Members present:                                                            Ted Deremer
                                                                                            Richard Dodson
                                                                                           Jim Giulitto
                                                                                           John Juergensen

Absent Member:                                                               Edward McDonnell

Zoning Data Coordinator:                                               Joni Poindexter

APPEAL #1901 – PFC Lamont Hill Army Navy Memorial Garrison 2003, 4601 Castlebar NW, Canton, Ohio 44708 agent for John & Judy Seckler, property owner, 2226 Woodlawn Ave. NW, Canton, Ohio 44708 requests a variance to allow an off premise directional sign 34.6 sq. ft. with a height of 10 ft. where an on premises directional sign with a maximum square footage of 6 ft. and a maximum height of 3 ft. is permitted per Art. V Sect. 502.1(A)(9) of the zoning resolution.  Property location is lot #199 at the northeast corner of Castlebar and Woodlawn, Sect. 36SE Jackson Twp.  Area zoned R-4.

Mr. Deremer read the file application signed by Michael Barch with reasons being as stated by the applicant “Directional address sign to our building.”  The file contained a tax map of the property in question, a rendering of the sign, a map showing the proposed location of the sign and an e-mail sent 3/16/04 to John Phillippi, which was not read into the record because it is not swore testimony but remained in the file.

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

Mr. Deremer swore in Timothy Rhodes of Army Navy Garrison at 4601 Castlebar NW.

Mr. Rhodes stated that they have talked about the possibility of putting up a pleasing aesthetic sign, which would have nothing on it in reference to a club.  It would be a white sign with blue lettering showing the address only for 4601 Castlebar with an arrow.  They hope to put the sign up and then add landscaping around the sign.  Mr. Rhodes stated that they are going to do a major renovation of the entire area and clean the property up as soon as spring arrives.  They would like a sign on the corner because people are having a hard time finding their location.  People are coming down the hill and driving past the intersection and then they have to turn around.  With the requested sign size the sign would be seen well in advance and there wouldn’t be any traffic problems because people wouldn’t have to turn around in other people’s driveways.

Mr. Deremer asked if the sign is on someone else’s property.

Mr. Rhodes stated yes.  They do not own the property in which the sign would be located, but they do own 16-1/2 acres in the back.

Mr. Deremer asked if there are any other signs on the property.

Mr. Rhodes stated no.

Mr. Deremer asked what the reason is for the size of the sign.

Mr. Rhodes stated that the sign would be made of 4 x 6 ft. high grade plywood.  If there is a problem with the sign size they could always change it, but they would like to keep it as requested for easy viewing for people coming down the hill.  Mr. Rhodes stated that they are trying to make the club a community oriented veterans club.  They have talked to a lot of charities and will let them use the property free of charge for fun raisers.

Mr. Deremer stated that the resolution permits a sign 3 ft. in height and they are requesting 10 ft.

Mr. Rhodes stated that the gentleman that drew the sign looked at the area and he felt a larger sign would be easier for people to see coming down the hill, but they are amenable if it is a problem.

Mr. Deremer asked if there is anything on the corner that would prevent the sign from being seen if it were lower.

Mr. Rhodes stated that there is a building that is fairly close to the road.  They wanted to do something so people wouldn’t have to take their eyes off the road to the see the sign.  Mr. Rhodes stated that the sign would not have lighting.

Mr. Dodson asked Mr. Rhodes why the sign needed to be so high because the resolution allows a sign 3 ft. in height, and 10 ft. is a lot.

Mr. Rhodes stated that the gentleman that designed the sign came up with the idea and he felt that a higher sign was more advantageous to keep peoples eyes focused on the road and the sign at the same time as opposed to a smaller sign.

Mr. Giulitto stated that it is a large sign for a directional and thinks it is warranted but is awful big.  Mr. Giulitto asked Mr. Rhodes if the sign were reduced, what would be appropriate.

Mr. Rhodes stated that he is just the paper work man.  He has spoken to the other officers and they do not want to create any controversy.  They want to do something that is aesthetically pleasing to the area.  Mr. Rhodes stated that this is the recommendation by the gentleman that did the drawings on the building and he felt a large sign would be more advantageous for people to see, but they are amenable if it is a problem.

Mr. Rhodes stated that the issue of the sign is people are having trouble finding 4601 Castlebar.  Part of the reason is because the address of the property has been wrong for 14 years.  The county had it as 4718 Castlebar and when they bought the building they found out the address was wrong.

Mr. Deremer stated that one concern is the sign is an off-premises sign.  The board has approved these in the past, but they were more of a sign to get people turned in the right direction.  The other concern is the size of the sign and the board is looking for a reason as to why it needs to be 10 ft. in height.

Mr. Rhodes stated that the gentleman that drew the sign felt this is the best sign to be visible for people coming down the hill, but they are amenable.

Mr. Deremer asked Mr. Rhodes if any thought was put into trying a sign that fits the size that meets the resolution.

Mr. Rhodes stated that his board thought this would be the best sign.

Mr. Deremer asked Mr. Rhodes if he wants to stay with what has been presented.

Mr. Rhodes stated yes, because then he could go back to his board with a justification for a change.

Mr. Deremer asked if anyone else in the audience wanted to speak in favor of the appeal.

Mr. Deremer swore in Judy Seckler, 2226 Woodlawn NW.

Ms. Seckler stated that she owns the property in which the sign would be located and it was her idea to put the sign on her property.  Traffic is bad coming down the hill and there is a duplex that is close to the road.  Ms. Seckler stated that they would like the sign 10 ft. in height because they want to plant flowers and shrubs around the sign that will grow up, and they do not want them to block the sign which will be very nice and the whole area will be landscaped.

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 Mr. Ted Adamski, 4805 Castlebar NW.

Mr. Adamski stated that he has a spot light on one side of his house and if a light is put toward the other side of his house he will be known though the whole area.  Mr. Adamski stated that they should put a sign on Whipple Ave. and a road should have been put in from Whipple to get to the property.  Mr. Adamski stated that he is opposed because he doesn’t want a spot light.

Mr. Deremer stated that it was testified that the sign would not have any lighting, but it would stick up in the air and be a full sheet of plywood.

Mr. Adamski stated that there is nothing wrong with a small sign, but he doesn’t want to get lit up.

Mr. Deremer swore in Mr. David Benner, 6379 KilKenny Circle NW.

Mr. Benner stated that the variance is significant and the reason for the sign regulations is to protect the residents and people of the township.  If they are permitted a sign it should be a smaller sign.

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

Mr. Rhodes stated the he appreciates that fact that there are people who are opposed to it because if he lived in a residential neighborhood he would be to.  He understands it is a large sign but would like to ask everyone to give them an opportunity to clean the area up because there are a lot of plans that deal with landscaping the area.  Mr. Rhodes stated that they want to work with the township and the community.

Mr. Deremer closed this appeal to public input.

Mr. Dodson stated that the board has to find a practical difficulty based on the property or a special circumstance.  In this case he thinks 10 ft. in height is out of the question but would consider something lower.  It is his understanding if the variance is denied they can come back and ask for something smaller, so his recommendation is to deny the request.

Mr. Giulitto concurred with Mr. Dodson and stated that they want to work with Garrison in putting the proper sign up but 10 ft. is extreme.

Mr. Deremer agreed with the other board members and stated that he believes the sign is too large per the resolution to approve.  The maximum height is 3 ft. to allow for people to see over the sign when pulling onto the roadway.  Mr. Deremer stated that he understands they are trying to improve the lot and believes it is a positive thing to do but based on what he has heard and what has been approved within the township he doesn’t believe the size or height would be an approvable request.

Mr. Dodson made a motion to deny appeal #1901 as requested.

Mr. Juergensen seconded the motion.

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

APPEAL #1902 – Charlie Grant, property owner, 7897 Lutz Ave. NW, Massillon, Ohio 44646 requests a variance for a 6 ft. 4 in. right (north) side yard setback where 10 ft. is required in Art. IV Sect. 401.6 of the zoning resolution.  Property located at 7897 Lutz NW, Sect. 6SE Jackson Twp.  Area zoned R-R.

Mr. Deremer read the file application signed by Charlie Grant with reasons being as stated by the applicant, “Construction of in-law suite-garage allowing enough interior garage width for wheelchair access.”  The file contained a tax map of the property in question, a site plan showing the proposed location of the addition, a three page rendering showing the construction of the addition and a copy of an e-mail to John Phillippi from David Thompson.  Mr. Deremer stated that the e-mail would remain in the file but would not be read into the record because it is not swore testimony.

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

Mr. Deremer swore in Charlie Grant, 7897 Lutz Ave. NW.

Mr. Grant stated that he would like to add an in-law suite.  His father in-law is a diabetic and needs care so they would like to have an in-law suite to take care of their family.  Mr. Grant stated that they would like to have enough space without extending to far into the yard or side to allow them to add additional garage space as well as the addition.

Mr. Grant gave the board a site plan, exhibit #1, showing his property and the properties on either side of him and explained that they are not extending out any further than the adjacent properties.  Mr. Grant stated that the addition will be an enhancement to the property and they are trying to do the best they can for their family.

Mr. Deremer asked if the addition could be built on the property without violating zoning.

Mr. Grant stated that it would probably kill the project if it couldn’t be done.

Mr. Deremer asked if they could build it without violating zoning although it may not be practical.

Mr. Grant stated that they have been finagling around trying to get it to work as it is, so it would impair the project.  Mr. Grant stated that he doesn’t know how else they could do it and achieve the same objective.

Mr. Deremer asked if they are taking one half of the existing garage and using it for the in-law suite.

Mr. Grant stated that the dashed line indicates the new addition.  The garage as it exists is a side entry garage and they want to cut the existing garage in half and add the room onto it.  The reason is because it will allow them to have access to the utilities through the new addition, the garage and then into the basement.  They would be converting one half the existing garage into the addition.

Mr. Deremer asked if there is anything magical about the size of the garage being at a 24 ft. width.

Mr. Grant stated that this would be enough for his vehicle and his father in-laws.

Mr. Dodson stated that it looks like there is 30 ft. between the side of the existing house and the property line, so they have 20 ft. to work with that would not require a variance.  Mr. Dodson asked if there is any reason why the garage couldn’t be swung to the back of the existing garage.

Mr. Grant stated if they do that they would sticking out into the back yard well beyond everybody else and it would block their view of the open area.  They are trying to keep the addition similar to everyone else.

Mr. Dodson stated that he is sympathetic, but the board needs to find a practical difficulty based on the configuration of the property or the geographical aspects of the property and he would like to see one.

Mr. Grant stated that he can’t change where the house is located and they have 15 ft. of setback on the south side of the house where they only need 10 ft.  If the two sides were summed up there would still be 20 ft. of side setback.  It wouldn’t make any sense to do it anywhere else.

Mr. Deremer asked if anyone else in the audience wanted to speak in favor of this appeal.

Mr. Deremer swore in Fred Reikowsky, 11441 Glen Park Rd., Bolivar, Ohio.

Mr. Reikowsky stated that Mr. Grant asked him to put this project together for him and part of the criteria was that they maintained three parking spaces in the garage.  Originally they looked at leaving the two car garage where it is and adding a one car garage.  The problem they ran into is because the sewer and water go out the front of the house they couldn’t get the new addition close enough to a point where they could run it up to the house and make the addition integral enough to the existing house to make it practical for their in-laws to be care for.  They have 24 ft. but if the garage was moved as suggested, back and over, they might have room for a 16 ft. door but wouldn’t be able to get in and out of the car.  Mr. Reikowsky stated that 24 ft. is the minimum for a decent size garage.  By shifting the addition into half of the existing garage it allows them to be able to access the utilities and keep it integral enough to the house with the existing sunroom for access.

Mr. Deremer stated that he thinks the addition could potentially be built in front of the existing garage with three stalls in a row except there is a sewer system coming out in the front.

Mr. Reikowsky stated that it could probably be done if not for the sewer, but he is not sure they would have enough setback in the front.

Mr. Deremer stated that he thinks this was the argument that Mr. Dodson was getting at and if put toward the front he believes it would encroach into the front yard so they would still need a variance.

Mr. Reikowsky stated that they want to design something that is aesthetically pleasing and bring the rooflines together.

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 Ms. Kupoulos, 7917 Lutz NW.

Ms. Kupoulos stated that she lives next door to Mr. Grant and she doesn’t have a problem with him building for his in-laws but thinks it should stay 10 ft. from the zoning line.

Mr. Deremer asked Ms. Kupoulos how far her house is from the property line.

Mr. Kupoulos stated that it is about 10 ft., but she is not sure.  Ms. Kupoulos stated that she thinks it would be better if Mr. Grant would push it closer to his sunroom.

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

Mr. Grant stated that there is actually 15 ft. between Ms. Kupoulos house and the property line.  There is a tree line along his property line that would stay so there will be a buffer between the properties that is 10 to 12 ft. high.

Mr. Deremer closed this appeal to public input.

Mr. Dodson stated that the lot is big and he is having difficulty finding a practical difficulty that is not caused by the original configuration of the home unless he is missing something.

Mr. Juergensen agreed with Mr. Dodson and stated that he doesn’t see a practical difficulty with the land.

Mr. Deremer stated that he sees some practical difficulty that was presented when Mr. Grant was questioned about putting the garage in front of the existing garage.  They could potentially do that and not violate the side yard, but they would encroach into the front yard and possibly run into the sewer and water line in the front.  Mr. Deremer stated that he believes the request is approvable based on what has been suggested.  The fact that they are looking to bring the in-laws in, although he sympathizes with them, cannot be used as a reason because the variance runs with the land.  Mr. Deremer stated that he believes the request is valid because they are not overbuilding the lot.  The addition could be put on the property, although it may not be practical, without violating zoning but the way the house is laid out and the setback from the front of the property does not allow them to put it anywhere else except as shown.

Mr. Giulitto made a motion to approve appeal #1902 as requested.

Mr. Deremer seconded the motion.

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

APPEAL #1903 – Ed Roth, 308 Poplar Ave. NW, Canton, Ohio 44708 agent for Monte & Joyce Fox, property owner, 65 Cherry Dr. NW, North Canton, Ohio 44720 requests a variance for a 2 ft. left side yard setback where 10 ft. is required in Art. IV Sect. 401.11 of the zoning resolution.  Property located at 65 Cherry Dr. NW, Sect. 3NW Jackson Twp.  Area zoned R-R.

Mr. Deremer read the file application signed by Ed Roth with reasons being as stated by the applicant, “Because of contour of lot, space for garage is limited, owners wish to eliminate steep driveway by adding addition which makes it possible for easy access to garage.”  The file contained a tax map of the property in question and a site plan showing the addition.

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

Mr. Deremer swore in Joyce Fox, 65 Cherry Dr. NW, North Canton, Ohio 44720.

Ms. Fox stated that Mr. Roth built the original structure and has done improvements on the home.  The driveway as it exists is very steep and runs nearly parallel with the road, so when coming out of the drive you are coming out blind and it is dangerous.  This is the major reason for turning the garage and having the driveway come off of the road instead of down.  Ms. Fox stated that there is very limited parking.

Ms. Fox gave the board an approval letter from the Willowdale Board of Trustees, which was marked as exhibit #1.

Ms. Fox stated that they have an agreement with the neighbor that together they will do some type of landscaping between the two properties.  They will fill the existing drive to ground level and add a parking deck.  Ms. Fox stated that the existing structure has a walk in attic and they will be using the same trusses.  They will not be going any closer to the road but will have enough room to get two cars in the garage along with a work bench.  The stairs to the attic assess will be moved into the garage from the outside as shown in the shaded area on the plan.

Mr. Deremer asked what is to the rear of the garage.

Ms. Fox stated that it is an existing shed that is 2 ft. off of the property line.

Mr. Deremer asked what the final size of the garage would be.
Mr. Fox stated that the 21.2 ft. that is currently the width of the garage will become the depth and stay the same.  They will be adding 4 ft. in one direction and 8 ft. in the other direction so the final size of the garage will be 21.2 ft. by 34 ft.

Mr. Deremer asked if the garage would become a three car garage.

Ms. Fox stated that it will look like a three car garage but will have a double door and a separate bay for the workbench and lawn items.

Mr. Deremer asked if the existing driveway would be eliminated.

Ms. Fox stated yes, it will be filled with dirt and part of it will be paved for a parking deck.

Mr. Deremer swore in Mr. Marty Fox, 65 Cherry Dr. NW, North Canton, Ohio 44720.

Mr. Fox stated that the reason they want to change the drive is because it is very dangerous and they are trying to make it safer.  The house is on a sharp incline and drops off about 9 ft.

Mr. Deremer asked if they had put any thought into building the addition on the driveway side.

Mr. Fox stated that it would cut away from being able to park vehicles on the side.

No one else in the audience spoke in favor of or in opposition to the appeal.

Mr. Deremer closed this appeal to public discussion.

Mr. Dodson stated that Willowdale is an unusual area and the plat lines don’t really exist.  If this were in any other part of the township it would be ridiculous to grant a 1 ft. variance, but he believes the policy has been if the Board of Trustees for Willowdale approves then this board doesn’t have a problem with it.

Mr. Giulitto agreed with Mr. Dodson and stated that it makes sense from a safety factor.

Mr. Deremer agreed with the other board members and stated that this is one of two tight areas in the township that were created long ago and believes the garage will not encroach anymore than the existing structure.

Mr. Dodson made a motion to approve appeal #1903 as requested.

Mr. Juergensen seconded the motion.

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

APPEAL #1904 – Hammontree & Associates, 5233 Stoneham Road, North Canton, Ohio 44720 agent for Robert Stark Enterprises, Inc., property owner, 28601 Chagrin Blvd., Suite 600, Woodmere, Ohio 44122 requests a variance for a 14 ft. 11 in. south side yard setback where 25 ft. is required in Art. IV Sect. 411.5 of the zoning resolution.  Property located at 6787 Strip Ave., Sect. 12SW Jackson Twp.  Area zoned I-1.

Mr. Deremer read the file application signed by Barb Bennett.  The file contained a tax map of the property in question, an ariel map from the Stark County Auditor, a site plan showing the proposed addition, a final grading plan dated 8/4/03 with a revision date of 3/4/04, and a listing of reason for the appeal.

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

Mr. Deremer swore in Barb Bennett, 5233 Stoneham Road, North Canton, Ohio 44720.

Ms. Bennett stated that she is representing Robert Stark and Cold Stone Creamery.  Ms. Bennett explained the site plan and stated where the driveway is located is the only place that it could be put.  There is an Ameritech phone box and sewer easement so the building is located the only place it could be located.  The fire department requires access to three sides of the building, which they have.  They want to take out the existing wall and add additional footage for the Cold Stone Creamery.  There is an existing patio outside where the addition would be built.

Mr. Deremer asked what the addition would be used for.

Ms. Bennett stated that it would be for tables and seating.

Mr. Dodson stated that it appears this is the smallest of the three leased spaces.

Ms. Bennett stated this is correct.

Mr. Dodson asked if the practical hardship is that the tenant needs more room.

Ms. Bennett stated yes, and in light of the physical hardship of the site itself.

Mr. Giulitto asked if the patio area is going to be eliminated, they want to move the addition out, and if there is not going to be anything closer to the road as far as the outside.

Ms. Bennett stated that there will still be some concrete patio along that side of the building.

Mr. Giulitto asked if there would still be outside seating.

Ms. Bennett stated yes, they will have outside seating along the face of the building.

Mr. Deremer asked if the existing wall was up when the addition was decided.

Ms. Bennett stated yes.  The owner is willing to take the cost of blowing out the existing wall that was constructed less than one month ago because they feel it is very important and critical to accommodate the tenant.

Ms. Bennett stated that they have resubmitted to Regional Planning for the addition.

Mr. Juergensen asked how close the concrete patio is at this time to the south property line.

Ms. Bennett stated that it is 7 ft.

Mr. Deremer asked if anyone else in the audience wanted to speak in favor of this appeal.

Mr. Deremer swore in Mr. David Benner, 6379 KilKenny Cir. NW, Massillon, Ohio 44646.

Mr. Benner stated that he has a question and asked if the property were zoned B-3 would the side setback be the same as the I-1 zoning.

Mr. Deremer stated that they have to deal with the current zoning.

Mr. Benner stated that he understands this but there has been recommendation made to the township to rezone the entire set of properties to B-3 because that is what the usage actually is.

No one else in the audience spoke in favor of or opposition to the appeal.

Mr. Dodson stated that the resolution requires the board to find a practical difficulty.  The fact that the proposed tenant needs more space is not a reason for a zoning resolution.  Mr. Dodson stated they know the properties use is B-3, so it seems the appropriate remedy would be to rezone the property to B-3.

Mr. Deremer agreed with Mr. Dodson and stated he understands if the property were zoned B-3 the variance would be well within what is permitted, but the board has to look at the current zoning.  The requested variance is extreme and seems to be self inflicted.  Mr. Deremer stated that Mr. Dodson is correct in stating if the property were zoned B-3 they could build it, but this is not the case.

Mr. Juergensen stated that the lot is somewhat irregularly shaped and it appears that it slopes inward toward the property as going west, but he doesn’t know if this is enough to grant the variance.

Mr. Dodson made a motion to deny appeal #1904 as requested.

Mr. Giulitto seconded the motion.

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

Respectfully submitted,

Joni Poindexter
Zoning Data Coordinator
Clerk/Secretary