Members present:                                                                     Ted Deremer
                                                                                                    Edward McDonnell
                                                                                                    Gerald Werner
                                                                                                    Richard Dodson-absent for appeal #1804
                                                                                                    Jim Giulitto

Zoning Administrator:                                                              John Phillippi
Zoning Data Coordinator:                                                       Joni Poindexter

APPEAL #1813 – Wendy Gainey, property owner, 5661 East Blvd. NW, Canton, Ohio 44718 requests a variance for a 25 ft. front yard setback where a 40 ft. front yard setback is required and a 3 ft. south (left) side yard setback where 5 ft. is required in Art. IV Sect. 401.6 & 401.7 of the zoning resolution.  Property location is lot #308 East Blvd. NW, Sect. 14SE Jackson Twp.  Area zoned R-1.

Mr. Deremer read the file application signed by Wendy Gainey with reasons being that there is a natural spring on the property.  The file contained a tax map of the property in question and a site plan showing the proposed home.

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

Mr. Deremer swore in Christopher Collins, 11395 Forty Corners Rd., Massillon, Ohio 44646.

Mr. Collin stated that the lot is less then 50 ft. wide and there is a natural spring running through the property.  The adjacent property, where they are asking for a 3 ft. side setback, is a common area that can not be built on so they felt that the 3 ft. setback would not infringe on any use of the space by the commons.

Mr. Collins stated that they are not sure what they will get into when trying to work around the spring.  The spring at this time is contained in a well like structure.  There is some dredging going on and there is going to be some fill put in the area and something will have to be done with the spring.  Previously the spring was permitted to flow onto the commons and out to the lake.  Mr. Collins stated that with the new dredging that is going on, it is his understanding that the area will be filled and the spring will be contained on the property.

Mr. Collins stated that they possibly could turn the spring into a pond and drain the excess into the lake but it still has to be dealt with on the property.  Mr. Collins stated that the extension of the great room may or may not be able to extend as shown on the plan because of the spring.

Mr. Deremer asked what requires the additional two feet in width.

Mr. Collins stated that with a 40 ft. house plan they are limited as to what they can do aesthetically.  The house could be only 40 ft. wide if there is a 5 ft. setback on each side but it is dominated by the garage in the front.  Mr. Collins stated that two feet makes a big difference regarding interior space.

Mr. Deremer asked if there is an existing home on the property.

Mr. Collins stated yes.  He owns lots 309 and 310 and the existing home will be torn down within the next couple of weeks.  Mr. Collins stated that lot 308 is not encroached upon with the existing home except for the driveway.

Mr. Deremer asked if there would be a separate home on each individual lot.

Mr. Collins stated that the lots are offered individually at this time but he would prefer that someone purchase both lots and build a larger home as opposed to individually.  Mr. Collins stated that the only reason they are asking for a 3 ft. setback is because it is beside a non buildable lot so the board doesn’t need to worry about precedence being set.  Mr. Collins stated that he does not favor a 3 ft. setback if next to a buildable lot.

Mr. Dodson asked if the home would be one or two stories.

Mr. Collins stated that the home would be two stories.

Mr. Dodson asked Mr. Collins why he does not constitute this as overbuilding the lot.

Mr. Collins stated that the design is less then what the adjacent homes in the area are.  The home has been scaled for the lot, given the width of the lot.  Mr. Collins stated that this is the design that the property owner prefers.

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 Tom Gibbins, 5150 Overlook Cir. NW.

Mr. Gibbins stated that he is the General Manager of the Lake Cable Recreation Association and represents the Board of Trustees and other members of the Lake Cable area.

Mr. Gibbins stated that he is not concerned with the 25 ft. front yard setback but he is concerned about a precedence that could be set with a 3 ft. side yard setback.  Mr. Gibbins stated that he is not concerned so much with this location because the lot next to it is a common area and cannot be built on anyway.

Mr. Gibbins stated that the spring drains to a rock ditch.  There is a dredging project being done where they are filling part of the property.  They took great caution in putting a filer cloth over the rock ditch so the water will still flow underneath it.  Mr. Gibbins stated that they will work with Ms. Gainey on the drainage of the spring.

Mr. Gibbins stated that the 3 ft. setback is the only real concern that he has.

Mr. Deremer asked if there are any lots in Lake Cable that have a zero foot setback.

Mr. Gibbins stated not that he is aware of.  There are deed restrictions and they have been very adamant about maintaining the 5 ft. setback.

Mr. Werner stated that he can understand the association expressing their opinions and concerns about setting a precedence.  But on the other hand, it was mentioned that the common area has to always remain a common area and cannot be built on.  Mr. Werner asked Mr. Gibbins if he thought a precedence would be set being that the adjacent lot is a common area.

Mr. Gibbins stated that they are not really concerned about this particular request but it may carry to some place else.

Mr. Dodson stated that if the request were granted, it does not require the board to grant the same request anywhere else in Lake Cable.  Mr. Dodson asked Mr. Gibbins if the Lake Cable association could enforce the 5 ft. restriction, per the deed restrictions, if the request were granted.

Mr. Gibbins stated that he doubts it because they are not really permitted to get involved in deed restriction because of their non profit status.

Mr. Dodson asked who enforces the deed restrictions.

Mr. Gibbins stated that this is up to the individual property owners, but anybody within the association can take someone to court for a violation of the deed restrictions.

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

Mr. Deremer closed this appeal to public discussion.

Mr. McDonnell stated that the board has granted a lot of variances in the Lake Cable area but he does not ever remembering granting a variance for 3 ft.  Mr. McDonnell stated that the width of the lot is a practical difficulty as with other lots in Lake Cable.

Mr. McDonnell stated that he is not concerned with a precedence being set because the board looks at each individual case on its own merits.  The question is has a practical difficulty been shown, other then the size of the lot.  Mr. McDonnell stated that he does not like seeing a 3 ft. setback regardless of what’s on the other side and he does not think a practical difficulty has been shown regarding the side yard setback.  Mr. McDonnell stated that he does not have a problem with the front yard setback.

Mr. Deremer stated that he agrees with Mr. McDonnell.  In looking at the layout of the house he sees where it could easily be a 40 ft. wide home and still have good size rooms.  Mr. Deremer stated that he does not have a problem with the 25 ft. front yard setback.

Mr. McDonnell suggested that the board separate the two variance requests.

The board agreed.

The board had no further comments.

Mr. McDonnell made a motion to approve appeal 1813(A), the 25 ft. front yard setback where a 40 ft. front yard setback is required.

Mr. Dodson seconded the motion.

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

Mr. Werner made a motion to deny appeal 1813(B), the 3 ft. left side yard setback where 5 ft. is required.

Mr. Dodson seconded the motion.

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

Mr. Deremer stated that the 25 ft. front setback has been approved and the 3 ft. right side yard setback has been denied.

APPEAL #1814 – Michael Randazzo, property owner, 4440 Wales Rd. NW, Massillon, Ohio 44646 requests a variance for a 6 ft. in height fence in the front yard area where the maximum height of 4 ft. is permitted in Art. IV Sect. 401.12(F) of the zoning resolution.  Property located at 4440 Wales Rd. NW, Sect. 28NW Jackson Twp.  Area zoned R-R.

Mr. Deremer read the file application signed by Michael Randazzo.  The file contained a tax map of the property in question, a letter of reasons for the request dated 10/2/02, and three photos, (#1) showing the front yard area, (#2 & 3) showing how the grade of the property drops down from the street.

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

Mr. Deremer swore in Michael Randazzo, 4440 Wales Rd. NW.

Mr. Randazzo stated that he would like to fence in his entire property with a 6 ft. in height fence.  Mr. Randazzo stated that the rear portion of his property already has a 6 ft. in height fence and he would like to continue into the front portion with a 6 ft. ornamental iron type fence.

Mr. Randazzo stated that his property has a circle driveway and is the only natural turn around between Nobles Pond and Kensington St.  Mr. Randazzo stated that he has put a chain across his driveway to deter people from using it as a turn around.

Mr. Randazzo stated that he has a small deer problem.  Recently one was hit by a car and ventured onto his property with a broken leg and he had to put it down in his front yard.  Mr. Randazzo stated that a higher fence may help deter the deer.

Mr. Randazzo stated that he does not believe a 4 ft. fence would look very nice due to the scale of the house and the property sits about seven feet lower than the road.

Mr. Dodson asked the where the proposed pool would be located.

Mr. Randazzo stated that it would be in the back of the house by the south east side.

Mr. Dodson asked if a 4 ft. gate and fence would prevent people from using Mr. Randazzo’s property as a turn around.

Mr. Randazzo yes, his chain keeps people from coming in but he does not think a 4 ft. gate and fence would look right.

Mr. Deremer asked if the property is level.

Mr. Randazzo stated that the property slopes down between the road that the house.  There is a row of pine trees along the front property line and the fence would be located behind the trees and would not be very visible.

Mr. Werner asked if the fence would be located where Mr. Randazzo is shown standing in photo #2.

Mr. Randazzo stated yes.

Mr. McDonnell stated that the resolution specifically states fences and asked Mr. Phillippi if this also applies to gates.

Mr. Phillippi stated that it is the interpretation of the zoning department that it also applies to a gate.  There is an amendment going to the trustees on November 12th that will spell out in the resolution that a gate is considered a fence for regulation purposes.

Mr. Randazzo stated that he has a brochure if the board would like to see the type of fence that would be built.

Mr. McDonnell stated that there may be a point regarding needing a 6 ft. fence in the front, but he is not sure about the sides.  The board needs to see some type of practical difficulty and he does not see one on the side.  Mr. McDonnell asked Mr. Randazzo how the board could tell a neighbor no if they wanted to do the same thing.

Mr. Randazzo stated that his neighbor has 15 acres and the other neighbor has 5 acres, which is the same as him.  Mr. Randazzo stated that his home sits in the middle of his 5 acres.

Mr. Randazzo stated that his neighbor to the south planted pine trees so they wouldn’t even see the fence.  Mr. Randazzo stated that he would not have a problem if his neighbor wanted to put up a 6 ft. fence because the homes are far away from each other.

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 discussion.

Mr. Deremer stated that this is the third or forth fence request before the board within a relatively short period of time.  The board has been fairly strict regarding the 4 ft. height on the road side for vision purposes, but this was where people wanted to have the fence along the road.  Mr. Deremer stated that this case is different because the property sits below the road and he sees this as a difference that would potentially allow the variance to be permitted.  Mr. Deremer stated that the fence will not create a hazard and he does not see any reason to not grant the request.

Mr. Werner stated that he agrees with Mr. Deremer.  The property is 5 acres, sits below the road, and will aesthetically look good because it would be an ornamental iron type fence.  Mr. Werner stated that he does not have a problem with this appeal.

Mr. Dodson stated that he agrees with the other board members and if the variance is approved it should be limited to a 6 ft. rod iron or ornamental type fence.

Mr. McDonnell stated that he sees the practical difficulty as the height of the road.  The applicant has testified that the fence will be behind the pine trees at the bottom of the rise.  Mr. McDonnell stated that it would look stupid to have a 6 ft. fence along the road and 4 ft. along the front side of the yard.  Mr. McDonnell stated that he agrees with Mr. Dodson regarding if the variance were approved, that it be approved with the condition that the fence be made of ornamental iron and the location in the front be at the base of the rise where the applicant indicated.

Mr. Werner suggested that the board put the brochure in which Mr. Randazzo referred to into the record as an exhibit.

Mr. Randazzo gave the board the brochure showing the type of fence that would be built.  Mr. Deremer marked the brochure as exhibit four.

Mr. McDonnell made a motion to approve appeal #1814 with the condition that the fence is ornamental iron as testified by the applicant and that the location of the fence along the front property line is at the base of the rise as represented by the applicant.

Mr. Dodson seconded the motion.

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

APPEAL #1816 – Vanguard Church c/o Canton Women’s Center, 6555 Frank Ave. NW, North Canton, Ohio 44720 agent for Barbara Romero, property owner, 1817 Fairway Dr., Uniontown, Ohio 44685 requests a conditional use permit for a church inside an existing building where a conditional use permit is required in Art. IV Sect. 411.3 of the zoning resolution.  Property located at 6555 Frank Ave. NW, Sect. 14NE Jackson Twp.  Area zoned B-1.

Mr. Deremer read the file application signed by Robert Robinson with reasons being for Sunday morning church service.  The file contained a tax map of the property in question, a sketch of the building showing the meeting room, a letter from Barbara Romero to the Jackson Township Zoning Department, 6/25/02 giving Vanguard Church permission to the use the facility, and the answers to the criteria for the conditional use permit.

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

No one came forward.

Ms. Poindexter stated that the property owner and applicant were mailed a certified notice on October 25th.  The signed green card was returned from the property owner.  Ms. Poindexter stated that the signed green card for the applicant was not returned nor was the letter so she does not know if the applicant received the notice.  Ms. Poindexter stated that applicant was told of the meeting date and time at the time the application was made.

Mr. Deremer stated that the board may want to continue the case to find out why the applicant is not in attendance.

Ms. Poindexter stated that the next opening date would be December 19, 2002.

Mr. Deremer made a motion to continue appeal #1814 until December 19, 2002 at 8:15 pm.

Mr. McDonnell seconded the motion.

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

The board went off record for ten minutes.

The board went back on record.

Mr. Dodson did not attend the hearing for appeal #1804.

APPEAL #1804 – Craig Conley, Attorney, 220 Market Ave. S., Suite 604, Canton, Ohio 44702 agent for Richard Snee, 5335 Strausser St. NW, North Canton, Ohio 44720 appeals the decision of the zoning administrator as provided for in Art. VIII Sect. 803.1 of the zoning resolution in letter dated 8/8/02 regarding three storage trailers and a silver metal building being put on the property without a permit.  Property located at 5335 Strausser St. NW, Sect. 2SE Jackson Twp.  Area zoned R-R.

(SEE OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT IN FILE FOR APPEAL #1804)

Mr. Deremer made a motion to reverse the zoning administrator’s violation on August 8, 2002.

Mr. Werner seconded the motion.

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

Mr. Deremer asked if the board had any comments on the minutes from the meeting on October 10, 2002.

Mr. McDonnell made a motion to approve the minutes of October 10, 2002.

Mr. Giulitto seconded the motion.

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

Mr. Deremer asked if the board had any comments on the minutes from the meeting on October 24, 2002.

Mr. McDonnell made a motion to approve the minutes of October 24, 2002.

Mr. Giulitto seconded the motion.

The vote was: Mr. Giulitto-yes, Mr. Werner-yes Mr. McDonnell-yes, and Mr. Deremer-abstained.

Mr. McDonnell made a motion to adjourn the meeting.

Mr. Giulitto seconded the motion.

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

Respectfully submitted,

Joni Poindexter
Zoning Data Coordinator
Clerk/Secretary