Members present:
Ted Deremer
Richard Dodson
Jim Giulitto
Alternate Member:
Eric Oldroyd
Zoning Inspector:
Joni Poindexter
Zoning Date Coordinator:
Andrea Paumier
Appeal 2073 – Buckeye Dental Group, LLC, 7265 Portage NW, Massillon OH, 44646 agent for Ottogolli, Ltd., 5888 Fulton NW, Canton, OH 44718, property owner, requests a variance to allow a freestanding sign 38 ft. from the center of Portage where 45 ft. is required per Art. II Sect. 201.2 & Art. V Sect. 501.5(G) of the zoning resolution. Property located at 7265 Portage NW, Sect. 9SE Jackson Twp. zoned B-3.
Mr. Deremer read the application and contents of the file.
Mr. Deremer swore in Attorney Dan Funk, 400 S. Main, N. Canton.
Mr. Funk stated that Buckeye Dental had
applied for a sign replacement which was approved November 17, 2006, and
that replacement sign was installed in the same exact location as the preexisting
sign which apparently wasn’t in compliance with the Township zoning regulations,
so Buckeye Dental is requesting this variance for a number of reasons,
number one based on the approval of the Township initially obviously they
would not have gone forward with the sign replacement if it weren’t approved
initially because of the cost to move it. Number two, Buckeye Dental is
in situation where the financial difficulty of moving the sign is not reasonable
and if the sign were to be moved back the 7 ft. the sign would be located
in the parking lot. Number three, we don’t know if the sign was initially
allowed to be in this location because of where the road was Mr. Funk believes
the road may have moved over the past three years.
Number four, there are other signs along
this road, that if Buckeye Dental’s sign is in fact in violation then too,
example: River Tree Church. Number five, the sign does not obstruct any
vision of the drivers.
Mr. Deremer asked if Mr. Funk had a copy if the original application.
Mr. Funk stated yes.
Mr. Deremer marked the original application as exhibit 1.
Mr. Giulitto stated this process on this new sign started back in November, but asked if Mr. Funk knew when the original sign was constructed.
Mr. Funk stated 3 years ago.
Mr. Giulitto asked Mr. Funk if it were his testimony that to move the sign in compliance it would be in the parking lot, which obviously is not an option.
Mr. Funk stated yes, that is correct. I believe that we would be able to move it back maybe 3-4 ft. but the sign still wouldn’t be within compliance.
Mr. Giulitto asked if there is any obstruction of view as far as the traffic.
Mr. Funk stated no.
Mr. Dodson asked if a permit was submitted for the original sign.
Mr. Funk stated he believed there was. I can not, under oath say for sure.
Ms. Poindexter stated no there was not a permit submitted for the existing sign. When they originally applied the applicant said it was going to be 22.6 ft. from Portage. The site plan they submitted showed that the sign met the setbacks. After pulling the original file we found there was no original permit submitted and with that being a violation itself, so therefore the Zoning Dept. didn’t catch it because there was no record of a sign being in that position. Ron Revlock went out to the property and measured where the sign actually is and where the sign should be to meet the regulations. Portage is a 60 ft. road right of way per the Stark County, while the zoning regulations consider Portage an 80 ft. road right of way. The reason why we consider the road being 80ft road right of way is so in the future the county does not have to pay to have those signs taken down and moved.
Mr. Deremer marked a map showing where the sign currently is and where the sign should be, as exhibit 2.
Mr. Deremer stated that on the application it is indicating that the sign position is 22.6ft from Portage.
Ms. Poindexter stated that is right, and that is 22.6ft from the Portage 80ft road right of way. If you measure it, the sign is actually 22.6 ft from the curb of Portage, but not from the actual road right of way.
Mr. Deremer stated that the Township has a drawing showing that the sign is in the proper location, but it looks as if the Archer Sign Corporation measured right off of Portage itself.
Mr. Funk stated his concern about the River Tree sign being in the same spot as the Buckeye Dental sign and whether their sign will have to be moved.
Mr. Poindexter stated she is unsure when River Tree was issued their sign permit, I would have to pull their file.
Mr. Deremer asked if the 80 ft road right of way was new to the regulations.
Ms. Poindexter stated no, that has been in the regulations for a while.
Mr. Deremer asked if anyone else in the audience wanted to speak in favor of the appeal.
No one else in the audience spoke.
Mr. Deremer asked if anyone else in the audience wanted to speak in opposition of the appeal.
No one else in the audience spoke.
Mr. Deremer closed this appeal to public input.
Mr. Giulitto stated he sees no problem in approving this appeal. He feels the confusion is not the applicants fault rather then a misunderstanding of the sign company.
Mr. Deremer stated the sign layout has a small site plan on it showing a 22.6 ft from Portage., Lorane is 16.5 ft. and on the sign application from the Township it indicates the location of the sign from the property lines of 22.6 ft. from Portage being as the property line. I could understand why the sign company did not need to move the sign back any further.
Mr. Dodson made a motion to approve appeal
no. 2073 as requested.
Mr. Giulitto seconded the motion.
The vote was: Mr. Deremer – Yes, Mr. Dodson – Yes, Mr. Giulitto – Yes, and Mr. Oldroyd – Yes.
Appeal 2066 –Thomas Winkhart, 825 South Main St, North Canton, OH 44720 agent for Campbell Oil Co., 611 Erie St. South, Mass. OH 44646, property owner, requests a variance for a 5 ft. rear building setback where 16 ft. is required and a zero ft. setback for a detached dumpster enclosure where 5 ft. is required per Art. IV Sect. 411.5 & 411.10 of the zoning resolution. Property located at 5508 Wales NW, Sect. 21NE Jackson Twp. Area zoned B-3.
Mr. Deremer read the file application and stated there is a letter in the file from Mr. Winkhart asking for a continuance until June 14, 2007.
Ms. Paumier stated the next available meeting time is on June 14th is 7:30 pm
Mr. Deremer made a motion to continue appeal 2066 until June 14, 2007 at 7:30 pm.
Mr. Giulitto seconded the motion.
The vote was: Mr. Deremer-Yes, Mr. Dodson-Yes, Mr. Giulitto-yes, and Mr. Oldroyd-Yes
Appeal 2074 – Stephanie Schiltheis, property owner, 4930 Hills & Dales NW, Canton, OH 44708, requests a variance for a 9 ft. front and a 3 ft. west parking setback where 20 ft. is required and a 8.5 ft. west bldg. setback where 75 ft. is required per Art. IV Sect. 411.5 & 411.8 of the zoning resolution. Property located at 4930 Hills & Dales, Sect. 36NW, Jackson Twp. zoned B-3.
Mr. Deremer read the file and contents of the file.
Mr. Deremer swore in architect Dave Patterson, 2747 Coventry Lane, Canton.
Mr. Patterson stated that Stephanie bought the property for office space for her insurance company. The property is only 60’ wide and 180’ deep.
Mr. Patterson brought four pictures that he would like entered into the file. The first picture showed what the property currently looked like. Picture two showed the parking area of the business across the street and they have to back out onto the street. Picture three showed the parking of an adjacent property which also has front parking. Picture 4 showed the lane which will be used by Stephanie and her clients. The lane runs North and South.
Mr. Deremer marked the pictures as exhibits one through four and entered them into the file.
Mr. Deremer asked if the clients would be backing out into Hills & Dales.
Mr. Patterson stated no, as shown in exhibit four, that lane is owned by Aultman and they have given permission to Stephanie to use that private lane.
Mr. Patterson stated that this private lane comes off of Bowdale Ave.
Mr. Patterson stated that they could have requested a variance for the number of parking spaces but felt that it may cause problems for a potential business owner that may have to request a variance to increase the parking in the future.
Mr. Deremer asked if anyone else in the audience wanted to speak in favor of the appeal.
Mr. Patterson stated that he owns a property about 200 yards from Stephanie’s property and he has no problem with this variance.
Mr. Deremer asked if this property will be affected by the road widening.
Mr. Patterson stated no, they are beyond the 80 ft.
Mr. Deremer asked if anyone else in the audience that wanted to speak in favor if the appeal.
No one else in the audience spoke.
Mr. Deremer asked if anyone else in the audience wanted to speak in opposition of the appeal.
No one else in the audience spoke.
Mr. Deremer closed this appeal to public input.
Mr. Oldroyd stated that he is having trouble approving such a large variance on such a small property at this time.
Mr. Deremer stated that Stephanie is working with the existing property and building, and since the lot is only 60 ft. wide, he understands that it is hard to meet the 75 ft. setback from the residential district. Parking in front of the building is preferable. Stephanie is attempting to meet what setback requirements she can. The neighbor has front parking and does not see any problem with the variance.
Mr. Dodson stated he agrees with Mr. Deremer.
Mr. Dodson made a motion to approve appeal no. 2074.
Mr. Giulitto seconded the motion.
The vote was: Mr. Deremer – Yes, Mr. Dodson – Yes, Mr. Giulitto – Yes, and Mr. Oldroyd – No
Minutes to be approved: April 12, 2007
Mr. Oldyoyd made a motion to approve meeting minutes from April 12, 2007.
Mr. Dodson seconded the motion.
All was in favor.
Mr. Giulitto made a motion to adjourn the meeting.
Mr. Dodson seconded the motion.
All was in favor.
Respectfully Submitted,
Andrea Paumier,
Zoning Data Coordinator