Members present:                                                                    Ted Deremer
                                                                                                    Edward McDonnell
                                                                                                    Richard Dodson
                                                                                                    Jim Giulitto
                                                                                                    John Juergensen

Alternate Member:                                                                    Eric Oldroyd

Zoning Inspector:                                                                     Joni Poindexter

APPEAL #1968 - Steven & Lori Ueltschy, property owner, 3206 Miles Ave. NW, Canton, OH 44718 requests a variance for a 1,204 sq. ft. accessory building where 1,200 sq. ft. maximum is permitted on one acre or less and a 5 ft. left (south) side yard setback where 10 ft. is required per Art. IV Sect. 401.11 & 401.12 of the zoning resolution.  Property located at 3206 Miles Ave. NW, Sect. 25SE Jackson Twp.  Area zoned R-R.

Mr. Deremer read the file application signed by Steven Ueltschy with reasons being to build an accessory building and a 10 ft. side yard setback is required.  The file contained a tax map of the property in question, a site plan, and an aerial view of the property in question and surrounding properties.

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

Mr. Deremer swore in Steven Ueltschy, 3206 Miles Ave. NW.

Mr. Ueltschy stated that he would like to amend his application from a 5 ft. side yard setback to a 7 ft. side yard setback.

Mr. Deremer stated that the board could accept the modification because it is not greater than what was advertised.

Mr. Ueltschy stated the reason he is asking for 1,204 sq. ft. for the accessory building is so he doesn’t have to trim 2-3/16 inches off of the lumber when building the building and to keep it square.  The building would be 32 x 28 sq. ft. with a 14 x 22 sq. ft. section in the front where the garage door would be located.

Mr. Deremer asked if the building would be a single story.

Mr. Ueltschy stated yes.

Mr. Deremer asked why the building had to go closer to the property line.

Mr. Ueltschy stated that he would like to keep it in line with the driveway and there is a small tree and a swimming pool on the property that he would like to keep away from.

Mr. Deremer asked if the pool is a permanent structure and how far the building would be from it.

Mr. Ueltschy stated that the pool is above ground and the building would be about 20 ft. away from it.  There is a utility easement in the rear of his property that is 12 ft.

Mr. McDonnell asked how large the tree is and how close it is to the proposed structure.

Mr. Ueltschy stated that the trunk is about 10 inches and it is about 10 ft. from structure.

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 Francie Shiel, 3120 Miles Ave. NW.

Ms. Shiel stated that her property is to the south of Mr. Ueltschy’s property.  She wasn’t sure where the property line was located so she called Ms. Poindexter at the zoning office and Mr. Revlock came out and found the property pins.  The property line was over further than Mr. Ueltschy thought so he decided to ask for a 7 ft. setback as opposed to 5 ft.  Ms. Shiel stated that she is in favor of the 7 ft. setback as amended but not 5 ft.

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

Mr. Deremer closed this appeal to public input.

Mr. Dodson stated that the variance for the square footage of the building is less than 1% so he doesn’t have a problem with it, but he does have a problem with the setback variance because he doesn’t see a practical difficulty except that Mr. Ueltschy wants to line it up with the driveway.

Mr. Juergensen asked if the pool is considered a structure.

Ms. Poindexter stated that the pool is a structure, but it is not considered in the calculations for the total permitted square footage for structures.

Mr. McDonnell stated that he concurs with Mr. Dodson.  The square footage is not significant; however, he does not see a practical difficulty that requires the variance to go 3 ft. closer to the lot line.  There has been testimony that the tree would be 10 ft. from the building if the variance were granted which means it would be 7 ft. if the variance were not granted.  The board is required to find a practical difficulty with the land or structures and he doesn’t think that has been demonstrated.

Mr. Deremer stated that he agrees that 4 sq. ft. is not a major variation from the resolution.  There are a lot of structures that are closer than 10 ft. to a tree and the pool is not a factor because it is approximately 20 ft. from the structure and is moveable, so he believes the board has not heard a practical reason or a difficulty for the structure to be closer than 10 ft. to the property line.

Mr. Dodson made a motion to approve the variance portion for the 1,204 sq. ft. accessory building and deny the variance for the 7 ft. side yard setback.

Mr. Juergensen seconded the motion.

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

APPEAL #1969 - Stewart Domer, property owner, 9080 Beatty St. NW, Mass. OH 44646 requests a variance to add an 822.50 sq. ft. addition to an existing 768 sq. ft. accessory building for a total of 1590.50 sq. ft. where the maximum permitted square footage for accessory buildings on one area or less is 1,200 sq. ft. per Art. IV Sect. 401.12 of the zoning resolution.  Property located at 9080 Beatty St. NW, Sect.29NW Jackson Twp.  Area zoned R-R.

Mr. Deremer read the file application signed by Stewart Domer with reasons being to add 822.5 sq. ft. to an existing accessory building.  The file contained an aerial view of the property in question and a sketch of the proposed addition to the existing structure.
Mr. Deremer asked who would like to speak in favor of the appeal.

Mr. Deremer swore in Stewart Domer, 9080 Beatty NW.

Mr. Domer stated that he would like to add onto the back portion of the structure.  He would like to have it as big as possible but could shrink it down if he had to.

Mr. Deremer asked if the building would be double in size.

Mr. Domer stated yes.

Mr. Deremer asked if the roof would have to be redone since it is an existing structure.

Mr. Domer stated that the building would be a one story pole structure and the roof line would blend in.

Mr. Deremer asked what the practical difficulty would be.

Mr. Domer stated that he would like to get as much square footage as he can but he could change it if he had to.

Mr. Deremer asked if the building would meet all the setback requirements.

Mr. Domer stated yes.  The lot is 110 x 396 sq. ft. which is exactly one acre.

Mr. Giulitto asked what the square footage of the house is.

Mr. Domer stated that it is about 1500 sq. ft.

Mr. Giulitto stated that the reason he was asking is because part of the zoning code says they cannot allow accessory buildings to be bigger than the primary structure.

Mr. McDonnell asked what the proposed use of the building would be.

Mr. Domer stated that he would like to breed his dogs so the building would be sound proofed.

Mr. McDonnell asked if there is anything magical about the size of the building.

Mr. Domer stated no.

Mr. Deremer asked if it would be possible to modify the request.

Mr. Domer stated that he would like to have what is requested if he could but if not he will do what he has to.

Mr. Deremer stated if the request is denied Mr. Domer could change the request and come back to the board.

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

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

Mr. Deremer swore in Tim Eltling, 4805 Revere NW.

Mr. Eltling stated that he owns property at 4792 Revere which is adjacent to Mr. Domer’s property.  There has always been a problem with the water on both properties during heavy rains.  The water comes toward his buildings to the point where there has been water in the buildings, so he would like to know where the water will go that comes off the building addition.  Mr. Eltling stated that the building sits at the back of the property and would have to be piped to the ditch to get the fall or if downspouts are ran to the right then more water would run toward his buildings.

Mr. Eltling presented exhibit OE#1 that showed his building, exhibit OE#2 which showed the road and how far the buildings are from the road, and exhibit OE#3 that showed the driveway.

Mr. Deremer asked where the water goes now.

Mr. Eltling stated that there is a gutter but no downspouts so the water flows along the back of the property into a ditch.

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

Mr. Domer stated that there was a water problem on the property when he purchased it.  With the approval of the previous owner he created a swale to divert the water back to the back of his property.  A small swale was put in to divert the water from his building all the way to the back of his property and then off onto route 236.

Mr. Deremer asked if there was a ditch line.

Mr. Domer stated that it is the lay of the land.

Mr. Deremer asked what the buildings use would be.

Mr. Domer stated that he would like to breeds dogs which would be his own dogs.  The dogs would be small and the building would be sound proofed.

Mr. Deremer closed this appeal to public input.

Mr. Dodson stated that he did not see a practical difficulty that allows the granting of the variance.

Mr. McDonnell agreed with Mr. Dodson and stated that the variance is 30% which he believes is substantial.

Mr. Deremer stated that the does not see a practical difficulty to allow the doubling of the structure.

Mr. McDonnell made a motion to deny appeal #1969.

Mr. Dodson seconded the motion.

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

APPEAL #1970 - Kevin Modock, property owner, 5714 Portage St. NW, North Canton, OH 44720 requests a variance to allow the existing single family dwelling to remain on the property until a second single family dwelling is constructed and then the existing dwelling will be completely removed and to allow the new single family dwelling to be at a 5 ft. east side yard setback where 10 ft. is required per Art. III, IV Sect. 302.3 and 401.6 of the zoning resolution.  Property located at 5714 Portage St. NW, Sect. 14NW Jackson Twp.  Area zoned R-1.

Mr. Deremer read the file application signed by Kevin Modock with reasons being to live in the existing dwelling until the new dwelling is constructed.  The file contained a tax map of the property in question and an aerial view showing where the existing and new structure would be located.
Mr. Deremer asked who would like to speak in favor of this appeal.

Mr. Deremer swore in Kevin Modock, 5714 Portage St. NW.

Mr. Modock stated that he would like to build a new home in front of the existing home  Once the new home is complete the old home would be torn down.  Mr. Modock stated that the variance for 5 ft. as opposed to 10 ft. is because he shares a driveway with the neighbor and there is a 15 ft. easement.  The lot is 100 ft. wide and the proposed home is 68 ft. wide so if the 5 ft. variance is approved then he would have a 12 ft. apron before getting into the shared driveway.  This way he wouldn’t be backing directly into the driveway.

Mr. Modock presented four photos and explained what each represented.  Exhibit #1 is a drawing showing the old home, where the new home would be located, and the 12 ft. apron.  Exhibit #2 shows where the new house would be located, exhibit #3 shows the driveway and 12 ft. apron, and exhibit #4 shows the property line.

Mr. Deremer asked what the square footage of the new house would be and if it is set in stone.

Mr. Modock stated that it is a single story ranch that is approximately 2,000 sq. ft. which isn’t all that big.  He would like the garage doors on the side because it would look better and enhance the neighborhood.

Mr. Deremer stated that Mr. Modock heard discussions previously from the board about practically difficulties.  There has been some discussion about the width of the house being 68 ft. and to give him a proper landing zone for the cars when pulling out so this might be what the board members need to hear, a true practical difficulty is the shape of the house.  Mr. Deremer asked if there is anything special about the layout other than it is a ranch house that is long and narrow.

Mr. Modock stated no.

Mr. Dodson asked if the shared driveway is on the east side.

Mr. Modock stated that it is on the west side.  The church is located on the east side of the property where the 5 ft. setback is proposed.

Mr. Dodson asked why the house couldn’t be moved to the west.

Mr. Modock stated that it would reduce the area that he has to pull out of his garage to 7 ft. before going into the driveway area.

Mr. Deremer stated that the lot is 100 ft. wide and if he were 10 ft. from the property line with a house that is 68 foot in width that would only give him 22 ft. to the property line and 15 of that would be for the driveway so you would actually end up with 7 ft. when pulling out of the garage.

Mr. Modock stated yes.

Mr. Deremer asked if there was any other consideration given to a different style house.

Mr. Modock stated that he is 42 and as he gets older he doesn’t want to have to go and down steps.

Mr. McDonnell stated that Mr. Modock testified that he would live in the current house until the new house was built and asked how long that would take.

Mr. Modock stated that he would like to start the new home in May and have it done within about six months.

Mr. McDonnell asked if granted, would there be any problem putting a time limit on how long two structures could be on the property.

Mr. Modock stated that he would not have a problem with a time limit.

Mr. McDonnell asked if it is Mr. Modock testimony, if the variance is granted, that there would be 12 ft. between the garage and the driveway.

Mr. Modock stated yes.

No one else in the audience spoke in favor of the 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 he thinks the shared driveway is a practical difficulty and doesn’t have a problem with the 5 ft. variance; however, he questions the second issue regarding two principal dwellings as to if the board has jurisdiction to grant the variance even temporarily.

Mr. Deremer stated that he agrees with Mr. Dodson regarding the setback variance because the lot is odd shaped being longer than it is wide.  The second issue is more of the argument Mr. McDonnell presented.  If they place a time limit on the new structure being built and the old one being removed then he believes the board would be within their bounds.  Mr. Deremer stated that this has been done before in commercial areas of the township.

Mr. Juergensen stated that he agrees with Mr. Deremer on both issues.  The applicant would like to live in the current structure until the new one is built.  Section 302.3(B) says no more than one principal building shall be permitted on any lot.  When looking at the definition of principal building it says that it’s the building on the lot used to accommodate a primary use in which the premises are devoted, so he thinks because they are going to be living in one and constructing the other and then living in the second and tearing down the first then he doesn’t think at any time there’s going to be more than one principal building on the lot and it’s not in violation of that section of the zoning code.

Mr. Juergensen stated under 401.12B, temporary buildings, they could allow them to put a temporary construction trailer up while the new home was being built and he see this more akin to that then what they had a couple of weeks ago where they wanted to have two residences that would be permanent structures.  Mr. Juergensen stated that he doesn’t have a problem with either of the requests.

Mr. Giulitto stated that he agrees with Mr. Juergensen and thinks if a time limit is placed on the variance that one year would be permissible.

Mr. Dodson suggested separating the two issues and the board agreed.

Mr. Juergensen made a motion to approve appeal #1970 to allow the existing dwelling to remain until the second dwelling is constructed.

Mr. Deremer stated for clarification purposes that portion of the appeal would be referred to as 1970(A).

Mr. McDonnell stated before the motion is seconded he would like to amend the motion with the condition to allow the existing single family dwelling to remain on the property until the second dwelling is constructed with a time limit of no more than twelve months from March 24, 2005 by which time one of the dwelling units will be removed leaving only one dwelling unit on the property.

Mr. Juergensen amended his motion to approve appeal #1970(A) as amended by Mr. McDonnell with the condition to allow the existing single family to remain until the second dwelling is constructed with a time limit of no more than 12 months from March 24, 2005 by which time one of the dwelling units will be removed leaving only one dwelling unit on the property.
Mr. McDonnell seconded the motion.

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

Mr. Deremer asked for a motion for the second portion of the appeal which is referred to as 1970(B) and is the 5 ft. side yard setback.

Mr. Dodson made a motion to approve the 5 ft. 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 approve the minutes from the meeting held February 24, 2005.

Mr. Giulitto seconded the motion.

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

Mr. Juergensen made a motion to adjourn the meeting.

Mr. Deremer 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