Members present:                                                Ted Deremer
                                                                                Edward McDonnell
                                                                                Richard Dodson
                                                                                John Juergensen – recused for Appeal #2024 only
Alternate member:                                                Eric Oldroyd
 
Absent member:                                                   Jim Giulitto
 
Zoning Inspector:                                                  Joni Poindexter
Zoning Coordinator:                                              Lori Foutz

APPEAL #2022 – Dieter Wilkins, 5666 Channel Drive NW, Canton, OH 44718, property owner, request a variance for a 36’-10” front yard setback for principal use where a 40 ft. front yard setback is required per Art. IV, Sect. 401.6 of the zoning resolution.  Property location is 5666 Channel Drive, NW, Canton, Sect. 14SW Jackson Twp.  Area zoned R-1.

Mr. Deremer read the application signed by Dieter Wilkins and the reason for the appeal as listed in the file.  The file contained a full size site plan prepared by Architect, Robert Buonaspina, reflecting the proposed addition.  Also in the file was an aerial view of the parcel and adjoining parcels.

Mr. Deremer swore in Mr. Dieter Wilkins, 5666 Channel Drive NW, Canton, to speak on behalf of the application.

Mr. Wilkins stated he needs to build a two car garage and he has a very narrow lot.  It is the smallest garage his architect can put up.  If they try to stay 40 ft. the driveway would encroach so close to the front door that he could not swing a car into the garage.  The garage is a side entrance garage.  He does not have a basement or an attic.  He would like to put an attic above the garage.  He bought the house in 1998, and it is a one story house.

Mr. Deremer asked if he is adding to the back of the house also.

Mr. Wilkins stated he is adding a kitchen to the back of the house.  He does not have an eating area.

Mr. McDonnell asked what the dimensions of the garage would be.

Mr. Wilkins stated it is 22” 1/2 wide and 26’-8” long.

Mr. McDonnell asked what the width of the front yard.

Mr. Wilkins stated it is 34 ½ feet in front.

Mr. McDonnell asked if he knows if the house was platted prior to 1959.

Mr. Wilkins stated he is not exactly sure, but he believes it was in 1959.

Mr. McDonnell stated the reason he is asked the question normally the side yard setback is 10 feet, unless the lot was platted prior to1959 with a lot width of 60 feet or less, the side yard setback is 5 feet.  He is assuming that is why he is not asking for a variance for a 5 ft. side yard setback.

Mr. Wilkins stated it is his understanding he only has a 5 feet side yard setback.

Mr. Todd Collins, Collins Construction, 11395 Forty Corners, Massillon, was sworn in to speak in favor of the application.  He wanted to clarify the reason they did not ask for the 5 ft. side yard variance is according to the resolution book he has a 5 ft. side yard setback due to he only has 34 ½ feet front width.

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. McDonnell stated he feels the applicant has demonstrated due to the narrowness of the lot creates a practical difficulty.  It is possible but not practical to put the garage in the back of the lot.  He does not feel the request is out of line and the variance is small.  Also, by approving the variance would not violate the spirit and intent of the resolution.

Mr. Juergensen stated he agrees with Mr. McDonnell.

Mr. Deremer stated the variance requested is less than 10% and agrees it is a minimal variance.  He feels the narrowness of the lot creates a practical difficulty for the applicant.

Mr. Dodson made a motion to approve appeal #2022 as filed.

Mr. Oldroyd seconded the motion.

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

APPEAL #2025 – Oscar Mascarenhas, 5380 S. Island Drive, NW, Canton, OH 44718, property owner, and Collins Construction & Development, 346 – 11th St, SE, Massillon, OH 44646, applicant, request a variance for an 11 ft. front yard setback for principal use where 40 ft. front yard setback is required and a 6 ft. right side yard setback where a 10 ft. side yard setback is required per Art. IV, Sect. 401.6 of the zoning resolution.  Property location is 5380 S. Island Drive NW, Sect. 23NW Jackson Twp.  Area zoned R-1.

Mr. Deremer read the application signed by Todd Collins and the reason for the appeal as listed in the file.  The file contained a site plan of the property prepared by Architect, Robert Buonaspina.  Also in the file was an aerial view of the parcel and adjoining parcels.

Mr. Deremer swore in Mr. Oscar Mascarenhas, 3250 Dove Crossing, Akron, OH, to speak on behalf of the appeal.

Mr. Mascarenhas stated the house has never been remodeled and is falling apart.  The current square footage of the house is approximately 1100 sq. ft.  He is not asking for any different setback than is currently there.  He is asking for the right side to be in line with the front of the house.  This house will be a little further back than the neighbors’ house. The lot is pie shaped and the garage takes up almost 1/3 of the allocated property of what the house could be built on.   This addition will add another 600 square feet for a total of approximately 1800-1900 square feet.

Mr. Deremer asked if Lake Cable Association approved the back addition.

Mr. Mascarenhas stated that actually his view is blocked by his neighbors.  His addition will not even come out as far in the back.  He submitted pictures into record.

Mr. Deremer accepted and marked a picture of the left side of the house as Exhibit 1, the neighbor’s house as Exhibit 2, the front of the house as Exhibit 3, the front, right side as Exhibit 4, and the side view as Exhibit 5.

Mr. McDonnell clarified the proposed addition in the front is 10x18.

Mr. Mascarenhas stated yes it is.  It will give him a larger living room in the front.

Mr. McDonnell clarified the proposed addition in the back will be 7 ft off of the lot line and it will continue the existing line.

Mr. Mascaraenhas stated that is correct.

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 this is an extremely irregular shaped lot and creates a practical difficulty for the applicant.  The proposed addition on the right hand side is no closer to the road than the existing residence.  The rear addition appears to be in line with the existing house.  He would like to add a condition that if approved the setbacks apply to proposed additions only, and not for the entire lot width.

Mr. Deremer stated the applicant is not asking for anymore than was originally built.  The variance in the front will not place the house any closer to the street.  He does agree with Mr. McDonnell that the appeal should be modified to apply to the proposed additions only.

Mr. McDonnell made a motion to approve with the following conditions:  6 ft. right side yard setback applies only to proposed addition to right existing side, 7 ft. side yard is only for proposed rear of addition, and 11 ft. front applies to proposed addition to right front per schematic submitted.

Mr. Juergensen seconded the motion.

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

APPEAL #2024 – Dan & Jason Wallenhurst, 4838 Crystal Lake Avenue, Canal Fulton, OH 44614, property owners, request a variance for two 2’x3’ off premise directional signs where off premise directional signs are not permitted per Art. V, Sect. 502.1 of the zoning resolution.  Property location is SW corner of Lafayette & High Mill and SE corner of Erie & High Mill Ave, Sect. 19SE & 30NW Jackson Twp.  Area zoned R-R and C-P.

Mr. Deremer read the application signed by Dan Wallenhurst and the reason for the appeal as listed in the file.    The file contained two examples of the sign, site plan showing placement of signs on property, and two authorization letters, dated March 4, signed by Gary Ruckman and C. Vance.  Also in the file was an aerial view of the parcel and adjoining parcels.

Mr. Deremer swore in Dan Wallenhurst, 8671 Gladys Street, and Jason Wallenhurst, 4838 Crystal Lake, to speak on behalf of the application.

Mr. Dan Wallenhurst stated this is a par 3 type golf course designed for seniors and families.  They are requesting two directional signs pointing to their facility.  The purpose is to capture attention of passing traffic and assist to providing directions to their facility.  There practical difficulty is the section of High Mill that they are located on is not a high traffic area.  There best opportunity to stay in business is to advertise their exposure.  They will confirm to township guidelines for the signs.

Mr. McDonnell asked what practical difficulty applies to them and not other establishments in the township.  He does not understand what makes his business different then any other business.

Mr. Dan Wallenhurst stated the closest competition is Rolling Greens Golf Course and they have an off premise directional sign.  He also stated his property has minimal frontage for exposure.

Mr. Jason Wallenhurst stated their location is different because they are in between two roads and have no visibility.  They have had many customers in the township tell them they were not aware they were located there.  He feels they are getting passed by constantly.  He stated if people in the township can not find them, how can people that are not familiar with the area.  He stated that is there practical difficulty.

Mr. Deremer asked if any other business is close by them.

Mr. Dan Wallenhurst stated Tow Path Cabin would be the closest and that building sits right on Erie.

Mr. Oldroyd stated he feels it is the same problem any business would have and does not see any difference.

Mr. Dan Wallenhurst stated his direct competition has an off premise sign and they are located in a higher traffic area.  They would like the same opportunity.  He stated if the board would be more comfortable he could change his request to seasonal signs from March 1 to October 1 for a period of two years.  He feels in two years that would give them time to get their location out.  He feels it is important to keep green space in Jackson Township.  He stated 60% of their business came from the signs.

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

Mr. Deremer stated there are some businesses in the township that have off premise signs.  He feels since golf courses set back from the property there are usually directional signs to help direct you to the course.  He understands there location has little traffic flow.  He likes the idea of modifying the appeal with a seasonal restriction and limiting for 2 years.

Mr. Oldroyd stated he agrees with a seasonal restriction and temporary limit.  He would be in favor of the application.

Mr. McDonnell stated the signs may be directional but he feels the signs are still more for advertising.  In section 803.5(B) of the zoning resolution he does not see anything particular about this piece of property, and it was the applicants decision to put a golf course in that location.  He also feels by granting the variance it would give the applicant a special privilege that is denied by this regulation to others in the same district.

Mr. Dodson asked where in Section 502.1 does it indicate no directional off premise signs are permitted.

Mr. Deremer stated it does not, it is implicated.

Mr. McDonnell stated the definition of a directional sign is a free standing on premise sign.

Mr. Deremer made a motion to approve appeal with modification that sign will be temporary from March 1 to October 1 and for a limit of 2 years.

Mr. Oldroyd seconded the motion.

The vote was: Mr. Oldroyd-yes, Mr. Dodson-no, Mr. McDonnell-no, and Mr. Deremer-yes.
 
Mr. Deremer explained to the applicant that a tie vote is a denial.

APPEAL #2023 – Kauth Custom Builders, 1276 New England Dr, SE, North Canton, OH 4720, property owners, Michael Gruber, PO Box 2985, North Canton, OH 44720, applicant, request a variance for a subdivision sign at zero ft. setback from right of way where 5 ft. is required and 2 ft. right side yard setback where 10 ft. is required per Art. V, Sect. 501.5(G) of the zoning resolution.  Property location is corner of Shady Knolls Ave and Beatty St, Sect. 20SE Jackson Twp.  Area zoned R-R.

Mr. Deremer read the application signed by Michael Gruber and the reason for the appeal as listed in the file.  The file contained photos of the sign, a plot plan reflecting the sign easement and layout of existing sign.  Also in the file was an aerial view of the parcel and adjoining parcels.

Mr. Deremer swore in Mr. Michael Gruber, 6270 Mt. Pleasant and Mr. Greg Kauth, 8360 Condor Circle, to speak on behalf of the application.

Mr. Gruber stated the sign has been in place for almost 6 years and they are asking for it to remain where it is.  It is a very expensive sign.  He submitted several documents into record.  In Exhibit 1, the township approved the sign easement for this allotment.  Exhibit 2 shows the township requested the road to be changed.  There appeared to be no problem with the easement.  The home owner bought the lot with the sign already in place.

Mr. Gruber stated he talked to the zoning inspector concerning the measurement of where the sign is located on the property.  The insert of the sign is farther back from the structure.  He is told zoning measures from the structure that supports the sign itself.  In Exhibit 3, if shows if they had to relocate the sign it will move it closer to the home owner’s lot and driveway.  The cost would be seven or eight thousand dollars to rebuild and move the sign back a few feet and he does not feel that makes any sense.  He does not believe the location of this sign is as invasive as some of the other signs in the township.  Exhibit 4 is a comparison of signs in other allotments.  The biggest issue is how close the signs are to the road way.  In Exhibit #6 & #7, the photos show they will be able to run the sidewalk in front of the sign without an issue.  In Exhibit #8 & #9 the photos show the view from the end of the driveway to the end of the cul-de-sac.  They do not feel based on these views this is a safety issue.   Exhibit #10 is a plot plan.  In Exhibit #11, a Chevy truck shows the view as you pull out, and Exhibit #12, a van shows the view as you back out of the driveway.

Mr. Deremer asked if they need the sign.

Mr. Gruber stated the allotment is still being developed and they need the sign.

Mr. Kauth stated they are in phase 2 and they need the sign.  There is a development on the other side of Shady Knolls that is a different developer.

Mr. Oldroyd clarified that the area that has the cul-de-sac is a separate developer and that was not in the original plans when the road was put there.

Mr. Kauth stated that when a pre-construction meeting was done, Jackson Township did not want a 90 degree corner and wanted it changed.  Everyone was on site for the change and the township approved it.

Mr. Oldroyd asked if the sign is permanent or will be removed after the development is completed.

Mr. Kauth stated that the sign is permanent.  The sign meets the size of requirements according to the regulations.

Mr. Deremer clarified that it was due to a force bend in the road that the intersection was reconstructed.  He also mentioned that the road right of way stands no matter if they changed the intersection or not.

Mr. Dodson asked how many feet the sign is from the driveway.

Mr. Kauth stated at the closest point it is approximately 5 ½ feet.

Mr. Juergensen asked why they could not move the sign back.

Mr. Kauth stated the sign has a footer below frost grade, a layered concrete grade, and solid bricks.  The sign can not be moved, it either stays or goes.

Mr. McDonnell asked if the curb radius was constructed.

Mr. Kauth stated that was what Jackson Township required.

Mr. McDonnell stated he believes that by having the plat approved with a sign easement, does not necessarily grant them a variance and eliminate the road right of way.

Mr. Gruber stated it does not technically and he has talked to the township law director concerning this.  He feels the approval of a plat with a sign easement, gives the applicant a false sense of security, and it would be good practice that this is stated.

Mr. Kauth stated there is no other easement that you are not able to use all of the easement.

Mr. Oldroyd asked if they will be adding more landscaping (shrubs or hedges) around the sign that may block the view.

Mr. Kauth stated there should be no additional landscaping except grass.

Mr. Bryan Marcelli, 4792 Shady Knolls, was sworn in to speak in opposition of the appeal.

Mr. Marcelli stated when he bought the property the road construction was different, and the sign was not a factor.  He stated when you back out of his driveway you can not see, the view is blocked.  The road is now an intersection and there is a reason why there are not signs at intersections.  If they need to move the sign closer to his property that is fine with him, but it is not safe where it is.

Mr. Juergensen clarified that he is stating he is not objecting to them moving the sign closer in his yard.

Mr. Marcelli stated he would prefer not to have it at all, but he would rather them move it up then to keep it where it is.  It is hard to see when you are backing out of the driveway and it is a safety issue for his family.

Mr. Tim Gesaman, 4944 Rondale Circle, Massillon, was sworn in to speak in opposition of the appeal.  He is one of the developers to the south of the property.

Mr. Gesaman stated that he thought zoning measured from property lines, not from the curb.  He also asked if there was a permit taken out and if the zoning inspector approved this sign location.

Ms. Poindexter stated there was not a sign permit obtained.  If they would have applied for a permit, zoning would have caught this and not permitted them to put the sign in the right of way.

Mr. Gesaman stated he also has concern the sign will be blocking the view of lot #1 that he is developing.

Mr. Deremer asked if they are putting up a sign in their development.

Mr. Gesaman stated they are not planning on putting up a sign at this time.  If they do, it will not be in that area.  He stated he had suggested a compromise to Mr. Kauth and Mr. Marcelli.  It seemed a reasonable solution would be to lower the height of the sign to 40 inches.  That would allow Mr. Kauth to keep the sign and Mr. Marcelli could see past it.  He also asked the zoning inspector what constitutes the size of the sign according to the zoning regulation.

Ms. Poindexter stated that the structure counts when measuring the setbacks.  The signage is the actual square footage allowed.

Mr. Gruber stated the owner of the lot drives a van and that is why the used a van in the one picture, to show his view.  Also, the view would only be affected by the end of the street with the cul-de-sac.  He also stated lowering the sign is not practical, and it would need to be removed.

Mr. McDonnell asked when the sign was erected.

Mr. Gruber stated it has been in place for 6 years.

Mr. McDonnell asked if it was correct there was no permit taken out.

Mr. Gruber stated that is correct.  There was miscommunication between Mr. Kauth and the sign company.  Mr. Kauth thought the sign company obtained a zoning permit for the sign.

Mr. McDonnell asked how long Mr. Kauth has been in business in Jackson Township.

Mr. Kauth stated 40 plus years and has completed 16 residential developments.

Mr. McDonnell asked Ms. Poindexter if a plat with a sign easement is approved, if it eliminates the applicant from obtaining a permit.

Ms. Poindexter stated they still have to get a permit and meet all of the requirements according to the resolution including right of ways.  The approval was for a sign easement, not for the sign.

Mr. McDonnell asked if she knew how long the sign regulations have been in effect with regards to schedule of signs permitted in a residential district in section 502.2.

Ms. Poindexter stated they have been in effect as long as she has been employed here and that is 7 years.

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 stated one of the reasons why the setback is in the resolution is from preventing the sign from being a safety hazard.  If the applicant would have obtained a sign permit, this would have been prevented.

Mr. Oldroyd stated he agrees with Mr. Juergensen.  The applicant was not in compliance even before the changes were made to the road.  There are reasons for a permit to be obtained.

Mr. McDonnell stated he shares the same concerns as the other board members.    He referred to the zoning inspector’s statement that if a permit would have been applied for, zoning would have required them to be in compliance.  Also, the approval of the plat with the sign easement does not eliminate a zoning permit.  He stated it appears the applicants’ problem is his own making and a potential safety hazard.  He would have difficulty granting the variance for those reasons.

Mr. Juergensen made a motion to deny as requested.  He clarified that a yes vote is a denial vote.

Mr. Oldroyd seconded the motion.

The vote was: Mr. Oldroyd-yes, Mr. Juergensen-yes, Mr. Dodson-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 February 23, 2006.  All members were present except for Mr. Oldroyd.

Mr. Juergensen made a motion to approve the minutes from February 23, 2006 as written.

Mr. Dodson seconded the motion.

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

Respectfully submitted,

Lori Foutz
Zoning Coordinator