Members present:
Ted Deremer
Edward McDonnell
Richard Dodson
Jim Giulitto
John Juergensen
Alternate member:
Eric Oldroyd
Zoning Inspector:
Joni Poindexter
Zoning Coordinator:
Lori Foutz
APPEAL #2031 – Kathleen Lyons, 8484 Kellydale St NW, Massillon OH 44646, property owner, request a variance for a 22.3 ft. left side yard setback where 25 ft. side yard setback is required per Art. IV, Sect. 401.6 of the zoning resolution. Property location is 8484 Kellydale St NW, Massillon, Sect. 29SE Jackson Twp. Area zoned R-1.
Mr. Deremer read the application signed by Kathleen Lyons and the reason for the appeal as listed in the file. The file contained a site plan reflecting the proposed addition. Also in the file was an overview map of the parcel and adjoining parcels.
Mr. Deremer swore in Rollin Shriner, 13212 Vega St, SW, Massillon, to speak on behalf of the application. Mr. Shriner is Ms. Lyons father.
Mr. Shriner stated his daughter would like to add a front porch to her home. They did not realize they had a 25 ft. side yard setback. The existing house is closer to the street than the porch will be. The new addition will not protrude any further on the property than the house does. She would like to place the porch in between her two front windows so it will not block the natural light.
Mr. Deremer clarified this is a corner lot.
Mr. Shriner stated that is correct. Zoning has changed from when they built the house. The side yard setback at that time was 15 ft. and the house is at 14.4 ft. from the property line.
Mr. Deremer asked if this will be a screened in porch.
Mr. Shriner stated that it would not be. He presented the board with a drawing of the porch.
Mr. Deremer marked the drawing as Exhibit 1.
Mr. McDonnell asked why the porch can not be moved to the right and meet the setback.
Mr. Shriner stated that she prefers not to because it would block her window. The placement of the porch will come to each of the window edges and the door is in the center.
Mr. McDonnell clarified the porch will be centered at the front door.
Mr. Shriner answered yes.
Mr. McDonnell clarified the variance they are asking for is 22.3 ft. or 22 ft. 3 inches from the right of way.
Mr. Shriner stated it was 22.3 ft.
No one in the audience spoke in favor or opposition of the application. The meeting was closed to public input and the board deliberated.
Mr. Dodson stated they meet the practical difficulty with angled house on a corner lot. At the time the house was built they conformed to side setbacks. The variance is minimal and not near where the house is now.
Mr. Giulitto made a motion to approve appeal #2031 as filed.
Mr. Dodson seconded the motion.
The vote was: Mr. Juergensen-yes, Mr. Giulitto-yes, Mr. Dodson-yes, Mr. McDonnell-yes, and Mr. Deremer-yes.
APPEAL #2029 – John Harford, 2911 Erie Ave NW, Massillon, OH 44646, property owner, requests a variance for a 24 ft. front yard setback where 50 ft. front yard setback is required, a 15 ft. right side yard setback where 25 ft. side yard setback is required, and addition expansion of 444.5 sq. ft. where 25% non-conforming use expansion is permitted per Art. III & IV, Sect. 303.3 & 411.5 of the zoning resolution. Property location is 2911 Erie Ave NW, Sect. 31SE Jackson Twp. Area zoned C-P & I-1.
Mr. Deremer read the application signed by John Harford and the reason for the appeal as listed in the file. The file contained a site plan reflecting the proposed addition and a prepared document from the zoning department of the non-conforming use expansion calculations. Also in the file was an aerial view of the parcel and adjoining parcels.
Mr. Deremer swore in John Harford, 2911 Erie Ave NW, Massillon, to speak on behalf of the appeal.
Mr. Harford stated there is no other place he can put the garage. It will be attached to his house and will set level with his house.
Mr. Deremer asked what style of garage it will be.
Mr. Harford stated it will be a 2 ½ car garage. He will use the back of the garage to store tractors.
Mr. Deremer asked if the garage will be as close to the road as the existing house.
Mr. Harford stated yes.
Mr. Deremer clarified it would have the same setbacks as the house.
Mr. Harford stated yes.
Mr. McDonnell referred to the schematic in the file. He clarified that he is 24 ft. from Erie Avenue.
Mr. Harford stated yes. The back of the property is the towpath.
Mr. McDonnell has how long as been there.
Mr. Harford stated he believes since 1935. He has done many improvements.
Mr. Deremer asked if he feels he is over building the lot with the amount of square footage he is adding.
Mr. Harford stated that he does not. He feels it will increase the esthetical value of the area. He stated there is a car lot beside him. Their customers park in his driveway and he is hoping this addition will decrease some of that.
Mr. McDonnell clarified there is a car lot to the north of this property and asked what the other surrounding properties were.
Mr. Harford stated that a car lot is to the north, to the south is an empty lot, 2 lots away from that is a home, across the street is a nursery and the other side of that is a rental property.
No one else in the audience spoke in favor or opposition of the appeal. The meeting was closed to public input and the board deliberated.
Mr. Deremer asked if they wanted to split the request or keep request all together.
All agreed to keep it together.
Mr. McDonnell asked Ms. Poindexter how far he needs to be from the rear lot line.
Ms. Poindexter stated the setback in the rear yard is 25 feet.
Mr. McDonnell stated even if he moved the garage back he would need a variance. The front of the garage will be in line with the existing house. On the right side he is requesting a 15 ft. setback where 25 ft. is required. In a residential area we currently only require 10 ft. He feels the request or the size of the garage is not totally out of line. He does not have a problem with the any of the elements of this request.
Mr. Dodson made a motion to approve appeal #2029 as requested.
Mr. Juergensen seconded the motion.
The vote was: Mr. Juergensen-yes, Mr. Giulitto-yes, Mr. Dodson-yes, Mr. McDonnell-yes, and Mr. Deremer-yes.
APPEAL #2030 – I. Allen & Cynthia Johnson, 1181 Lawndale Dr, Tallmadge, OH 44278, property owners, request a conditional use permit for garden supply sales and landscaping where a conditional use permit is required per Art. IV, Sect. 411.3 of the zoning resolution. Property location is 7251 Wales Ave, NW, North Canton, Sect. 9SE Jackson Twp. Area zoned B-3.
Mr. Deremer read the application signed by Cynthia Johnson and the reason for the appeal as listed in the file. The file contained a site plan of the property and responses to the conditional use questions from the zoning resolution book. Also in the file was an aerial view of the parcel and adjoining parcels.
Mr. Deremer swore in Allen Johnson, 1181 Lawndale Dr, Tallmadge, to speak on behalf of the application.
Mr. Johnson stated when he purchased the property he did not realize he needed a conditional use permit. His business sells mulch, topsoil and stones.
Mr. Deremer asked what was on the property before.
Mr. Johnson stated the business was selling stones.
Mr. Deremer asked if they will be putting up additional buildings.
Mr. Johnson stated that there would be no additional buildings added. They will be putting in a few storage bins. They are not buildings, they are concrete blocks.
Mr. Deremer asked if any production would be done on the property.
Mr. Johnson stated that all of the production would be done in Hartville. No production would be done on this property.
Mr. McDonnell reviewed the site plan that was submitted to the board. He went over each building, parking lot, and display item on the site plan and clarified they are still on the property and will remain on the property.
Mr. Johnson stated they were notified by zoning that the aggregate bins are too close to the property line. They will be moved to comply with zoning setbacks as soon as the bins are emptied.
Mr. McDonnell stated that it appears that what they are requesting is already on the property.
Mr. Johnson stated that is correct.
Mr. McDonnell asked Ms. Poindexter if the site plan meets the setbacks and the landscaping regulations.
Ms. Poindexter stated that after they move the aggregate bins and plant the new pines, they will be in compliance.
Mr. McDonnell read through the general criteria for all conditional use permits in Section 431.2.
A. Will not be detrimental to property values in the immediate vicinity. RESPONSE: No, he does not believe it will. He believes it will make it better.
B. Will not restrict or adversely affect the existing use of the adjacent property owners. RESPONSE: No, he does not believe so.
C. Will be designed and constructed so that all access drives, access points to public streets, driveways, parking and service areas shall meet the approval of the Township Trustees, or count or state agencies where applicable. RESPONSE: Yes, they have 4 access driveways. There are three on Blocker and one on Wales Avenue.
D. Will meet all requirements for EPA for storm water runoff, when applicable. RESPONSE: Yes. His neighbor did the storm water run off and included his property.
E. Will be property landscaped according to Section 411.9 where applicable pursuant to Chapter 411 or when specified as a condition for approval. RESPONSE: Yes.
F. Will be constructed and maintained in a neat, orderly and safe condition. RESPONSE: Yes.
Mr. McDonnell referred to Section 431.3 for specific standards for conditional uses and read through the criteria that pertained to their request under paragraph C., specific development standards:
1. The Board of Zoning Appeals may limit the hours of operation to ensure that the conditional use is compatible with the surrounding uses. RESPONSE: Hours of operation will be 8:00 am to 6:00 pm Monday thru Friday, 8:00 am – 5:00 pm on Saturdays, and closed on Sundays. Their property in Hartville is open 4 hours on Sunday.
2. For parcels of one or more acres, all points of vehicular entrance or exit shall be located no closer than 100 feet from the intersection of two arterial streets, or 50 feet from the intersection of an arterial street and a local or collector street. RESPONSE: They will comply. Wales and Blocker is closest intersection and it appears to be 113 ft. in access to the 50 ft.
3. No lighting shall constitute a nuisance
or in no way shall impair safe movement of traffic on any street or highway.
All outside lighting shall be shielded from adjacent properties.
RESPONSE: Only low voltage lighting will be in display out front
and sign. No other exterior lighting.
4. Floodlights, searchlights, loudspeakers
or similar structures shall not be erected or used in any manner that will
cause hazards or annoyance to the public generally or to the occupants
of adjacent property. RESPONSE: Does not have any on property.
5. All trash receptacles shall be adequately screened. RESPONSE: On west side of garage. It has a wood structure to the left and the back side is exposed.
6. Grading and surface drainage provisions shall be prepared by a registered engineer and reviewed or approved by the Stark County Subdivision Engineer. RESPONSE: He has drawing, not sure if applicable.
Mr. McDonnell referred to Section 431.6 (P) landscaping business, and garden supply sales establishments and/or storage of landscaping vehicles and equipment shall comply with the following:
1. Dismantled or inoperable vehicles or equipment shall not be maintained or stored on the property. RESPONSE: Yes, will comply.
2. Outdoor storage areas shall be located in the side or rear yard in compliance with Section 411.12B. RESPONSE: Yes.
3. Materials, such as mulch or topsoil,
may be stockpiles on the site provided:
a. The materials are maintained in compliance
with all Stark County Health Department regulations. RESPONSE:
Yes.
b. Such materials shall not be processed
on the site. RESPONSE: They are processed off site.
c. Such materials shall not emit any odor
that is discernible on adjoining property. RESPONSE: Stock
pile mulch should not get much odor. They are 75 ft. from adjoining
properties.
d. Outdoor retail sales shall comply with
Section 411.12A and shall not be conducted in required parking or landscaped
areas. RESPONSE: Yes.
Ms. Catherine Haidet, 7300 Lourelton Ave, was sworn in to speak in opposition of the application.
Ms. Haidet stated she lives north of the site and she has a few concerns. She feels it is detrimental to her property value because she will never be able to sell her home. The value of her home has decreased. The prior business did not make much noise. She is awaken in the morning from large trucks and noise. During the day it is very loud and trucks are in and out all day. She feels like her peace and quiet has been taken away from her. This goes into the evening hours. She can smell the mulch and there is increased dust.
Mr. Juergensen asked why she believes she will not be able to sell her house.
Ms. Haidet stated that she doesn’t feel anyone would want to live across the street from this business. No one wants to sit outside their home and hear and see trucks moving all day.
Mr. Juergensen asked how long she has lived there.
Ms. Haidet stated they moved in 1974. The prior businesses have not bothered her.
Mr. Deremer asked if the new pine trees will help.
Ms. Haidet stated not where she is located. She would like to work something out with the business. She realizes he is trying to make a living.
Mr. Don Wentzel, 7315 Lourelton Ave NW, was sworn in to speak in opposition.
Mr. Wentzel stated this is a much larger operation then what was there before and the noise and dust is much greater. He has lived there for 36 years. He stated about 3:00 pm yesterday they were burning skids and he has witnessed them cutting barn stones. He stated the dust affects his home, front window, and car that is parked in his garage. He is also concerned with the size of the trucks coming in on Blocker. He is wondering if there is a weight limit on that street. He does not appreciate this business this close to his home.
Mr. Dan Weitz, 7360 Lourelton Ave NW, was swore in to speak in opposition.
Mr. Weitz stated he lives 3 doors down from the site. He is mostly affected by noise of this operation. He challeges them tthat they only work 8-5. he comes home after 6-7 at night and people are there working. His wife cannot sit outside because of the noise from the trucks moving in and out all day. He realizes the man is trying to make a living, but somehow they need to resolve this. He feels the mulch is in an open area and will blow all over the place.
Ms. Jaime Lidderdale, 7217 Blocker Street, was swore in to speak in opposition of the application.
Ms. Lidderdale stated she is not home that often. It affects her when she goes to her parent’s house. Her biggest concern from her house is the noise from the trucks. She feels this is also a much larger operation than what was there before.
Mr. Johnson stated the noise and hours of operation are from his neighbor. They are doing construction next door. They are working 6 am in the morning, till 8 pm at night. The dump trucks coming in are for the building next door. He feels 80% of the traffic is from his construction. He has allowed them to use an access on his property to get to his neighbors property.
As far as his business occasionally a truck may come in earlier than 8:00 am. As far as the dust he has put in limestone trying to keep the dust down. Mulch is shredded and locks together and his profit does not blow out. Biggest issue seems to be noise, and it is not from him.
Cutting stone he has no knowledge of this. They do no processing on this site. Burning on the property he also is not aware of. He will check with his staff and take care of it. He feels the trees will help with the dust. His business is not moving that much material. One day they brought in 1000 tons of material and that took 40 trucks in that day. He has no problem with his neighbor using the access drive from his property. This should settle once the foundation is up. He stated he could put a sprinkler in on the limestone to help keep the dust down. He feels his business is making about 25% of the noise his neighbors are hearing.
Mr. Deremer asked what type of trucks his business uses.
Mr. Johnson stated they have various trucks. The delivery trucks are 10 ton down. The larger trucks that bring in the supplies and fill the bins are tractor trailer trucks.
Mr. Deremer asked how many trucks a week he expects for his business.
Mr. Johnson states he is projecting 6 large trucks a week.
Mr. Deremer asked the hours of delivery.
Mr. Johnson stated the local trucks load at 7:00 am and could be at his property at 7:45 am.
Mr. McDonnell asked Mr. Johnson if he was aware that burning was not allowed in Jackson Township. Cutting of stone is considered processing of stone and is also not allowed.
Mr. Johnson stated that he understands that.
Mr. McDonnell clarified that he is projecting 6 large trucks a week currently. He is asked what his projections are in 5 years.
Mr. Johnson stated he is hoping it would be double or triple that number.
Mr. McDonnell asked if he can restrict the delivery times to coincide with his business hours.
Mr. Johnson stated he can, however, he can’t control if a driver shows up early and sets outside waiting for his business to open.
Mr. McDonnell asked if he has a problem if the board restricts delivery hours and that he will be closed on Sundays.
Mr. Johnson stated that is no problem.
Mr. McDonnell asked if he closes at 6:00 what type of activity is performed on the site after hours.
Mr. Johnson stated there really is no activity after hours.
Mr. McDonnell asked if the board restricts equipment on property will not operate beyond normal business hours.
Mr. Johnson stated that would be fine.
Mr. Deremer asked if there is someway to control the noise level on the truck beepers when they are backing up.
Mr. Johnson stated that is controlled by OSIA and they require the beepers. They have wrapped cellophane tape around them to help cut down the noise some and for a man standing 20 ft. behind the truck to hear it.
No one else in the audience spoke in favor or opposition of the appeal. The meeting was closed to public input and the board deliberated.
Mr. Deremer stated that in most cases if the applicant meets the criteria the application is approved. In his responses to the board he has agreed to meet any modifications made by the board. The noise and traffic problem should go away once the new structure is completed next door to him. He feels he meets the criteria for the conditional use permit.
Mr. Juergensen suggested they continue the appeal and hear at a later date after the construction of the building next to him is complete. He would like to hear from the neighbors that spoke their concerns at this meeting to ensure the noise and traffic has decreased.
Mr. McDonnell stated he feels the use is very similar to what was already there. It may be a larger operation then what was currently in place. He asked if the applicant has met the criteria for the conditional use permit. He feels that they have met the criteria and the rule is they would approve. He would suggest the board add restrictions to the permit. The hours of operation will be no earlier than 8:00 am and no later than 6:00 pm Monday thru Friday. No earlier than 8:00 am and no later than 5:00 pm on Saturday, and closed on Sundays. The equipment on property will not be operated 30 minutes prior to or later than normal business hours. Also all deliveries are restricted to normal business hours.
Mr. Dodson stated he would like to add there will be no processing of materials on this site.
Mr. McDonnell made a motion to approve appeal #2030 with the following restrictions: hours of operation will be no earlier than 8:00 am and no later than 6:00 pm Monday thru Friday, no earlier than 8:00 am and no later than 5:00 pm on Saturday, and closed on Sundays; equipment on property will not be operated 30 minutes prior to or later than normal business hours; all deliveries are restricted to normal business hours; and processing of material includes cutting of stone and is not allowed.
Mr. Dodson seconded the motion.
The vote was: Mr. Juergensen-yes, Mr. Giulitto-yes, Mr. Dodson-yes, Mr. McDonnell-yes, and Mr. Deremer-yes.
Mr. Deremer asked if there were any comments or a motion on the minutes from the meeting of March 9, 2006. All members were present. Mr. McDonnell recused himself for appeal 2020.
Mr. Juergensen made a motion to approve the minutes from March 9, 2006 meeting as written.
Mr. Dodson seconded the motion.
The vote was: Mr. Juergensen-yes, Mr. Giulitto-yes, Mr. Dodson-yes, Mr. McDonnell-yes-with regards to appeal 2020, and Mr. Deremer-yes.
Mr. Deremer asked if there were any comments or a motion on the minutes from the meeting of March 23, 2006. All members were present except for Mr. Giulitto. Mr. Juergensen recused himself for appeal 2024.
Mr. Juergensen made a motion to approve the minutes from March 23, 2006 meeting as written.
Mr. Dodson seconded the motion.
The vote was: Mr. Oldroyd-yes, Mr. Juergensen-yes- with regards to appeal 2024, Mr. Dodson-yes, Mr. McDonnell-yes, and Mr. Deremer-yes.
Respectfully submitted,
Lori Foutz
Zoning Coordinator