Members present:
Ted Deremer
Edward McDonnell
Gerald Werner
Richard Dodson
Jim Giulitto
Zoning Administrator: John Phillippi
Zoning Data Coordinator: Joni Poindexter
Mr. McDonnell acted as Chairman for appeal #1772 due to the hearing starting before Mr. Deremer was present.
APPEAL #1772 – Craig T. Conley, Attorney, of 220 Market Ave. S., Suite 604, Canton, Ohio 44702 agent for Kong Wah Chang, aka Jeff Chang, property owner, of 4465 Everhard Rd. NW, Canton, Ohio 44718 appeals the decision of the zoning administrator as provided for in Art. VIII Sect. 803.1, in letter dated 2/22/02 which stated section 801.17 requires a new certificate of compliance whenever there is a change in the use or a change in ownership or a change from one tenant to another. It has further been determined that the use has changed from a restaurant to a tavern/bar/nightclub per the Stark County Building Department. Property located at 4465 Everhard Rd. NW, Sect. 24NE Jackson Twp. Area zoned B-3.
Mr. McDonnell stated that this appeal is continued from April 11, 2002. There have been some developments that directly affect this case. Mr. McDonnell asked Mr. Phillippi if he could tell the board the developments that have occurred.
Mr. McDonnell swore in Mr. John Phillippi, Jackson Township Zoning Administrator.
Mr. Phillippi stated that the nature of the initial stop order that was issued was the fact that there was a change of use from a restaurant to a nightclub, tavern, and bar. As of May 8, 2002 the issue has been resolved and the owner of the restaurant has gone to the Stark County Building Department and has complied with their orders for all of the upgrades that were required in order to accommodate that change of use. Mr. Phillippi stated that a new certificate of occupancy has been issued by the building department for change from an A-3 to an A-2 use.
Mr. Phillippi stated that on May 8, 2002 the applicant applied for and received a certificate of compliance from the Zoning Department. Mr. Phillippi stated that the issue is resolved, there is no outstanding violation, and all the parties have been notified.
Mr. McDonnell asked if the decision that was originally being appealed was the decision of the zoning administrator as provided for in Art. VIII Sect. 803.1, in letter dated 2/22/02 which stated section 801.17 requires a new certificate of compliance whenever there is a change in the use or a change in ownership or a change from one tenant to another, the use has changed from a restaurant to a tavern/bar/nightclub per the Stark County Building Department.
Mr. Phillippi stated yes and there has been no change in tenancy.
Mr. McDonnell asked if Mr. Phillippi is saying that everyone has the permits that are needed.
Mr. Phillippi stated that they are in compliance with all the requirements.
Mr. McDonnell asked if anyone in the audience wanted to speak in regards to the appeal.
No one spoke.
Mr. McDonnell stated that this seems to be a moot point at this time since there is no one at the hearing in regards to the appeal and Mr. Phillippi has indicated that they are in compliance. Mr. McDonnell stated that there is nothing in the file withdrawing the appeal and wonders if the board should take some official action and if so he feels the board should deny the appeal.
Mr. Phillippi stated that the issue has been resolved regarding the initial violation and decision.
Mr. Deremer stated that they are in compliance so there is no issue at this point.
Mr. Dodson stated that the board could dismiss the appeal for failure to prosecute without prejudice so it could be re-filed if necessary.
Mr. McDonnell stated that this would be OK.
Mr. Dodson made a motion to dismiss appeal #1772 for failure to prosecute without prejudice to re-filing.
Mr. Werner seconded the motion.
The vote was: Mr. Giulitto-yes, Mr. Dodson-yes, Mr. Werner-yes, Mr. McDonnell-yes, and Mr. Deremer-abstain.
Mr. Deremer resumed as Chairman for the remainder of the appeals cases.
APPEAL #1779 – Ed Ruth & Sons of 601 McGregor Ave. NW, Canton, Ohio 44703 agent for David Bridenstine, property owner, of 5323 Bayview Dr. NW, Canton, Ohio 44718 requests variance for a 5 ft. north side yard setback where a 10 ft. side yard setback is required in Art. IV Sect. 401.6 of the zoning resolution. Property located at 5323 Bayview Dr. NW, Sect. 23NW Jackson Twp. Area zoned R-1.
Mr. Deremer read the file application signed by Ed Ruth with reasons being as stated by the applicant, "If the garage were placed in any other location on the property it would not be able to be attached or accessible". The file contained a tax map of the property in question and a drawing by Buckeye Surveying Services showing the proposed addition.
Mr. Deremer asked who would like to speak in favor of this appeal.
Mr. Deremer swore in Eric Ruth of 601 McGregor Ave. NW.
Mr. Ruth stated that the house is at an angle and it is virtually impossible to comply with the required setbacks because it would create an odd angle for the garage as well as the fact that the home itself does not meet the 10-ft. setback requirement. Mr. Ruth stated that if the garage were placed somewhere else on the property it could not be attached without defacing the rest of the home and it would be in accessible because of the way the driveway is situated.
Mr. Deremer asked if the lot slopes toward the lake or to the left or right.
Mr. Ruth stated that it slopes somewhat toward the lake and there is a grade that rises sharply on the left.
Mr. Deremer asked if the proposed garage would go in front of the existing garage.
Mr. Ruth stated yes. The existing garage is small with such low headroom that it is not practical to be used as a garage. The existing garage would be walled off and finished inside.
Mr. Deremer stated that it appears the garage could be attached to the left side of the house if it weren’t for the shuffle board court.
Mr. Ruth stated that it could not because on the left side is a stairwell that goes down into a finished basement and there is an exterior entrance.
Mr. McDonnell asked what is to the front of the home and to the left of the proposed garage.
Mr. Ruth stated that the living room is in this area.
Mr. Ruth showed the board a couple of photos of the home that were in a digital camera.
Mr. Deremer stated that it appears the main entrance is at the corner where the garage butts out and the living room is to Mr. Ruth’s right where the picture window is.
Mr. Ruth stated correct.
Mr. Deremer asked if anyone else wanted to speak in favor of this appeal.
Mr. Deremer swore in David Bridenstine of 5323 Bayview Dr. NW.
Mr. Bridenstine stated that he is the property owner and could answer any questions the board may have.
The board had no questions and no one else in the audience spoke in favor of this appeal.
No one in the audience spoke in opposition to the appeal and Mr. Deremer closed this appeal to public discussion.
Mr. Werner stated that the fact that the house sits at an angle presents a burden and practical difficulty. It was shown that the proposed addition could not go on the other side due the entrance to the basement. Mr. Werner stated that he has no problem with this appeal.
The board had no further comments.
Mr. McDonnell made a motion to approve appeal #1779 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.
APPEAL #1780 – Bricker & Associates, 8118 Corporate Way, Suite 105, Mason, Ohio 45040 agent for The Schroer Group, Gerald Schroer, Jr., property owner, of 7235 Whipple Ave. NW, North Canton, Ohio 44720 requests a conditional use permit for a Congregate Living Facility where a conditional use permit is required in Art. IV Sect. 401.3 of the zoning resolution. Property location is 5.6 acres, more or less, located on the south side of Fulton Rd., 223 ft., more or less, west of Foxchase NW, Sect. 22NW Jackson Twp. Area zoned R-R & R-1A..
Mr. Deremer read the file application signed by Gerald Schroer with reasons being as stated by the applicant, "Property is currently split zoned with the north half of the property being zoned R-R and the south half of the property being zoned R-1A, requiring a CUP for our new I-1-1/2 nursing facility". The file contained a tax map of the property in question, a general site location map, an 8-1/2 x 11 inch site plan labeled alternate dumpster location study, the answers to the criteria for the conditional use permit labeled attachment A, a small five page set of plans showing the site and building plans for the proposed project, and a large three page set of plans for the proposed project. The file also contained comments from Herb Shreiner, Deputy Chief of the Jackson Township Fire Department dated 4/26/02 regarding the proposed site plan and comments from Stark County Regional Planning for conditional approval, date of meeting May 7, 2002.
Mr. Deremer asked who would like to speak in favor of this appeal.
Mr. Deremer swore in Stephan Bricker of 8118 Corporate Lane, Mason, Ohio.
Mr. Bricker stated that in response to the deficiency write ups that they had in the reviews with Stark County Regional Planning Commission, the Jackson Township Fire Chief, and Jackson Zoning they have revised the documents that were initially submitted. Mr. Bricker stated that all of the issues have been addressed except for the letters that they are in the process of submitting to the Ohio of Transportation regarding the curb and guardrail.
Mr. Bricker stated since they submitted the plan, a representative from the Schroer group has talked with the adjoining property owners regarding any concerns that they may have. Mr. Bricker stated that one of the issues was the location of the dumpster and the screening, which initially on the documents was located next to the corridor area next to the service drive. It was felt that this was too visible so it was moved to the north east corner in the side yard being nestled into the hillside surrounded, as well as the whole east boundary, with carnivores that keep there leaves all year round.
Mr. Bricker stated that another issue that was brought up was the nine parking spaces on the east side of the facility. They were ready to relocate them to the front but were told by Regional Planning and Zoning that they needed more parking then what was originally planned and it was recommended that they keep the parking spaces where they are shown.
Mr. Bricker showed the board a profile of the site, which was marked as exhibit #2. Mr. Bricker explained the site and where the bank is located that is approximately 8 to 9 feet in height. Mr. Bricker stated that the plan is to plant evergreens that would be about 12 ft. high from the surface of the ground. Mr. Bricker stated that what he is trying to demonstrate is the site line and that the trees would block the view of the building. Mr. Bricker stated that the trees would be planted approximately 20 ft. apart however, some may be closer.
Mr. Bricker stated that the generator and transformer would be placed adjacent to the service area and would be shielded with a block screen wall approximately 7 to 8 ft. in height.
Mr. Deremer asked if there is a requirement that the generator run every so often.
Mr. Bricker stated yes. It has to be tested twice a month for a short period.
Mr. Bricker stated that the location of the fire hydrant has been approved.
Mr. Bricker presented a 6-page copy of the revised drawings, which were marked as exhibit #1 with a revised date of 5/9/02. Mr. Bricker stated that there is a minimum of 22 ft. for the single load parking areas and 24 ft. between the aisles of the double load parking areas.
Mr. Bricker stated that the facility would be a 50 bed health care center and an I-2 occupancy, which can be skilled or intermediate care. There will also be an area for assisted living where people would have their own living and eating area. There would be a physical therapy area, library, offices and a small courtyard. Mr. Bricker stated that the building would be a brick and sided single story building about 20 ft. in height to the mid roof.
Mr. Bricker stated that the drainage detention pond is being sized for future growth. The water would be slowly released into the creek at the west boundary.
Mr. McDonnell asked Mr. Bricker if he is aware that whatever is on the plan is what had to be done if approved.
Mr. Bricker stated yes. They are representing what would be there.
Mr. McDonnell reviewed section 431.2 and Mr. Bricker answered as follows:
Mr. Bricker stated that it would be a 24 hour a day operation.
Mr. Bricker stated that this is a residential health care facility. When talking about I-1 and I-2 the portion that is I-2 is the health care facility and the I-1 area is the assisted living.
Mr. McDonnell asked Mr. Bricker to define a health care facility.
Mr. Bricker stated that health care residents are residents that need support in daily activities, medication, and support by licensed staff to address their daily needs.
Mr. McDonnell stated that all points of vehicular entrance or exits shall be located on closer than 100 ft. from the intersection of two arterial streets or 50 ft. from the intersection of an arterial or collector street.
Mr. Bricker stated that they comply with this.
Mr. Bricker stated that they would have security lights and down lights recessed at each end of the wings. There would also be lighting in the back into the generator area that would face down. The lighting for the drive would be like a shoebox where the light is directed down and shielded on the sides.
Mr. Deremer swore in George Schroer.
Mr. Schroer stated that the neighbors had asked them to put in Nobles Pond lighting. They are going to put in a Nobles Pond concept. Mr. Schroer stated that he met with the neighbors. The Krews were concerned with the parking and he made two promises to them. One was that they would try to move the parking if it was Ok with zoning and the dumpster location. Mr. Schroer stated that Ms. Akers was concerned about what the exterior was going to look like. She wanted to make sure that there was going to be a barrier. Mr. Schroer stated that they would put in a tree line to provide a barrier.
Mr. Schroer stated that the Krews were also concerned about the lighting. There would be no lights that would shine into any houses. Mr. Schroer stated that the lights are shown on the drawing.
Mr. McDonnell asked if there would be any floodlights other then what was discussed, searchlights, or loudspeakers.
Mr. Bricker stated no.
Mr. McDonnell asked if all trash receptacles would be adequately screened.
Mr. Bricker stated yes.
Mr. McDonnell asked if the grading and surface drainage provisions would be prepared by a registered engineer and reviewed or approved by the Stark County Subdivision Engineer, where applicable.
Mr. Bricker stated it was prepared by a registered engineer and initially reviewed.
Mr. McDonnell asked Mr. Phillippi if he reviewed the plans in regards to 431.6G, items 1, 2 and 3.
Mr. Phillippi stated that he has reviewed the plan in detail and it does meet the requirements. The revised plans meet all the zoning requirements with regards to the parking, building and site design requirements.
Mr. McDonnell stated that the plans also indicate the parking and emergency entrances and exits.
The board had no further questions.
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 Michael Krew of 5411 Foxchase NW.
Mr. Krew stated that he is the majority property owner along the eastern boarder. Mr. Krew stated that he looks at the overall project as a very positive plan. Mr. Krew stated that he appreciates the dumpster being moved.
Mr. Krew stated that the only objection that he may have is the nine parking spaces that are identified as staff parking. Mr. Krew stated having a parking lot in the transitional area is something that he thinks would detract from the property values. Mr. Krew stated that it would look like a transitional area if a variance could be granted for the number of required parking spaces.
Mr. Krew stated that he is mostly in favor but has one objection, which is one that only the government entities could solve and is granting a variance for the parking spaces.
Mr. Deremer swore in Ron Stark of 6983 Fulton Rd. NW.
Mr. Stark stated that he is probably the one who is most affected by this because he is right across the street from the main entrance. Mr. Stark would like to know if there would be a sign that’s going to be lit all the time and shining in his window.
Mr. Schroer stated that the sign would have a light facing away from Mr. Stark’s home. The light would face down on the sign.
Mr. Deremer swore in Kathy Heitger of 6874 Stockbridge NW. Ms. Heitger stated that she does not know that anyone has taken into consideration the road widening that is to take place within the next three years.
Ms. Heitger stated that it is pretty much promised to them that they will take their entire manmade island that they have and want to know how much they will take on the other side.
Mr. Phillippi stated that there is no project planned for that portion of Fulton Rd.
Mr. Deremer stated that if the road widening would be in the future, this is something that is hard to answer.
Mr. Phillippi stated that anywhere on Fulton Rd. the setbacks for the building and parking are taken from an assumed 80-ft. right of way. This is specifically to allow for the widening of the road however Mr. Phillippi is not aware of any plans for the widening of this portion of Fulton Rd.
Ms. Heitger stated that she has a nice deck in the rear of her home but is never on it because of the noise from the traffic on Fulton Rd.
Mr. Deremer asked Mr. Bricker if the parking could be moved to the other side of the driveway.
Mr. Bricker stated only if the buildings were shifted because there isn’t enough land.
Mr. Deremer asked if the entire driveway would be put in at one time.
Mr. Bricker stated no.
Mr. Giulitto asked when phase #2 would be done.
Mr. Schroer stated that this is based on the profitability of the facility and is hoping that it would be within the next couple of years.
Mr. McDonnell stated that the plantings are shown on the plan and asked if all the trees would be put in during initial construction.
Mr. Bricker stated that the trees along the east property line would be put in however he doubts that they would put the trees in where the second phase is to be located because they would be destroyed during construction.
Mr. Deremer swore in Janyth Akers of 6825 Chillingsworth NW.
Ms. Akers stated that when she bought her home she was told that the land would only be used for housing and wanted to know when the zoning changed to commercial.
Mr. Deremer stated that this is not commercial zoning. The property is in an R-R and R-1A district.
Mr. Phillippi stated that the use is a conditionally permitted use within the residential district and can be done as long as all the requirements for the use are met.
Mr. Deremer swore in Ms. Stark of 6983 Fulton Rd.
Ms. Stark stated that the her driveway is across from the entrance and she has a hard time now trying to get in and out of her drive.
Mr. Deremer asked Mr. Phillippi if the compatibility of the driveways was looked at in reviewing the site plan.
Mr. Phillippi stated that this is not something that is looked at within the zoning. The driveway location requires approval of the County and Subdivision Engineer. This is primarily based on the distance from intersecting streets.
Mr. Deremer asked Mr. Bricker if the driveway could be moved.
Mr. Bricker stated that he believes it could be moved about 30 ft. or so.
Mr. Deremer asked if moved, would it eliminate any obstruction from across the street.
Mr. Bricker stated that he does not know but he is not opposed to looking at this.
No one else in the audience spoke in opposition to this appeal.
Mr. McDonnell asked Mr. Phillippi if the facility has the minimum amount of parking spaces that is required per zoning and if the nine parking spaces were eliminated would this be in violation of zoning.
Mr. Phillippi stated yes.
Mr. Deremer closed this appeal to public discussion.
Mr. McDonnell stated that he believes the plan overall meets all the conditions and the applicant has taken into consideration the neighbors views. Mr. McDonnell stated that even if the board was so inclined they could not grant a variance for the nine parking spaces to be removed because it was not advertised. Mr. McDonnell stated that he has no problem with this appeal.
Mr. Werner stated that he agrees with Mr. McDonnell and believes this will fit in with the community and look very nice.
Mr. Deremer stated that he believes that the plan meets the requirements and there has been testimony that they are willing to look at moving the driveway to eliminate the bottleneck potential across the street. Mr. Deremer stated that he believes they have met all the conditions for the conditional use permit.
Mr. Dodson made a motion to approve appeal #1780 as requested.
Mr. McDonnell seconded the motion.
The vote was: Mr. Giulitto-yes, Mr. Dodson-yes, Mr. Werner-yes, Mr. McDonnell-yes, and Mr. Deremer-yes.
APPEAL #1781 – Cooper & Associates, LLP of 1359 Market Ave. N., Canton, Ohio 44714 agent for St. Luke Foundation, property owner, of 8435 Mudbrook NW, Massillon, Ohio 44646 and Leslie & Sharon Snyder, property owner, of 8431 Mudbrook NW, Massillon, Ohio 44646 requests a conditional use permit for a planned residential development where a conditional use permit is required in Art. IV Sect. 401.3 of the zoning resolution. Property location is 56.6 acres on the north side of Mudbrook 2,000 ft., more or less, west of Arlington Rd. NW, Sect. 17NE Jackson Twp. Area zoned R-R.
Mr. Deremer read the file application signed by Edward Allman with reason being as stated by the applicant, "The proposed planned residential development will create a multi-use family residential community with aesthetic appeal while accommodating restrictions imposed by existing gas wells and lines". The file contained a tax map of the property in question, a zoning application for development review, an 11 x 17 inch and a full size site plan of the proposed development, and a conditional use permit summary report. The file also contained the comments from Stark Regional Planning for conditional approval, meeting date May 7, 2002.
Mr. Deremer asked who would like to speak in favor of this appeal.
Mr. Deremer swore in Brian Ashman of 1359 Market Ave. N., Canton, Ohio.
Mr. Ashman gave the board a report of information for the record and stated that it is part of the presentation.
Mr. Ashman stated that he presented a similar layout on 4/11/02. Mr. Ashman stated that the plan was denied and it was his understanding that the primary reason was that the board felt that the open space did not indicate that they considered enough activity level.
Mr. Ashman stated that the general conditions that Mr. Deremer stated are correct and they have not obtained any other property. Mr. Ashman stated that the property in question is the St. Luke and Snyder property. Mr. Ashman stated that they have obtained a purchase agreement for the Snyder parcel.
Mr. Ashman stated that property boundary is the same, the number of single family units has not changed, the number of condos has not changed, and roadways have not changed.
Mr. Ashman stated that the open space has been modified. In order to create a better access to the open space on the north side they have made a wider strip of open space along the west side. Mr. Ashman stated that they have added two gazebos with one at each end of the development. They have changed the walking path into what is called a parkcore. The parkcore is a combined walking and exercise trail and has stations to perform exercise activities. Mr. Ashman stated that the paths are basically set up the way they were before, interconnecting within the allotment so that the majority of the lots either have direct or easy access into the open space.
Mr. Ashman stated that the open space would also include Bocce courts and horseshoes pits in the north section. The south section would have a badminton and volleyball court and there would be a tennis court combined with a basketball court near the main entrance.
Mr. Ashman stated that they have gone through Stark Regional Planning for the development and they have received conditional approval.
Mr. Ashman stated the conditional use responds are the same as the previous hearing and are in the report that he submitted.
Mr. Ashman stated that the density is 1.95 units per acre however the allowable density is 2.2. The open space requirement is 20% and they are providing 23.25%, which is an additional 1.81 acres of open space greater then what is required per the regulations.
Mr. Ashman stated that at the last hearing he had made a statement that they were proposing to have 40-ft. front yard setbacks. This proposal has a front yard setback at a minimum of 25 ft. and asked Mr. Phillippi to verify that this is permitted.
Mr. Phillippi stated that 25-ft. is the minimum required setback for the interior streets.
Mr. Deremer asked Mr. Ashman if he would like to incorporate appeal #1773 into the record.
Mr. Ashman stated yes.
Mr. Deremer made a motion to incorporate appeal #1773 into appeal #1781 for background purposes.
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 asked Mr. Ashman if it is his testimony that the only changes are those that have been testified to and everything else is the same as far as meeting the conditions of the conditional use permit.
Mr. Ashman stated yes.
Mr. Deremer asked if the storm water flow had been addressed.
Mr. Ashman stated that they are aware of the residents concerns with storm water drainage. At the last hearing the Zink’s brought up the fact that the drainage comes off of their property and into the subject property. Mr. Ashman stated that in their development plan they would accommodate to collect the storm water and take it through the development. It will be collected behind the condos and transported to the pond located at the southwest corner. Mr. Ashman stated they would not create a situation of standing water on the Zink’s property.
Mr. Ashman stated that they are representing a retention pond at the northwest corner of the property. Mr. Ashman stated he knows the Keller’s have a concern with the drainage. He has talked to Ms. Keller and has informed her that they will not cause any damage or problem on her property.
Mr. Deremer asked if additional holding capacity is needed, would this be done by deepening the pond.
Mr. Ashman stated that the pond could be made larger or deepened.
Mr. Dodson asked if the exercise path is planned.
Mr. Ashman stated no that they have not designed it yet. He predicts there will be about six different stations.
Mr. Dodson asked what the intended recreational use of the ponds is.
Mr. Ashman stated that he could say people could fish in the pond but when a pond is used for a means of storm water overflow it can also collect runoff from roadways. Mr. Ashman stated that if he caught a fish out of the pond he would not want to eat it. The pond is mostly for relaxation.
Mr. Phillippi stated that he has a document from the East Ohio Gas Company and one of the paragraphs regarding open space tract D states, "if said allotment is built as planned after the new roads are built and open to the public Dominion East Ohio will not permit trafficking by landowners or the public within a 100 ft. radius of the DEO well #1672, plus DEO will install a fence and locked gate across its present well access driveway as illustrated on the enclosed plat". Mr. Phillippi stated that this raises a question as to the use of the easement area as open space.
Mr. Ashman stated that they have worked with the Gas Company on the open space requirements on wells. The gas companies in the past have allowed them to go in and create an isolation barrier around the well head and access points with a landscaping mound and create the remainder of the property to be open. Mr. Ashman stated that they are not putting any structures within the well radius.
Mr. Ashman stated that they have 1.8 acres more open space then what is required so even if the well is not included they still exceed the requirement. Mr. Ashman stated that the Gas Company couldn’t prevent them from using their property, however they can prevent them from installing structures that would prevent them from having access to their wells.
Mr. Deremer stated that the comments from East Ohio Gas would be marked as exhibit #1.
Mr. McDonnell asked who owned the 30-ft. strip coming off of Portage.
Mr. Ashman stated St. Luke’s. This would be acquired by the developer and become part of Mudbrook Estates Development. Mr. Ashman stated that this is not included in the open space and is used as a driveway to the adjoining properties.
Mr. Ashman stated that the drive provides a benefit to the development because if for the some reason the access is blocked into the development this could be used as a second means for emergency purposes if needed. Mr. Ashman stated that they would bring water from the intersection of Portage and Arlington and the drive provides them a means of access for the water line.
Mr. McDonnell stated that it was Mr. Ashman testimony that he would make allowances to allow for or not disrupt the normal drainage of water as it occurs now on the adjoining properties.
Mr. Ashman stated this is correct. They are not permitted to increase the rate of discharge.
The board had no further questions.
No one else in the audience spoke in favor of this appeal.
Mr. Deremer asked who would like to speak in opposition to this appeal.
Mr. Deremer swore in Jane Mottice of 5829 Courtland St. NW.
Ms. Mottice stated that her and her sister are owners of the property at 8671 Mudbrook NW. Ms. Mottice read a letter into the record addressed to the Jackson Township Board of Zoning Appeals dated 4/30/02 and signed by herself and Janice Cable.
Mr. Deremer asked Ms. Mottice if she was present at the first hearing and if the applicant had addressed any of the concerns that are in the letter.
Ms. Mottice stated yes she was at the last hearing and the applicant has tried to address her concerns but she was not satisfied with what he tried to do.
Mr. Deremer asked what concerns remain.
Ms. Mottice stated that there are too many houses in the area.
Mr. Deremer stated that this is permitted within the current resolution.
Ms. Mottice stated that she does not feel adequate green space has been provided and that the traffic problem needed to be addressed.
Mr. Deremer swore in Peggy Zink.
Ms. Zink stated that she is concerned with the water runoff and twelve of the units would surround her property. If there were only single family homes it would make a difference.
Ms. Zink stated that she would like to know if the ponds would be tested due to the runoff and if the condos would be one or two story units. Mr. Zink asked what the price range of the homes would be because she would be disappointed if they put in $80,000 condos around her property.
Ms. Zink wanted to know if they would have any recourse if the moving of dirt would cause problems with their water wells.
Mr. Deremer swore in Doug Keller.
Mr. Keller gave the board a map with an area highlighted in red and Mr. Deremer marked this as exhibit OE#1.
Mr. Keller stated that he is representing his mother. Mr. Keller stated that the area marked in red is the area that currently runs onto his mother’s property. Mr. Keller explained the water flow. Mr. Keller stated that it was stated that the pond would release the water at the rate it currently flows but in a heavy down pore the area will lay wet for a month or so.
Mr. Keller asked what type of lighting would be used on the property.
Mr. Deremer swore in George Crop Jr.
Mr. Crop stated that he is the husband of Mr. Keller’s mother and asked what type of lighting would be used and what would keep children from falling into the ponds and drowning.
Mr. Crop stated that there was an article in the newspaper that stated Jackson Township would probably have to handle the flooding problems at Emerald Estates because the developers didn’t properly plan it and wants to know what happens if this area become flooded to.
Mr. McDonnell asked if his property is still being farmed.
Mr. Crop stated yes.
No one else in the audience spoke in opposition to this appeal.
Mr. Ashman stated that the letter Ms. Mottice read was a very good letter but they are not under the constraints of most of the items that were presented in the letter. Mr. Ashman stated that there is specific zoning permitted on the property and feels they are in compliance with all the requirements for the conditional use permit.
Mr. Ashman stated that under the R-R requirements they would be permitted to put in 20,000 sq. ft. lots. On this development he could get approximately 1.7 lots per acre. This is close to the same amount of lots that he has for the PRD.
Mr. Ashman stated some of the items mentioned were farmland protection, water quality, development density, and traffic impact. Traffic is always a concern. The Stark Engineers have reviews the plan and they have not received any negative comments.
Mr. Ashman stated that he can’t comment on farm animals coming onto other people’s property and does not feel that this as well as other information read from Ms. Mottice’s letter is applicable to this appeal.
Mr. Ashman stated that there are several units that will surround the Zink property and he can understand their concerns. However, they are permitted to develop but they also are going to try to create a development that is pleasing.
Mr. Ashman stated that the condos would sell between $200,000 and $250,000. Most will be one story but some may be 2 stories.
Mr. Ashman stated that he does not anticipate the moving the dirt affecting any wells and if it would he does not know the ramifications.
Mr. Ashman stated that drainage is a concern and they will do everything possible to control the drainage.
Mr. Ashman stated they do not anticipate having lighting in the development but cannot say for sure.
Mr. Ashman stated that the when a pond is created there is a certain amount of liability. There are certain regulations that control what the liability is but he is not sure how this would be handled.
Mr. Deremer asked if they would still meet the requirements if the well areas could not be use as open space.
Mr. Ashman stated yes.
Mr. Deremer closed this appeal to public discussion.
Mr. McDonnell stated that he believes the applicant has met the requirement of the zoning resolution. Mr. McDonnell stated that he kind of likes the walking path because it creates a larger buffer zone from the adjoining properties. Mr. McDonnell stated that the resolution says as long as the requirements are met, the board should grant the permit.
Mr. McDonnell stated that his biggest concern is the drainage but they have the applicant’s testimony that they will address this. Mr. McDonnell stated that he is inclined to approve the appeal.
Mr. Werner stated that he agrees with Mr. McDonnell and believes the applicant has met the requirements.
Mr. Deremer stated that he thinks this is a good concept overall and likes Mr. McDonnell’s comments to the fact that the walking trails that are adjacent to the other parcels and is kind of a buffer. Mr. Deremer stated with the drainage issues, he thinks as a condition of the permit the board needs to state that it will not exceed the current runoff that is at the northwest corner. Mr. Deremer stated that he thinks the requirements have been met and is in favor of the appeal.
Mr. McDonnell made a motion to approve appeal #1781 with the condition that the runoff to the northwest shall not exceed current rate or amount of runoff unless previously agreed by the adjacent property owners.
Mr. Werner seconded the motion.
The vote was: Mr. Giulitto-yes, Mr. Dodson-no, Mr. Werner-yes, Mr. McDonnell-yes, and Mr. Deremer-yes.
Mr. Werner made a motion to approve the minutes from March 28, 2002 and Mr. McDonnell seconded the motion.
The vote was: Mr. Giulitto-yes, Mr. Dodson-yes, Mr. Werner-yes, Mr. McDonnell-yes, and Mr. Deremer-yes.
Mr. McDonnell made a motion to approve the minutes from April 11, 2002 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. Giulitto made a motion to adjourn the meeting and Mr. McDonnell 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