Members present:                                            Ted Deremer
                                                                            Edward McDonnell – Absent for Appeal # 2091, 2092 & 2093
                                                                            Richard Dodson
                                                                            Jim Giulitto
                                                                            John Juergensen
                                                                            Eric Oldroyd – Absent

Zoning Inspector:                                              Joni Poindexter
Zoning Date Coordinator:                               Andrea Paumier
 

APPEAL # 2091 – Richard & Susan Hirschman, property owner, 5178 East Blvd. NW, Canton, OH 44718, request a variance for a 14 ft. 3 inch north side yard setback for the principal building where 25 ft. is required per Art. IV, Sect. 401.6 and a variance for a 10 ft. north side yard setback for an accessory building where 25 ft. is required per Art. IV, Sect. 401.11 of the zoning resolution.

Mr. Deremer read the file application and contents of the file.

Mr. Deremer swore in Richard Hirschman, 5178 East Blvd. NW, Canton, OH 44718.

Mr. Hirschman stated that he is requests a variance for an existing garage that was built in 1977 and then in 1993 an addition was built on the garage. Mr. Hirschman stated that he brought a couple pictures so the Board can see what they are speaking about this evening.

Mr. Deremer stated that he is more then welcome to explain the photos and that any photos presented to the Board will be kept in the file.

Mr. Hirschman stated that the first photo is taken from down the road, it is about 26-27 ft. from the northwest corner and he believes that the contractors thought the road was the property line. Mr. Hirschman stated that he was shocked to find out that the garage was only 14.3ft. from the property line because he was lead to believe that everything was fine with the garage.

Mr. Deremer clarified that this is an existing garage.

Mr. Hirschman stated that is correct. Mr. Hirschman stated that when he purchased the house in 1978, it was 20 x 20. In 1993 he added a master suite above the family room, so they widened it 24 ft. more because the contractor stated that it was 26 ft. from the property line.

Mr. Deremer asked what year he was speaking of.

Mr. Hirschman stated in 1993 when we added the master suite about the family room.
In 1977 they took what was the garage and made it a family room and then added a 20 x 20 garage to that. Mr. Hirschman stated that he and his wife had three children and they wanted four bedrooms.

Mr. Hirschman stated that he is an antique car lover and that he owns an old AMC car, a Gremlin. Mr. Hirschman stated that he would like to have a garage to store it in, to rebuild and tinker with the car. The proposed garage would be located just east of the existing garage. He would like to use his current driveway to pull into the proposed garage.  Mr. Hirschman stated that he has a couple photos the represent where the proposed location of the garage would be.

Mr. Hirschman stated that he originally has the proposed garage drawn up at 15 ft. away from the property line and then Mr. Ron Revlock came out to the property and stated he should turn the proposed garage because of the angle. Pulling in and out of the garage would possible cause Mr. Hirschman to hit the existing garage. Mr. Revlock stated that by turning the proposed garage 10 ft. on the northwest corner and kept it at about 15 ft. on the northeast corner it would be easier to enter and exit the garage. The proposed garage ends up being about 25 ft. from the edge of the road. Mr. Hirschman stated that he would not be able to move the proposed garage back further in is property because then he would run into the attached sunroom, construction will start next week. Mr. Hirschman stated that if the garage would moved further south then they would run into a very steep hill.

Mr. Deremer asked how big the proposed garage will be.

Mr. Hirschman stated the garage would be 16 x 24 ft. The garage would store his garden tractor, the lawn mower and Gremlin.

Mr. Giulitto stated just for clarification back in 1993 when you applied for a permit for the addition onto the house, you has gone through the necessary procedure, it was just never caught it back then, as far as the 14.3 ft.

Mr. Hirschman stated that is correct.

Mr. Giulitto asked if there is another other place the proposed garage could be located on his property.

Mr. Hirschman stated that he does not know if a garage can be placed in the front yard but all his yard is in the front portion of his property and that would be the only other place.

Mr. Deremer stated that there were nine photos that have been marked Exhibit numbers 1 thru 9 that were placed in the file.

Mr. Juergensen clarified on the site plan presented which garage was the existing one. Mr. Juergensen stated that the proposed garage is where Mr. Hirschman parks his everyday vehicles.

Mr. Hirschman stated that is correct.

Mr. Juergensen clarified that this is a second garage that Mr. Hirschman would like to place his Gremlin and lawn equipment in.

Mr. Hirschman stated that is correct.

Mr. Juergensen stated that upon looking at the site plan, at the what would be the northwest corner of the proposed garage, what would happen if you pushed it back 15 ft.

Mr. Hirschman stated that he isn’t sure if it is drawn on the map that the Board members has but if the garage were turned or pushed back 15 ft. the proposed garage then is placed in a position that about 3 ft. would be past the front part of the existing garage.

Mr. Juergensen stated that he is already 15 ft. from the rear property line.

Mr. Hirschman stated that is correct.

Mr. Deremer stated that 10 and 14 kind of makes it perpendicular to the existing garage.

Mr. Hirschman stated that is correct and it makes it look nicer, which was a concern of his. He didn’t want to create an eyesore for anyone.

Mr. Juergensen asked where Mr. Hirschman stores the Gremlin now.

Mr. Hirschman stated that the Gremlin is stored in the original garage and his everyday vehicles sit outside and winter is come.

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

Mr. Juergensen asked Ms. Poindexter if the proposed garage is 25 ft. from the road right of way.

Ms. Poindexter stated yes because it is 25 ft. as opposed to 10 ft. for the side yard.

Mr. Juergensen how far is it from the property line as opposed to the road right of way.

Ms. Poindexter stated it is 10 ft. from the property line, required 25 ft. from the road right of way.

Mr. Deremer closed this appeal to public input.

Mr. Giulitto stated that as far as the first variance, for 14.3 ft. north side yard setback for the principal building where 25 ft. is required, he does not have a problem with approving, that is an existing condition. As for the second variance of 10 ft. north side yard setback for an accessory building, you can not place a garage in the front yard. Mr. Hirschman is trying to tuck the proposed garage in his property the best he can. The lay of his lot is an irregular shape. Mr. Giulitto stated that he understands the reason for turning the garage so that he doesn’t accidentally hit the existing structure.

Mr. Juergensen stated that he concurred with Mr. Giulitto as far as the first variance, that is existing. He is just requesting a variance to make his home meet the zoning resolution.  As far as for the second variance, Mr. Juergensen stated he has somewhat of a problem granting the variance only because there is already an existing garage. The Board is required to find a practical difficulty with the land. In this instance the Board has someone requested a variance for a second garage. Mr. Juergensen stated without something else illustrated by the applicant as far as practical difficulty, to him he does not have a huge problem with the second variance but he does have some concern granting the second variance.

Mr. Deremer agrees that the first variance request for the 14.3 ft. north side yard that is just a matter-of-fact at this point. The proposed garage is an accessory building, with the lay of the lot and the fact that you cannot place an accessory building in the front of the lot and the house sits way back on the property if the resident has the address off of High Point Cir. he could place the garage in the what we are considering the front yard. There is more space in the front of the yard then in the back which is somewhat unusual. Mr. Deremer stated that the applicant isn’t overly violating the resolution and he thinks the lot is irregular because of the sharp angles of the lot. Mr. Deremer stated that he does not see a problem with the variance as requested.

Mr. Dodson suggested to separate the two variances.

Mr. Deremer stated that the Board will first be voting on the first variance of 14 ft. 3 inch north side yard setback for the existing principal building.

Mr. Dodson made a motion to approve the 14 ft. 3 inch north side yard setback as requested by the applicant.

Mr. Juergensen seconded the motion.

The vote was: Mr. Juergensen – Yes, Mr. Giulitto – Yes, Mr. Dodson – Yes and Mr. Deremer – Yes.

Mr. Dodson made a motion to approve the 10 ft. north side yard setback for an accessory building as requested.

Mr. Giulitto seconded to motion.

The vote was: Mr. Juergensen – No, Mr. Giulitto – Yes, Mr. Dodson – Yes, and Mr. Dodson – Yes.

APPEAL #2092 – Mike Mahaffey, 5414 Frank Ave, NW, Canton, OH 44720, property owner, requests a variance building for a total of 1,880 sq. ft. where 1,200 sq. ft. is permitted per Art. IV, Sect. 401.12 of the zoning resolution. Property located at 5414 Frank Ave, NW, Canton, OH 44720.

Mr. Deremer read the file application and the contents of the file.

Mr. Deremer swore in Herbert G. Barth, 5020 East. Blvd. NW, Canton.

Mr. Deremer asked what his relationship to the applicant is.

Mr. Barth stated just a close friend.

Mr. Barth stated that 2004 Mr. and Mrs. Mahaffey had a devastating fire which completely leveled the existing garage. Mr. Mahaffey has been a resident there for 16 years. They had come in before the Board of Zoning Appeal for the garage which replaces the one which burnt down and was granted a variance to add the square footage of an accessory building to 1,590, which was constructed. Recently this 290 sq. ft. is just a flat treated lumber, recreational deck from the back door of the existing garage and goes east. It is well constructed and cannot be seen from Frank Rd. Mr. Mahaffey uses the garage for recreational purposes at present. The deck is 10 ft. wide and 29 ft. long. It is just an open deck.

Mr. Deremer asked if the deck has been constructed.

Mr. Barth stated that is correct.

Mr. Deremer stated that the zoning resolution hasn’t been violated in any other way except for the increase in square footage.

Mr. Barth stated that he was a contractor in Jackson Township for many, many years and he didn’t even realize that the deck was part of the square footage.

Mr. Barth stated that he does have a picture of the deck in question.

Mr. Deremer stated that is fine, and that the picture will remain in the file.

Mr. Barth stated that the deck does not in cringe on any of the setbacks.

Mr. Deremer marked the picture as exhibit #1.

Mr. Deremer clarified that the deck is 15 ft. from the rear property line.

Mr. Barth stated that is correct.

Mr. Juergensen asked in regards to exhibit #1, if the trees at the rear of the property continue on.

Mr. Barth stated yes and straight down a hill to their property.

Mr. Juergensen stated that Mr. Barth stated that Mr. Mahaffet uses the garage a recreation use, what kind of recreation use would that be.

Mr. Barth stated that he has a small wood and tool shop, and he also has a boat stored in the garage.

Mr. Deremer asked what the square footage of the existing house is.

Mr. Deremer stated that on the site plan it shows 56 x 34 ft.

Mr. Barth stated that there hasn’t been any additions to the existing house. In 2005, the new garage was built after the fire.

Mr. Deremer stated that there is a little detail that says “accessory buildings shall not exceed the square foot area of the primary used structure on the premises”. Mr. Deremer stated that he just wanted to make sure the accessory buildings were not exceeding the principal structure square footage.

Mr. Giulitto asked if the deck was attached to the deck right after the garage was constructed.

Mr. Barth stated no, not right after.

Mr. Giulitto was it with in a year.

Mr. Barth stated it was within about 2 years.

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

Mr. Deremer swore in John Motts, 5440 Frank Ave. NW, Canton.

Mr. Motts stated that he and his wife have lived at that address since 1972. They have seen neighbors come and go. Mr. and Mrs. Mahaffey are really good neighbors. They have enhanced their property, which in turn enhances our property and they actually have enhanced the neighborhood as well. All up and down Frank Mr. Mahaffey and I are the only ones who have improved their properties to make it a better neighborhood. Mr. Motts stated that he is an active member of the Echo Lake Home Owners Association and there isn’t one member of the Association that has a problem with what the Mahaffey’s want to do.

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

Mr. Deremer closed this appeal to public input.

Mr. Juergensen stated that the Board is required to find a practical difficulty. One of the considerations the Board must take into account is if the spirit and intention of the resolution would be offended by granting the variance. In this case, with the location of the structure,  the fact that it is a deck, it isn’t enclosed, relatively small and the fact that there aren’t any home owners that are opposed to the variance. The Mahaffey’s are pretty close to the maximum allowed square footage. Mr. Juergensen stated that he does not have a problem granting this variance.

Mr. Giulitto made a motion to approve appeal # 2092 as requested.

Mr. Dodson seconded the motion.

The vote was: Mr. Juergensen – Yes, Mr. Giulitto – Yes, Mr. Dodson –Yes and Mr. Deremer – Yes.

APPEAL #2093 – Caplea Studio Architects, 11700 Cleveland Ave. Uniontown, OH 44685, agent for property owner, Gran Slam, 5656 Dressler Rd. NW, N. Canton, OH 44720, request a variance for 105 parking spaces where 199 are required and a 5 ft. east rear yard setback for principal use where 25 ft. is required per Art. IV, Sect. 411.5 & 601.2 of the zoning resolution. Property located at 5656 Dressler Rd. NW.

Mr. Deremer read the file application and contents of the file.

Mr. Deremer swore in Ken Hoops, 11700 Cleveland Ave.

Mr. Hoops stated that basically what they are looking at is an expansion to the east side of the property in question. There is a significantly large building located on the property, 28,000 sq. ft. which does have basketball, volleyball, gymnastics, and baseball activities. The major use of the building is to provide off-season training. The owner is requesting to add to the unused portion of land. Where the proposed location of the track is located is a gravel lot, which is not architectural pleasing. The purpose of this application is to obviously seek approve to install a new go-cart race car track with a small building to house the go-carts. This facility is very seasonal. The building itself, even though that 28,000 sq. ft. gets very little use in the summer. The facility gets a significant amount of use from January to about April. The facility gets very little use in the summer months. Mr. Hoops stated that in speaking with Kyle Young, who is the owner/operator of the facility, they do carry some birthday parties and things of that nature but typically Mr. Young states that his summer occupancy maybe 15 to 20 cars. Winter occupancy varies at worst case being 50 to 75 cars. Mr. Young and my self feel that the request is going to satisfy the needs of the indoor facility through the winter months and more then facilitate the operations of the putt-putt golf course and the go-cart track in the summer months. Bases on the zoning requirements the go-cart track it going to occupy maybe, 12 parking spaces, 30 parking spaces occupied by zoning criteria for the golf course, leaving a matter of only 42 parking spaces being occupied during the summer months, still leaves 60-some spaces to take care of the over flow. This facility is set up on a staggered operation. There is a lot of over flow of traffic because not everyone is there at the same time, due to renting courts and such of that nature. If you walked in to the existing structure you’ll see that there is very limited seating as far as offering seating for spectators to watch the sport. It is basically the gym is rented by the hour to play sports. Typically on a building of this size, he doesn’t feel the zoning requirements are out of line but the way the facility is set up he believes that reducing the parking isn’t out of line.

Mr. Deremer asked pertaining to the existing building, what is the existing requirements per the resolution.

Mr. Hoops stated based on zoning it is 200 sq. ft. per person and that is what they have established in the existing structure 157 spaces for the existing structure.

Mr. Deremer stated that there is an existing golf course and that is requiring 30 spaces.

Mr. Hoops stated that is correct.

Mr. Deremer clarified that, that was a seasonal use as well.

Mr. Hoops stated that is correct, from May to about September.

Mr. Deremer asked what the go-cart track was based on.

Mr. Hoops stated based on anticipating using 10 to 12 cars.

Mr. Juergensen stated that it says 1 spaces for every 3 persons that the facility will accommodate.

Ms. Poindexter stated right, if you went by what 12 cars, they would need 40 parking spaces, so actually Mr. Hoops is showing more parking spaces then they need.

Mr. Hoops stated that there is an over lap so that is some of the things you have to factor in.

Mr. Juergensen asked if the need for the variance due to the fact that the go-cart is eliminating some of the spaces or construction of the go-cart track or a combination of both.

Mr. Hoops stated that it is a combination of both.

Mr. Hoops approached the Board members explained what parking spaces are existing and which are proposed.

Mr. Hoops stated that he could regenerate a new parking lot lay out and possibly create 20 more parking spaces. A 20 ft. fire lane must be maintained around the building due to the size of the structure.

Mr. Juergensen clarified that they are adding 27 parking spaces.

Mr. Hoops stated yes.

Mr. Juergensen clarified that Gran Slam is actually short spaces right now.

Mr. Hoops stated that based on what is there looking at the site yes because the stalls are not painted. The parking lot is there and is gravel.

Mr. Juergensen stated that Gran Slam complies with the parking right now.

Mr. Hoops stated that is correct.

Mr. Juergensen stated that the additional 94 spaces needed comes from the 30-some spaces needed for the go-cart track, then how many spaces are you losing there in the middle.

Mr. Hoops stated that they are losing about 26 spaces.

Mr. Juergensen asked Ms. Poindexter why they are 94 spaces short.

Ms. Poindexter stated based on code requirements for the building, golf course and the go-cart track.

Mr. Juergensen stated that there are in compliance now and they only need 36 spaces for the go-cart track.

Ms. Poindexter stated that they are currently under the amount of parking spaces to what they are required right now.

Mr. Juergensen asked if that includes the spaces that are painted or not painted.

Mr. Hoops stated that are not painted.
 
Mr. Juergensen asked if the 51 spaces that can be painted in, is that part of the 94 spaces that is needed.

Mr. Hoops stated no, that is part of the 105 spaces that are needed.

Mr. Juergensen stated that he is just trying to figure out where the 94 spaces are coning from.

Ms. Poindexter stated that based on the current zoning code those are the required parking spaces.

Mr. Hoops stated that 199 are required.

Ms. Poindexter stated that they do not have that now.

Mr. Juergensen stated so they are not incompliance.

Ms. Poindexter stated that is correct.

Mr. Juergensen stated so you are not incompliance as of right now.

Mr. Hoops stated only because the spaces are not painted in. If someone were to go out there and paint in the spaces the 200 spaces could be created.

Mr. Juergensen stated that of the 94 that Gran Slam is short, is it that they are there and just not painted or that they are just not there.

Mr. Hoops stated that they are there and not painted.

Mr. Juergensen asked if that includes these 51 spaces.

Mr. Hoops stated yes that includes the 51 spaces.

Mr. Juergensen stated that he can paint the 51 spaces then you would only be 40-some short.

Mr. Hoops stated that is not correct, the 51 is included in the 199 and the 105 spaces count.

Mr. Giulitto stated that you wont have the space for the parking if the Board grants the variance for the go-cart track.

Mr. Hoops stated that is correct.

Mr. Hoops stated that if this variance is granted he asks the Board to keep in mind that if the facility goes through a change in use then they would have to come back through and request a variance in the parking.

Mr. Juergensen stated that if the Board grants the variance then it runs with the land and if this building is sold bases on what it is zoned and someone decides to build a night club.

Mr. Hoops stated if that were to happen then they would have to go through a change of use and if they do that then it goes through Zoning and Regional Planning.

Ms. Poindexter stated that if the use changes then they have to comply with the parking for that use.

Mr. Giulitto asked why the variance would go away from this property if the use changes.

Ms. Poindexter stated that the parking spaces are based on the use.

Mr. Juergensen stated that he assumes that the go-cart track will operate at the same time as the golf course.

Mr. Hoops stated correct, May through probably October.

Mr. Juergensen stated that the building is primarily used in the winter months.

Mr. Hoops stated that is correct.

Mr. Deremer asked if tournaments were held in this facility.

Mr. Hoops stated maybe three on three tournaments kind of stuff but no bleacher seating of any kind.

Mr. Juergensen asked if he would have an object if the Board places a restriction based on what Mr. Hoops has testified this evening.

Mr. Hoops stated that if the Board is looking for specific dates he would like to discuss that with the owner first, so yes he would object.

Mr. Deremer stated if there wasn’t a roof on the building and it was considered an outdoor facility the rules change a little bit for parking. It says 1 space for every 3 bleacher seats or 1 space for every 3 persons that the facility will accommodate. What number would you give going on that, with the current layout.

Mr. Hoops stated that right now there isn’t any seating. The whole building layout is open with a couple party rooms and all the sports courts and such.

Mr. Deremer asked if all that was “humming” in the winter time, how many people would be in the facility.

Mr. Hoops stated that he asked Mr. Young that question and he said typically 50-75 cars and there is maybe one time that Gran Slam runs a High school “thing”, where a bunch of teams are brought in and he said that would probably use about 100 spaces, but this would be on a rotation bases.

Mr. Deremer states so in the worse case they would use maybe 100 spaces.

Mr. Hoops stated that is correct.

Mr. Juergensen asked if there were to be over flow from Gran Slam, would the over flow then go into the Hotel’s parking lot.

Mr. Hoops stated not in his opinion, he thinks it would more likely be Target’s parking lot. If they were to go clear across to the Hotel’s parking lot that is a far way to walk, they’d probably go to the restaurant’s parking lot.

Mr. Hoops stated that in representing the owner, he is comfortable with 100 spaces and Caplea Studio is supporting this request.

Mr. Juergensen asked how many parking spaces are there right now, not including the ones that can be painted in, just the ones that are existing.

Mr. Hoops stated about 84 parking spaces that are painted in.

Mr. Juergensen asked Ms. Poindexter if they didn’t need a variance because they deferred the rest.

Ms. Poindexter asked from what they have now.

Mr. Juergensen stated yes.

Ms. Poindexter stated that she is unsure how that came about, from what they have now that they are not in compliance.

Mr. Juergensen stated so 84 spaces plus the 51 spaces that can be painted in, that is 185 parking spaces.

Mr. Deremer stated that with the original building they needed a 157 spaces for the current zoning.

Mr. Hoops stated that 199 spaces are needed with the go-cart track, then golf course and the building.

Mr. Hoops stated that this plan has been in the works for a couple of years but because of the transmission lines coming down the center of this lot and it has been unusable land but through the course of the last couple years, Dominion East Ohio has granted the authorization to install this track. Regional Planning has also seen the plans for the go-cart track there are a couple conditions there and obviously this is one of them.

Mr. Deremer stated that the Board will now discuss the go-cart track end of the variance now.

Mr. Hoops stated that on the vary back edge,(highlighted on the site plan), Metro Cir. dead-ends into the Hotel. Whether this building is considered as a building structure or a parking structure. We felt that it would be treated as no different then any other type of parking structure because it is just a cement slab. We designed it so that it is within the 5 ft. setback of the property boundary. In speaking with Ms. Poindexter on this, she felt that it was necessary to comply with the building structure setbacks, keeping that in mind we added this to the requests for the BZA. Mr. Hoops stated that he looks at this, as being a four inch concrete slab there isn’t a foundation, it is not different then a sidewalk, no different then a parking lot. The other factor is that it is located on a dead-end cul-de-sac. If the Board reads this as a parking setback then there would be no need for a variance but if the Board reads the concrete pad of the track as a building structure then there is a request for a variance.

Mr. Deremer asked how wide the track is.

Mr. Hoops stated that it is about 20 ft. wide all the way around.

Mr. Deremer asked if there is a configuration that would not violate the zoning, because he stated that he considers this as a building structure.

Mr. Hoops stated that the only thing that they could do is shorten the track up, he would prefer not to though, and keep in mind that we do currently have a fence around the property.

Mr. Deremer but that is just a steel band.

Mr. Hoops stated that it is a rubber support system.

Mr. Giulitto asked if the go-cart track would be lit.

Mr. Hoops stated yes, the lighting design hasn’t been done yet but it will have to be lit.

Mr. Giulitto asked if the go-cart may be open in July until about midnight.

Mr. Hoops stated that is a good question. There was discussion about the carts and from what Mr. Hoops understood Gran Slam would be using electric carts. Noise wise he is unsure of the restrictions but they wont be using gas powered.

Mr. Juergensen clarified that Mr. Hoops testimony is that he could build the track and comply with 25 ft. but prefer not to.

Mr. Hoops stated that he yes, he would be able to. It would make it very difficult and right turning radius, it would be difficult but could be done.

Mr. Juergensen stated that he would suggest reducing the variance, the Board may do that without re-advertising this appeal. Mr. Juergensen stated that he does agree with Mr. Deremer about this being a building structure.

Mr. Hoops stated that if it isn’t the wishes of the Board to grant the 5 ft. variance, then he would like to request it to be maybe 16 ft. to match the B-3 zoning, which really fits that area better then the industrial zone anyhow.

Mr. Deremer asked if it would be a shaded fence.

Mr. Hoops stated right now it is a combination of both, unless the Board has a specific requests we would do whatever the Board requests.

Ms. Poindexter stated for the clarification it doesn’t matter if would be a B-3 for that setback because it abuts a side street and the requirement is 25 ft. for a side street setback, no matter if it were a B-3 or I-1.

Mr. Hoops stated that 411.5, require a 16 ft. setback.

Ms. Poindexter stated that if you look at the bottom of that section “for corner lots, either street may be designated to meet the required front yard setback as required for this district a minimum setback of 25 ft. shall be required on all other streets for all structures.”

Mr. Hoops stated ok, he wasn’t looking at this property as a corner lot because it is only exposed on the front and the rear.

Mr. Deremer stated that Mr. Hoops could live with a 16 ft. setback.

Mr. Hoops stated yes.

Mr. Deremer stated that the 10 ft. sanitary sewer easement do they have an “okay” on that easement as well.

Mr. Hoops stated that he current has the surveyor looking into the easement and talking to the Stark County Engineer because as the same as the drainage easement that is identified down along the south property line, there was a question and he believes that came up in Regional Planning so they are trying to track down a couple issues relative to the utility easement on Metro Cir. and the drainage easement on the south side.

Mr. Deremer stated that the sanitary easement runs directly through the upper half of the track.

Mr. Hoops stated that this is from some of our older records and that is why he is requesting approve from the Stark County Engineers.

No one else in the audience spoke in favor of this appeal.

Mr. Deremer asked if anyone wanted to speak in opposition to this appeal.

Mr. Deremer swore in Jeff Hawk, 4747 Louise Dr., in Jackson Township.

Mr. Hawk stated that he would like to recap what was stated in the letter sent to the Jackson Township Zoning Dept. Mr. Hawk stated that they are opposed to the variance for a number of reasons and one of them is the use and variance, we are afraid would generate a lot of noise if granted and greatly diminish the number of parking spaces in parking lots of adjacent businesses. One of the things the hotel has experienced in this area is that during height and demand times we find over flow on parking lots we find out parking lot being encroached upon, sometimes not having enough space for our guests in out hotel. We are also concerned about the hardship it could create for the hotel and the guests because of the noise level. A lot of the quests don’t necessarily have a routine night time sleeping habit and we have a lot of guests who sleep during the day. Egress from Metro Cir. onto Dressler already hazardous and could become more difficult with additional traffic on that road. We are also opposed to the variances and setback lines because of safety, buffer zones and noise abatement reasons. The view of the proposed site plan and path of the race track show that it would be uncomfortable close to Metro Cir. The 5 ft. setback variance is a drastic and significant variance from what is required. The variance is also likely to generate even more noise to an already unacceptable level of music and disturbances that are the source of many hotel guests’ complaints. The complaints have been addressed with the owners of Gran Slam as well as to the Jackson Police Dept.

Mr. Deremer asked if the noise complaint is related to the golf course.

Mr. Hawk stated that is correct, they have outdoor music they play. We are just fearful that the creation of this track will create even more problems.

Mr. Juergensen stated that he has been to many events at this hotel and they do have a parking problem, it is hard to find a parking spot.

Mr. Hawk stated yes.

Mr. Juergensen stated that Mr. Hawk mentioned over flow, does Mr. Hawk know for sure that the over flow is coming from adjacent businesses and if so does he know for sure that they are coming from this particular property.

Mr. Hawk stated what they do know is when the restaurants are busy the event times of the year, holiday season and people are trying to avoid parking problems and lines, and then encroach onto our property. The hotel has 176 spaces, 150 rooms and banquet space for 300, so yes parking is at a premium is that area.

Mr. Hoops stated that the property off of the adjacent circle drive, is all going to be fenced off so the parking will not be permitted to even go over there. Customers would have to walk all the way around the fence, all the way around the property to even get back to the Gran Slam facility. The screening will be put up through the fence to create the buffer for privacy. Mr. Hoops stated that he has a real concern about the parking and the egress because everyone comes out at the light, right out onto Dressler Rd. There would be no need to drive back down to the circle drive for a parking space when the parking for the facility is right there within the limits of the structure and there is a light right there to get back out onto the road. Mr. Hoops stated that he agrees that the hotel has a parking problem. Mr. Hoops stated that there will be no cut-through traffic because that part of the property will be fenced off and gated.

Mr. Juergensen asked Mr. Hoops to show him where the fence would be constructed.

Mr. Hoops showed Mr. Juergensen and the rest of the Board members where the fence would be constructed according to the site plan.

Mr. Deremer asked if he were correct in stated that Mr. Hoops testimony is that the go-carts will be electric powered.

Mr. Hoops stated that was what he was last told from the property owner.

Ms. Poindexter stated that this was one of the Fire Chiefs concerns. He had asked where the fuel storage would be and that was when it was brought up about the electric powered go-carts. If they would be gas go-carts, they would have to show where the fuel would be stored on the site plan.

Mr. Hoops stated that if the setback is an issue, we will comply with whatever requirements the Board requests.

Mr. Juergensen stated that he understands what was discusses earlier about the use changes, that the property owner would have to come back before the Board. This is considered an indoor recreational facility, correct.

Ms. Poindexter stated that part of it is considered indoor recreational and part is outdoor.

Mr. Juergensen stated as long as it remains the indoor/outdoor recreational facility, if the Board grants this variance, the variance will run with the land as long as the use stays the same.

Ms. Poindexter stated that is correct, as long as it stays a recreational use.

Mr. Juergensen confirmed with Ms. Poindexter that as the building sits right now, it is currently not in compliance.

Ms. Poindexter stated that the parking is not in compliance.

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

Mr. Deremer closed this appeal to public input.

Mr. Juergensen suggested that the parking variance and the setback variance be separated.

Mr. Deremer concurred.

Mr. Deremer stated that the first issue discussed will be the parking variance for 105 parking spaces where 199 are required.

Mr. Juergensen stated that he has several concerns with the parking variance. Mr. Juergensen stated that the parking is currently not in compliance now and now Gran Slam wants to make it worse by adding another use to the property. The fact that the owner is not in compliance now, and they are coming in and asking the Board for a variance in addition. This variance is going to follow the use of the property. Gran Slam may not reach the capacity based on the current use. If someone were to come in and buy this property and puts in some other kind of recreational facility that does attract more traffic flow, it is going to exacerbate the problem. Mr. Juergensen stated that the applicant has testified that more parking spaces could be put on the property, they’d just rather not. Mr. Juergensen stated that in respect to the parking, he feels that 94 spaces out of 199 spaces is a substantial decrease. Mr. Juergensen stated that he feels if this variance is created there is a potential to create a big problem.

Mr. Giulitto stated that he looks for a practical difficulty and in doing this he always looks back to Section 803.5 (B) of the zoning resolution, where it basically lays out what the Trustees want this Board to grant a variance for and if they meet the criteria for that, then the Board will usually grant the variance and the applicant will be on their way. Mr. Giulitto stated that looking at subsection B, number 4, where it says the essential character of the neighborhood would be substantially altered or whether adjoining properties would suffer substantial detriment as a result of the variance. Mr. Giulitto stated that from the testimony tonight, there will be lighting, but we don’t know the hours. Even though there will be electric go-carts, there is going to be noise. Mr. Giulitto stated that he feels that this would be detrimental to the property surrounding this facility. Mr. Giulitto stated that this is where he is having a problem with the proposal this evening.

Mr. Deremer stated that he has children, who use this building once in a while in the winter time, and he has never gone to this facility and the parking is full. It is vary similar to someone who has indoor tennis courts. Mr. Deremer stated that this time of year is when people are getting ready for basketball season, so those courts are being used. The courts are large, where you play 10 people at a time, at the most. The existing use with the restriction for the 200 sq. ft. per space is a big over-kill for what is there. With the current layout and the current testimony is for this use, he believes that the current parking spaces being used are what Gran Slam is planning to keep. Mr. Deremer stated that he does not have a problem with the parking variance. The over flow from Metro Circle and the over flow from the restaurant has been there for a long time, this is not Gran Slam’s fault.

Mr. Juergensen stated that in response that he is thinking about a situation like Branhaven. There are no bleachers inside the facility. The requirement based on spaces required for bleacher seats for outdoor, but not for indoor. The existing use does not create a problem, but Mr. Juergensen stated his concern is what this facility could become down the road.

Mr. Deremer stated that based on the testimony the Board has heard this evening, the use is not going to change.

Mr. Juergensen made a motion that the portion of Appeal #2093 dealing with the parking spaces variances be approved as submitted.

Mr. Giulitto seconded the motion.

The vote was: Mr. Juergensen – No, Mr. Giulitto – No, Mr. Dodson – Yes and Mr. Deremer – Yes.

Mr. Deremer stated that with that there is a two-two tie, which is not positive vote.

Mr. Deremer stated that the Board will now discuss the portion of the appeal dealing with 5 ft. setback where 25 ft. is required.

Mr. Juergensen stated that he considers this a use not a parking setback, so he thinks they need to comply with the 25 ft. otherwise a variance is needed from the 25 ft. which makes this a substantial variance of 80%, especially when he doesn’t feel a practical difficulty has been established when the track can be pushed further from the line. Mr. Juergensen stated that whether the applicant wants to push it back more than the 5 ft. but less than 25 ft., which is for him to decide. Mr. Juergensen stated that he is opposed to this based upon the potential of light and noise affecting the neighbors. There is a reason why the Trustees put in the 25 ft. in an industrial zone because they want that buffer for industrial uses.

Mr. Juergensen made a motion that the portion of Appeal #2093 regarding the 5 ft. east rear yard setback where 25 ft. is required be approved as submitted.

Mr. Giulitto seconded the motion.

The vote was: Mr. Juergensen – No, Mr. Giulitto – No, Mr. Dodson – No and Mr. Deremer – No.

Mr. Deremer stated that with this Appeal #2093 has been denied as requested.

APPEAL #2094 – Harris Day Architecture, 3722 Whipple Ave, Canton, OH 44718 agent for Jackson Local School District, 7984 Fulton Rd. NW, Massillon, OH 44646, property owners request a variance for four (4) directional signs at 19.6 sq. ft. with a height of 6 ft. 8 inches and seven (7) at 4.4 sq. ft. with a height of 5 ft. 6 inches where the maximum square foot allowed is 6 sq. ft. with a height of 3 ft. per Art. V, Sect. 502.1 of the zoning resolution. Property located at: 7600 Fulton Rd. Massillon, OH 44646, Sect. 21NW, Jackson Twp., area zoned R-R.

Mr. McDonnell acted at Chairman for Appeal #2094.

Mr. McDonnell read the file application and contents of the file.

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

Mr. McDonnell swore in Scott Shively, 3722 Whipple Ave, Canton, OH 44718.

Mr. Shively stated he is asking for a variance on signage. Jackson School’s property is located in the R-R district, which does limit the signage and directional signage to 6 sq. ft. or 3 ft. in height. With the conditional use that Jackson High School is the amount of traffic that goes in and out. They proposing the first four large directional signs, which are 19.6 sq. ft., three of those signs are to be posted on Fulton at the three main entrance drives of the high school. The reason for the size is one, there is a lot of traffic, a lot of visitors coming, and we are trying to direct them to the correct parking area. Two, with the proposed changes of the changes and widening of Fulton Rd. going to multiple lanes outside of the high school, we need the additional size to direct traffic in and to the site. The seven smaller directional signs, those are all internal identifying large parking lots for students and directing visitors to their locations once they are on the site. Mr. Shivley stated that the 11 x 17 site plan provided for the Board members should indicate where each directional sign will be located.

Mr. McDonnell asked why the directional signs cannot meet the zoning requirements and why they need to be 19.6 sq. ft and be so tall when the resolution allows 6 sq. ft. and 3 ft. in height maximum.

Mr. Shively stated that as shown on the 8-1/2 x 11 drawings of the directional signs, they need to located visitors to their correct parking area during the day, parking for the gymnasium and activities during the evenings, the 6 sq. ft. would not be enough square footage to get all the text into a size that would be readable, traveling down Fulton Rd. at 45 MPH. The height of 3 ft. off the ground is not very high especially when you consider, again, the widening of Fulton Rd.

Mr. McDonnell stated that the drawings of the signs indicates that you will be using two inches letters for the directions and using three and four inch for Jackson High School. Mr. McDonnell asked why once inch letters couldn’t be used.

Mr. Shively stated that again traveling at 45 MPH down Fulton Rd. when it is eventually going to be five lanes, people and visitors coming in, a lot at night, which these signs on Fulton will be lit, again going to inch would be too small to try and read the sign.

Mr. McDonnell asked if he indicated that the directional signs will be lit.

Mr. Shively stated yes.

Mr. McDonnell asked if there is some “Sign-ology” that states for a certain speed, for a certain distance that the letters need to be two inches verses an inch and a half.

Mr. Shively stated that he is sure there are some guidelines that he is not aware of, when you look at Jackson Middle School, at the signs that were put up four or five years ago, that we did request a variance on those directional signs, which were a little bit shorter but if you look at those letters, the size, the type is the same.

Mr. McDonnell asked who designed the signs.

Mr. Shively stated that his office did, Harris Day Architecture.

Mr. Giulitto stated that Mr. Shively indicated that the signs on Fulton are going to be lit, are all the signs going to be lit or just the ones on Fulton.

Mr. Shively stated just the ones on Fulton would be lit.

Mr. Giulitto asked if it were just the two signs that would be lit or are there three.

Mr. Shively stated that there are three lit signs, on the sketches you have they are ED one, two and three.

Mr. Deremer asked where the forth 19.6 sq. ft. directional sign going to be located.

Mr. Shively stated that the forth will be on the southeast side of the property. The Board will notice that there is a drive that runs out the back of the property that goes to Caritas Cir.

Mr. Juergensen asked how many of the signs, that are located on Fulton, will be located at a stop light.

Mr. Shively stated it would just be one sign.

Mr. Juergensen stated that on the other two signs on Fulton, are there any concerns about obstructing the view of people who need to turn left.

Mr. Shively stated no, that those signs will be held back outside of the right of way. On the sketches, number 2 will be an entrance only so there wouldn’t be any visual issues there.

Mr. Juergensen stated that he notices on the signs, there are arrows for student parking. Being a high school he assumes the majority of the traffic will be high school students.

Mr. Shively stated that is correct.

Mr. Juergensen asked if any consideration went into the age and the experience of the drivers and the need to then have bigger signs so the students then know where they are going.

Mr. Shively stated that most of the thoughts behind the signs are for the visitors because once students are there after the first couple days, they are aware of their surroundings.

Mr. Deremer asked if all the signs are going to be lit internally.

Mr. Shively stated that they would be externally lit.

No one else in the audience wanted to speak in favor of or opposition of this appeal.

Mr. McDonnell closed this appeal to public input.

Mr. Dodson stated that since we have one high school for our township, anyone who has ever dropped a kid off at school knows that its hard to get in and out, so he considers this a question of public safety and he has no problem with this appeal.

Mr. Juergensen concurred with Mr. Dodson.

Mr. Deremer stated that in Section 501.5(D) it states any illuminated sign or lighted devise shall employ only an emitting light of constant intensity, and no sign shall be illuminated by or contain flashing, intermittent, rotating, or moving light or moving lights will the exception of an electronic message center. Mr. Deremer stated that he understands this as the sign has to be internally lit not have a light shown on it and reflected off. Mr. Deremer asked if he were reading this text wrong.

Ms. Poindexter stated that a light is permitted; the light just can’t be rotating or moving. The lighting doesn’t have to do with this variance for the directional signs; the zoning department would look at the lighting issue.

Mr. McDonnell stated that he concurred with the other Board members.

Mr. Juergensen made a motion to accept Appeal #2094 as submitted.

Mr. Giulitto seconded the motion.

The vote was: Mr. Juergensen – Yes, Mr. Giulitto – Yes, Mr. Dodson – Yes, Mr. McDonnell – Yes and Mr. Deremer – Yes.

All were in favor.

Respectfully Submitted,

Andrea Paumier
Zoning Data Coordinator