Members present:
Ted Deremer
Edward McDonnell
Richard Dodson
John Juergensen
Jim Giulitto
Alternate member:
Eric Oldroyd - absent
Zoning Inspector:
Joni Poindexter
Zoning Coordinator:
Lori Foutz
APPEAL #2003 – Liquid Control Corp., 8400 Port Jackson Ave NW, North Canton, OH, and Hettler-Largent Engineering LLC, 1225 N. Main St, North Canton, OH applicants for Akron Canton Regional Airport, 8400 Port Jackson Ave, NW North Canton, OH, property owner, requests approval to defer construction of 150 parking spaces where 350 parking spaces are required with the proposed building addition of 57,955 sq. ft. per Art. VI, Section 601.2 & 601.4 of the zoning resolution. Property located at 8400 Port Jackson Ave, NW, North Canton, OH, Sect. 2NE Jackson Township. Area zoned I-1.
Mr. Deremer read the application signed by Joseph Gidcumb and the reason for the appeal as listed in the file. The file contained a full size and 11x17 site plan (C1.1) prepared by Hettler-Largent Engineering. Also in the file was an aerial view of the parcel and adjoining parcels.
Mr. Deremer swore in Joseph Gidcumb, 4937 Monticello NW, Canton, OH and Leroy Vandegrift, 125 Valleyview NW, Canton, OH as representatives to speak on behalf of the appeal.
Mr. Gidcumb stated that their client, Liquid Control is currently expanding their business. They are adding an addition of approx. 57,955 square feet. When you look at the site as a whole, they are required to construct 350 parking spaces. They currently have 200 constructed parking spaces and they feel that is more than adequate to meet their needs. In 2 years, they will be in full operation and they still feel 200 parking spaces will be sufficient. When they constructed the original building, they banked a small portion of parking spaces required at that time. Hettler-Largent Engineering will be designing a complete drainage analysis of the entire site as if the required parking spaces will be constructed. They will construct all drainage requirements for the 350 required parking spaces so if at a later date they need to construct the additional spaces, the underground structure will already be in place.
Mr. Deremer asked if he knew how the zoning regulation read.
Mr. Gidcump stated up to 70% of required parking should be constructed, and 30% could be banked. What they are requesting is 42.8% to be land banked, which is an additional 12% above what the regulation allows.
Mr. Deremer clarified that they feel the 200 parking spaces they currently have are what they need to do business.
Mr. Gidcump stated that yes, that is what their client has indicated.
Mr. Vandegrift stated that Liquid Control has recently been sold to Graco out of Minneapolis. The new addition will be basically manufacturing and assembly. The number of employees they will need will be minimal due to the types of machines they will be bringing in. The product they produce will take up most of the space. With the new addition it will be 40% office and 60% manufacturing. Since they have other plants in the country, they feel they have historical evidence on how many employees they will need to operate their business.
Mr. Juergensen asked how much of the total space will be office space.
Mr. Vandegrift stated that the proposed addition will have 5 cubicles. The new building is virtually all for manufacturing, and 40% of the existing building is office space.
Mr. Juergensen asked if he knew what percentage of the required parking spaces have been constructed.
Mr. Gidcump stated that it was less than 30%.
Mr. Vandegrift stated that he believes it was 235 required the first time, and they built 200.
Mr. McDonnell asked Ms. Poindexter how they came up with the 350 required parking spaces.
Ms. Poindexter stated the regulation states that you need 1 parking space per 200 sq. ft. of office space and 1 parking space per 500 sq. ft. of manufacturing space. They will have 29,000 sq. ft. of office space which equals out to 145 parking spaces, and 102,055 sq. ft. of manufacturing space which requires 205 parking spaces.
Mr. McDonnell asked for clarification on what their definition is to defer construction. Mr. McDonnell asked if that means that somewhere down the road they will construct the required parking spaces.
Mr. Vandegrift stated that the parking spaces would be constructed only if something would happen down the road that the owner is not aware of. At this time they do not feel they will ever need the required parking spaces, due to historical evidence from their other plants.
Mr. McDonnell asked how many employees they currently employ.
Mr. Vandegrift stated that they currently have 120-125 employees.
Mr. McDonnell asked how many employees they will have after the new addition is added and running.
Mr. Vandegrift stated that they will have a maximum of 190 employees. They will be adding 50-60 employees. They will still have a few extra parking spaces for customers and bringing people in from other plants.
Mr. McDonnell stated the regulation reads the parking spaces should not be less than 245 parking spaces. Mr. McDonnell asked what would be their practical difficulty in meeting this requirement.
Mr. Vandegrift stated they have 3 reasons. First, they do not need the additional parking, and it becomes a maintenance problem. Second, the location of the additional parking would place the employees away from employee entrance. Third, it would be extra cost they do not need to spend. They do not want a parking lot that is not being used.
Mr. McDonnell asked why not build it where you already have the spaces banked.
Mr. Vandegrift stated there are 31 parking spaces in that location. It could be built at that location but they opted not to build due to the fact that they do not need.
Mr. McDonnell clarified the reasons are:
they do not need, the maintenance problem, and employee
convenience.
Mr. Vandegrift stated that is correct, plus the extra cost.
Mr. Juergensen asked if the board does not require them to build the additional parking spaces, what would they put in that area of the property.
Mr. Gidcump stated that it would be landscaped with grass. He also feels that is another reason for not building the additional parking spaces, they are keeping green space and not creating more drainage problems.
Mr. Deremer asked if they operated on single shift.
Mr. Vandegrift stated that yes it is a single shift.
Mr. Deremer swore in A.J. Maghes, 8562 Port Jackson Avenue, North Canton OH, to speak in opposition.
Mr. Maghes stated that he is not necessarily in opposition but he has a question for Mr. Gidcumb or Mr. Vandegrift. Mr. Maghes stated that he owns the property adjacent to this property. He is asking that whether the parking lot is built or not, a birm be put between the properties to maintain the water run off from the road. He is getting some drainage on the east side.
Mr. Gidcump stated that Hettler-Largent will follow the township regulations. He thinks most of the water already stays on their property. They would make sure they maintain the water run off.
No one else in the audience spoke in favor or opposition of the application. Mr. Deremer closed the meeting to public input and the board deliberated.
Mr. Dodson referred to zoning regulation 601.4 stating if the applicant provides sufficient evidence that supports the reduced parking needs, a development plan may be approved by the BZA with an allowance for construction of a lesser number of parking spaces provided that the total number of spaces initially constructed shall not be less than 70% of the spaces required. Mr. Dodson stated that he is not sure they are able to grant less than 30%.
Mr. Juergensen stated in the past he has also questioned what they are allowed or not allowed to approve. He feels that they have come to the conclusion that the BZA is permitted to vary from all terms of the regulation. He feels they are looking at two different issues on this appeal. First, they need the BZA approval to go down to 70% and secondly, they need a variance to go below the 70%. He is not sure if the board should split the request. Due to the testimony he has heard, he does not have a problem with allowing them to go down to 70%. He feels they have met the spirit and intent provision of the zoning code due to the township would be better off with green space than parking spaces that are not needed. Mr. Juergensen also referred back to section 601.4 where the regulation states that the BZA can reevaluate the parking needs and may direct that all or some of the parking spaces be constructed. He does not have a problem with either one.
Mr. McDonnell stated he does not feel they meet the practical difficulty provision based on the 3 reasons given by the client. He is also not comfortable with allowing 200 parking spaces, when they will have a maximum of 190 employees. He feels leaving only 10 extra spaces would be cutting it too slim. If the board approves the variance, he feels that there should be some type of time limit or condition set for reevaluation at a later date. Once the variance is approved, the variance stays with the property not the owners. He does not have a problem allowing the 70%, but does have a problem with going below 70%.
Mr. Juergensen stated that section 601.4 C. gives the BZA the ability to reevaluate the parking needs. He feels the trigger could be complaints concerning parking or cars parking on the street.
Mr. McDonnell stated that according to the site map, they banked 33 spaces from the original building. He does not have a problem allowing 233 parking spaces, along with a time limit for reevaluation.
Mr. Deremer stated that section 601.4 C. does allow the board to reevaluate the situation at any time. He does suggest they modify the request and defer 117 parking spaces, which would be 66% of total spaces.
Mr. McDonnell made a motion to approve appeal #2003 with a modification to defer 117 parking spaces, and to construct the 33 spaces that were originally land banked in the SE corner of the property. That would bring the total of required parking spaces to 233.
Mr. Juergensen seconded the motion.
The vote was: Mr. Juergensen-yes, Mr. Giulitto-yes, Mr. Dodson-yes, Mr. McDonnell-yes, and Mr. Deremer-yes.
Mr. Deremer advised Mr. Gidcump and Mr. Vandegrift that the variance request has been approved with the modification to defer 117 parking spaces versus 150 parking spaces.
APPEAL #2004 – Matt Shafer, 2428 Whipple Ave, NW, Canton, OH 44708, applicant for Mark & Audra Macisaac, 1280 Concord St NW, Massillon, OH 44646, property owners, requests approval from the BZA for issuance of a permit for residential dwelling on 7,000 sq. ft. residential lot (parcel #1604979) where approval is required for dwelling on a lot that is less than 7,500 sq. ft. per Art III, Section 303.5 of the zoning resolution. Property location is parcel #1604979 Concord St, NW, Massillon OH, Sect. 32SE Jackson Twp. Area zoned R-1A.
Mr. Deremer read the file application signed by Audra Macisaac, with reason for the appeal as listed in the file. The file contained an aerial view of the parcel and adjacent parcels. Also in the file are a set of house plans for the proposed home to be constructed on this lot. This was received in the zoning office on November 7, 2005.
Mr. Deremer swore in Mark Macisaac, 1280 Concord St NW, Massillon to speak on behalf of the application.
Mr. Macisaac stated that they have had their home on the market for almost a year. They have a bid on another house that would fit their needs. The BZA Board approved appeal #1986 in June of this year and they are asking for the same approval. There are quite a few lots in their neighborhood with the same size lot and have homes built on them.
Mr. Deremer asked if they own both lots.
Mr. Macisaac stated that yes they have their home they are trying to sell on the one lot and the other lot is empty.
Mr. Deremer asked if the plans the builder submitted into file would meet all the setbacks for the new home.
Mr. Macisaac stated that yes it would.
Mr. McDonnell asked if he currently resides on the corner lot and if the vacant lot is part of that lot.
Ms. Poindexter clarified that these are two separate platted lots. The home is on one and the other is vacant.
Mr. Macisaac stated that the buyer will be buying both lots and building a home on the vacant lot to sell.
Mr. McDonnell questioned the site plan for the new home and the 5 yard side setback.
Ms. Poindexter stated that any lot 60 feet
or less is permitted to have 5 feet on each side.
Mr. Macisaac stated that the sale on their
house is contingent on if this is approved.
Mr. John Kasper, own the property at 3257 Stahl Avenue, was sworn in to speak in opposition.
Mr. Kasper stated the property on Concord Street drains onto his property and every time it rains it floods. He feels if you build a house on that property it changes the tarain and the water problem will get worse. He also feels it will affect the property value of his home. They have the same size lot and to build a smaller home it will negatively affect his property value. His main issue however, is the water problem.
Mr. Deremer pointed out that the parcels are zoned differently. There is a zoning district change that runs directly behind the property on Concord. The property Mr. Kasper owns is in an R-1 zoning district and the property on Concord Street is in a R-1A district.
Mr. Kasper stated that he feels zoning is put in for a reason and he doesn’t think it should be changed.
Mr. Deremer stated that the board is not changing zoning, it is already zoned. He is just clarifying that the regulation is slightly different for each zoning district.
Mr. John Kasper, the father of John Kasper that owns the home, and he lives at 3257 Stahl Avenue was sworn in. His only opposition is the water drainage. He feels that building a home on that lot will add to his water problems.
Mr. McDonnell asked if his lot has always been lower.
Mr. Kasper stated yes.
No one else in the audience spoke in favor or opposition of the appeal. The meeting was closed to public input.
Mr. Juergensen stated that what the applicants are asking for is no different than what their neighbors already have. He doesn’t feel they should hold the Macisaac’s at a higher standard and not grant the variance.
Mr. McDonnell stated that he agrees with Mr. Juergensen that to not grant the variance would be holding them to a different standard. He does understand and sympathize with Mr. Kasper and the water drainage. However, he feels the water drainage is a natural occurrence and not the applicants fault.
Mr. Deremer clarified that an R-1A district allows four houses per acre and an R-1 has a minimum 14,000 sq. ft. lot size to build a home.
Mr. Giulitto made a motion to approve appeal #2004 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.
Mr. Deremer advised Mr. & Mrs. Macisaac that their request has been approved as requested.
APPEAL #2005 – Thomas Winkhart, 801 S. Main St, North Canton, OH 44720, applicant for Willmoll Development I, LTD, 821 S. Main St, North Canton, OH 44720, property owners, requests approval for a variance to allow a 41.48 ft. rear yard setback in a B-3 district for principal use that is adjacent to a residential district where 75 ft. rear yard setback is required per Art. IV, Sect. 411.5 of the zoning resolution. Property located at SE corner of Wales Ave & Fulton Rd, 35.4004 acres, Canton, OH, Sect. 21NE Jackson Twp. Area zoned B-3.
Mr. Deremer read the file application signed by Thomas Winkhart, with reason for the appeal as listed in the file. The file contained a site plan of the MarketPlace at Nobles Pond prepared by DeHoff Development and another site plan highlighting the portion of the variance request. The file also contained an aerial view of the parcel and adjacent parcels.
Mr. Deremer swore in Thomas Winkhart, 7008 Victoria Ct, Canton, OH, to speak on behalf of the application.
Mr. Winkhart stated that Bob DeHoff has owned the property for over 20 years. The key to the success of this project is the commitment and investment of the Buehler family. Mr. Winkhart reviewed the ownership of the properties that make up Nobles Pond. The property in the NE corner is owned by the Schroer Group, which owns and operates Altercare Nursing Home. Willmoll Development owns about 22 acres which includes the residential property that will be affected by the variance. Aultman Health Foundation owns approximately 12 acres and Nobles Pond Home Owners Association owns the Lake. There are only 3 buildings on the submitted site plan that have been established with any certainty. The Buehler’s Grocery Store, a proposed 38,000 sq. ft. strip center to the south, and a 15,000 sq. ft. building to the north. Aultman Health Foundation has made it clear they have no plans for the site. The area on the site map showing Aultman Health Foundation is Willmoll Development’s representation of what Aultman may do in the future. Mr. Winkhart stated if this property was zoned any other district than residential the setback would be 25 feet, versus the required 75 feet.
Mr. Winkhart stated the practical difficulty is due to the required points of access that is dictated by ODOT. Since Wales and Fulton Avenue are both state routes, ODOT dictates under its access management practices as to where curb cuts onto their state highways may exist. ODOT has imposed an access point on the SW corner lining up with Cartis Avenue. Once this intersection project is complete, it will be a fully signalized intersection. There will also be restrictive right in and right out turns on Wales Avenue. Similarly, the same right in and right out access, mandated by ODOT, will be on Fulton Avenue. The final access point is a fully signalized intersection, lined up with Foxboro. For safety purposes and general internal traffic flow, there needed to be certain corridors within the site to allow cars to move on an off the site easily. It would be a very unsafe condition to have a short entrance way that dead end into a cross site or a building.
Mr. Winkhart stated the size of the structure is about 80,000 sq feet with an attached 10,000 sq. ft. Ace Hardware. Mr. Winkhart stated he talked to Scott Buehler concerning the size of this store and the necessity. They feel it is needed due to the competition in the area. They need a viable anchor tenant to make this center survive. One of the signature elements to Buehler’s Grocery Store is they have multiple pick up lanes outside of the store. This allows their customers to have their groceries bagged at the checkout, loaded in bins, and conveyerd outside the building. The customers drive their cars under a canopy and the groceries are placed into their car for them. There are no carts permitted in the parking lot.
Mr. Winkhart stated the reason for the setback requirement is to protect the neighboring use, which is why the zoning code is drafted the way it is. The reason for a 75 ft setback between a business and residential use is to protect the residents from the business use. In this case, Willmoll Development is the neighboring use. They are required to build a screen buffer between the properties that they are prepared to meet the regulation. The main portion of the building, meets the 75 ft. setback. The area of the variance for a 41 ft. setback is for a bump out section of the building. They have tried to isolate the rear of the store, which is the delivery area. The design, screened by the landscaping mounds, allows traffic to enter in the rear of the building and back into airlock docks. The landscaping mound will be built along the zone line in the rear of the building. There is also a dramatic change in grade in this area, and the mound will be built on top of that grade. Mr. Winkhart presented several different views of the property showing the screening in the rear of the building for trucks. Willmoll Development will continue to own the residential property that is adjacent to the commercial property.
Mr. Winkhart stated that there are other
areas on this site to place the grocery store. However, they tried
to be responsive to the comprehensive plan. The goal was to create
a design that allowed for positioning among access roads that would create
connectivity of major tenants, to provide for pedestrian access from the
north to the south side of the site.
Mr. Winkhart stated based on the submitted
evidence and testimony, that due to special conditions and circumstances
that are not the fault of the applicant or its tenant that the variance
be granted. Also, the minimal variance requested will in no way alter
the essential character or will not be detrimental to the neighborhood.
Mr. Winkhart submitted letters from Chris Remark, Aultman Health Foundation, Dennis Conley, Schroer Group, and Ron Manse, resident, to the file in support of the project.
Mr. Juergensen asked from north to south, how wide the bump out is.
Mr. Winkhart stated that it would be about 50 feet.
Mr. Juergensen clarified that the rest of the building meets the 75 ft. setback.
Mr. Winkhart answered yes.
Mr. Juergensen asked how large the residential area is.
Mr. Winkhart stated that it is about 5 acres.
Mr. Juergensen asked if ODOT is requiring the forced right of ways, and the two full signal intersections.
Mr. Winkhart stated that ODOT is requiring the right in and right outs to be at restrictive movements from that specific distance from the intersection.
Mr. McDonnell clarified that ODOT required that the signalized access on the north side be located exactly at that point.
Mr. Winkhart stated yes, that is the intersection at Foxboro Street. They not only required it but they required that they design it and build it.
Mr. McDonnell clarified if the same was true at the other intersection on Wales Avenue.
Mr. Winkhart stated that is correct.
Mr. Deremer questioned the slope of the landscaping mound.
Mr. Winkhart stated that it is approximately 30-35 feet.
Mr. Deremer questioned if they plan to rezone the property that is currently zoned as residential.
Mr. Winkhart stated they do not know at this point. It makes sense from a land planning standpoint to make a land change to a business district.
Dr. James Brunie, 6831 Chillingsworth Circle, Nobles Pond was swore in to speak in opposition.
Mr. Brunie questioned if the variance is granted is it for the 50-60 ft. bump out portion of the building or for the entire building.
Mr. Winkhart stated that it is just for the bump out.
Mr. Brunie stated he did not interpret it that way. What is stopping them from moving the entire building to a 41 foot setback once the variance is granted.
Mr. Giulitto stated that if they approve the variance, they have to go by the plans they submit to the board, which is for the bump out section only.
Mr. Brunie asked Ms. Poindexter if there is a requirement for a buffer yard from a B-3 to residential district.
Ms. Poindexter stated that there is a 20 ft. buffer yard requirement.
Mr. Brunie stated that the 41 ft. is actually part of the 20 ft. buffer yard.
Mr. Brunie stated that he is uncertain concerning the landscaping. Mr. Brunie stated that Mr. Winkhart spoke of mounds. The property slopes from the west to the east. There is a slope, not a mound. The homes on Nobles Pond are probably 40-50 ft. higher than this property. He feels this really does not afford people much protection at all. He is questioning the screening aspect.
Mr. Brunie stated what we have here tonight is a variance that is allowing construction of a large building in an area zoned B-3 within 41.5 ft of an R-R and R-2 district rather than the required 75 feet. The zoning regulation requires a 20 foot buffer on that B-3 property itself. The effect of this is to create an access strip that is behind this building that is less than 21 feet wide. For comparison sake, the street in front of his house is 32 feet wide. Mr. Brunie stated that this narrow path, what Mr. Winkhart describes as screened, being compact, it is to provide access for semi and delivery trucks to the loading docks for the grocery and hardware store. Additionally, access for fire trucks and emergency vehicles to the rear of this building is thru this space. The only access to the rear of this building is from the north, there is no access from the south. All vehicles would be required to turn around in this restricted space. He stated that he mentions this because every time he attends a meeting, Washington Square is held up to be an example of what they are striving for. Mr. Brunie submitted pictures of Washington Square into the file. He stated if you drive around the backside of this development, what you see is what you see in the pictures presented. There are dumpsters all over, overturned rusty shopping carts, delivery trucks coming and going both day and night. He feels if this is what the residents of Nobles Pond have to look forward to, there should be no surprise that they would object to a variance. He doesn’t see any unnecessary hardship or practical difficulty requiring the issuance of this variance. If there is one, he feels it was caused by the developer. He believes there are other options. He doesn’t think it is appropriate or necessary. Mr. Brunie also stated that there is 1,581 feet from Wales Avenue to the back of this property, and they should be able to build this structure without a variance.
No one else in the audience spoke in favor or opposition to the application. Mr. Deremer closed the meeting to public input and deliberated among the board members.
Mr. Dodson stated with the requirement from ODOT, they have mandated where they can place this store on the property. Due to this fact he supports the variance.
Mr. Juergensen stated that since they are asking for a 41ft. setback on the bump out portion of the building only, he also supports the variance. If they were asking for a 41 ft. setback on the entire building he would have a problem with it. Also, the 75 ft. setback is to protect the adjacent residential property, and at this time, this property is vacant.
Mr. McDonnell stated that he agrees with Mr. Dodson concerning the ODOT requirement and it creates a practical difficulty. The concept of the center is to create a pedestrian friendly, neighborhood community. He stated the size of the variance is 50-60 feet long and 30 feet deep bump out section of the building. In the overall scheme, it is minimal. He feels the main impact is on the owner, since he owns the residential property adjacent to the B-3. He would be in favor of the variance.
Mr. Deremer stated he is concerned with the existing residential property. This is a brand new development and they were fully aware of the setbacks. He feels they should have been able to work inward from the setbacks. He stated once you back out the buffer yard requirement, you have a driveway of about 22 ft. wide. He is not sure the fire chief would approve this site plan. He feels the building can be shifted to meet the required setback. If they grant the variance, it stays with the property not the owner. He is not in favor of the variance.
Mr. McDonnell made a motion to approve appeal #2005 with clarification that it applies to the loading dock bump out portion of the building only, not the entire building.
Mr. Dodson seconded the motion.
The vote was: Mr. Juergensen-yes, Mr. Giulitto-yes, Mr. Dodson-yes, Mr. McDonnell-yes, and Mr. Deremer-no.
APPEAL #2006 – Brenda Murphy, 8750 Eastlynn Ave NW, Massillon, OH 44646, applicant for Prudential DeHoff Realtors, 821 S. Main St, North Canton, OH 44720 requests a variance for an off-premises temporary civic sign from Nov. 28, 2005 until March 1, 2006 where a temporary sign is permitted for a period not to exceed 30 days within a six month period per Art. IV, Sect. 504.2 of the zoning resolution. Property located at the southeast corner of Wales Ave & Fulton Rd, Sect. 21NE Jackson Township. Area zoned B-3.
Mr. Deremer read the file application signed by Brenda Murphy, with reason for the appeal as listed in the file. The file contained a proposed layout of the sign, a site plan showing the location of the sign, and a letter from DeHoff Realtors giving their approval for the sign. The file also contained an aerial view of the parcel and adjacent parcels.
Mr. Deremer swore in Brenda Murphy, 8750 Eastlynn Avenue NW, Massillon, to speak on behalf of the application.
Ms. Murphy stated that they would like to place the Polar Bears schedule erected in the location they have used for the last 5 years. The season starts December 3, so they would like to get the sign up as soon as possible. There is also a letter in the file from the basketball officials waiving the $150.00 variance fee.
Ms. Poindexter stated that letter was given to the Trustees for their approval.
Mr. Deremer asked if it was the same type of sign they have used in the past.
Ms. Murphy stated yes it was. They have wood slates that they remove to update the schedule and slide them back in the sign.
No one else in the audience spoke in favor or opposition to the application. Mr. Deremer closed the meeting to public input and deliberated among the board members.
Mr. McDonnell made a motion to approve appeal #2006 be approved as requested.
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 there were any comments or a motion on the minutes from the meeting of September 22, 2005. All members were present except for Mr. Giulitto.
Mr. Juergensen moved to approve the minutes of September 22, 2005.
Mr.Dodson seconded the motion.
The vote was: Mr. Juergensen-yes, Mr. Dodson-yes, Mr. McDonnell-yes, and Mr. Deremer-yes.
Mr. Deremer asked if any comments or a motion on the minutes of October 13, 2005. All members were present except for Mr. Giulitto was absent for appeal #2000.
Mr. McDonnell stated that on page 2, bank is spelled incorrectly.
Mr. Juergensen made a motion to approve the minutes from October 13, 2005.
Mr. Giulitto seconded the motion.
The vote was: Mr. Juergensen-yes, Mr. Giulitto-yes, Mr. Dodson-yes, Mr. McDonnell-yes, and Mr. Deremer-yes.
Respectfully submitted,
Lori Foutz
Zoning Coordinator