Members present:                                                                     Ted Deremer
                                                                                                    Edward McDonnell
                                                                                                    Richard Dodson-Recused from #1914
                                                                                                    Jim Giulitto-Absent for #1914
                                                                                                    John Juergensen

Zoning Data Coordinator:                                                        Joni Poindexter

APPEAL #1914 – McQueen Sign Co. 1017-12th St. NE, Canton, Ohio 44704 agent for Joe Stancato, property owner, 11969 Lincoln Way W., Massillon, Ohio 44464 requests a variance for a freestanding sign at a height of 25 ft. where the maximum permitted height is 10 ft. per Art. V Sect. 502.3 of the zoning resolution.  Property located at 3464 Wales Rd. NW, Sect. 33NW Jackson Twp.  Area zoned B-2.

Mr. Deremer read the file application signed by David McQueen with reasons being as stated by the applicant, “The low height of the required sign limits visibility for entrance to and from plaza.  This will become even more problematic when the road is widened for a turn lane.”  The file contained a tax map of the property in question and a drawing of the sign.

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

Mr. Deremer swore in Joe Stancato, 2030 Hankins Rd. NW, Massillon.

Mr. Stancato stated inadvertently they have two post up that are about 25 ft. in height and match the existing posts for the building next door that he also owns and was put up five years ago.  Due to an over site the posts got put in and are existing.  Mr. Stancato stated that the code permits them to have a total of 110 sq. ft. of signage.  The sign would interfere with traffic with it being 10 ft. wide, if they go 100 sq. ft., from the ground up and 10 ft. high.  The present sign, which is a 5 x 10 ft. sign, is 4 ft. off the ground.  The buildings match as well as the sign posts.  The posts were permitted five years ago and would like to leave them up since they are already there.

Mr. Deremer asked if the regulations had changed from the existing sign being 25 ft. tall.

Mr. Stancato stated that five years ago the post were put up at 24 or 25 ft. in height and that was an acceptable sign structure at that time.  It is his understanding that Mr. McQueen was not aware that the code was changed a few years ago.

Mr. Stancato stated that he would like to leave the posts up so they match the existing posts and to keep the signs off the ground so not to interfere with traffic.  Before he built the original building ODOT asked for 10 ft. of frontage of his property which is approximately 200 ft. across.  He gave them the property to put in a turning lane and it is his understanding that there will be a red light put at the intersection, so he doesn’t think putting signs close to the ground will help visibility of traffic.

Mr. Deremer swore in Dave McQueen, 1017-12th St. NW, Canton, Ohio.

Mr. McQueen stated that five years ago the post were legal at 35 ft. in height.  Before the poles were put in he spoke with zoning and told them he would like to put in a matching sign and he got a verbal okay.  Mr. McQueen stated that he got the zoning certificate and put the poles in.  At that point they didn’t know what type of sign they were going to put on the poles, but when they actually went to get the sign permit they found out that the code change and they were not allowed to have a sign 35 ft. in height but were allowed 110 sq. ft.  Mr. McQueen stated that putting a sign 10 ft. from the ground would make a solid wall and people coming in and out would have a problem seeing.  He understands that the existing sign is grandfathered but any new signage would have to go below the 10 ft. level, which would bring any new signage to the ground level.  Mr. McQueen stated that they are only allowed one pole sign per street frontage and any new signage would have to go toward the ground, so with having more than one tenant everyone has to share those poles.

Mr. Deremer asked if the poles are new.

Mr. McQueen stated yes.

Mr. McDonnell asked if the sign is currently placed on the poles.

Mr. McQueen stated yes, at a 10 ft. height.

Mr. McDonnell asked how high the sign at the other building is.

Mr. McQueen stated that it is about 15 ft. to the top of the sign with a 10 ft. area below.

Mr. Stancato stated that two of the existing tenants choose not to put signs on the post, however the post are there for additional signage if needed.

Mr. McQueen gave the board exhibit #1 and #2 which was two sheets each consisting of two photos of signage.

Mr. McDonnell asked what the practical difficulty is that differentiates this property from the other commercial properties along Wales Rd. that creates a hardship or practical difficulty.

Mr. McQueen stated that he didn’t think he could answer that.

Mr. Stancato stated that everyone likes to compete when having a business and if looking up and down the street one would find that all the signs are higher than the 10 ft. limit and are grandfathered in.  He would like to keep the signs up far enough so traffic visibility is not impaired.

Mr. Juergensen asked if they asking for permission for the new sign to go all the way to the top of the post.

Mr. Stancato stated that it doesn’t have to go to the top.  If they could get permission to go another 5 ft. up they would be happy because he wants to keep the bottom clear for traffic.  He doesn’t think they should be required to cut the post down that are already there because they are grandfathered in.  There are five 1,000 sq. ft. units in the original building and they could go 2-1/2 by 10 ft. on each one when the posts were put up.  He would like to keep this the same because tenants come and go and they might get a tenant who wants a pole sign.

Mr. Juergensen asked if it’s correct that if the variance is granted they aren’t going to do anything different.

Mr. Stancato stated that if a new tenant’s move in they may want to put two or three more signs on the posts.  The additional building has two empty units, but when rented the tenants may want a sign.

Mr. Deremer asked Mr. Stancato if he thought he could live with a sign 20 ft. in height.

Mr. Stancato stated that this would work, but they would still have to cut off some of the poles.

Mr. Stancato stated on the existing sign, if they put 2-1/2 ft. for each sign with five tenants that comes out to 10 ft. so the 20 ft. would work so they have 10 ft. of clearance for traffic.  Mr. Stancato stated that he would be happy with 20 ft.
Mr. Deremer stated that Mr. Stancato has the option to modify the request to 20 ft.

Mr. Stancato stated that 25 ft. would save him from having to cut the top of the post off, but they would be happy to do that if they got 20 ft.

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 public input.

Mr. McDonnell stated that he is having some difficulty with the request.  The request is for 25 ft. where 10 ft. is allowed and in addition to the total height the resolution indicates that the base or frame shall not be more than one foot from ground level except for decorative pedestal-style base.  Mr. McDonnell stated that actually they are requesting two variances-one being the 25 ft. maximum height and the second being a variance for one foot off the ground level, so they could not grant the variance because the second one was not requested or advertised.  Mr. McDonnell stated that he does not see anything with this property that differentiates it from any other piece of property along Wales Ave. or any other property in Jackson Township within the B-2 district.  The board has to determine that a practical difficulty exists that creates an unnecessary hardship and he does not see it.  Mr. McDonnell stated that he’s concerned if the variance is granted then how can they tell the next applicant in the B-2 district that they can’t have a 25 ft. sign.

Mr. Juergensen agreed with Mr. McDonnell and stated that he doesn’t see a practical difficulty associated with the property.  He appreciates the fact that they don’t want to cut down the posts but does not think that is enough justification to grant the variance.  Mr. Juergensen stated that another problem he has is that there is no one in mind right now that needs the sign.  They are asking for something that may happen in the future and the request is 250% more than what is allowed.

Mr. Deremer stated that he understands the other board members concerns and believes this is the first request like this in quite a while.  His concerns is that Mr. Stancato has a sign that is within the proper width allowed by the resolution and if he places the sign at the maximum height that he is allowed he will create a hazard to the traveling public and people will not be able to see through or under the sign.  The sign sits back from the right of way because Wales is considered an 80 ft. right of way for future growth, but eventually that’s going to be widened and sign will be closer to traffic on Wales Rd.  Mr. Deremer stated that some thought needs to be given to the traveling public so they have a safe means of ingress and egress.  Mr. Deremer stated that the 10 ft. height was for a true ground sign to come up from the ground and be a solid piece and set somewhere so it wouldn’t block the view of the public.  Where this sign sits it has potential to block the view of the public and people looking down the street to see the traffic.  This is his potential reason for allowing the variance.  Mr. Deremer stated that Mr. Stancato has agreed to modify the request from 25 ft. to 20 ft.  With a four bay unit there it has the potential to have four signs and still be within the limit and be 10 ft. above the ground.  Based on the fact that it could potentially block the view of people pulling in and out of the facility he sees this as a needed request as modified to the 20 ft.

Mr. Juergensen stated that he thinks the key word is potential.  As it stands right now he doesn’t agree that it’s a hazard to the site line.  It could be down the road, but thinks the board should wait until when and if that occurs and then they can come back and ask for a variance and perhaps then based upon the changed circumstances there may be a practical difficulty associated with the land.  Mr. Juergensen stated at this point he doesn’t see that.

Mr. Stancato asked if he would have to cut down the posts if the variance is refused.

Mr. Deremer stated that he would leave this up to the zoning administrator.

Mr. McDonnell made a motion to approve appeal #1914.

Mr. Juergensen seconded the motion.

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

APPEAL #1916 – PFC Lamont Hill Army Navy Garrison 2003, 4601 Castlebar St. NW, Canton, Ohio 44708 agent for John & Judy Seckler, property owner, 2226 Woodlawn NW, Canton, Ohio 44708 requests a variance for an off premises directional sign where an off premises sign is not permitted in Art. V Sect. 502.2(A)(9) of the zoning resolution.  Property location is Lot #199 at the northeast corner of Castlebar and Woodlawn NW, Sect. 36 SE Jackson Twp.  Area zoned R-4.

Mr. Deremer read the file application signed by Timothy Rhodes with reason being as stated by the applicant, “Directional address sign to our building.”  The file contained a tax map of the property in question showing the location of the proposed sign and a rendering of the sign in question.  Mr. Deremer stated that there is an e-mail in the file from a neighboring resident, but it would not be read into the record because it is not sworn testimony.

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

Mr. Deremer swore in Timothy Rhodes, 4601 Castlebar St. NW, Canton, Ohio.

Mr. Rhodes stated that they would like to propose a sign that falls within the six square feet limit.  Their intention is to landscape around the bottom of the sign which will only be 3 ft. tall.  The overall height of the letters is 18 inches with an overall height of the sign being 21 inches.  Their sole purpose of the sign is to use it as a directional sign.  As stated at the last hearing they feel that it is a dire necessity that there not be a lot of lettering on the sign that would distract people driving up and down the road, but because of the fact that the club sets so far back off the road when people are driving to the club the road is always missed because it is at the bottom of the hill.  Mr. Rhodes stated that the sign would be discrete and small but large enough that an individual driving down the road would be able to see it.  The sign would be off the road by about 10 ft. and have black letters with the address only and a reflective arrow.  Mr. Rhodes stated that they want to work with the people in the area and feel they need the directional sign.

Mr. McDonnell asked where the Army Navy is located.

Mr. Rhodes stated that they are located on 16-1/2 acres.  The property is shown on the map in the area marked Menlough Estates #2.

Mr. McDonnell asked if he is correct in stating that they do not have any frontage on the corner of Woodlawn and Castlebar, but they have permission from the property owner to put a sign up to direct people to the property.

Mr. Rhodes stated yes.

Mr. McDonnell stated that he would consider the Army Navy to be a destination stop as opposed to an impulse stop and asked Mr. Rhodes if this is correct.

Mr. Rhodes 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 public input.

Mr. Deremer stated that this is the second time this resolution has been in front of the board, but it has been greatly modified from what it was originally.  It is within the size requirement per the resolution however it is still an off premises sign.

Mr. McDonnell stated that he has gone through the regulations a number of times and asked if he is correct that off premises directional signs are not authorized in a residential area because in the past they have had requests for directional signs but they were in commercial districts.

Mr. McDonnell asked Ms. Poindexter if off premises directional signs are permitted in a residential district.

Ms. Poindexter stated that the requests was advertised as requesting an off premises directional sign where an off premises sign is not permitted so even if it wasn’t permitted in a residential district a variance has been requested for it.  However, in section 502.1 the signs listed are permitted in a residential or commercial district as long as they comply with other applicable sections of the regulations.

Mr. Deremer stated if the sign were located on site then the applicant wouldn’t be asking for a variance.

Mr. McDonnell stated that the point he is making is there used to be a provision for off premises signs in a commercial district, or at least the board granted it and believes it was because they were allowed to.  If there is no provision in the current regulations then it would appear to have been consciously removed which means the trustees are saying that they don’t want off premises directional signs.  Even if it is allowed the question would be, “Has the applicant demonstrated a practical difficulty at this particular location that is not shared by other locations in the area?”  Mr. McDonnell stated that the fact that it may be difficult to find Castlebar, is that good enough to allow it if they can allow it in the first place.

Mr. Juergensen stated that they he is not sure they can grant a variance for something that is in essence prohibited in the resolution.  It wouldn’t be a variance; it would be rewriting the resolution.

Mr. Deremer stated that it talks about off premises signs but it relates more to temporary signs where there might be an auction or real estate sign on a corner so off premises is defined in the manual and also is in some portions of the sign section.  Mr. Deremer stated that it is not in the resolution at this time so that is why they are asking for a variance to allow an off premises directional sign.  If it was on premises it would be permitted and the board should base their decision on that.

Mr. McDonnell stated that he is not sure a practical difficulty has been met and the fact that it is located on a street that may be difficult to find creates a substantial practical difficulty that merits the variance.  Everyone else on Castlebar shares the same problem if Castlebar is difficult to get to.

Mr. Dodson asked, hypothetically, if this was a billboard that was off premise that said Joe’s Tavern is ¼ mile down the road on the right, would that be permitted under the resolution.

Mr. Deremer stated yes, if it was applied for as a billboard.  Mr. Deremer stated that this type of sign has been approved in the past within the commercial areas of Jackson Township.  The Sheraton Hotel has a sign off I-77 and one where the carpet place used to be with an arrow.  This was a legal size when approved so there has been applications based on a commercial facility needing an off premises sign because their location was hampered for people being able to find them.  Mr. Deremer stated that he believes this is a similar type of application and is a valuable use to prevent someone from coming upon Castlebar and slamming the breaks on realizing this is the street and they needed to turn.  If the sign was there they may see it ahead of time.

Mr. Giulitto concurred with Mr. Deremer and stated that he sees a practical difficulty with the community center being so far back off of Castlebar and agrees the sign fits the resolution and is a safer way of getting to the destination.  If the property were closer to Woodlawn he would not agree to the sign but thinks with the property being back so far it warrants some type of directional sign to help the public.

Mr. McDonnell made a motion to approve appeal #1916.

Mr. Giulitto seconded the motion.

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

APPEAL #1917 – Jeffery & Catherine Heitger, property owner, 6874 Stockbridge NW, Canton, Ohio 44718 requests a variance for a 50 ft. south (right) building setback and a 59 ft. east (rear) building setback where 75 ft. is required and a 10 ft. south parking setback where 20 ft. is required in Art. IV Sect. 411.5 & 411.8 of the zoning resolution.  Property located at 5850 Wales Ave. NW, Sect. 16SE Jackson Twp.  Area zoned B-3.

Mr. Deremer read the file application signed by Jeffery Heitger with reasons being as stated by the applicant, “To obtain prior setbacks when building was built.”  The file contained a tax map of the property in question, a site plan showing the proposed addition and a memo dated April 27, 2004 with comments from the Chief Heck of the Jackson Township Fire Department.  Mr. Deremer stated that there is a sworn affidavit in the file from Holly Bolinger, 5772 Foxboro NW, which was read into the record.

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

Mr. Deremer swore in Jeffery Heitger, 6874 Stockbridge St. NW, Canton.

Mr. Heitger stated the he is the owner of the funeral home and wants to make it clear that they are expanding their facility and are not closing the funeral home.  He has owned the property for seventeen years and the funeral home has been there about sixteen years.  They are expanding a seminar room, community room, garage, and office space.  The seminar room will be used for grief counseling and the community room will be used for wakes and meals following funeral services.  Area churches have this type of facility which has become very popular.  The community room will be divided and hold approximately 125 people.  Mr. Heitger stated that in the back of the facility would be a garage area to house some of their vehicles.

Mr. Heitger stated that the current facility is not shutting down and they are not changing their business in any way.  They are simply expanding.  For the last seventeen years he has expertly maintained his building and property.  Mr. Heitger stated that seventeen years ago when he was before the board of appeals he signed a written letter that stated he would never put a driveway onto the cul-de-sac of Foxboro, which he has complied with.  Mr. Heitger stated that he wants the residents to know the property has always been zoned B-3 and he obtained a conditional use for the funeral home.  Originally the property was going to be a strip center with a sixteen unit apartment house behind it so he doesn’t think the neighbors could get a better business than his.

Mr. Heitger stated that he is asking for what the original setback requirement was.  He was going to put a community room in when the building was first built but it was not economically feasible at that time so he put the current building along the north side.  Originally the building setbacks were 50 ft. if next to residential and the parking setbacks were 10 ft.  Mr. Heitger stated that he expected to build the community center building sooner and assumed that the laws didn’t change.  When he came in for a permit is when he found out the setback requirements changed.

Mr. Heitger stated that they want to build the building as two separate buildings because of ingress and egress for two different things.  If a funeral is going on and people are coming for dinner there are two different atmospheres and they don’t want to combine them.  Mr. Heitger stated that the building would not be rented for wild parties.  It could be used for baby showers, bridal showers, birthday parties, and etc.  However, he would not let wild parties and loud music go on at the facility and alcohol would not be permitted because it would be a determent to his business.

Mr. Heitger stated that he decided to divide the building in half so they could have two different dinners going on at the same time because they don’t have an area at their funeral home in Massillon.

Mr. Heitger stated, regarding the sworn document that Mr. Deremer read into the record, he received a propaganda letter in his mail box that is so false that the only thing that is correct on it is the time of the meeting.  Mr. Heitger stated that the letter said that he is turning his funeral parlor into a banquet facility.  This has no value whatsoever and he never said that.
Mr. Heitger stated that he can build the building by attaching it to the funeral home, but thinks it should be separate because he would have more parking and driveway area for better circulation.  Mr. Heitger stated that his property has always been zoned B-3 and he just wants to put up a reception area to further his business and a seminar room for grief counseling and for attorney estate planning and pre-planning.

Mr. Dodson read the definition of the B-3 district and stated that the use Mr. Heitger is proposing is permitted in the B-3 district so the only issue is not whether this is a good idea or if it should be allowed or not, but whether the three setback variances should be granted.  Mr. Dodson asked if it would be possible to put the proposed building on the property without violating zoning although it may not be practical.

Mr. Heitger stated yes, if they took the building and put it against the funeral home they could get it in there, but the problem is they have such large services and with the building as proposed they would have more parking.

Mr. Dodson asked if there are any physical aspects of the property such as topography, gas lines, and etc. that are particular to the property that requires the requested setbacks.

Mr. Heitger stated that he did not understand the question.

Mr. Dodson stated that the board is required to find a practical difficulty of some sort.  Often it would be that you can’t build on a particular part of a lot because of a slope, a high pressure gas line, or something that the land owner didn’t cause them selves.  So what he is asking is, is there something peculiar about the property that the building can’t be built without violating the setbacks.

Mr. Heitger stated that there is a sewer issue, but he doesn’t know if that would be a detriment or not.  Parking needs to be looked at because he can get more parking with the way the building is proposed.  He has about 80 parking spaces now and is proposing another 35 spaces.

Mr. Deremer asked if the lot is currently all paved.

Mr. Heitger stated that there is about one acre of grass.

Mr. McDonnell asked why the building can’t meet the 75 ft. setback along the south property line as opposed to the 50 ft. setback.

Mr. Heitger stated that he was afraid with the widening of Wales Rd. that the building would be out to far.  When the current building was built sixteen years ago he backed the building up 100 ft. from the road because he knew they were going to widen the road someday.  The proposed building is 120 ft. long and they didn’t want it close to the road.

Mr. McDonnell asked if Mr. Heitger if he is telling him that the building is setback further than required and as a result the building will be closer than what is permitted to the side and rear.

Mr. Heitger stated yes.

Mr. McDonnell asked why the building couldn’t be moved to the north which would take care of the south side variance.

Mr. Heitger stated because they are going to give up a whole row of parking along the side with a drive way and also the buildings have to be 30 ft. apart.

Mr. McDonnell asked why not connect the buildings.

Mr. Heitger stated that he doesn’t think it would be a good idea.  If there is a service going on and food is prepared at the same time people don’t want to smell food while attending a funeral and because of the ingress and egress.  Mr. Heitger stated that he thinks it is best to keep the buildings separate.

Mr. McDonnell asked if the building could swing back to fit the setbacks.

Mr. Heitger stated no because they want to add onto the back part of the existing building in the future.

Mr. McDonnell stated that the board cannot consider a future addition.

Mr. Deremer stated that the structure could potentially be put on the property and still meet the setback requirements.

Mr. Heitger stated yes, but they would need a variance for the parking.

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

Mr. Deremer swore in Freemont Montgomery, 5859 Wales Ave. NW.

Mr. Montgomery stated there has never been a rowdy group of people on the property.  Where anyone got the idea that liquor would be allowed he doesn’t know.  The skating rink has loud music and no one shut them down.  Mr. Montgomery stated that the funeral home is a nice building and business and can’t understand why when someone is trying to build something nice that people can’t give a little bit.

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 Cindy Scarfpin, 5635 Armistice NW.

Mr. Scarfpin stated that the reason for the meeting should be that fact that they are asking for something different than is dictated in the zoning regulations.  It has nothing to do with what they want to use it for.  The point is the rule is in place for whatever reason so if they can build it without a change then they should be allowed to, but she doesn’t see any reason to change the rule.

Mr. Deremer swore in Gerald Smith, 7098 Ponteberry NW.

Mr. Smith asked if the B-3 district would permit a future owner to turn a seminar hall into a rental banquet hall that would allow alcohol and entertainment.

Mr. Deremer stated that this is not before the board so he can’t answer that question.

Mr. Smith stated that they are asking for a variance that will affect the residents quality of life based on a promise that may never happen.  Mr. Smith stated that they are being asked to give up something based on Mr. Heitger’s promise, and as we all know his family has been in business a long time but business do leave and sell properties.

Mr. Deremer stated that a variance stays with the land and the board has to go with the testimony that is given.  The board has heard that the building could be put on the property.

Mr. Smith stated that they would have an extra 25 ft. per the regulations and when he moved in his residence he knew that.

Mr. Deremer stated that this is what the board needs to hear.

Mr. Smith stated that he has a letter from his neighbor expressing his interest in this appeal.

Mr. Deremer stated that he could put the letter in the file but it would not be read into the record because it is not sworn testimony.

Mr. Deremer swore in Robert Crecelius, 5788 Foxboro NW.

Mr. Crecelius stated that when he heard a funeral home was going to be on the property seventeen years ago he was relieved.  He has no problem with the funeral home and it is well maintained.  It seems to him that something has changed in looking at the number of people at the meeting.  Mr. Crecelius stated that he has been accused of distributing documents and letters in the neighborhood opposing the funeral home but he did not distribute the letters.  He put a copy of the meeting announcement in a couple of the mailboxes but that is it.  Mr. Crecelius stated that he thinks the change is how the property is going to be used and how it fits in the neighborhood.  He doesn’t know what the building is going to look like or how tall it will be.  Mr. Crecelius stated that it looks like there will be a lot of asphalt and building on the property with the new building being almost twice the size as the original building.  It doesn’t look like there will be much room for trees and shrubs.  Mr. Crecelius stated that he doesn’t know how you keep someone from bringing a bottle of Vodka and slipping it into the punch.  Drainage is another concern and they would like to make sure that all the water runs toward the creek and the correct storm sewers that can handle all the water.

Mr. Crecelius asked what type of lighting would be used, how late the lights would be on, if the lights would be shielded, and where the trash dumpsters would be located.  Mr. Crecelius stated that he hasn’t heard anything about fences and thinks there should be a privacy fence on the property.  There is a tool shed on the property and he would like to know if it is going to be moved.  Mr. Crecelius stated because he believes they are fundamentally alternating the nature of the building and the potential of loud parties he is opposed to the variance request.

Mr. McDonnell stated that the only thing the board can consider is the request for the variance.  Mr. McDonnell read several items that would be permitted in the B-3 district and stated that the point he is making is there are several businesses that could be put on the property without coming before the board.  The only way the board could address dumpsters, ingress, egress and etc. is if the business was a conditional use permit, which this is not.  It is a permitted use so the only thing the board can address is the variances.

Mr. Deremer swore in Paul Waechter, 5789 Foxboro NW.

Mr. Waechter stated that his house is located across from the cul-de-sac and Mr. Heitger has been an outstanding neighbor.  However, the laws are there for a reason and the purpose is to serve as a buffer between the properties.  Mr. Waechter stated as a business man Mr. Heitger wants to use his property to his best advantage but as a property owner he would just assume see an acre of grass.  Mr. Waechter asked that the board not allow the building any closer to the property lines than what is permitted.

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

Mr. Heitger stated that he agrees rules are for a reason but he didn’t change the rules.  The township changed the rules from 50 ft. to 75 ft. and 75 ft. is a lot of property to not use for anything.  The hardship is the widening of Wales Rd. and the creek and if the building is attached to the existing building he may not have enough parking.

Mr. Heitger stated that he has been at this location for seventeen years and in Massillon for 135 years, so he thinks they are here to stay.  Mr. Heitger stated that the building would be a one story building that would match the existing building and the property would be surveyed to make sure everything is done correctly.

Mr. McDonnell asked Mr. Heitger why the building couldn’t be reduced 16 ft. in the rear and 25 ft. on the side.

Mr. Heitger stated because they want to build a building with a room that would accommodate 125 people, be dividable, have two kitchens, and a garage in the back to house their vehicles.

Mr. McDonnell asked if there is a magic number about 125 people.

Mr. Heitger stated that he has found out that a lot of the churches have community rooms that seat 50 or 60 people.  Three quarters of the time it would never take care of them.  Lately they have had families that try to feed between 100 to 150 people.

Mr. McDonnell asked if the parking requirements would be met.

Mr. Heitger stated yes.

Mr. Deremer closed this appeal to public input.

Mr. Dodson stated that he does not see a practical difficulty that has to do with the land itself and the variances are substantial.

Mr. McDonnell stated that he too does not see a practical difficulty.  Mr. McDonnell stated that the regulations state that there is a 75 ft. setback next to residential as opposed to if it were next to a commercial area with the setback being 16 ft.  The reason for the 75 ft. requirement is to put a buffer between the commercial and residential uses.  Mr. McDonnell stated that he does not see a substantial practical difficulty to warrant reducing the buffer area so he has difficulty in granting the variance that is a 50 % request.

Mr. Deremer stated that he has heard a lot about property owners and business owners as if they are two different things.  In this township a property owner may be a business owner.  The people presenting the appeal are property owners as well as the people living next to them.  There is no separation of that within the law.  If you buy a piece of property you are allowed to do what the law tells you what you can do within reason.  The board is for extreme cases that may not fit into the resolution.  People need to realize a business is not a separate entity, but he tends to agree with the other board members.  There are options to keep the setback at 75 ft.  Mr. Deremer stated that there is room to move the building up so it meets the rear setback but then the buildings wouldn’t line up.  The building could be connected to the existing building and eliminate the variance along the south side but testimony has been given that this is not the best way to use the property for the use that they want and he understands this.  If the buildings are separate they have to be 30 ft. apart so a variance would be needed for the south side.  So he see a practical difficulty on the south side but not on the east side.  The building could be pushed closer to the road although it may not be the best place for it.  Mr. Deremer stated that he sees that one of the variances is preventable but the other is not.  Mr. Deremer stated that the 20 ft. parking setback is new because the township is trying to keep more green space for the setback and he does not see a practical difficulty with this.

Mr. McDonnell made a motion to approve appeal #1917 as requested.

Mr. Dodson seconded the motion.

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

APPEAL #1915 – Greg Becker, agent for Calvary Chapel, property owner, 8151 Stuhldreher NW, Massillon, Ohio 44646 requests a conditional use permit for a church where a conditional use permit is required, a variance for a 10 ft. east side building setback where 35 ft. is required, and a variance for a 15 ft. front parking setback where 20 ft. is required in Art. IV Sect. 401.3, 431.4, and 431.6(F) of the zoning resolution.  Property located at 8151 Stuhldreher NW, Sect. 32NE Jackson Twp.  Area zoned R-R.

Mr. Deremer read the file application signed by Greg Becker with reasons being as stated by the applicant, “Bring non-conforming use to conforming conditional use for site.  Ten foot setback is adjacent to B-3 and is more compatible to surrounding use.”  The file contained a tax map of the property in question, a site plan showing the proposed addition, the answers to the criteria for the conditional use permit, and two sheets consisting of seven computer generated photos.

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

Mr. Deremer swore in Greg Becker, 13967 Myers Dr., Dalton, Ohio.

Mr. Becker stated that he is a board member at the Calvary Chapel.  They would like to add a family life center that would be connected to the back of the church, which backs up to the laundry mat and convenience store on Wales Rd.  Mr. Becker stated that it would be a nice addition to the church and allow them to develop some youth programs as well as social events.

Mr. Deremer swore in Bill McCullough, 100 Santa Clara NW, Canton, Ohio.

Mr. McCullough stated that there is B-3 zoning on the east side of the property, to the west is residential and across the street is residential and commercial.  Mr. McCullough stated that the 15 ft front parking setback variance is because they want to bring the use from a non-conforming use into a conforming use and the parking exists.  The reason they want to set the building 10 ft. from the property line is because to the north is a soccer field that they would like to maintain for recreation.  There is also a 40 ft. access to Wales Ave. that they do not want to close off.  Mr. McCullough stated that there is a grade difference on the property.  If the building were put at a 35 ft. setback they would basically be into the existing building where there is a sidewalk and a separate entrance into the office area.  Mr. McCullough stated that the church sits higher than the properties along Wales Rd. and has a chain link fence along the property line.  Mr. McCullough stated that he thinks the proposed area is the best place to put the addition because they do not want to put it next to the residential homes.

Mr. McDonnell asked if it was testified to that the 10 ft. parking setback is because the parking exists.

Mr. McCullough stated yes.

Mr. McDonnell asked if the building were moved over 25 ft. to meet the setback requirements what it would be next to.

Mr. Becker stated that it would be next to the Sanctuary.

Mr. McDonnell asked if they would have to go through the Sanctuary to get to the gym area.

Mr. Becker stated yes, and if moved over 35 ft. the building would block the existing windows in the Sanctuary.

Mr. McCullough explained the site plan and where the kitchen area and entrances are located.

Mr. McDonnell asked if the building addition is more than 25% of what is currently on the property.

Mr. McCullough stated yes.

Mr. McDonnell reviewed the criteria for the conditional use permit and Mr. Becker answered as follows:

Section 431.2
Mr. McDonnell:  Is it your testimony that it will not be detrimental to property values in the immediate vicinity?

Mr. Becker:  Yes.

Mr. McDonnell:  Is it you testimony that it will not restrict or adversely affect the existing use of the adjacent property owners?

Mr. Becker: Yes.

Mr. McDonnell:  Are you going to be adding any driveways or street access?

Mr. Becker:  No.

Mr. McDonnell:  We will assume that it meets the county or state agencies and there have been no problems.

Mr. Becker:  Correct.

Mr. McDonnell:  Will it meet the EPA requirements for storewater runoff, when applicable?

Mr. Becker:  Yes.

Mr. McDonnell:  The landscaping requirement is not applicable because this is an R-R district.  Will this be constructed and maintained in a neat, orderly, and safe condition.

Mr. Becker:  Yes.

Section 431.3
Mr. McDonnell:  What are the hours of operation?

Mr. Becker:  Sundays, Wednesday evening and occasionally some special occasions on Saturday or weekdays, normally evenings.

Mr. McDonnell:  Is this more than one acre?

Mr. Becker:  Yes.

Mr. McDonnell:  Do you know Mr. McCullough how far the exits and entrance are from an arterial street?

Mr. McCullough:  About 300 ft.

Mr. McDonnell:  Will there be any lighting on the building?

Mr. McCullough:  There is already lighting in the parking area.

Mr. McDonnell:  Will you be adding any additional lighting on the building.

Mr. McCullough:  Just a security light on the building.

Mr. McDonnell:  Will there be any floodlights, searchlights, loudspeakers?
Mr. Becker:  No.

Mr. McDonnell:  Will there be any additional trash receptacles?

Mr. Becker:  No.

Mr. McDonnell:  Do you have any now?

Mr. Becker:  We have one that is in the rear.

Mr. McCullough:  Does it need to be enclosed?

Mr. McDonnell:  It would be better if you checked Mr. Phillippi to see if this is required or if it falls under the non-conforming status.

Mr. McDonnell:  All the grading and surface drainage will be prepared by a registered engineer and reviewed or approved by the Stark County Subdivision Engineer when applicable?

Mr. Becker:  Yes.

Section 431.6
Mr. McDonnell: We already went through item #1 because they are located on Stuhlderher which is a collector street with direct access onto Stuhlderher St.

Mr. Becker:  Correct.

Mr. McDonnell:  Do you have any outdoor children’s activities at the church?

Mr. Becker:  Just the soccer field but we don’t have any others.

Mr. McDonnell:  Item #3 regards the height of the church.  Do you know how tall the church is?

Mr. McCullough:  Twenty-five feet.

Mr. McDonnell:  All activities, programs, and other events shall be directly related to the conditional use permit, i.e. the gym, and shall be adequately and properly supervised so as to prevent any hazard and to assure against any disturbance or nuisance to surrounding properties, residents or to the community in general.  Is it you testimony that you will abide by those conditions and make sure that such requirements are met?

Mr. Becker:  Yes.

Mr. McDonnell asked Mr. Becker to show the board the emergency entrances and exits.

Mr. McCullough stated that there will be one to the north, one on the back side and at least two along the front side.

Mr. McDonnell asked if they would meet all the requirements of the fire prevention code.

Mr. McCullough stated yes.

This concluded the requirements of the conditional use permit.

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

Mr. Deremer closed this appeal to public input.

Mr. McDonnell stated that he believes the criteria for the conditional use permit have been met.  The 10 ft. parking setback is because it is existing.  He thinks the variance for the building on the side has a practical difficulty as far as where the two buildings are attached.  By moving it 25 ft. they would be covering a bunch of windows.  With the rear setback it is next to a soccer field so he doesn’t really have a problem in granting the conditional use permit or the variances.

Mr. Dodson concurred with Mr. McDonnell’s comments.

Mr. Dodson made a motion to approve appeal #1915 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.

Mr. Dodson made a motion to adjourn the meeting.

Mr. Giulitto seconded the motion.

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

Respectfully submitted,

Joni Poindexter
Zoning Data Coordinator
Clerk/Secretary