Members present:                                                         Ted Deremer
                                                                                        Edward McDonnell
                                                                                        Gerald Werner
                                                                                        Richard Dodson
                                                                                        Jim Giulitto
                                                                                        John Juergensen-Alternate

Zoning Administrator:                                                  John Phillippi
Zoning Data Coordinator:                                           Joni Poindexter

APPEAL #1843 – Terrell Building Inc., 6291 Promler Ave. NW, North Canton, Ohio 44720 agent for Kevin Mazanec, property owner, 6669 Freedom Ave. NW, North Canton, Ohio 44720 requests a variance for a 3.42 ft. right (north) side yard setback where a 5 ft. side yard setback is required in Art. IV Sect. 401.7 of the zoning resolution.  Property located at 5527 Stuber Dr. NW, Sect. 14SE Jackson Twp.  Area zoned R-1.

Mr. Deremer read the file application signed by Shelly Baskerville with reason being the owner must have a 9 ft. wide garage in order to park his pickup truck so that he does not have to park outside to continue the beautification of the neighborhood.  The file contained a tax map of the property in question and site plan showing the proposed location of the home.

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

Mr. Deremer swore in Terry Bolon, 6291 Promler Ave. NW.

Mr. Bolon stated that the stairway into the basement is in the garage which limits the distance of the garage.  The property owner has a pick up truck with an extended cab and an 8 ft. bed that makes the truck about 22 ft. in length.  Mr. Bolon stated that they would like to extend the garage so when the truck is pulled inside it will fit beside the stairway and will not stick out of the garage.

Mr. Bolon drew a sketch of the garage, exhibit #1, and explained where the stairway would be located and where the truck would be parked.  Mr. Bolon stated that it would benefit the neighborhood if the truck were parked in the garage as opposed to in the driveway.  Mr. Bolon stated that he spoke with the adjoining neighbor and they do not have a problem with the request.

Mr. Deremer asked if the current garage is for two cars and how deep it is.

Mr. Bolon stated yes.  It is 30 ft. deep but they need to add the additional square footage so they can fit the truck in the garage.

Mr. Deremer asked how long the truck is.

Mr. Bolon stated that the truck is 22 to 23 ft. with the extended cab.

Mr. Deremer stated that the truck would fit in a garage that is 30 ft. in depth.

Mr. Bolon stated that is it 30 ft. with the staircase.

Mr. McDonnell asked if the request is for an addition to an exiting home or if the home is new.

Mr. Bolon stated that it is a new home.

Mr. McDonnell asked why they couldn’t move the structure back by 18 inches.

Mr. Bolon stated that they would have to make the home smaller.

Mr. McDonnell asked if the problem is the size of the truck.

Mr. Bolon stated yes.

Mr. McDonnell asked if there is anything about the land itself that creates the problem.

Mr. Bolon stated no, they need the room to put the truck in the garage.

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

Mr. Deremer swore in Kevin Mazanec, 6669 Promler Ave. NW.

Mr. Mazanec stated that it’s his truck and he needs to park it in the garage and this is the only way to do it.

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 Bud Wilson, 5515 Stuber Dr. NW.

Mr. Wilson stated that he lives two houses down from the property in question.  A while back he needed to construct a new garage because his was falling down and was told that if he wanted to build a new garage that was not on the existing foundation then he would have to be 10 ft. from the property line.  Mr. Wilson asked if he had to be10 ft. from the property line then how can a new home be built that is only 3 to 4 ft. from the property line on one side and 5 ft. from the property line on the other side.

Mr. Phillippi stated that for lots that are 60 ft. in width or less then there is an automatic reduction in the side yard setbacks from 10 ft. to 5 ft.

Mr. Wilson stated that his lot is 60 ft. wide.

Mr. Phillippi asked Mr. Wilson if his garage was detached.

Mr. Wilson stated yes.

Mr. Phillippi stated that the garage would have been considered an accessory structure so the setback requirement is different.

Mr. Wilson asked Mr. Phillippi if he is saying that in the Lake Cable area they are allowed to build within 3 to 4 ft. from property line.

Mr. Phillippi stated that there is a 5 ft. setback for the smaller lots.

Mr. Wilson stated that they would not be 5 ft. from the property line on the north side.

Mr. Deremer stated that this is why there is a hearing.

Mr. Wilson stated that he is opposed to the request because he lives next to a home that is 3 ft. from the property line and it has caused nothing but problems.

Mr. Deremer asked Mr. Wilson how far his home is from the property line.

Mr. Wilson stated that it is approximately 10 ft. from the property line however one year ago they had to take 1-1/2 ft. off of their house because the driveway is very narrow due to a fence that was put up by his neighbor.  Mr. Wilson stated that this cost him $5,000 to $6,000 but he needed to be able to back his boat down his driveway and into the garage.

Mr. Deremer stated that he wants Mr. Wilson to understand that each case is looked at on its own merits.

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

Mr. Deremer closed this appeal to public input.

Mr. McDonnell stated that the lot is narrow being only 60 ft. but the resolution takes into account narrow lots of 60 ft. or less and reduces the side yard setback from 10 ft. to 5 ft.  Mr. McDonnell stated that this is new construction and they are not dealing with something that currently exists.  The questions in his mind is can it be planned differently so the variance would not be required.  Mr. McDonnell stated that he believes this is a pretty significant request.  Although the board treats every variance on its own merits they have historically, even in the Lake Cable area, decided that 5 ft. is the minimum setback that is typically required and they have been reluctant to grant variances that are less then 5 ft.

Mr. McDonnell stated that he believes the deciding factor is that it is not the narrowness of the lot or the topography of the land and there is not a practical difficulty that is generated by the property itself.  It is a difficulty that is generated by the residence’s vehicle.  Mr. McDonnell stated that the zoning resolution is based on land use and not vehicle ownership.  If the board starts granting variances because someone buys an extended pickup, boat, or camper, then it is contrary to the whole notion and whole rational behind zoning.  Mr. McDonnell stated that he has difficulty in voting to approve the request.

Mr. Werner agreed with Mr. McDonnell.

Mr. Giulitto agreed with the other board members and stated that he has not seen a hardship that meets his approval.

Mr. McDonnell made a motion to deny appeal #1843.

Mr. Werner seconded the motion.

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

Mr. Deremer explained that the appeal has been denied and the applicant has 30 days to appeal the decision to the Stark County Court of Common Pleas if feel the decision was wrong.

APPEAL #1841 – Daniel Popa, property owner, 5939 West Shore Dr. NW, Canton, Ohio 44718 requests a variance for a 28 ft. front yard setback where a 40 ft. front yard setback is required in Art. IV Sect. 401.6 of the zoning resolution.  Property located at 5939 West Shore Dr. NW, Sect. 23NW Jackson Twp.  Area zoned R-1.

Mr. Deremer read the file application signed by David Popa with reasons being to construct a 12 x 12 ft. two story addition & to provide a lower level front entrance to the upper level of the ranch style house.  The file contained a tax map of the property in question and a site plan showing the proposed addition.

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

Mr. Deremer swore in Daniel Popa, 5939 West Shore Dr. NW.

Mr. Popa stated that he added the 12’ x 12’ addition to the sketch that was prepared by a professional surveyor.  The home is a ranch and they would like to get to the second floor from the front of the house.  Mr. Popa stated that the driveway looks like a runway and he would like to make 1/3 of it grass along with getting rid of part of the sidewalk and planting grass.

Mr. Popa stated that eventually he would like to put an elevator in the addition because his wife has problems with her hips and knees and it is very difficult for her to go up and down steps.  Mr. Popa stated that there are many people who move into a one story condo because they can’t go up and down steps anymore and he does not want to have to do this.

Mr. Popa presented several photos, exhibit 1 thru 15, of other existing homes in the neighborhood and explained what each represented.  Mr. Popa stated that most of the homes on the street are closer than 40 ft. from the right of way so it would not be out of character with the neighborhood.  Mr. Popa presented a three dimensional sketch of the property that was marked as exhibit #16.

Mr. McDonnell asked if it is Mr. Popa’s testimony that the home will be within 28 ft. from the street and along West Shore this will not exceed where some of the other homes are located.

Mr. Popa stated that this is correct.

Mr. Giulitto asked Mr. Popa how many years he had lived at the property.

Mr. Popa stated seven years.

Mr. Giulitto asked if the addition would make it easier to get in and out of the house.

Mr. Popa stated yes.

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 pubic discussion.

Mr. Dodson stated that he is familiar with the homes in the neighborhood and thinks the testimony about the actual setbacks that exist as opposed to the 40 ft. that is suppose to be there is correct.  Mr. Dodson stated that he doesn’t think the request is out of character with the neighborhood at all and he has no problem with the request.

Mr. Werner agreed and stated that he thinks the addition and adding more grass will add to the esthetics of the property and he has no problem with this appeal.

Mr. Deremer stated that he believes this would be a positive improvement and there are places in the Lake Cable area that are tighter then what is being requested and he is in favor of the appeal.

Mr. Dodson made a motion to approve appeal #1841 as requested and Mr. Werner seconded the motion.

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

Mr. Deremer stated that the request has been approved.

APPEAL #1842 – Richard Kiko, 2805 Fulton Rd. NW, Canton, Ohio 44718 agent for M.E. Michaels, executor of Greta Michaels Estate, property owner, 8600 High Mill Ave. NW, Canal Fulton, Ohio 44614 appeals the decision of the Zoning Administrator to deny a zoning permit per parcel as proposed, Art. III Sect. 302.3A, (each over five acres) due to not meeting minimum lot requirements per zoning & requests a variance for a 50 ft. minimum lot width for proposed parcels four (18 acre tract) and five (16.75 acre tract) and a 75 ft. minimum lot width for proposed parcels two (13 acre tract) and three (14 acre tract) at the 100 ft. setback where 100 ft. minimum lot width is required in Art. IV Sect. 401.5(2)C of the zoning resolution.  Property located at 8600 High Mill Ave. NW, Sect. 6NW Jackson Twp.  Area zoned R-R.

Mr. Deremer read the file application signed by Peter Kiko with reasons being to allow a residential building permit to be issued for each proposed parcel.  The file contained a tax map of the property in question, a site plan showing the layout of the proposed parcels, a letter from Ted Heck, Jackson Township Fire Chief to John Phillippi, Zoning Administrator, dated March 26, 2003, and a letter from John Phillippi to Peter Kiko dated February 11, 2003 regarding proposed tracts-High Mill Ave. NW, which was read into the record.

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

MR. DEREMER:  Good evening sir.  If you would raise your right hand.  Do you swear or affirm that the testimony you’re about to give is the whole truth and nothing but the truth?

MR. KIKO:  Yes sir.

MR. DEREMER:  Please state your name and address for the record.
MR. KIKO:  Peter Kiko and my address of business is 2805 Fulton Dr. NW, Canton, Ohio 44718.  We are asking for an appeal to issue a building permit.  One residential building permit per parcel as proposed.  Our firm was contracted by the Michael’s family to market the property at public auction and we worked with a surveyor to make at least four nice building sites on the property.  Like you see on there, parcel number two is thirteen acres and has a hill in the middle.  Parcel three is fourteen acres.  Parcel five is eighteen acres and parcel….I missed one.  Two is thirteen, three is fourteen, four is eighteen acres and parcel five is sixteen point seven five acres.
We proceeded to have the auction.  We have the four flag parcels; two of them with 50 ft. of frontage and two of them with 75 ft. of frontage.  The frontage is purely for access from the road.  They are not permitted to build on the lane portion of the parcel.  Flag lots are designed to utilize land that has minimum frontage so that the flag part of the lot, parcel, would be used for access only and you would build on the large part of the parcel.  After the auction, a few days after the auction, I got a call from John, or actually a call from one of the buyers that talked to John and I received a letter from John that the parcels would be allowed to be transferred because they are exempt from the township zoning but he would not be able to issue building permits on the parcels.  Of course the buyers called us shortly after that and they wanted to be assured that they can at least have one building permit per parcel, the smallest parcel being thirteen acres and 550,000 sq. ft..  So what we’re asking for is one building permit per parcel. After I met with John he gave me a copy of the subdivision requirements for lots and I guess what we’re appealing is under Section 401.5C it says minimum lot width at 100 ft. setback.  I guess what we think that should say is a minimum lot width at the building line of 100 ft.   If you look at these parcels, if you come back to the access part of the land and then when you get onto the large body 100 ft. in we have more then 100 ft. width.  Where you build your house the narrowest lot that we have is 450 ft. wide.  So where you would build your home there is more then 100 ft. width.  I believe the regulations that were established here were for a lot, you know a small lot.  There is no regulation in your zoning for flag lots over five acres.  The only thing that the zoning says is that they’re exempt; they can be transferred.  So what we would like to ask for is an appeal to be able to issue one building, one residential building permit per parcel for those people who bought these parcels.

And I guess I have one more thing to add.  Even with the Fire Department, if we make these long narrow strips 100 ft. wide, according to your regulations that would be allowed and we wouldn’t even be here.  But we feel if you make those long strips 100 ft. wide you’re basically taking out two parcels which values the Michael’s land less money and for someone to maintain a 100 ft. wide strip 1,200 ft. deep, to me you're adding more maintenance to that parcel.  So technically if we would make these parcels 100 ft. wide all the way back it would allow someone to build a house on that bottleneck and that would basically create a problem in my mind and would create fifty more feet by 1,200 feet long for someone to have to maintain.  That would according to column “C”, that would be allowed and you would have to issue a building permit.  So the issue of the length of the driveway in my mind in irrelevant because if we make that 100 ft. wide it would be acceptable but we would be taking out two parcels and thirteen acres.  I think that averaged about $11,000 an acre and to say you would have to have 100 ft. width the whole way back, people are going to have to buy over 30 acres to build one house.  I guess that’s why we did it.  When we did this we believed we were meeting the requirement of 50 ft. and I was not aware that there was even an issue until after we had the auction for the Michael family.  None of the Michael family is here but there are actually thirteen children who own the property and that’s who we we’re actually working for.  You know we sell property all over Stark County and we sell a lot of flag lots because they make sense rather then have a lot 200 ft. wide and 2,000 ft. deep. You put one in the front and one in the back and it’s a better way to utilize the property.  So I guess what I’m asking for from the Board of Appeals is permission for John to issue one building permit per parcel.  I guess if you have any questions for me I’ll try to answer them.

MR. DEREMER:  It would be your testimony that no buildings would be built on the narrow portions of the parcel.
MR. KIKO:  Well the way we have it now they cannot build on the narrow part.  It is strictly for accessibility to the large body and that’s why flag lots were designed; to give you access to the public road but you would not build on it.  So the way we have it actually prevents anybody from building on the strip because it does not meet the requirements to build on.  That would be used specifically for driveway purposes and that’s why we made them 50 ft. wide.  Our experience in working with excavators and people is that 50 ft. is plenty to put a 16 ft. driveway and if they want to bury their utilities there is room to bury utilities and put in drainage ditches and culverts.  It gives you room to maneuver the dirt to make it a properly constructed driveway.

MR. DEREMER:  Do you believe that the zoning administrator made a wrong decision.

MR. KIKO:  No.  I worked with another township, Franklin Township in Summit County which is your neighboring township, and they had the same regulations almost word for word that you guys have here.  I was at the Board of Appeals because before the auction started they came to me and said you don’t comply.  I basically gave the same proposal that I gave to you and they changed their regulations for flag lots.  They specifically added a parcel in their zoning for flag parcels over five acres which are now exempt from your zoning but we got hung up on the building permit.  But they changed their ruling that they allow 50 ft. of frontage for a flag lot but at the body where you build your home it has to meet the width, the setback building line width.  So, Franklin Township in Summit County added a paragraph to their zoning for the flag lots over five acres.  I’m not disagreeing with this for a lot you know.  A 50 ft. lot 100 ft. back, I’m picturing a small building lot and these were written for lots.  I don’t believe they were written for flag parcels over five acres.  So John was going off the restriction that you have for lots and my personal opinion is there needs to be something about flag parcels that are over five acres which are right now exempt as far as transferring them, but not exempt from getting a building permit.

MR. DODSON:  Mr. Kiko, number one, we don’t have the authority as a board to change the zoning resolution.  That’s something that you would have to bring up to the zoning board.  Has this split already taken place?

MR. KIKO:  Yes.  It has not been transferred.  We auctioned the property off on January 11th.

MR. DODSON:  Ok, so the property is still in the name of the Estate?

MR. KIKO:  The four parcels are surveyed and still in the name of the estate, yes.

MR. DODSON:  Thank you.

MR. DODSON:  Excuse me, I have one other question.  Can you accomplish the same thing by putting a road on the south side of the parcel?

MR. KIKO:  Pardon me.

MR. DODSON:  Couldn’t you accomplish the same thing by putting a road, a dead end road on the south side on this parcel?

MR. KIKO:  No, because of the contour it’s too steep.

MR. DODSON:  But that’s the same place where the driveways are, isn’t it?

MR. KIKO:  No.  The driveways, the south side… I’m sorry along the south side building a road?

MR. DODSON:  Right, where the driveways are going.

MR. KIKO:  The problem is not being in the sewer district, if you would construct a road you would have to sell the property basically to pay for the road.  You would have to go with septic systems and the way this ground lays you would be looking at at least five acre parcels and there is a lot of this property that is not even usable so it wouldn’t be economical to build a public road to subdivide this property.  That’s why flag parcels were created.

MR. DODSON:  Ok, thank you.

MR. KIKO:  When you first asked me I thought you meant from the east side, extending that road on the east side and its too steep.
MR. DEREMER:  Any other comments, questions?

MR. MCDONNELL:  For the record Mr. Kiko, I looked in the manual.  First of all for the record when you refer to John, you’re talking about Mr. Phillippi?

MR. KIKO:  Yes.

MR. MCDONNELL:  Ok.  There are a lot of Johns and the record can’t sort which is which.  The other thing, you keep talking about a flag lot and I’m looking at our definitions just to make sure we’re all talking about the same thing.  Can you define what you mean when you refer to a flag lot?

MR. KIKO:  Well I don’t know if there is a definition that exists but our definition in working with Stark County over the years is that it is a parcel of land that has a narrow strip extending from the body of it to the road for access and for being able to transfer.  You cannot transfer a land locked piece of land that has to have road frontage.  So if you have a large body of land that is back in and that would be an ideal spot to build, it has to touch the road and you have to have access to the road to be able to transfer it and to be able to have access to it.  The word flag became because you image a flag and then the flag pole.  The flag pole being the driveway portion of it and that’s why they came up with the definition of flag lot.  We didn’t create the definition and I’m not sure where it’s at but that’s how it came about.

MR. MCDONNELL:  Who divided this parcel?
MR. KIKO:  I did.

MR. MCDONNELL:  Into these four flag lots?

MR. KIKO:  I did.  I walked the land several times and I had aerial maps with topography and with the elevations and to me it made the most sense in order to be subdivided into more then just one or two parcels.  And like parcel thirteen, where the number thirteen is, that’s a real high point like a crown and would be an ideal place to build a home.  Parcel fourteen, just above the number fourteen would be an ideal place.  Number four and five, they both have a high point which would be an ideal place to build a home.

MR. MCDONNELL:  Just for the record Mr. Kiko, are you a surveyor?

MR. KIKO:  Pardon me.

MR. MCDONNELL:  Are you a surveyor?

MR. KIKO:  No.

MR. MCDONNELL:  Are you a planner?

MR. KIKO:  Pardon me.

MR. MCDONNELL:  Are you in real estate?

MR. KIKO:  Yes.

MR. MCDONNELL:  Ok, you have a real estate license?

MR. KIKO:  Yes.

MR. MCDONNELL:  Ok, are you an architect?

MR. KIKO:  No.  I worked with a surveyor, Nichols Field Service.  I gave them the actual….

MR. MCDONNELL:  They surveyed and set this aside or did you?  Did they survey this and divide the lot?

MR. KIKO:  Yes.  I gave them the idea of what I wanted and they did the engineering end of it.

MR. MCDONNELL:  Thank you.  That’s all I got Mr. Chairman.

MR. DEREMER:  Is this the first time you’ve done this Mr. Kiko?

MR. KIKO:  No.

MR. DEREMER:  Is this a common thing on a larger parcel now days?

MR. KIKO:  Yes.  We saw several parcels in Stark County and the flag lot is the way to utilize the land in dividing it up in the best manor to make it usable to more people.  We’ve done several of them in flag parcels.  We worked with the county and regional planning for years to try to make it comply.

MR. DEREMER:  Very good.  Any other questions gentleman?  Anything else that you would like to add?

MR. KIKO:  I guess one thing that I would like to add on behalf of the Michaels family and myself is that I guess if this is denied they are going to be forced to make these 100 ft. wide all the way back and I really believe that would be a waste of land.  As far as the Michaels are concerned it would cost them money to make those 100 ft. wide all the way back.  That’s all I have to say.

MR. DEREMER:  Thank you sir.

MR. KIKO:  Thank you.

MR. DEREMER:  Is there anyone else in the audience who would like to speak in favor of the application this evening?  Please come forward.  Raise your right hand.  Do you swear or affirm that the testimony you’re about to give is the whole truth and nothing but the truth?

MR. RILEY: I do.

MR. DEREMER:  Please state your name and address.

MR. RILEY:  William Riley, 8600 High Mill Ave. NW.  I’m the owner of the parcel that sold; parcel number one that you see on the map there.  First of all I found that Peter Kiko and the whole auction company are very upfront and forthright with us answering any questions that we’ve ever had.  The day of the auction there were many neighbors present all with the same fear that some developer was going to come in there and just put up a whole bunch of houses through the whole farm.  They were very pleased that we got the portion that we got and I think they were equally pleased that there were at least two different buyers for the other four parcels.  If I understand correctly the way it stands now, if the variance is granted there can only be a total of four houses placed back there.  Is that correct?

MR. DEREMER:  Yes.

MR. RILEY:  In the event that the variance is not granted and Kiko may be forced to resell it all as one, how many houses can be built back there then?

MR. DEREMER:  More then four.

MR. RILEY:  Right, so with that in mind I am very much in favor of granting this appeal to Kiko Auction Company.

MR. DEREMER:  Thank you sir.  Any questions gentleman?  Thank you.  Is there anyone else that would like to speak in favor?  Please come forward.  Do you swear or affirm that the testimony that you’re about to give is the whole truth and nothing but the truth?

MS. AGODZINSKI:  Yes I do.

MR. DEREMER:  Please state your name and address.

MS. AGODZINSKI:  Susan Agodzinski, 8750 High Mill, Canal Fulton.  My point exactly was just made by this gentleman here.  Living where I live our biggest fear…we bought the property to be out in the country.  When I saw the subdivision going in further down High Mill there, Emerald Estates, I was heartbroken because I like the country.  When this property went up for sale I was very scared that one developer was going to be able to buy it all and put 30 or 40 houses back there.  Ruin my view of the country.  If the variance is granted, they will only be allowed to put four houses back there.  That’s my question to you.  If that’s the case and he will only be allowed to put four houses back there, I would like him to get the variance because I don’t want it to be sold as one and to turn around later on and there be 30 or 40 houses back there.

MR. DEREMER:  Thank you.  Any questions gentleman?  Thank you.  Is there anyone else that would like to speak in favor of the application this evening?  By your silence I’ll take that as a no.  Is there anyone in the audience who would like to speak in opposition to the application this evening?  Please come forward.  Please raise your right hand.  Do you swear or affirm that the testimony you’re about to give is the whole truth and nothing but the truth?

MR. MANDA:  I do.

MR. DEREMER:  Please state your name and address.

MR. MANDA:  Ken Manda, 8710 Pondera St.  As far as that piece of property being divided up into four parcels like that it’s against our zoning with the 50 ft. strip and the setbacks.  A year ago I started to divide up 34 acres also.  Instead of coming in with these flag lots and trying to do all this we met zoning and a couple of times we had to adjust the lots to make them match the zoning with the setbacks.  As far as someone purchasing that piece of property and putting 30 houses on there it is highly doubtful.  The cost of the street to go in there would never warrant the cost of doing it.  They can divide the property up properly with the proper setbacks.  They might not get four lots and may only get two or three.  If we go ahead and start making these adjustments to our zoning, which we already had problems in the past on many other locations out here in Jackson Township, I don’t think we need to start doing it with the setback.  If this would be granted I’m sure there’s going to be a line of quite a few other people in here that have pieces of property that they’re working on right now that would drop their plans and come in and start doing these flag lots because it would be a very cheep way to develop your property.  I am very much opposed to this.  I think we have zoning and we have to stay to it.  As a developer I’m staying to it and many other people are and if they want to divide lots like this in other townships that are very rural and they want to accept that, so be it.  But this is Jackson and as a developer I’m not in favor of it.  I’m in favor of our zoning.

MR. DEREMER:  Thank you sir.  Any questions gentleman?  Thank you.  Is there anyone else that would like to speak in opposition to the application this evening?  Do you swear or affirm that the testimony you’re about to give is the whole truth and nothing but the truth.

MR. SHAMANSKY:  Yes.

MR. DEREMER:  Please state your name and address for the record.

MR. SHAMANSKY:  I’m Robert Shamansky, 9568 Cliffview NW.  I’m here because I really don’t understand what they are trying to do.  I’m not so much in opposition but are they saying that they are just going to build one home on each lot?  Is that what they are saying?

MR. DEREMER:  The testimony has been that here this evening.  The variance requests is for most lots at the 100 ft. setback they need to be at least 100 ft. wide.

MR. SHAMANSKY:  But their only going to do one house on each of these properties?

MR. DEREMER:  Correct.

MR. SHAMANSKY:  If that.

MR. DEREMER:  Yes and it would not be on the narrow portion of the flag.

MR. SHAMANSKY: So there’s four lots?  This map...Can I see one that’s clearer?

MR. DEREMER:  You can take a look at this if you would like that has true colors.

MR. SHAMANSKY:  I’m not so excited.  See I live right on Cliffview right at the end so where would the house be on that lot.

MR. DEREMER:  I have no idea, just somewhere within that large parcel.

MR. SHAMANSKY:  They would never be able to extend the street would they?  It’s always going to be a private street?

MR. DEREMER:  The topography as described, it doesn’t seem feasible.

MR. SHAMANSKY:  So no one knows where the house would be?  That’s the only thing that I would fight is where the house would be so I know what I can handle on that aspect.  I mean if it is more that way I don’t care if they build one house personally as long as it’s not by me.  I got nice woods next to me and it is nice and private so I don’t know if I should…. I’d rather have four house then what the one guy said, thirty houses.  I don’t want that stuff, no, no.  So I’ll go with it as long as I know that the house is going to be a long ways from me.  So can I fight that or not?

MR. DEREMER:  The house, any house would need to be within the current setbacks for the township.

MR. SHAMANSKY:  I mean that’s a big lot, fourteen acres for one house.  More and likely it won’t be close but can I fight that though?  That’s what I’m asking.

MR. PHILLIPPI:  No.

MR. SHAMANSKY:  No, there’s no fighting on that?

MR. DEREMER:  Not within the current…unless they wanted to get closer to the parcel lines then what we have.

MR. SHAMANSKY:  Well it probably wouldn’t be close to High Mill anyway.  Nobody knows.  So it’s just four houses, that’s it, if anybody even built on it?

MR. DEREMER:  Correct.

MR. SHAMANSKY:  That’s all I have.

MR. DEREMER:  Thank you sir.  Any questions gentleman?  Is there anyone else that would like to speak in opposition to the appeal this evening?  Do you swear or affirm that the testimony you’re about to give is the whole truth and nothing but the truth?

MS. LYDIA NORMAN:  I do.  I’m Lydia Norman and my property runs the full south side of the Michael’s property.  I’m the one that’s going to be exposed to the three runways, which I’m vitally opposed to.  I think zoning was made for a reason.  I do believe that we should follow zoning and respect all the work that went into putting zoning in at the time.  And the way this is laid out I can see I can have some real fun with three driveways going right by my side.  Thank you.

MR. DEREMER:  Madam, can I ask you a question?  Would you be in favor of a standard street there?

MS. NORMAN:  Pardon.

MR. DEREMER:  Would you be in favor of a standard street?  One single street then three driveways?

MS. NORMAN:  I’d rather have a street then the driveways.

MR. DEREMER:  Ok.

MS NORMAN:  I don’t understand.  There are two openings on the back of those properties from Wonderland that come in there but everybody says that the Michael’s property cannot have access to those but I don’t know why.  And you look at those on the map and there are two stubs that come in but evidently they were never dedicated as streets or anything when the allotment was built and that would straighten up an awful lot of problems if they could bring their access in there because that would give ingress and egress to those men who have the back lots.

MR. DEREMER:  Thank you madam.  Is there anyone else that would like to speak in opposition to the appeal this evening?

MR. PHILLIPPI:  I could clarify a couple of points if that’s possible.

MR. DEREMER:  Sure Mr. Phillippi.

MR. PHILLIPPI:  With regard to a question about accessing off of the end of those streets to the, it would be to the east there, those are temporary terminated cul-de-sacs and they are intended to be extended in the future or to stay as they are.  Meaning that someone could purchase that property and could extend those cul-de-sacs into that property in order to further divide that property.  But you can’t off of a temporary turn around, you’re not permitted to put a driveway access off of that because that prohibits any extension of that road in the further so that’s why they were created as they were.  So they could be extended in the future.

MS. NORMAN:  In other words the driveway from High Mill could go all the way through and right out there.

MR. PHILLIPPI:  It would have to be reviewed for compliance with the design standards of the county but it could be developed with roadways as a conventional subdivision.  The other thing that I would want to clarify is that under our zoning I think it was written exactly or stated exactly the way that the regulations were suppose to be applied.  That is requiring the 100 ft. width at the 100 ft. setback as opposed to the building line and the reason being is generally to prevent these types of land divisions.  And it is true as Mr. Kiko mentioned, there are other township that specifically state that they need to have the full width at the building line.  Ours is specifically written for the 100 ft. setback.  And under the definition of our lot for zoning it does include either a platted lot or any type of a meets and bounds division so it is applicable to any division of property within the township.  Those are the only things that I wanted to point out.

MR. DEREMER:  Thank you sir.  Let’s see if we have any questions for the zoning administrator.

MR. GIULITTO:  I do Mr. Chairman.  I have one question.  Basically you said that if they wanted to put a road in it would have to meet the regulations, but they could put a road in off of Cliffview?

MR. PHILLIPPI:  Yes that’s correct.  They would have to extend that cul-de-sac the proper length in order to get the divisions that they would be able to get off of those.  What they cannot do is simply access a driveway off the terminal end.

MR. GIULITTO:  Right.  And they would do that through the township.

MR. PHILLIPPI:  Through the stark county subdivision regulations.

MR. MCDONNELL:  Mr. Phillippi I’m looking at the map here and this one is a lot easier to look at, I see Wonderland here and I don’t know the name of the street that comes in and appears to but up to Wonderland.  Here I’ll show you on this map.  I’m talking about I believe is the south side of the property.  This is Wonderland and this being the south side of the property.  We got a street coming in here.  Are you familiar with that street?

MR. PHILLIPPI:  I don’t think I am.

MR. MCDONNELL:  Well let’s take a look at Cliffview.  It comes right into lot #4.  Lot # 4 is eighteen acres.  I buy lot #4.  Is there anything to prevent me from extending Cliffview into lot #4 and how many houses could I build on eighteen acres if I wanted to subdivide it?

MR. PHILLIPPI:  That could be extended onto that parcel and on eighteen acres, well…

MR. MCDONNELL:  Could I put four.

MR. PHILLIPPI:  Oh you could put more then four.  You would have 20,000 sq. ft. minimum lots.  They would have to be bigger then that if they had septic systems I’m sure, so you could probably put I would say between ten and fifteen very practically speaking as long as your septic systems were approved by the health department.

MR. MCDONNELL:  Let’s say I put ten.  Let’s say eight.  There’s nothing to stop me from going out and buying lot #4, doing the necessary paperwork, going to RPC and whatever, and extending Cliffview into lot #4 and putting in ten houses there.

MR. PHILLIPPI:  That’s correct, or however many that you would be permitted under the regulations.

MR. MCDONNELL:  But sure as heck more than one?

MR. PHILLIPPI:  Yes.

MR. MCDONNELL: That’s all I’ve got.  Thank you Mr. Chairman.

MR. DEREMER:  Mr. Kiko would you like to address some of the questions brought forth.  We’ll give you the last bite of the apple per say to maybe respond to some of the questions and thoughts that have been put out here.

MR. MCDONNELL:  Before Mr. Kiko goes can I ask Mr. Phillippi one more question.

MR. DEREMER:  Go ahead if it’s short.

MR. MCDONNELL:  Ok.  Mr. Phillippi your experience with flag lots, did you have another term for that?  If I understood you said the regulations in your opinion or your understanding was written specifically, not specifically with, but flag lots was taken into consideration when the regulations were written.

MR. PHILLIPPI:  Yes.  Generally flag lots are pretty universally considered in land use planning to be something that is not promoted and often times they are used as a way, basically as an alternative to the subdivision process and in the state of Ohio it can be done notwithstanding the zoning because of the exemption under state law which exempts anything that is over five acres from meeting the subdivision regulations.  But it is generally not considered to be a good land use planning practice because of the way it utilizes the land and the configurations that result from that.

MR. DEREMER:  Does that answer your question?

MR. MCDONNELL:  That answered my question.  Thank you Mr. Phillippi.

MR. DEREMER:  Mr. Kiko.

MR. KIKO:  As I stated before if we would eliminate, make two parcels rather then four, each being 100 ft. in width the whole way back that complies with column “C” in the zoning, which my opinion is it is a waste of land the whole way back and your eliminating two home sites and two tax payers.  The bottom line is you would, it would comply.  Like the neighbor said that lives next door, we could put this in two parcels and have a lane right next to her property and it complies.  Like Mr. Phillippi said over five acres is exempt from the county and exempt from the township.  These parcels could be transferred.  We are asking for a building permit; one building permit per parcel.  I had a conversation with Mr. Phillippi prior to this meeting and the county he worked in before, he saw dozens and dozens of flag lots come across his desk because that’s what you do when you don’t have sewer and you have a large body of ground with limited frontage.  We are just trying to make it make sense.  We weren’t trying to hurt anybody.  I didn’t even know there was a building permit issue prior to the auction.  I actually talked to some folks here at the township that had an interest in buying this property for township purposes.  I had no idea that I was not in compliance for building permits until after the auction and that’s why we kept these flag lots over five acres.  If you look on here the last two have 75 ft. of frontage, which makes 150 ft.  Technically with a 50 ft. minimum frontage over five acres we could have put a fifth one in there but it just didn’t make sense at this point to add a fifth one.  We went with four.  We don’t want to hurt anybody and we don’t want to hurt any of the neighbors.  People talked about the developers.  This property was up for auction for anybody to buy.  In my mind if the highest and best use was for someone to buy it and bust roads up through there that would have happened.  Mr. Showers was there as well as a lot of the other developers in Jackson Township.  Mr. Showers comment to me was that it is not a developable piece.  It’s just not.  It may never be.  With the contour it is not a developable piece.  We just tried to do what made sense.  I don’t want to make any enemies with anybody.  I guess we just tried to make sense and the people who bought them were excited about it.  We had a lot of interest from people wanting to build one house.  I guess I’m just asking for one building permit per parcel.  I guess if you don’t have anymore questions you heard me talk enough this evening.

MR. DEREMER:  Thank you sir.  Any other questions gentleman?  Thank you Mr. Kiko.  With that we will close to public input.  Gentleman you’ve heard quite a bit of testimony here this evening on this matter.  What are your thoughts or concerns?

MR. WERNER:  Mr. Chairman.

MR. DEREMER:  Yes.

MR. WERNER:  As I see it and the question has been brought up before in this hearing, does our zoning really permit this?  As I see it, it doesn’t unless there’s something that I don’t see.

MR. DEREMER:  Ok.  I do believe that Mr. Phillippi did indicate that state law kind of precludes in this situation because we are over five acres on those parcels that does allow the implementation of or the design of a flag style lot on a larger parcel to be developed.  So that somewhat supercedes Jackson Townships’ resolution to control flag lots.  Is that correct sir?
MR. PHILLIPPI:  No.  The exemption is only relative to the subdivision regulations.  But the zoning is absolutely unaffected by that and it is very common that regional planning will go out of their way to indicate where they can that yes, we have to transfer these parcels whether they want to or not.  So regional planning is definitely not in favor of flag lots.  But they have absolutely no choice.  They have to transfer those parcels because state law says if it’s over five acres and it has any frontage on a public roadway you must stamp the deed exempt.  However they do try to tell people although it is exempt from our subdivision regulations you are not exempt from zoning.  So they do try as much as possible to get that message across.

MR. DEREMER:  Thank you sir.  I stand corrected then.  Any other thoughts gentleman?

MR. MCDONNELL:  Mr. Chairman.

MR. DEREMER:  Yes.

MR. MCDONNELL:  A number of thoughts and I’m trying to put them in order in my mind and I’m having difficulty doing it.  First of all I take a look at the parcel itself and listening to some of the testimony that was given this evening, some of the things that I think some of the residences in that area are trying to avoid is the subdivision of that property into numerous residential lots or whatever.  This variance, number one with the way the property is laid out is not going to preclude that.  As Mr. Phillippi and I discussed that’s not going to preclude it.  I think the regulation…Can we do it?  Yea we can do it because we can grant a variance.  But when I take a look at some of the factors that we need to take into consideration, number one I haven’t heard any testimony that there’s anything in the nature of the land itself that precludes meeting the zoning resolution.  I haven’t heard any testimony regarding a practical difficulty, topography, or anything else like that, that precludes that from happening.  I did hear testimony that Mr. Kiko basically decided or determined that this is the best way to do that.  But again no practical difficulty.  A number of situations, and I’m referring now to the Duncan case, that need to be addressed is can this property be put to a profitable use or economical use.  I believe it can.  Does it necessarily have to be four lots, maybe not?  Maybe it will only be three.  Maybe it will only be two.  In the resolution and the requirements it’s not being the most economical or profitable but can it be economically done.  Can it be profitably done and I believe that to be the case.  The other thing that concerns me, and again I’m going back to the Duncan case and also I’m reading in our resolution specifically 803.5B5, is whether a variance would adversely affect the delivery of governmental services such as water, sewer, and trash pickup.  They do not include fire and safety services.  We have in the file here a letter from Mr. Heck, the fire chief, which indicates there are substantial problems with delivery of safety services from the fire departments standpoint with regards to that.  One thing that caught my attention when you read it Mr. Chairman was something to the affect that the property owners would have to understand that there may be difficulty provided fire services.  I tell you what; if my house is on fire I’m not going to be signing a wavier saying hey I understand that it’s difficult for you guys to get back here.  If there’s a fire I want the fire people right now.  I see just a number of significant problems with this.  The last thing is the precedence that might be set and someone raised that fact.  But I do believe things we do on this board do set precedence.  Without overwhelming reasons to grant a variance like this, I think at least in my mind and my opinion, we are setting a bad precedence by granting a variance such as this without overwhelming evidence that it is necessary, that it is required, that significant practical difficulties have been demonstrated that requires such a variance.  That’s all I got.

MR. DEREMER: Thank you sir.  Any other comments gentleman?  Gentleman I’ll give you my thoughts here this evening.  Even though Jackson Township is a booming metropolis, 37,000 people, there still are people in this world that don’t want to live on a half acre lot, do not want to live in a subdivision.  Those are the type of people that buy this type of lot.  They want a lane to go back to be hidden in the woods.  They can build a nice structure or whatever they want to do without having to worry about the neighbors beside them.  If somebody sneezes then somebody says bless you in the house next door.  We are in an area where they are building those types of subdivisions.  There is a strong movement in the northwest portion of this township to not build or not commercialize the area.  They want to keep it residential.  This goes in line with that type of thought and it’s with folks that want to buy that parcel as a larger parcel to give this somewhat of a horse farm or hobby farm; something along that line.  If the lot or parcel was developable there is an option in the sale that somebody could have bought all four parcels or any combination of the two for a price.  It was obvious in the testimony that there were people there that had that capability and they deemed that the parcel is not a good lot to be subdivided as in a standard subdivision.  So the thought is to make the best use of this property without it being pure farmland or partial woods partial farm land to split it up into something that someone would buy and get the most for the property for the estate, but also to give those people who want a little bit of the old style of Jackson Township to be able to live that style.  I’m not in favor of every parcel doing this but I believe there are some in the township that would be of this type, that you may only have one or two splits that would make sense.  It may be in a gully somewhere or a big hill that can’t be, without wiping out every tree on the hill, made into a subdivision then you are looking at a completely different side of Jackson Township.  These folks around this parcel have become use to seeing that woods.  If we turn it into a subdivision there are not going to be any trees there.  There going to be gone.  I just saw that on a parcel up in Norwalk the other day.  They developed the parcel, it was a wooded lot, and they cut every single tree down and there’s not one there left and that was probably a twenty acre piece.  I understand it’s not in the zoning resolution but we have done this before on smaller parcels.  Somewhere where there was three siblings and they wanted to split the parcel up and still wanted to live on the original property that mom and dad gave them.  They split it with two narrow lanes so everybody was happy.  One person got the parcel in the back and the other people are toward the front and they are living in harmony.  It did not harm the township but was not within the guides of the resolution.  Myself, I am in favor of this appeal because I believe it makes use of the property and keeps the zoning of the parcels down to four lots.  That’s all they are saying is going to be built on these and still will maintain the character of the area.  The township, if they were interested in that parcel and they were trying to save green space then this would do that in its own way without us having to go through a lot of stuff within this board.  So I am in favor of approving the parcel split and allowing the variance for the 100 ft. setback.  Any thoughts?

MR. WERNER:  Mr. Chairman I understand what you’re saying here and I know every case is on its own merits.  I am concerned of what our Fire Chief has gone on record for as Mr. McDonnell has expressed.  It’s tuff.

MR. DEREMER:  Like I said the person who bought this lot understands that he’s going to have a long drive back to his property.  He is not expecting a water line to be laid there.  There are properties in this township that have long lanes back to the farm and they understand that the first fire truck is going to get there and when he’s out of water they may have trouble.  That’s why they can hook to ponds and things of that sort that may be on the property.  Those are things you think about or worry about and understand when you buy the property; I’m going to have a lane to get back to my parcel.  I don’t believe it is this board’s duty to restrict that type of living by not allowing the split as sold.  That is my thought.  There are two portions of this hearing, the first being an actual appeal of the decision of the zoning administrator.  I would like to address that first.  We may say that the zoning administrator made a correct decision; we may say he didn’t.  But I think we need to address that.  If it is agreed or thought that he made a good decision then we will address the appeal actually presented here this evening.  So I would like to get somebody to make a motion on the first portion of the appeal if we could.

MR. MCDONNELL:  Mr. Chairman I’ll make a motion that the decision of the zoning administrator to deny the zoning permits in reference to appeal #1842 should be upheld.

MR. DEREMER:  We have a motion to uphold the zoning administrator’s decision to deny the zoning permit.  Do we have a second?

MR. WERNER:  I’ll second that Mr. Chairman.

MR. DEREMER:  Please call the role.

MS. POINDEXTER:  Mr. Giulitto.

MR. GIULITTO:  Yes.

MS. POINDEXTER:  Mr. Dodson

MR. DODSON:  Yes.

MS. POINDEXTER:  Mr. Werner.

MR. WERNER:  Yes.

MS. POINDEXTER:  Mr. Deremer.

MR. DEREMER:  Yes.  With that the board does agree that the zoning administrator’s decision is correct.  Now we need to address the actual appeal or variance request to allow the variance for two 50 ft. lot widths at 100 ft. back and 75 ft. width at 100 ft. back for the other two lots.  Do we have a motion for those parcels or some other conversation?

MR. MCDONNELL:  I’ll make a motion in such a way that a yes is for the variance and no is against the variances; variances being four in total.  Unless there is some reason to divide them and I don’t see a reason to do that.  So my motion would be to approve the request for the four variances in appeal #1842.

MR. DEREMER:  We have a motion for the approval of the variances as requested.  Do we have a second?

MR. GIULITTO: So second.

MR. DEREMER:  Please call the role.

MS. POINDEXTER:  Mr. Giulitto.

MR. GIULITTO:  No.

MS. POINDEXTER:  Mr. Dodson.

MR. DODSON:  No.

MS. POINDEXTER:  Mr. Werner.

MR. WERNER:  No.

MS. POINDEXTER:  Mr. McDonnell.

MR. MCDONNELL:  No.

MS. POINDEXTER:  Mr. Deremer.

MR. DEREMER:  Yes.  With that Mr. Kiko they are denying the setback requirement.  If you do believe the decision is in error here this evening you do have the right to appeal that to the Court of Common Pleas of Stark County within a 30 day period from this hearing date.
MR. KIKO:  May I ask one question before I go.

MR. DEREMER:  You may.

MR. KIKO:  If we re-auction this property in two parcels with 100 ft. width all the way back or 150 ft. width then there’s not problem with that correct?  So were going to eliminate two parcels and re-auction it and I have to tell the Michaels that the property is going to bring less money.

MR. DEREMER:  Or you can appeal this decision to the Court of Common Pleas of Stark County.  That may be an option that you need to look at.  The land owner has a right to appeal that.  Thank you sir.   (This concludes appeal #1842).

APPEAL #1840 – Spirit & Truth Ministries, 212 Federal Ave. NW, Massillon, Ohio 44646 agent for Wildcat Ranch LLC, property owner, 9437 Shepler Church Rd., Navarre, Ohio 44662 requests a conditional use permit for a church within an existing building where a conditional use permit is required in Art. IV Sect. 411.3 of the zoning resolution.  Property located at 3855 Wales Rd. NW, Sect. 29SE Jackson Twp.  Area zoned B-2.

Mr. Deremer read the file application signed by Stephen Todd with reasons being that a conditional use permit is required.  The file contained a tax map of the property in question, a hand drawn sketch of the property in question, and the answers to the criteria for the conditional use permit.

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

Mr. Deremer swore in Stephen Todd, 9437 Shepler Church Rd., Navarre, Ohio 44662.

Mr. Todd stated that they have an assembly that they started two years ago and are currently based in Massillon at 212 Federal Ave. NE.  Mr. Todd stated that they saw the building and thought that it would be a great opportunity for them as a ministry.  They consummated the purchase of the property and are very excited about ministering the community.  Mr. Todd stated that the former use of the building was the Wale Athletic club.

Mr. McDonnell asked Mr. Phillippi if he had reviewed the plan regarding the site plan, setbacks and landscaping.

Mr. Phillippi stated that none of those factors are relevant because there is no change to the site plan whatsoever.  Everything is contained within the building.  There is no additional parking, no additions to the building or any change the site plan so it would be as it currently exists.

Mr. McDonnell reviewed the criteria for the conditional use permit per Section 431.2.

Mr. McDonnell stated that it will not be detrimental to the property vales in the immediate vicinity.

Mr. Todd stated that it will not.

Mr. McDonnell stated that it will not restrict or adversely affect the existing use of the adjacent property owners.

Mr. Todd replied no, the property was kind of deteriorated when they bought it and they will spruce it up so if anything it will be a good thing.

Mr. McDonnell stated that it will be designed and constructed so that all access drives, access points to pubic streets, driveways, parking and service areas shall meet the approval of the township trustees, or county or state agency where applicable.
Mr. Todd stated that it currently complies.  The building currently exists and the only change will be repaving the current parking lot because it is full of pot holes.

Mr. McDonnell asked if there would be any change to the buildings exterior itself.

Mr. Todd stated no.

Mr. McDonnell stated that item “D” refers to will meet the storm water runoff, when applicable and asked if anything is going to change with regards to topography or the way the storm water runs off.

Mr. Todd stated no.

Mr. McDonnell stated that Mr. Phillippi indicated that item “E” is not applicable.

Mr. McDonnell asked if the property would be maintained in a neat, orderly and safe condition.

Mr. Todd stated yes.

Mr. McDonnell reviewed Section 431.3C.

Mr. McDonnell asked what the hours of operation would be.

Mr. Todd stated Sunday morning, Sunday evening and Wednesday evening service.

Mr. McDonnell asked Mr. Todd if he sees anything going beyond 11:00 pm.

Mr. Todd stated no.  The services usually ends around 8:00 or 8:30 p.m.

Mr. McDonnell stated in item #2 the access drives will remain the same.  Item #3 indicates that no lighting shall constitute a nuisance and in no way shall impair safe movement of traffic on any street or highway and all outside lighting shall be shielding from adjacent properties.  Mr. McDonnell asked if there is currently lighting at the facility now.

Mr. Todd stated that there are some spotlights that shine down on the entrance door that are mounted on the building.

Mr. McDonnell asked if there are any spotlights in the parking lot.

Mr. Todd stated no, just the big parking lot type of lights that will remain.

Mr. McDonnell asked if there would be trash receptacles and if they would be adequately screened.

Mr. Todd stated yes.

Mr. McDonnell stated that Mr. Todd already address that no grade or surface drainage would be changed.

Mr. McDonnell addressed section 431.6F.

Mr. McDonnell stated that the entrances and exits are on Wales Rd. and Traphagen and asked if this is where the access is.

Mr. Todd stated yes.

Mr. McDonnell asked if there is any going out the back street.

Mr. Todd stated no.

Mr. McDonnell asked if there would be any children’s activities.

Mr. Todd stated yes.

Mr. McDonnell stated that they have to be enclosed by a fence or wall for outside children’s activities.

Mr. Todd stated that there is currently a fence around the property that complies with an entry gate that is securely fastened.

Mr. McDonnell stated that item #3 is not applicable because the building already exists.

Mr. McDonnell stated that all activities, programs and events have to be directly related to the conditional use permit that is granted.

Mr. Todd stated that they will comply.

Mr. McDonnell stated that the development plan is not applicable because the building already exists.

Mr. McDonnell stated that this takes care of all the conditions for the conditional use permit.

Mr. Giulitto asked if there would be a day care in the church.

Mr. Todd stated that it is not in the plan at this time.

Mr. Giulitto stated that there is a pool on the property and asked what their plans are for the pool.

Mr. Todd stated that they are not sure yet.  They have talked about opening the pool and using it for the assembly in the summer but he is not sure about the finances and if it is feasible to open it.

Mr. McDonnell stated that he wants to make sure that Mr. Todd realizes that the pool could not be open to the public.

Mr. Todd stated that he understands this.

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

Mr. Deremer closed this appeal to pubic input.

Mr. Werner stated that he does not have a problem with the request.

Mr. Dodson agreed with Mr. Werner.

Mr. McDonnell stated that the trustees have said that if the applicant meets the conditions then it is Ok to do and he believes that all the conditions have been met so he has no problem with this appeal.

Mr. McDonnell made a motion to approve appeal #1840 as requested.
Mr. Dodson seconded the motion.

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

Mr. Deremer stated that appeal #1840 has been approved.

The board reviewed the conclusion of fact for appeal #1830(A).

Mr. McDonnell thought that it was a little wordy.

Mr. Deremer stated that the way it is written may be confusing but it is correct.

Mr. Deremer suggested an amendment to the conclusion of fact for appeal #1830(A).

The board agreed.

Mr. Juergensen made a motion to approve the conclusion of fact for appeal #1830(A) as amended.

Mr. Dodson seconded the motion.

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

Mr. Deremer read the conclusion of fact for appeal #1830(B).

Mr. McDonnell made a motion to approve the conclusion for fact for appeal #1830(B) as written.

Mr. Dodson seconded the motion.

The vote was: Mr. Juergensen-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 13, 2003.

Mr. Dodson seconded the motion.

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

Mr. Werner made a motion to approve the minutes from the meeting held February 27, 2003.

Mr. Giulitto seconded the motion.

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

Respectfully submitted,

Joni Poindexter
Zoning Data Coordinator
Clerk/Secretary