wanted it to be an investment and proceeded to try to do a lot split.  After he was on the property for a while he decided it was beautiful the way it was so he withdrew the application.  He proceeded with plans to remodel the century home and in doing that they ran into major structural problems with the house and it wasn’t cost effective to remodel the home because it was going to cost more to remodel than to construct a new home.  This is when they decided to look at another site on the property to build a new home.

Mr. Barnhart asked if the request were granted would it be their intention to put the house back into livable condition.

Mr. Reynolds stated yes.  They would re-hang the drywall and move a couple of interior walls and make it better than it was before.  The house would be completely functional; however, it was not functional for him with the additions that he wanted to put on.

Mr. McDonnell asked if the current house would be put back into livable condition.

Mr. Reynolds stated yes.

Mr. McDonnell asked what is to the east of the 20 ft. lane.

Mr. Reynolds stated that there is a corn field to the east and the south.  His goal is to keep the property as private as possible.  If they can build a second house with each one having approximately 3 acres one house would not interfere with the other.  If they cannot build the second house without having to tear down the existing house there will be an extreme financial hardship.  Mr. Reynolds stated if that happens then somewhere down the road when those cornfields between his property and Aberdeen Ridge and his property and the property to the south are developed he will have to look very seriously at putting the remaining part of that property for sale.  His point being that the neighbors are concerned about the privacy and traffic and by granting the request it would alleviate much of that problem.

Mr. McDonnell asked who owned the small lot along the lane.

Mr. Reynolds stated that this is where he lives and he owns the property which is a separate parcel.

Mr. Barnhart stated that the acreage of the lots would be modified so the existing home would meet the required setbacks.

Mr. McDonnell asked if the request was granted if Mr. Reynolds would have any problem with the board putting a condition that none of the lots could be further subdivided.

Mr. Reynolds stated that he would not have a problem with that.

Mr. McDonnell asked why the request is for a 5 ft. lot frontage and minimum lot width at the 100 ft. setback because the lane is 20 ft. wide.

Mr. Barnhart stated that he didn’t know because he didn’t do the application.

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

Mr. Deremer asked if anyone in the audience wanted to speak in opposition to the appeal.

Mr. Deremer swore in Roberta McGowan, 2977 Mill Ridge NW.

Ms. McGowan stated that she would like her opinions from appeal #1950 incorporated into this appeal.

Mr. Deremer swore in Tom Winkhart.

Mr. Winkhart stated that he doesn’t believe the board has the authority to grant the variance because section 302.3 states that any lot of record which was owned separately from adjoining lots on the effective date of this resolution or amendment thereto shall not be reduced in any manner that would increase the degree of nonconformity.

No one else in the audience spoke in opposition to the appeal.

Mr. Barnhart stated that he believes the board does have the authority to grant the variance and requests that the board do so.

Mr. Deremer closed this appeal to public input.

Mr. McDonnell stated that he views this appeal differently from the first one and believes the applicant has a practical difficulty which is opposite from most of the practical difficulties that they see.  Mr. McDonnell stated that he sees the lot size as the practical difficulty with the access.  There has been testimony that the lot was platted prior to zoning and he thinks there are special circumstances and conditions that apply to the land that are not applicable to other land in the area.  Mr. McDonnell stated if the variance were granted he would like to see two conditions with one being the lot is subdivided as indicated in the file and the other being that the property would not be further subdivided.
Mr. Deremer stated that the lot was platted before the zoning resolution so that is why the lane is only 20 ft. wide and the house is almost 1000 ft. from the road, which was not uncommon for an old farm that was split.  Mr. Deremer stated that he thinks the hardship was created prior to zoning.

Mr. Oldroyd agreed with the other board members.

Mr. McDonnell stated if approved he would like to see it changed to a 10 ft. frontage and minimum lot width at the 100 ft. setback because the lane is 20 ft. wide.

Mr. Deremer asked Mr. Barnhart if this would be acceptable.

Mr. Barnhart stated yes.

Mr. McDonnell made a motion to approve appeal #1964 as modified to 10 ft. min. frontage & lot width at 100 ft. setback with the condition that the lot split is substantially as depicted in file as attested to by the applicant & the lots shall not be further subdivided without approval of Board of Zoning Appeals or proper authority.

Mr. Giulitto seconded the motion.

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

Appeal #1964 was approved with conditions.

APPEAL #1965 – Sally Pike, property owner, 5230 Fleetwood NW, Canton, Ohio 44718 requests a variance to allow a 28,600 sq. ft. lot to be split into two lots with on portion being 13,201 sq. ft. where 14,500 sq. ft. is required per Art. IV Sect. 401.5 of the zoning resolution.  Property located at 5230 Fleetwood NW, Sect. 22NE Jackson Twp.  Area zoned R-1.

Mr. Deremer read the file application signed by Sally Pike with reasons being to split lot.  The file contained a tax map of the property in question, a plot plan showing how the lot would be split and the existing and new structure on the proposed lots, a drawing of what the new house on the split portion of the property would look like along with the floor layout and a printout from the auditors office of the existing property.

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

Mr. Deremer swore in Joe Pike, 5230 Fleetwood Ave. NW.

Mr. Pike stated that he bought the property in November of 2004.  There is a current home on the property that is situated to the north of the property.  They would like to split the lot so he can build a home for his parents.  They could angle the lot line but it was felt that it would be better to make a straight line between the two properties.  The property was originally part of three lots which were split and made into one and one half lots.  Mr. Pike stated that the new structure as well as the current structure would meet all the setback requirements.

Mr. McDonnell asked if it is Mr. Pike’s testimony that there would be a 10 ft. setback for each home.

Mr. Pike stated yes.

Mr. Deremer asked Mr. Pike if he considered splitting the 28,600 sq. ft. evenly.

Mr. Pike stated yes, but then they would need a variance for both lots and it was felt that it would be better to split them where only one variance would be requested.

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

Mr. Deremer asked if anyone in the audience wanted to speak in opposition the appeal.

Mr. Deremer swore in Gary Young, 6099 Fulton Rd. NW.

Mr. Young stated he has a personal interest in the request because his property is the one that would be affected.  Although it doesn’t have anything to do with the variance he wanted to let the board know that the auditors map is wrong because it shows his property as being owned by Ohio State; however, the only portion owned by the State of Ohio is a small portion that was taken for the road.

Mr. Young stated that he owns lot 407 & one half of 408.  Mr. Young showed the board where his house in located in conjunction to Mr. Pike’s home and stated if another home is built is would block his home.  Mr. Young stated that there is a deed restriction that states if the deed is broken and the lot is split then it will eliminate dues for the association because they could no longer be a member.

Mr. Young presented exhibit OE1 which was a photo of his house and the swimming pool on Mr. Pike’s property.  Mr. Young stated that the new home would be where the current swimming pool in located.  Mr. Young presented exhibit OE2 which was a photo showing that the property line is approximately one foot from the telephone pole that is on his property and stated that he thinks the variance would be more than a minor deviation from the zoning resolution.

Mr. Deremer swore in Carolyn Young, 6099 Fulton Rd. NW.

Ms. Young stated that she has lived on her property of over thirty years and is concerned with the water drainage.  There are problems on the property now and if another home is added it may cause more problems.

Mr. Deremer swore in Dennis Schiltz, 5240 Fleetwood NW.

Mr. Schiltz stated that his concerned as a lake owner is if the lots are split it will not allow either of the lot owners to become members and the association will lose dues.

Mr. Deremer swore in John Olesky, 5245 Fleetwood NW.

Mr. Olesky stated he is concerned with his view of the lake being blocked and by splitting the lots and building another home it will destroy the character of the neighborhood.  It doesn’t seem right to allow two houses on one and one half lots.

Mr. McDonnell stated that the application is not to put two houses on one lot.  It is to split the lot into two separate lots and put a house on each one of the lots.  If the split is approved then that would be legal to do.

No one else in the audience spoke in opposition to the appeal.

Mr. Pike stated that some people are concerned that he can’t be a member of the lake but when the lots were originally made from three lots to one to one half each Mr. Young was still able to be a member, so he will ask to be a member also.  Mr. Pike stated that there were water problems on the property when he bought it and he has improved them.  If a new home is built it is his intent to put in a drainage system.

Mr. Deremer closed this appeal to public input.

Mr. Juergensen stated that the 1,299 sq. ft. variance that he needs amounts to about 9% for the total lot and he doesn’t find that to be a substantial amount.  It was the applicant’s testimony that the drainage would be taken care of and he doesn’t think the spirit and intent of the zoning resolution would be offended by granting the variance, so he does not have a problem with the request.

Mr. McDonnell stated that he shares some of Mr. Juergensen’s thoughts regarding the 9% but he doesn’t reach the same conclusion.  The applicant stated that many of the lots in the lake cable area are small and platted prior to zoning but the board shouldn’t be in the business of making smaller lots.  Mr. McDonnell stated that the applicant has testified that he is trying to build a house for his parents but the board is required to find a practical difficulty that goes beyond the intentions.  There needs to be special circumstances or conditions that are peculiar to the land or structure involved.  Mr. McDonnell stated that there is nothing peculiar to the property that is different throughout lake cable or Jackson Township.  Mr. McDonnell stated that he thinks the character of the neighborhood could be substantially altered and the practical difficulty has not been met so he has reservations about the request.

Mr. Deremer stated that he agrees with Mr. McDonnell.  They are looking at three original lots that are in lake cable which are undersized compared to the current resolution.  Mr. Deremer stated that he doesn’t think it make sense to make smaller lots and believes it would affect the neighborhood so he has a problem with splitting the lot.

Mr. McDonnell made a motion to approve appeal #1965 as requested.

Mr. Dodson seconded the motion.

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

APPEAL #1966 – Family Video/Brent Conley, 2301 Tyre Dr. NW, Hudson, Ohio 44236 agent for JD Real Estate Investments, Inc., property owner, 5911 Dressler Rd. NW, North Canton, Ohio 44720 requests a variance for a 4 ft. 3 in. left (west) side yard parking setback where 20 ft. is required and no interior landscaping islands where 5% interior landscaping islands is required for parking areas that accommodate 20 or more vehicles per Art. IV Sect. 411.8 and 411.9 of the zoning resolution.  Property located at 6983 Portage St. NW, Sect. 10 SW Jackson Twp.  Area zoned B-3.

Mr. Deremer read the file application signed by Brent Conley with reasons being as stated by the applicant, “With a recent 15 ft. right of way take the property has been impaired with regards to commercial development.”  The file contained a tax map of the property in question and a small and large site plan of the proposed improvements.

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

Mr. Deremer swore in Brent Conley, 230 Tyre Dr., Hudson, Ohio.

Mr. Conley stated that he would like to withdrawn the portion of the variance for no interior landscaped islands because he is able to meet the requirement.  The setback portion of the variance is being requested because of the road widening.  They would like to use the existing curb cut and the parking will be going no closer to the road; however, the road will be moving closer to them.

Mr. Conley explained the site plan and stated that all other requirement would be met.

Mr. McDonnell asked if it is Mr. Conley’s testimony that they are not changing what is currently there and the street is moving closer to them as opposed to them moving closer to the street.

Mr. Conley stated yes.

Ms. Poindexter stated that she had not seen the landscaping plan asked Mr. Conley if he is counting the perimeter of the parking lot as part of his interior landscaping because the resolution states that shrub plantings adjacent to a building, along the perimeter of the parking lot, or in any part of a yard, shall not be counted as interior landscaping and she didn’t want him to withdrawn something he may need.

Mr. Conley stated that he is not counting those areas so he is okay with correct amount of interior landscaping.

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

Mr. Deremer closed this appeal to public input.

Mr. Dodson stated that they aren’t moving any closer the road, the road is coming toward them so he doesn’t have a problem with the request.

Mr. McDonnell stated that he agrees with Mr. Dodson.  If the current business stayed there it would be no different.  Although the variance may look like it is significant they will be adding more landscaping to dress up the property so he doesn’t have a problem with the request.

Mr. Dodson made a motion to approve the portion of appeal #1966 for a 4 ft. 3 in. left (west) side yard setback.

Mr. Juergensen seconded the motion.

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

Mr. Juergensen made a motion to adjourn the meeting.

Mr. Giulitto seconded the motion.

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

Respectfully submitted,

Joni Poindexter
Zoning Inspector