Members present:                                                                     Ted Deremer-Recused from appeal #1919
                                                                                                     Edward McDonnell
                                                                                                     Richard Dodson
                                                                                                    Jim Giulitto
                                                                                                    John Juergensen

Zoning Administrator:                                                               John Phillippi

APPEAL #1918 – Nancy Saulnier, property owner, 5858 West Blvd. NW, Canton, Ohio 44718 requests a variance for a 15 ft. front building setback where 40 ft. is required and a 10 ft. rear building setback where 15 ft. is required in Art. IV Sect. 401.6 of the zoning resolution.  Property located at 5858 West Blvd. NW, Sect. 14SW Jackson Twp.  Area zoned R-1.

Mr. Deremer read the file application signed by Nancy Saulnier with reasons being as stated by the applicant, “Allowing access from master bedroom to bathroom in the existing garage and relocating two closets so as to make a hall into house.  Existing structure is not in compliance with zoning code.  Dates from year 1955”.  The file contained a tax map of the property in question, a plat of survey dated April 13, 2004, and a photo copy showing the front of the home dated October 30, 2003.

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

Mr. Deremer swore in Nancy Saulnier, 5858 West Blvd. NW.

Ms. Saulnier stated that the existing house has a one car garage with the entrance directly off the street.  She would like to build a two and one half car garage.  Currently there is no entrance from the house to the garage so she has to go outside and down the sidewalk to get to the second bathroom and laundry room that is located in the garage.  Ms. Saulnier stated that she would like to enlarge the garage for extra closet space and so there would be access from the house to the bathroom and laundry room.  Ms. Saulnier stated that she will be changing the driveway to the side because currently when pulling out of the garage the vehicle goes directly into the street.

Ms. Saulnier stated that the east corner of the house is 25.7 ft. from the property line and the west corner of the house is 16.7 ft. from the property line.  The back of the house is currently 17.1 ft. from the lake and she is asking for a 10 ft. setback where 15 ft. is required.

Mr. McDonnell asked if the new structure along the west side would be in line with the existing garage.

Ms. Saulnier stated that it would be an extension of what is already there.  However, she will tear down the old garage because the sewer lines are not located where they need to be for the new addition.

Mr. McDonnell asked Ms. Saulnier if it is her testimony that the new garage is not going to extend any further out than the existing garage.

Ms. Saulnier stated that it will be slightly closer to West Blvd. because the house sits on an angle.

Mr. McDonnell stated that the rear portion of the structure appears to be in line with the existing house and the rest of it appears to be inset from the house.

Ms. Saulnier stated that is correct.

Mr. Dodson asked if the proposed addition required approval from the Lake Cable Association.
Ms. Saulnier stated that she spoke with Tom Gibbons and he said that he didn’t think there would be a problem, but she has not made a formal appeal to the board.

No one else in the audience spoke in favor of the appeal and no one in the audience spoke in opposition to the appeal.  Mr. Deremer closed this appeal to public input.

Mr. Dodson stated that he looked at the property and the existing lines of the house aren’t really going to change.  He doesn’t think it will be much closer to the lake or the road so he does not have a problem with the variance.

Mr. Deremer agreed with Mr. Dodson and stated that the lot is larger than most in the Lake Cable area.  It is understandable why the house is located where it is because of the lot being irregularly shaped.  Mr. Deremer stated that they are not overbuilding, so he does not have a problem approving the appeal.

Mr. McDonnell agreed with the other board members and stated that there is no question that a practical difficulty has been created by the irregular shaped lot.

Mr. Giulitto made a motion to approve appeal #1918 as requested.

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 #1920 – William & Cathy Wendell, 6608 Mt. Pleasant NW, North Canton, Ohio 44720 agent for Willowdale Lake Association, property owner, 610 Willowdale Lake Ave. NW, North Canton, Ohio 44720 requests a variance for a 58 ft. lot width at the 100 ft. setback where 100 ft. minimum lot width at the 100 ft. setback is required in Art. IV Sect. 401.5 of the zoning resolution.  Property location is Lot #90 & 91 Spruce Dr. NW, Sect. 3NW Jackson Twp.  Area zoned R-R.

Mr. Deremer read the file application signed by William Wendell with reasons being as stated by the applicant, “For access to the home”.  The file contained a tax map of the property in question, and a drawing of the parcel in question with the proposed house location.

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

Mr. Deremer swore in William Wendell, 6608 Mt. Pleasant NW.

Mr. Wendell stated he and his wife own 19 plus acres.  They want to build a retirement home on the property that is located on the south side of creek.  There is no access to what will be about five acres except if you cross the water.  Mr. Wendell stated that they could make a driveway along the south and east line of their property from Mt. Pleasant, but they would also have to build a bridge over the creek.  The alternative is they have entered into an agreement with Willowdale Lake whereby their property will become part of Willowdale Lake.  Willowdale owns the narrow section shown on the map that would give them access from Spruce Dr. to their home.  Due to the narrowness of the Willowdale lot they cannot comply with the 100 ft. width at the 100 ft. setback.  Mr. Wendell asked Mr. Phillippi to explain what the purpose of the regulation is.

Mr. Phillippi stated that the purpose is to prevent the creation under normal circumstances of flag lots.  The reason they don’t want long narrow drives that open up to a large piece of property is for safety factors and the fact that the drive may not be sufficient to support fire vehicles.

Mr. Wendell asked Mr. Phillippi if in his opinion the variance violates the policy of the regulation.

Mr. Phillippi stated that is for the board to determine.
Mr. Wendell stated that there is a deed restriction on the property that prevents subdivisions on less than three acres and there are no plans to develop the property.  They are only splitting the property so they can put their home it.

Mr. Deremer stated that it appears that Spruce Dr. takes a 90º turn where the lot is and asked how wide the lot would be.

Mr. Wendell stated that the property was surveyed after the request was applied for so it is actually 68 ft. wide where the drive would be located.  He is asking for a variance for the drive because there is no other way to get to the property.

Mr. Dodson asked Mr. Wendell if he is splitting his existing property and if the split off portion of the property would actually become part of Willowdale Lake.

Mr. Wendell stated yes.

Mr. Dodson asked Mr. Wendell if he would be building on the property currently owned by Willowdale or if just the drive would be located on that portion.

Mr. Wendell stated that only the drive would be located on the narrow portion of the property.

Mr. McDonnell asked who owns the property along the right side of the property in question.

Mr. Wendell stated that it is owned by American Sand & Gravel.

Mr. McDonnell asked if the structure that they are proposing to build, which would be on the south side of the creek, is the only structure that would be on the property.

Mr. Wendell stated that there is no structure currently on that portion of the property.

Mr. Dodson asked if Willowdale owns the property along both sides of the creek.

Mr. Wendell stated yes.

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

Mr. Deremer swore in Gus Eliopoulos, 144 Spruce Dr. NW.

Mr. Eliopoulos stated that he is the President of Willowdale Lake and they have given their approval for the Wendell’s to become part of Willowdale.

Mr. Deremer stated that it appears that this is the only parcel that does not wrap around the lake.

Mr. Eliopoulos stated that he thinks Mr. Deremer is correct.

Mr. Dodson asked if the Willowdale Board of Trustees approved the request.

Mr. Eliopoulos stated yes.

No one else in the audience spoke in favor of the appeal and no one in the audience spoke in opposition to the appeal.  Mr. Deremer closed this appeal to public discussion.

Mr. Dodson stated that this obviously isn’t being setup as part of a development or a flag lot.  It is an easy solution to a difficult problem.  The Board of Trustees at Willowdale Lake approved it and he thinks it makes sense, so he doesn’t have a problem with it.
Mr. McDonnell concurred with Mr. Dodson and stated that the house will be in the middle of nowhere with basically no access except from Mt. Pleasant.  Mr. McDonnell stated that he would like to put a condition on the appeal that there will be no structures allowed on the narrow piece of property that they have been talking about, which is currently known as lot #90 & 91.

Mr. Giulitto asked if it is Mr. Wendell’s testimony that the driveway will be a standard size driveway.

Mr. Wendell stated yes.

Mr. Juergensen made a motion to approve appeal #1920 with the condition that no structures are allowed within the narrow portion of the lot that is currently known as lot #90 & 91.

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. McDonnell served as Chairman for appeal #1919 due to the fact that Mr. Deremer recused himself.

APPEAL #1919 – Harris Day Architects, Inc., 3722 Whipple Ave. NW, North Canton, Ohio 44720 agent for Jackson Local Schools, property owner, 7984 Fulton Rd. NW, Massillon, Ohio 44646 requests a conditional use permit for a school and related facilities where a conditional use permit is required and a variance for a 10 ft. front parking setback where 20 ft. is required in Art. IV Sect. 401.3 & 431.4 of the zoning resolution.  Property located at 7355, 7277 & 7285 Mudbrook NW, Sect. 16SE Jackson Twp.  Area zoned R-R.

Mr. McDonnell read the file application signed by Scott Shively with reasons being a conditional use permit is required, to improve traffic circulation on Mudbrook St. and to improve safety of students and visitors on site.  The file contained tax map showing the property in question, a letter from Hammontree & Associates Limited regarding the answers to the criteria for the conditional use permit, a letter from Tracy Hogue of the Jackson Fire Department dated May 13, 2004, a letter from Harris Day Architects to the Jackson Township Trustees requesting a waiver for the zoning fees for the school project, and a site improvement plan for the school project dated May 5, 2004.

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

Mr. McDonnell swore in Scott Shively, 3722 Whipple Ave. NW.

Mr. Shively stated that the traffic flow on Mudbrook during the school morning hours is terrible and hinders students being dropped off by parents in getting into the site and, as mentioned by Tracy Hogue, there is a concern about being able to get emergency vehicle access in the morning hours when traffic is backed up onto Mudbrook St.

Mr. Shively stated that the first portion of the appeal is the conditional use permit.  They will be taking over two lots that the school purchased which is 7277 & 7285 Mudbrook.  Mr. Shively stated that their intent is to get the small “S” loop in front of the existing buildings as the bus drop off and parents would be routed into the site which would give plenty of room so traffic don’t back up onto Mudbrook St.  The reason for the conditional use and taking over the two adjoining lots is to get the amount of buses that is required they need to expand the loop to the east and west and that would push over onto the two adjoining lots.

Mr. Shively stated that the second request is a 10 ft. parking setback.  The front setback off of Mudbrook is 20 ft.  The bus compound only houses one half of the districts buses and the other buses are parked outside within a chain link fence.  In the future they would like to construct an additional bus compound and the concern was not having enough parking on the site to construct the compound adjacent to the one that is there now.  The alternative is the school looking at the possibility of taking over the green space across the creek that is on Wales Rd.  They would rather not do that, so by looking and analyzing the parking needs for the school based on their current usage and by requesting the 10 ft. variance they would gain additional visitor parking along Mudbrook which would allow them to maximize the other parking area and keep them from having to take over the green space along Wales Rd. in the future.

Mr. McDonnell stated as he understands the conditional use permit applies to the two properties that the school purchased that is on either side of the existing school.

Mr. Phillippi stated that he thinks the application is for the entire site to be put under the conditional use.  This is what has always been recommended because it eliminates what is currently a non-conforming use and brings the entire property into a conforming use.  Under the regulations it is prohibited to expand a non-conforming use onto adjacent parcels.

Mr. Shively stated that Mr. Phillippi is correct.

Mr. McDonnell asked if the two purchased lots would remain separate lots or if the complex would be one parcel.

Mr. Shively stated that there is no intent to restructure the current property, but it would be considered one site.

Mr. Phillippi stated that there would be three separate parcels but would constitute one zoning lot for zoning purposes.  It is not required that the parcels be resurveyed and put into one.

Mr. McDonnell stated as he understands there will be three lots that consist of the current school parcel and the two other parcels but one complex.

Mr. Phillippi stated this is correct.

Mr. McDonnell asked Mr. Shively if he is aware that he would be permitted to expand up to 25% on the current property if it remained non-conforming.

Mr. Shively stated yes.  If he understands correctly this is 25% of building structure.  They are planning an expansion of a building structure in the future, but there is no intent to do that at this time.

Mr. McDonnell stated that he wanted to make sure Mr. Shively understands that he is giving up the non-conforming use and the entire complex would become a conditional use permit.

Mr. Shively stated he understands.

Mr. McDonnell asked if it is possible for the two lots to become a conditional use and the other lot to remain non-conforming.

Mr. Phillippi stated that this could be done, but the zoning department recommends that all of it be put under a conditional use permit because it makes it cleaner and they are trying to eliminate non-conformities.  The only difference being is if it is non-conforming within the 25% limitation it can be approved administratively in the office, but once it is under a conditional use permit any revision to the site plan has to come back to the board for review.

Mr. Shively stated if he understands correctly, in the future any facility that would be constructed that is above the 25% would have to go in front of the board.

Mr. Phillippi stated this is correct.

Mr. Shively stated that they would have to go before the board regardless so it doesn’t matter.

Mr. McDonnell stated if he understands correctly, the request for the parking setback is to allow more parking spaces in the front thereby allowing somewhere down the road the construction of the future bus compound.

Mr. Shively stated that is correct.

Mr. McDonnell asked how many parking spaces the school will gain.

Mr. Shively stated that it would provide an additional 41 parking spaces which would primarily be visitor parking.

Mr. McDonnell asked why the 41 parking spaces couldn’t be put somewhere else on the property.

Mr. Shively stated that they are out of space unless they move to a more remote area.  The parking would be primarily visitor parking allowing access to the office which all visitors are required to enter through.

Mr. Dodson asked if the area marked “future bus compound” is currently used for visitor parking.

Mr. Shively stated that most of it is being used for bus parking and some visitor parking.

Mr. Dodson reviewed the criteria for the conditional use permit.

Section 431.2
Mr. Dodson:  Will this proposed use be detrimental to property values in the immediate vicinity?

Mr. Shively: The proposed improvements will not be detrimental to property in the immediate vicinity or the community as a whole.

Mr. Dodson:  Do you anticipate that it will restrict or adversely affect the existing use of the adjacent property owners?

Mr. Shively:  The proposed improvements will not restrict or adversely affect the existing use of adjacent property owners.

Mr. Dodson:  The proposed use 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 county or state agencies where applicable.

Mr. Shively:  The access drives onto Mudbrook St. will conform to township and county criteria.

Mr. Dodson:  Will the proposed use modify the existing use for stormwater runoff?

Mr. Shively:  Erosion and sediment control requirements of Stark County Soil & Water Conservation District will be followed.

Mr. Dodson:  So you also meet the EPA requirements?

Mr. Shively:  That is correct.

Mr. Dodson:  Will the proposed use be properly landscaped according to Section 411.9, when applicable pursuant to Chapter 411 or when specified as a condition for approval?

Mr. Shively:  The site will be properly landscaped in accordance with the requirements of Section 411.9.
Mr. Phillippi stated that Section 411.9 is not applicable to this site.  Obviously they have a landscaping plan but there are no requirements under the regulations.

Mr. Shively stated that they have provided a landscaping plan with the intent to meet Section 411.9.

Mr. Dodson:  Will the proposed use be constructed and maintained in a neat, orderly and safe condition?

Mr. Shively:  The proposed improvements will be constructed and maintained in a neat, orderly and safe condition.

Section 431.3-Specific Development Standards.
Mr. Dodson:  What are your anticipated hours of operation?

Mr. Shively:  The future hours of operation of the school will continue to be basically the same as the current hours of operation.

Mr. Dodson:  I presume this is a parcel of one or more acres. Will all points of vehicular entrance or exits be located no closer than 100 ft. from the intersection of two arterial streets or 50 ft. from the intersection of an arterial street and a local or collector street?

Mr. Shively:  The vehicular entrances are located more than 100 ft. from the intersection of Mudbrook St. and Wales Ave. and the new easterly drive is aligned with Cheryl Lane.

Mr. Dodson:  No lighting shall constitute a nuisance and in no way shall impair safe movement of traffic on any street or highway.  All outside lighting shall be shielded from adjacent properties.  Do you anticipate there will be an additional lighting required?

Mr. Shively:  There is additional lighting required.  Any outside lighting will be designed so it will not constitute a nuisance or impair safe movement of traffic on adjacent streets and will be shielded from the adjacent properties.

Mr. Dodson:  Do you anticipate installing any new trash receptacles?

Mr. Shively:  No we do not.

Mr. Dodson:  Any grading and surface drainage provisions shall be prepared by a registered engineer and reviewed or approved by the Stark County Subdivision Engineer, where applicable.

Mr. Shively:  The grading and drainage design for this site will be prepared by Hammontree Engineers and submitted for review and approval by the Stark County Subdivision Engineer.

Section 431.6F
Mr. Dodson:  Such uses should be located on an arterial or collector street or have direct access to an arterial or collector street without going through a residential neighborhood to lessen the impact on the residential area.  Will you be in compliance with that?

Mr. Shively:  Yes.  The access to the site is from Mudbrook St., so traffic entering or exiting will not pass through a residential neighborhood.  The intent of this improvement is to alter current traffic circulation patterns to alleviate a situation where vehicular traffic backs up onto Mudbrook St. when parents and buses drop off and pick up students.

Mr. Dodson:  All outdoor children’s activity areas shall be enclosed by a fence or wall having a height of at least five feet but not exceeding six feet.  An entry gate shall be securely fastened.

Mr. Shively:  There are no outdoor children’s activity areas within the limits of the proposed improvements.

Mr. Dodson:  I believe that subsection three is non applicable and applies to churches.

Mr. Dodson:  All activities, programs and other events shall be directly related to the conditional use permit so granted, 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.

Mr. Shively:  Activities, programs and other events will be adequately and property supervised to prevent any hazard and assure against any disturbance or nuisance to surrounding properties, residents or the community in general.

Mr. Dodson:  The development plan shall indicate the parking and emergency entrances or exits and other safety precautions.

Mr. Shively:  The development plan indicates parking and emergency entrances and exits.

Mr. Dodson stated that all the criteria for the conditional use permit have been reviewed.

Mr. McDonnell asked Mr. Shively to show the board on the site plan where the emergency exists and entrances are located on the building.

Mr. Shively marked the emergency exits and entrances with an “x” on the site plan.

Mr. McDonnell asked if the landscaping that is shown is what is being proposed for the site.

Mr. Shively stated that is correct for the most part but has been improved and expanded a little bit.

Mr. McDonnell asked Mr. Shively if there would be any problem if there were a condition that the landscaping that will occur will be substantially the same as depicted on the plan or greater.

Mr. Shively stated that they are intending on completing construction this summer which will start on June 14th.  It is critical that all the work start immediately so it is completed by the time school starts.

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

Mr. McDonnell swore in Cheryl Hashack, 6246 Drexel St. NW.

Ms. Hashack stated that she is in favor of the proposal.  A bond issue was passed in March and they have been hustling to get everything done.  Traffic is a problem so it is a priority for them to get the project done by August.

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. McDonnell closed this appeal to public input.

Mr. Juergensen stated that he believes all the criteria for the conditional use permit has been met except for the requested variance, which he has no problem with due to the building being close to the road.

Mr. Dodson agreed with Mr. Juergensen and recommended the board approve both the variance and the conditional use permit.

Mr. McDonnell agreed with Mr. Juergensen that all the conditions have been met for the conditional use permit and stated with regards to the variance for the parking setback, he believes a practical difficulty has been met because the parking should be close to the office for safety reasons.  Mr. McDonnell stated that he would like to see the additional condition, as Mr. Shively indicated, that they have no problem with and intend to landscape the area within the parking setback.  While it is not required he thinks it will add to the area and reduce the impact of the variance, so perhaps a condition of the landscaping as shown on the plan will be essentially the same or similar to what the board has seen.

Mr. Juergensen stated his only concern is if there would be problems with the site line.

Mr. McDonnell stated that Mr. Juergensen made a good point.

Mr. McDonnell made a motion to approve appeal #1919 as requested.

Mr. Phillippi asked if the motion is for approval with the landscaping condition.

Mr. McDonnell stated that he would let the board decide if they want to add that or not.  Mr. McDonnell asked for a second or an amendment to the motion.

Mr. Dodson seconded the motion.

Mr. McDonnell stated that the motion and second is to approve appeal #1919 as requested.

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

Mr. Deremer rejoined the meeting.

Mr. Deremer asked if the board had any comments on the minutes from the April 8, 2004 meeting.

Mr. Dodson made a motion to approve the minutes from the April 8, 2004 meeting and Mr. Giulitto 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 the board had any comments on the minutes from the April 15, 2004 meeting.

Mr. McDonnell stated that there were a few typo errors that need corrected and explained what they were.

Mr. Juergensen made a motion to approve the minutes as corrected and Mr. Giulitto seconded the motion.

The vote was: Mr. Juergensen-yes expect for appeal #1911, Mr. Giulitto-yes, Mr. Dodson-yes, Mr. McDonnell-yes, and Mr. Deremer-abstained.

Mr. McDonnell made a motion to adjourn the meeting and Mr. Juergensen 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