Members present:                                                                Ted Deremer
                                                                                                Richard Dodson
                                                                                                Jim Giulitto    - absent for Appeal #2032
Alternate member:                                                                Eric Oldroyd

Absent:                                                                                   Edward McDonnell
                                                                                                John Juergensen
Zoning Inspector:                                                                  Joni Poindexter

Zoning Coordinator:                                                              Lori Foutz

APPEAL #2032 – Eric & Noel Johnson, 6572 Hillfield St NW, North Canton, OH 44720, property owners, request a variance to allow a swimming pool in the right side yard where a swimming pool is only permitted in the rear yard per Art. IV, Sect. 401.11 of the zoning resolution.  Property location is 6572 Hillfield St, NW, Sect. 10NW Jackson Twp.  Area zoned R-R.

Mr. Deremer read the application signed by Eric Johnson 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 Eric Johnson, 6572 Hillfield St NW, North Canton, to speak on behalf of the application.

Mr. Johnson stated they would like to put a swimming pool in their back yard.  However, there is a natural gas line that runs through their backyard.  They are not able to build within 15 ft. on either side of this gas line.  They are requesting to put the swimming pool in their side yard.  He also stated 4 different builders informed him they could not put the pool in the backyard.

Mr. Dodson clarified the gas line was a high pressure gas line and not just the gas line to their house.

Mr. Johnson stated that is correct.

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 he feels they met the practical difficulty due to the gas line.  He stated the variance is minimal and he has no problem with granting the variance.

Mr. Oldroyd stated that he agrees with Mr. Dodson.

Mr. Oldroyd made a motion to approve appeal #2032 as filed.

Mr. Dodson seconded the motion.

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

APPEAL #2034 – Rolando Dimickele, 2433 Whipple Ave NW, Canton, OH 44708, property owner, James Seran, 915 High Ave NW, Canton, OH 44703, applicant, request a variance for an 8 ft. north side yard setback for an accessory building where 16 ft. side yard setback is required per Art. IV, Sect. 411.10 of the zoning resolution.  Property located at 2433 Whipple Ave NW, Sect. 14SW Jackson Twp.  Area zoned B-3.

Mr. Deremer read the application signed by James Seran and the reason for the appeal as listed in the file.  The file contained a site plan reflecting the proposed addition, a memo from Fire Chief, Ted Heck with his comments, and a memo from Ms. Poindexter stating she reviewed the site plan and does not have a problem with it.  Also in the file was an aerial view of the parcel and adjoining parcels.

Mr. Deremer swore in James Seran, 915 High Ave NW, Canton, OH, to speak on behalf of the appeal.

Mr. Seran stated they are asking for the variance because they are trying to max their parking spaces.  They will be required to have 176 plus parking spaces.  Recently Stark County Soil Department called him and they are concerned with the parking on the west side of the property.  He will submit the parking plan to zoning for their approval.  They have an existing restaurant that has been there for 30 years and the building is 5 ft. from the north property line.  They are not asking to be any closer.  Approximately 40 ft. from where they are questioning the soil is where the wetland area begins.

Mr. Deremer asked if they were granted a variance for the existing building.

Mr. Seran stated not that he is aware of.  He also checked with Ms. Poindexter and she did not find any documentation of a variance in the zoning file.

Mr. Deremer asked about the existing shed on the property.

Mr. Seran stated the shed has been there as long as the existing building has.  He reviewed the site plan with the board members.

Mr. Giulitto referred to the aerial map and asked what is behind the property.

Mr. Seran stated it is a basin, actually wetlands.  He stated it is his opinion no one will ever be able to build in that area.

Mr. Dodson also referred to the aerial map.  It appears the restaurant is over the property line.

Mr. Seran stated it appears that way, however, it is 5 ft. from the property line.

Mr. Deremer clarified the aerial map is not always accurate as far as property lines.

Mr. Oldroyd asked if they would be able to get the parking spaces required without the variance.

Mr. Seran stated that he would be able to come up with the required parking spaces without the variance.  He would have some problems with entry ways into the buildings.  Also, the further he has to move parking away from the building affects parking for the handicap.  He would like to avoid the area in the back of the property that is close to the wetlands.

Mr. Oldroyd asked how far the handicap parking spaces would be away from the building.

Mr. Seran stated it would be 8 feet plus.

Mr. Oldroyd stated the board needs to find a practical difficulty to grant a variance.

Mr. Seran stated the soil problem would be a practical difficulty since it will affect the parking spaces.  Also, if they move the building it will affect the entrance way into the building.

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. Giulitto stated he does not have a problem with the request.  The new structure will actually not be as close to the property line as the existing building.

Mr. Dodson stated his office is across the street.  He has not seen the wetlands area ever dry out.  He does not feel that area will ever be developed.  He feels it would be favorable to keep cars parked away from that area.

Mr. Oldroyd stated he feels the condition of the land would meet the practical difficulty that they are required to have.

Mr. Giulitto made a motion to approve appeal #2034 as requested.

Mr. Dodson seconded the motion.

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

APPEAL #2033 – Power Resources Operating Co, 4051 Whipple Ave NW, Canton, OH 44718, property owners, Par/Joh LLC, Bill Parker, 4051 Whipple Ave NW, Canton, OH 44718, applicant, request a conditional use permit for planned office complex where a conditional use permit is required per Art. IV, Sect. 411.3 of the zoning resolution.  Property location is parcels 1702551, 1702162 and 1701063, Sect. 25NE Jackson Twp.  Area zoned B-1.

Mr. Deremer read the application signed by Bill Parker 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.   A memo from Chief Ted Heck, Fire Department, with his comments after reviewing the site plan and a memo from Joni Poindexter, Zoning Inspector, with her comments.  Also in the file was an aerial view of the parcel and adjoining parcels.

Mr. Deremer swore in Bill Parker, 4501 Navarre Rd, Canton, and James Detrow, 214 Williams Place, Alliance, to speak on behalf of the application.

Mr. Parker stated they want to build an office condo complex.  They feel they have complied with all requirements.

Mr. Parker and Mr. Detrow reviewed the site plan with the board members.

Mr. Oldroyd asked if they already had tenants for these buildings.

Mr. Detrow stated one is already sold.

Mr. Oldroyd asked what type of business is going in the building.

Mr. Detrow stated it is professional office.

Mr. Oldroyd questioned the hours of operation.

Mr. Detrow stated it would be normal business hours 8:00 am to 5:00 pm.

Mr. Deremer read through the general criteria for all conditional use permits in Section 431.2 and Mr. Parker responded.

A. Will not be detrimental to property values in the immediate vicinity.  RESPONSE: Correct.

B.  Will not restrict or adversely affect the existing use of the adjacent property owners.  RESPONSE:        Correct.

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, and will conform to what ODOT requires.

D. Will meet all requirements for EPA for storm water runoff, when applicable.  RESPONSE:   Yes.

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. Deremer 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:  Normal office hours.  Will not be 24 hours.

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:  Two access drives are in compliance.  Two are located on Whipple Avenue and one on Munson Street.

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:  Lighting plan will be in compliance.
 
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:  Shall be in compliance.

5. All trash receptacles shall be adequately screened.  RESPONSE:  Shall be in compliance.

6. Grading and surface drainage provisions shall be prepared by a registered engineer and reviewed or approved by the Stark County Subdivision Engineer.  RESPONSE:  Shall be in compliance.  Required provisions will be prepared by Cooper and Associates.

Mr. Deremer referred to Section 431.6 (S) planned office complex, planned business complex, shall comply with the following:

1. A planned office or business complex shall contain two (2) or more principal buildings having common vehicular parking facilities, controlled access to abutting streets, and shall be developed under a unified development plan.  The complex shall be considered as one (1) building for the purpose of determining front, side, and rear yard setback requirements.  RESPONSE:  Yes, will comply.

2. Adequate circulation shall be provided for the project:
a. Pave, off-street parking and service areas shall be required.  All parking and service areas shall be paved with concrete, asphalt, or equivalent.  RESPONSE:  Yes, everything is asphalt.
b. Vehicular approaches to the property shall so designed to not create an interference with traffic on surrounding public streets or roads. RESPONSE:  Yes.

Mr. Shawn Obrien spoke on the application as a point of information to the board as what his project next door has encountered with ODOT.  They have found that ODOT requires a right turn in and out.  Odot also requires a turn lane for their development.  He feels if they are forcing them, they will force this project to also.  As soon as there is a change of use for building or future development, ODOT has the right to look at all accesses into the development.  ODOT could deny the access onto Whipple Avenue.  They could also require a turn lane onto one of the access drives.  He stated that ODOT’s major concern is no traffic congestion.  It is going to cost him between 50 and 100 thousand dollars to put in a turn lane.  He wanted to make them aware of this.  His concern is if both are forced to put in a turn lane, it may cause confusion with the public.

Mr. Parker submitted into file an email from Bryan Ashman stating his communications with ODOT.  Mr. Deremer marked as Exhibit 1.

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. Dodson stated if the specific requirements are met the board tends to approve the application.  His only concern is this will be next to a residential district and they have normal business hours.

Mr. Giulitto stated he agrees all requirements have been met.  The ODOT issue is not something the board can decide.

Mr. Oldroyd made a motion to approve appeal #2033 as requested.
 
Mr. Dodson seconded the motion.

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

Respectfully submitted,

Lori Foutz
Zoning Coordinator